cross breeding

[linnie]

we have had heaps of input on this subject but I was thinking (dangerous I know)
If animals live in the wild then crossbreeding wouldnt be a problem because in the wild it truly is survival of the fittest. If a pup is weak or is born with some deformity then it dies.
Thus theoretically one would assume the dogs would become stronger and stronger with the weaklings either dying or being killed.
However once man enters into the equation it all changes.
Most of us would do anything we can to keep the runt of a litter alive or keep an otherwise lesser dog happy and well.
So we really do need to have registered qualified dog breeders who have the best interest of the breed uppermost in their agenda.
what are your thoughts ?

[mulroony]

linnie - Good topic

I think the most important thing to understand is that there would not be how many hundred breeds of dogs if it was not for us. I could see there maybe being half a dozen distinct breeds, but no more. (This is still assuming early humans role in altering the wolf)

I completely agree that only the strongest would survive and many of the defects common in the modern dog would not exist. Stuf like hip displasia (sp??) which does not set in till well after the normal breeding age of most dogs could still be around. Obviously natural selective breeding does not remove all negative traits, rather just traits that hinder its ability to reproduce (Blindness well after an animal stops reproducing has little effect on their pecking order early in life)

So since I do not see dogs as a "natural" being (I cannot imagine an environment w/out humans that many breeds could survive in) I do not think that allowing just any two dogs to breed is the best idea (completely preverting natural selection). I see ethical breeders as people not only attempting to replicate natural selection, but even better it in some cases. I guess in our case we are selecting the traits that do not make them best suited to survive in a natural environment, but those that make them best suited to survive in the one we created. (Low disease, good temperment, fills various roles, etc)

[bigdoglover]

I read once, that a breeder created a "den-like" environment with his whelping box. It was sort of rounded inside, and just big enough for the female to stand up in. Small by most accounts, but here was his point:

The temp of the female, and all the pups, would keep the den at around 50 degrees (F), which replicates a den in the wild. If a pup does not survive that temp, then it is considered to have weak genes, and would die if in the wild anyway. If the pup did not naturally seek out the warmth of the mother, she would not coddle it. She would not worry, as it is in nature. Does this strengthen genetics? Maybe.

Ok, so that was a bit off topic, but I guess my point is, in nature, Coyotes don't breed to wolves, as we would breed 2 different types of dogs. Humans bred different types to each other to get their desired result. I think to an extent, we have weakened the canine species in our quest for domestication and desired results.

I look at it like this.....the tribes of people who still live in the jungle are fit and trim. The rest of us are overweight because of processed food. Why not go back to basics? Because the demand is too great. Sometimes I think we are digging ourselves into a hole.

Did any of that make sense? LOL

[Dogsareme]

Funny you would bring this topic up, I was just having a discussion about it earlier today.

It's funny how we people can screw up so much when all we are trying to do is something good

In the wild it truley is survival of the fittest.

If someone is to weak, they leave them and let them die. We help the weak and hurt ones, and because of those ones we end up getting breed defects involved. I guess the wild ones really do know how to do things best. Like they always say, it's best to leave things up to mother nature and not get involved. Maybe we should of... but maybe we should not of... both good and bad to both.

bigdoglover, I agree with everything you just said We truley are digging ourselves into a hole.

[Cassiepeia]

Originally Posted by linnie

we have had heaps of input on this subject but I was thinking (dangerous I know)
If animals live in the wild then crossbreeding wouldnt be a problem because in the wild it truly is survival of the fittest. If a pup is weak or is born with some deformity then it dies.
Thus theoretically one would assume the dogs would become stronger and stronger with the weaklings either dying or being killed.
However once man enters into the equation it all changes.
Most of us would do anything we can to keep the runt of a litter alive or keep an otherwise lesser dog happy and well.
So we really do need to have registered qualified dog breeders who have the best interest of the breed uppermost in their agenda.
what are your thoughts ?

This is going to end up the same way as all the other discussions on cross breed dogs.

Yes of course we do need "registered qualified dog breeders". Man is a horrible, detestable (is that a word? LOL) species that makes animals suffer beyond belief...if reputable breeders just gave up and stopped what they were doing the "fittest" wouldn't survive...it would be the quickly bred, the badly bred, the unhealthy but cute dogs who would multiply because without reputable breeders we are left with disreputable breeders and the plain ignorant.

Perhaps dogs left to their own devices would be better off, but those still in the hands of man would suffer even more.

IMO anyway.

Cass.

[linnie]

Originally Posted by Cassiepeia

This is going to end up the same way as all the other discussions on cross breed dogs.





Cass.

I dont agree cass this isnt actually about cross breeding persie but rather about how mans involvment can actually hinder natures way of survival of the fit and healthy animal kingdom

We also need to think of new members that dont go hunting about for the old postings.
If we never repeated a subject then we would soon run out of discussions

[Cassiepeia]

Well then I don't see what cross breeding has to do with it. In the wild animals don't cross breed. And if domestic dogs were 'in the wild' their breeding wouldn't be considered 'cross breeding' at all since they are all exactly the same species.

Cass.

[D.Schäferhund]

hello
Well cross breeding is that thread really about it or mankinds involvement?

well survival of the fittest- big ground for discussions...

but dogs aren't a result of survival of the fittest, they are manmade!
maybe evolved out of a symbiosis.
But dogs were bred to get certain traits, to strnegthen them. to put that behaviour to use.

Well a pointer, don't get anything to eat , if he just points. a retriever don't get a full tummy by just retrieving (of course they can learn to hunt)
well what about a pug or a cinese chrested??
hmmm survival of the fittest????? no survival because
mankind changes the invironment to the point these dogs can exist.

Scientists/ behaviourists have shown that, if you leave a dog to its own it relativly fast goes back to a medium sized form with standing ears:
Dingo, Basengie etc....

so we have our hands in it, and we breed we take the responsibility of a litter, yeah some dogs are not meant to live,(stillborn, or defected so the mom would not take to the newborn)
but we treat all of our animals, we run to the vet if they have a cold , we do surgeryes if we have, to.
shouldn't we think then of survival of the fittest, too. well he doesn't have the immunesystem- he is not fit?!?!?
No we are responsible and why not try to help a pup, just because he has some trouble, we do it with the adults, too. and eventhough the genees may be defective, and it just shows in old age, that dog still reproduced.

Cross breeding, weell i don't dsee the conection.
but this would be my two cents....

[Raised By Wolves]

Originally Posted by D.Schäferhund

Well cross breeding is that thread really about ...

Scientists/ behaviourists have shown that, if you leave a dog to its own it relativly fast goes back to a medium sized form with standing ears:
Dingo, Basengie etc....

I think it's "selective" breeding by humans, which would not occur naturally in the wild, that we're talking about.

IMO, most the dog breeds of today would not do well and die out quickly, (if mankind suddenly disappeared, and dogs were left to go back to what nature is left), while the strongest of the breeds remaining would revert to the dog form you describe, Kat.

The "Pariah" (sp?) dog form is one term I seem to remember, based on dogs which live in semi-feral packs in some countries. I don't know if this dog is referred to by this same term worldwide, though.

I wonder what differences would crop up on the various continents or isolated populations, though.

Interesting thought.

[linnie]

The idea of the thread was to open up a discussion as to the reason why when man crossbreeds with any animal regardless of hereditary traits or illnesses we end up with unstable animals
while in the wild only the fit survive.
cass wild dogs will cross breed as they are the same species.
Just like humans marry different nationalities still the same species though