Results 1 to 25 of 25
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    465

    Gripe about dog breeding ethics here

    Please stop cluttering the "Dogs with Passion" thread an instead move your extremely intellectual conversations about regulating breeders and ethical breeding here.
    "Your opinion may vary, but it's stupid." -Rich Dillen

  2. #2
    Sweep the leg!
    Reputation: Caffeine Powered's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    3,803
    go lick your own balls?
    Authorities speculate that speed may have been a factor. They are also holding gravity and inertia for questioning.

  3. #3
    Big Mac
    Reputation: mbmb65's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    4,370
    Bite me.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Thatshowiroll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,601
    You're not the boss of me!

  5. #5
    AZ
    AZ is offline
    banned
    Reputation: AZ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    19,198
    Quote Originally Posted by Caffeine Powered View Post
    go lick your own balls?


    If he could he wouldn't ever have to leave the house.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dirtdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,619
    Adopting dogs in pounds is good. Getting puppies from responsible breeders that test their stock for genetic diseases is good. Asking the government to come in and regulate breeding practices is dumb. Hope this helps.

  7. #7
    Ride More, Work Less
    Reputation: heyyall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    7,774
    What about ethical human breeding? These people are making a difference--

    http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...981916,00.html
    Craigslist & MTBR --free ads for all

  8. #8
    since 4/10/2009
    Reputation: Harold's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Posts
    24,408
    Quote Originally Posted by danhasdrums View Post
    Adopting dogs in pounds is good. Getting puppies from responsible breeders that test their stock for genetic diseases is good. Asking the government to come in and regulate breeding practices is dumb. Hope this helps.
    In a sense, I agree. With that said, I think making it more difficult for people to run puppy mills and sell dogs out of the Walmart parking lot is a good thing.

    Making it harder for responsible breeders to do what they've been doing all along is not a good thing. It's hard enough as it is.

  9. #9
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dirtdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,619
    Quote Originally Posted by NateHawk View Post
    In a sense, I agree. With that said, I think making it more difficult for people to run puppy mills and sell dogs out of the Walmart parking lot is a good thing.

    Making it harder for responsible breeders to do what they've been doing all along is not a good thing. It's hard enough as it is.
    If only it was actually possible to enforce laws and avoid all of the negative unintended consequences of said laws... I know that for people who go about getting their pets intelligently, they are getting better animals with better health and better temperaments than existed 20 years ago and before so I'd hate to curtail that progress in an attempt to stop puppy mills. And really, that's kind of been done as the USDA has taken a role in monitoring their "farms," but all that's done is given a bigger market to the backyard breeders who don't do genetic testing for hereditary diseases and who don't know what they're doing and who are just doing their hobby for profit. The breeders I know only try to break even on their litters and more often than not lose money with all the vet bills and costs of OFA certifications and that's completely okay with them...

  10. #10
    Axe
    Axe is offline
    Custom User Title
    Reputation: Axe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,423
    Quote Originally Posted by heyyall View Post
    What about ethical human breeding?
    no such thing
    Attached Images Attached Images  

  11. #11
    see me rollin, they hatin
    Reputation: NicoleB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,615
    too many popular, fad, and boutique dogs are being purchased by regular families who just want a regular ol' family dog. They dont research breeds...they dont want to socialize the high strung ones, they get dogs that have very known health issues, because they're "cute" then ditch the dog when they cant take care of its issues anymore....

    i think what i'm trying to say is, purebreds have their place, especially as work dogs, or hunting, police, etc. However, the average american family should probably be adopting mutts 90 percent of the time. Clear out the kill shelters before bringing so many new ones into the world.

  12. #12
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dirtdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,619
    Quote Originally Posted by NicoleB28 View Post
    too many popular, fad, and boutique dogs are being purchased by regular families who just want a regular ol' family dog. They dont research breeds...they dont want to socialize the high strung ones, they get dogs that have very known health issues, because they're "cute" then ditch the dog when they cant take care of its issues anymore....

    i think what i'm trying to say is, purebreds have their place, especially as work dogs, or hunting, police, etc. However, the average american family should probably be adopting mutts 90 percent of the time. Clear out the kill shelters before bringing so many new ones into the world.
    Why would you want mutts going to those shitty families that shouldn't own dogs in the first place?
    The reality with a pure bred dog that is bred by a responsible breeder is that the breeder won't even sell their dogs to someone who doesn't pass a rather rigorous screening. The ignorant dog owners you speak of with yappy and poorly behaved pure breds got their dogs either from a pet store or from a crappy breeder that doesn't put their dogs out in public and who doesn't do genetic testing prior to breeding. I can tell within a few minutes of seeing someone interact with their dog whether the dog came from a pet store or crappy breeder because if the owner doesn't know their ****, I know a responsible breeder would not have even sold them a dog in the first place.
    The issue lies with the public not being educated enough to understand why getting a dog from a pet store, or from a breeder that doesn't put their dogs out in public to be tested either by doing therapy work, competing in dog shows, agility, obedience trials, etc is a poor decision...
    While on a paper, I would say the easiest solution would be to ban the sale of pets in stores, I know that the result would be, and it's already actually started to happen anyway, is that backyard breeders would start to gain more of the market, and an unknowledgeable person breeding out of their home and selling out of their home will produce the same crappy animals as a puppy mill, so the problem isn't easily fixed.
    What I do know though is that adding regulations to people who produce a few litters per year, who do genetic testing prior to breeding and really socialize the pups at that important early period prior to eight weeks old, will just make it that much more expensive for them and just add more work to what they already have on their plate. In the end, they'll end up donating less money and resources to rescue groups that help all the homeless dogs. I know many breeders that show dogs in conformation and obedience and agility, and they all donate a lot of time and resources to helping save the lives of shelter dogs. They donate a ton more than other people and they are the ones that keep those groups afloat.
    Dogs bred for police work are a whole other animal and a litter that is produced that is meant for police work would have puppies not fit for an owner that isn't incredibly knowledgeable about canine psychology and training.
    Last edited by dirtdan; 04-18-2012 at 10:31 PM.

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Thatshowiroll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,601
    Ya know how everyone likes a cute, fuzzy, little puppy?

    Why don't they breed dogs that STAY puppies?

  14. #14
    see me rollin, they hatin
    Reputation: NicoleB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,615
    sorry, i didnt mean to imply that shitty owners should take mutts. i think about bulldogs....how people think they are so cute, and then so many of them end up back at shelters because the reality of the health upkeep of those dogs sets in and owners can no longer deal with it. Its sad.

  15. #15
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    572
    Generally speaking, adopting mixed breed dogs will result in a healthier, longer living animal. But one also has to factor in temperament and that can be a wildcard regardless of the genetic background of the animal. It of course doesn’t eliminate the potential that any dog can develop health problems like cancer either. Still, statistically your chances of a healthier, longer living animal lies with a mixed breed.

    The purebred dogs of today are an extension of animals originally bred for specific purposes. Now, for the most part, those dogs are not performing those tasks but still possess many of the behaviors associated with them. So, if you are not planning to take your pointer hunting or run your border collie 5 hours a day, you may have both an unhappy dog (because s/he isn’t doing the job they were designed for) and a lot of associated behavior issues as a result. Kind of like making people work in an office all day when we were really designed to hunt on the savannah. No, wait, wrong discussion…

    My father was a veterinary geneticist who is a big advocate of owning mixed breeds because of the things I stated above. I also know people who have or had purebred dogs that developed many unpleasant behavioral and health issues stemming from being from a more limited gene pool. From the German short-haired pointer who had “nervous pointer syndrome” (essentially they have tremendously heightened senses and he was plagued terribly from living in an urban environment where every sound and smell set him off. He lived much of the time with a wrap around his ears that helped calm him) to the pug that died young and broke the bank on the owners because of respiratory related problems (the piggish snout comes from selecting for genes that limit the development of the nasal cavity in utero. It then becomes a breeding ground for disease and lacks the kind of physical integrity needed to maintain a healthy ear/nose/throat system).

    A responsible breeder will do a good job of selecting out animals with genetic issues, but the fact remains that you are dealing with a much more limited gene pool. Plus, what do you think happens to those dogs that do exhibit genetic problems? They either end up at a pet store without disclosure, or are “eliminated.” Backyard breeding is definitely the worst scenario in the hands of someone who doesn’t not have an understanding of or tracks the dogs’ breeding. We have a lot of that here as evidenced by the want ads and CL. Bad news.

    A responsible owner recognizes the background of the dog they are adopting and makes sure their lifestyle is a good match (the pointer in a city, for example, was not a good choice). This is true for both purebred animals and mixed breeds. A dog that is even half purebred will have some of the characteristics of the parent and could have many of the same needs.

  16. #16
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dirtdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,619
    Quote Originally Posted by NicoleB28 View Post
    sorry, i didnt mean to imply that shitty owners should take mutts. i think about bulldogs....how people think they are so cute, and then so many of them end up back at shelters because the reality of the health upkeep of those dogs sets in and owners can no longer deal with it. Its sad.
    Ah, bulldogs... Also a whole other topic that I could write a book on. My parents actually bred and showed them in the 70's. They were one of the first breeders to have the dogs hips and elbows certified as healthy prior to breeding. The show/breeding community were not happy with my parents because the bulldogs that were winning were extremely wide and often did not have the best genetics and had a strong disposition to having joint and bone problems. Much of the negative attention breeders get today are from the habits of the 70's and before. My parents taking this step was part of the trend that breeding has reached today where all show people get their breeding stock certified prior to breeding. This is one of the reasons why I dislike the regulations so much. If people are left on their own, they eventually do figure things out and make the good decisions. It just takes time for people to be educated and for the mentality to shift. And when it happens this way, the change often sticks.
    Bulldogs still suffer so many problems and I can almost guarantee that the bulldogs you see and meet are from puppy mills and backyard breeders who aren't breeding responsibly. From breeders that show their dogs, those animals are extremely expensive. The litters they produce are small and with breeders trying to break even with each litter, the puppies end up costing $2,000 at the low end. I have particular issues still with the breed as they can't even give birth naturally (French Bulldogs are the same way) and all litters are born through a C-section. Of course, the litters at puppy mills and backyard breeders are likely done naturally which is a great risk to the mother. But, when you see a smaller sized bulldog, it's from a puppy mill because they breed them small to have small puppies so that they have a greater chance of making it out of the mother without killing her so that they have her for future breeding.
    The problem is difficult because the reality is that too many people have dogs who shouldn't have them. They are not knowledgeable enough and they are too focused on immediate gratification, so they head to a pet store, and take the first puppy they find from an ad on petfinder or on craigslist. I personally don't think anyone should get a puppy until they've adopted an adult dog and cared for it until its natural death. So, I sort of agree with you that people should be getting an adult dog from a shelter, or rescue group, but I think after they've had their first, and saw his/her life through to his/her last days, that they have earned their right to get a puppy. I have my show dog, and if he's healthy, he will be bred, and I don't see myself selling a puppy to anyone who hasn't had a dog and cared for it until the end of its life. Raising a puppy takes so much patience and understanding, especially with the difficult breeds like German Shepherds, Akitas, Rottweilers and other powerful dogs, that I just would never trust anyone to do a good job at it until they've had to make the decision on their own senior dog when he's let you know that he's had a good life and that he has no strength left to give... I always cherished life with my last Akita, but saying goodbye to him brought on a whole new deeper and thorough understanding of what those several years of his life and companionship meant...
    I prefer pure bred dogs in principle as pets because their temperaments and dispositions are more predictable. Getting to meet both parents of a puppy gives you an even better chance to predict the kind of dog you're going to end up with. Having a pedigree gives you a history of the types of dogs in the puppy's line and just gives you that much more of an ability to find the type of dog that best suits your situation. When I hear of a litter of puppies being found in the woods, and those dogs being picked up and adopted out I tend to worry because with no knowledge of the parents, the adopters have very little idea what they are getting into. I'm very happy to see these puppies saved, but I always hope they end in the in hands of an experienced dog person. There was a thread in the passion area a little while ago where the rider found these young pups (around 12 weeks) and then he told the story of how the pups chased after them for five miles. While the story was nice, my heart sank because running a puppy that age for five miles will likely have a very negative affect on their bone and joint development. A young pup should never be run. They can run and sprint around naturally, but encouraging them to run for miles is just a horrible thing to do for them. I kept my mouth shut, because everyone was praising the guy and happy with the story, but those are the types of puppies that end up in shelters and end up put to sleep. The bulldogs end up with rescue organizations and their lives extended. It's the accidental breeding that happens between two dogs that should have been fixed in the first place that really adds to the staggering statistics...
    Anyway, I should bring this book to a close. I can go on forever on these topics...

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dirtdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,619
    Quote Originally Posted by wahday View Post
    Generally speaking, adopting mixed breed dogs will result in a healthier, longer living animal. But one also has to factor in temperament and that can be a wildcard regardless of the genetic background of the animal. It of course doesn’t eliminate the potential that any dog can develop health problems like cancer either. Still, statistically your chances of a healthier, longer living animal lies with a mixed breed.


    This is such a skewed figure because it counts dogs coming from puppy mills and backyard breeders in the pure bred dog statistic. A dog that comes from a breeder that has their breeding stock certified by OFA vets for healthy eyes, elbows, hips, etc., will be healthier on average than a mixed breed dog where the history of either parents is unknown.

    Quote Originally Posted by wahday View Post
    A responsible breeder will do a good job of selecting out animals with genetic issues, but the fact remains that you are dealing with a much more limited gene pool. Plus, what do you think happens to those dogs that do exhibit genetic problems? They either end up at a pet store without disclosure, or are “eliminated.” Backyard breeding is definitely the worst scenario in the hands of someone who doesn’t not have an understanding of or tracks the dogs’ breeding. We have a lot of that here as evidenced by the want ads and CL. Bad news.
    What happens to these dogs is that they are fixed by the breeder and then adopted out and become great companions for a family. No breeder that spends the time to get their dog OFA certified is dumping their pet off at a pet store. Sorry, that doesn't happen. You're lumping backyard breeders in with responsible breeders, which is why you're using such skewed figures and examples.

  18. #18
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,457
    Great post "Wahday", good to see an informed, intelligent one.

    "Nate", let me tell you, if you've ever seen a puppy mill, like the many here on the east coast run by the Amish, you'd want more government control, or maybe even a shotgun, trust me.

    "NicoleB", funny, after reading your post, I didn't come away with a message of how only stupid families, or even families that want a cute puppy, as if that makes you stupid, should only seek muts, but rather a message about how foolish it is for people/families/breeders who claim to be SO smart, and care SO much for dogs, would even pretend to spend so much money, time and resources on perfecting a breed, which in most cases isn't needed and shouldn't be wanted in today's world, instead of giving an unwanted mut a good home, which in most cases is makes for a better pet anyways. Now that's stupid. Good stuff Nicole, I agree.
    Last edited by theMeat; 04-19-2012 at 03:27 PM.
    Round and round we go

  19. #19
    see me rollin, they hatin
    Reputation: NicoleB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4,615
    in the end, i just wish less dogs and cats were even born in the first place. My go-to shelter wont even allow an animal of any age out of the shelter unless its been spayed/neutered. no exceptions. i understand for breeding, you cant neuter them all, but ugh.

    my coonhound mix came from a shelter down south, where spaying dogs is not very popular. especially with coonhounds, when they dont hunt as well as they should, they are abandoned and discarded, they mate, become feral, get hit by cars, etc.

  20. #20
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dirtdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,619
    Quote Originally Posted by NicoleB28 View Post
    in the end, i just wish less dogs and cats were even born in the first place. My go-to shelter wont even allow an animal of any age out of the shelter unless its been spayed/neutered. no exceptions. i understand for breeding, you cant neuter them all, but ugh.

    my coonhound mix came from a shelter down south, where spaying dogs is not very popular. especially with coonhounds, when they dont hunt as well as they should, they are abandoned and discarded, they mate, become feral, get hit by cars, etc.
    Yes, spaying and neutering really ends up being the thing that needs to be done far more often. I know several breeders in the south, and their contracts all contain clauses that say the new owner must have the dog fixed before a certain age unless the dog will be competing, and then their contract states that the dog can't be bred until after two years of age, at which time it will undergo testing by an OFA certified veterinarian prior to breeding. When you're seeing a dog that isn't fixed who isn't a competing or working dog, it came from a pet store or a backyard breeder.

    I'm glad you work with a shelter with a spay/neuter clause. That is an important part of any reputable shelter. Sadly, some of the "shelters" are almost as horrific as some of the mills... It's a sad state of affairs for sure.

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dirtdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,619
    Apparently, there have also been numerous studies done that show that spaying/neutering does not affect hunting ability, so those that claim to know that their hunting dog performs better when in tact are operating on a myth. There have been zero studies that I could find that show a positive correlation between hunting ability and being in tact. I do believe that spaying/neutering should only be done after the dog has fully matured structurally which leaves that window open of accidental breeding, but there is fairly convincing evidence showing that early spay/neuter increases the likelihood of bone disease and cancer.

  22. #22
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    572
    Quote Originally Posted by danhasdrums View Post
    This is such a skewed figure because it counts dogs coming from puppy mills and backyard breeders in the pure bred dog statistic. A dog that comes from a breeder that has their breeding stock certified by OFA vets for healthy eyes, elbows, hips, etc., will be healthier on average than a mixed breed dog where the history of either parents is unknown.
    See citations below

    Quote Originally Posted by danhasdrums View Post
    What happens to these dogs is that they are fixed by the breeder and then adopted out and become great companions for a family. No breeder that spends the time to get their dog OFA certified is dumping their pet off at a pet store. Sorry, that doesn't happen. You're lumping backyard breeders in with responsible breeders, which is why you're using such skewed figures and examples.
    However, that animal that was fixed and adopted out may have blood disease, hip dyplasia, eye conditions, respiratory problems, etc. These are the result of reproduction within a limited gene pool. While they were separated form the colony and will not pass on that genetic information, they still have a shortened life expectancy (and a life, period). You can't remove them from the equations of health and longevity just because they are not sold as a healthy animal.

    You are correct to point out that there is a different between backyard breeders and those that operate responsibly and above board. But I stand by the assertion that in general, physical lhealth and life expectancy is better among mixed breeds.

    Information on longevity of mixed v. pure breeds in dogs from wikipedia entry on Mixed Breed Dogs
    Several studies have shown that mixed-breed dogs have a health advantage. A German study finds that "Mongrels require less veterinary treatment” Studies in Sweden have found that "Mongrel dogs are less prone to many diseases than the average purebred dog” and, referring to death rates, “Mongrels were consistently in the low risk category” Data from Denmark also suggest that mixed breeds have higher longevity on average compared to purebreeds. A British study showed similar results but a few breeds (notably Jack Russell Terrier, Miniature Poodles and Whippets) lived longer than mixed breeds

    In one landmark study, the effect of breed on longevity in the pet dog was analyzed using mortality data from 23,535 pet dogs. The data was obtained from North American veterinary teaching hospitals. The median age at death was determined for pure and mixed breed dogs of different body weights. Within each body weight category, the median age at death was lower for pure breed dogs compared with mixed breed dogs. The median age at death was "8.5 years for all mixed breed dogs, and 6.7 years for all pure breed dogs" in the study.

    Citations:
    1. R. Beythien, Tierarten- und Hunderassenverteilung, Erkrankungshäufigkeit und prophylaktische Maßnahmen bei den häufigsten Hunderassen am Beispiel einer Tierarztpraxis in Bielefeld in den Jahren 1983-1985 und 1990-1992, 1998, Diss., Tierärztl. Hochschule Hannover
    2. A. Egenvall, B.N. Bonnett, P. Olson, Å. Hedhammar,Gender, age, breed and distribution of morbidity and mortality in insured dogs in Sweden during 1995 and 1996, The Veterinary Record, 29/4/2000, p. 519-57
    3. B.N. Bonnett, A. Egenvall, P. Olson, Å. Hedhammar, Mortality in Swedish dogs: rates and causes of death in various breeds, The Veterinary Record, 12/7/1997, S. 40 - 44) “Mongrels were consistently in the low risk category” (S. 41)
    4. H.F. Proschofsky et al, Mortality of purebred and mixed breed dogs in Denmark, Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 2003, 58, 53-74 "Higher average longevity of mixed breed dogs (grouped together). Age at death mixed breeds (Q1 Q2 Q3 mixed breeds 8,11,13, purebreds 6, 10, 12)"
    5. A. R. Michell, Longevity of British breeds of dog and its relationship with sex, size, cardiovascular variables and disease, Vet. Rec., 27 Nov. 1999, S. 625-629 "There was a significant correlation between body weight and longevity. Crossbreeds lived longer than average but several pure breeds lived longer than cross breeds, notably Jack Russell, miniature poodles and whippets" (S. 627 - thus only small and toy breeds, as to be expected)
    6. G.J. Patronek, D.J. Walters, L.T. Glickman, Comparative Longevity of Pet Dogs and Humans: Implications for Gerontology Research, J. Geront., BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES, 1997, Vol 52A,No.3, B171-B178 quote (p. B173) PMID 9158552
    My father’s colleagues were involved in the last study mentioned. My brother is also a practicing veterinarian and espouses the same opinion.

    I’m not trying to discredit or blame responsible purebred breeders. Even the most responsible breeder will inevitably have to deal with offspring that need to be separated from the colony and fixed/spayed to maintain overall health of future generations. My father managed the breeding charts for the Seeing Eye Foundation (dogs for the blind) for over 20 years to help ensure the colonies were producing healthy animals. That did not prevent problems from arising. One has to be ever vigilant.

    My point is simply that, generally speaking, mixed breed dogs are healthier and live longer than pure breeds. I think there is a lot of evidence to support that.

    I do agree with the point that pure bred dogs offer more consistency and expectation concerning behavior as different breeds tend to exhibit a fair amount of behavioral consistency within the gene group.

    Quote Originally Posted by danhasdrums View Post
    The instigative moron needs to be put back on ignore... Peace out idiot. It's like I have my own personal troll around here with this dovche...
    Dude, are you talking about me? I've never interacted with you and I only joined this forum last week, so I hope not. That would be way uncool...

  23. #23
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dirtdan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    1,619
    No, not you. TheMeat. He's my personal troll always trying to instigate by passive aggressive insults. You're cool.
    That study you show there though uses stats from all pure bred dogs, which includes the puppy mills and backyard breeders. Show me a study that shows the comparisons of dogs that have been OFA certified and mixed breed dogs and you'll have a case.
    I'm not discounting what you're saying, and I agree that "in general," what you say is true. But, "in general" includes a pool of pure bred dogs that simply should not be lumped in with the breeders getting their stock OFA certified. Two dogs that are both found to not be prone to hereditary diseases with the same being true for two and three generations back will produce healthier dogs than two random dogs that mate who have not had any genetic testing. The gene pool doesn't play a factor in this. Recessive genes are recessive genes and mixing breed types does not change basic biology. And yes, problems always can arise, even in the tightest of lines. There is no guarantee of health with any animal, I'm certainly not saying that isn't the case.
    When discussed, I feel there should be three distinctions of groups. Breeding stock that is OFA certified, mixed breed, and pure bred breeding stock that is not genetically tested. Heck, if mixed breed dogs had genetically tested parents, the health of those puppies would be better than the mixed breed ones who haven't been. There is no money in mixed breed dogs, so there is little incentive to breed them irresponsibly at high volume where there is that incentive with pure breds. This is the distinction and why you can say "in general" that your hypothesis is true. However, I think it's important that those discussing the topic make a distinction between the three groups, not just the two.

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,457
    Went for a ride with my dog today. What a great dog, what nice weather, and what a great day to enjoy life for the both of us.

    That is all.
    Round and round we go

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    572
    danhasdrums, I agree that the OFA has done a great job using scientific data to better understand congenital defects in specific breeds and educate breeders so they can control disease within their populations. Their work is supported by most major veterinary universities and institutions who contribute to their databases and draw from them for their own research. This includes the University of Pennsylvania’s institute of research on hip dysplasia, PennHIP. My father worked at Penn’s vet school as the head of the Center for Comparative Genetics. His main focus was on congenital heart disease but his labs touched on many other areas as well.

    The issue of purebred animals of any sort is a tricky one (and actually the challenges apply to domesticated plants as well). The nature of the practice does seem to increase the propensity for increased incidence of genetic diseases. This takes on many forms, most of which are polygenic in nature (involving multiple genes on different chromosomes) but it is commonly accepted that breeding within a more confined gene pool increases their incidence. Even OFA’s laudable work is in direct response to the propensity for these problems to arise within certain populations. This is supported by the fact that different breeds tend to exhibit certain problems at different incidences than other breeds.

    At the same time, it is this internal consistency of genetic information within a breed that has allowed us to selectively study these dynamics. This was what made my father’s work so valuable for those who want to understand not only animal diseases, but human ones as well (because, we are also animals. But we tend to frown on the selective breeding of humans...) So, he chose specific breeds known for specific diseases, and bred them to try and understand the mechanisms by which they are transferred and how they express themselves. Without identifiable and relatively controlled gene pools, this would not have been possible . Or at least would have been a lot more challenging. For his research on cats, for example, they generally sought to identify animals from private households with specific conditions and then used them to begin a controlled colony. Which is different from seeking out a particular breed to examine. Essentially, they were creating their own “breeds” of cats that exhibited the desired problems.

    This work is not without its ethical dilemmas, but that's a different conversation...

Members who have read this thread: 0

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

THE SITE

ABOUT MTBR

VISIT US AT

© Copyright 2019 VerticalScope Inc. All rights reserved.