Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cull means remove from the breeding stock. My simple solution stands: only FOUR offsprings of an AKC registered dog may be AKC registered. If any of those ever display defects associated with inbreeding, their registration is revoked. AKC should mandate that all breeds be genetically mapped and there be continuous research into recessive genes that produce health defects. Over time a roadmap to health dogs will emerge.
Gotcha on culling. Just so you know, ethical breeders already do that. But how do you cull a dog from breeding stock for a genetic disease that fails to manifest itself until well after breeding age? Such as hereditary cataracts in Australian Shepherds? Affected dogs most commonly present signs between 1.5 and 3, but may first show disease as late as 7 years of age. I had a phenomenal agility dog who developed hereditary cats at age 5. She was spayed as a youngster for an even bite so breeding was not an issue but other than that even bite she was an eminently breedable dog in every respect...drive, conformation, type, temperament, intelligence, working instinct, trainability, etc. There is currently a test for one of the genes that is a risk factor for cats in Aussies but that dominant gene is so common in the breed that eliminating from breeding all dogs with the gene is not possible because we'd end up inadvertently selecting for unknown recessive traits to rear their ugly heads and cause more problems. That's what happens when you limit the gene pool. Plus the gene is merely a risk factor...not all dogs with the gene develop cats.
The Australian Shepherd is extremely fortunate to have many motivated people with the desire and the resources to attempt to prevent hereditary disease...far more than most other breeds...but even with that strong force behind it, the problem of hereditary cataracts (the breed's most common eye disease in a breed known for eye disease) has not yet been fully understood.
DC...you slay me with comments like the one I bolded above. Your naive and simplistic suggestion leaves me nearly beyond words. But I can manage to scramble together this scenario based on your suggested mandate:
1. AKC mandates as you suggest above.
2. Nobody can register a dog with the AKC since nobody (breed club, university, organization, etc.) can afford to pay for that mandated mapping/continuous research or...
3. Every breeder and individual pondering which registry to register their dogs with leaves the AKC for the UKC or some other registry since no one can afford the many thousands of dollars it would now cost (to support the mandates you suggest above) to register *one dog* with the AKC.
4. No more AKC.
5. No problem. You suggest the now most popular registry, maybe the UKC, adopts the same mandates.
6. Oops...no more UKC.
Hey...what about research on health defects caused by autosomal dominant, X-linked dominant, multifactorial, and mitochondrial inheritance genes? Most diseases have multifactorial inheritance patterns...that's why their inheritance is so challenging to understand and control. Or do you just want research into recessive genes?
Many would propose that we should spend our money/resources on the lofty goal of eliminating genetic disease in humans first.
DC...your intent is good. But your ignorance of the science of classical, behavioral and population genetics as well as how disease research is conducted leads you to simplistic solutions that can never work in the real world.
What a wonderful way to critically narrow the gene pool of every breed in existence!
Managing the problem of genetic disease requires keeping MORE dogs in the gene pool, not fewer. And most of all, it requires knowledge on the part of breeders which unfortunately all too few today actually possess.
All breeder Jumpindogs not just "ethical" breeders. If you sell AKC dogs you must comply. How do you tell? You get a DNA analysis of a dog you want to register. Early on we will make some errors, but moving forward we will have the data to refine our analysis.
Cull means remove from the breeding stock. My simple solution stands: only FOUR offsprings of an AKC registered dog may be AKC registered. If any of those ever display defects associated with inbreeding, their registration is revoked. AKC should mandate that all breeds be genetically mapped and there be continuous research into recessive genes that produce health defects. Over time a roadmap to health dogs will emerge.
Then you doom many of the low-population breeds (some of which are pretty healthy, thanks to dedicated breeders being careful): Welsh Springer Spaniels, Otterhounds, Clumber Spaniels, Irish Water Spaniels, Norwegian Lundehunds, Lowchen, Glen of Imaal Terriers, Pyrenean Shepherds, to name a just a few.
Genetic defects pop up in dogs who are inbred, linebred, and outcrossed. AKC does not have the authority to mandate genetic mapping; there is no law on Earth that says breeders must register their breedings/litters/pups with the AKC. And the AKC does support and contribute to the AKC Canine Health Foundation. And many individual AKC-affiliated breed clubs support (financially and in the contributing of DNA) research into various diseases, such as efforts to find gene markers. As far as I know, no one has figured out the precise inheritance of canine hip dysplasia - it's suspected that it's certainly not as simple as finding one gene/gene marker. And probably various other problems are similar (though breeding dogs with hips that have been x-rayed and evaluated as clear of HD at the age of two and up can certainly help, it is not a guarantee). On the other hand, there are certain tests that can pinpoint breed-specific gene markers for canine diseases - PRA in Irish Setters (and some other breeds, I believe). One plan does not fit all canine illnesses and genetic defects.
All breeder Jumpindogs not just "ethical" breeders. If you sell AKC dogs you must comply. How do you tell? You get a DNA analysis of a dog you want to register. Early on we will make some errors, but moving forward we will have the data to refine our analysis.
I knew you meant that, DC. Just wanted you to know that ethical breeders currently do cull such dogs from their breeding programs since you strike me as being unfamiliar with what it takes to consistently produce healthy dogs that meet a breed standard regarding both form and function. But thanks for the clarification.
Then you doom many of the low-population breeds (some of which are pretty healthy, thanks to dedicated breeders being careful): Welsh Springer Spaniels, Otterhounds, Clumber Spaniels, Irish Water Spaniels, Norwegian Lundehunds, Lowchen, Glen of Imaal Terriers, Pyrenean Shepherds, to name a just a few.
Genetic defects pop up in dogs who are inbred, linebred, and outcrossed. AKC does not have the authority to mandate genetic mapping; there is no law on Earth that says breeders must register their breedings/litters/pups with the AKC. And the AKC does support and contribute to the AKC Canine Health Foundation. And many individual AKC-affiliated breed clubs support (financially and in the contributing of DNA) research into various diseases, such as efforts to find gene markers. As far as I know, no one has figured out the precise inheritance of canine hip dysplasia - it's suspected that it's certainly not as simple as finding one gene/gene marker. And probably various other problems are similar (though breeding dogs with hips that have been x-rayed and evaluated as clear of HD at the age of two and up can certainly help, it is not a guarantee). On the other hand, there are certain tests that can pinpoint breed-specific gene markers for canine diseases - PRA in Irish Setters (and some other breeds, I believe). One plan does not fit all canine illnesses and genetic defects.
Thank you Regina14. In my focus to address the misinformation regarding DC's anti-AKC stance, I completely forgot about the many, many dogs not registered by AKC or even by any registry.
I couldn't care less if a person dislikes the AKC. I used to. However, I dislike them less now and actually appreciate them for many reasons. But I do care if people attribute actions to the AKC that are not the responsibility of the AKC or under the AKC's control. That's misinformation, plain and simple. And misinformation is always counterproductive.
I knew you meant that, DC. Just wanted you to know that ethical breeders currently do cull such dogs from their breeding programs since you strike me as being unfamiliar with what it takes to consistently produce healthy dogs that meet a breed standard regarding both form and function. But thanks for the clarification.
Now how about addressing the rest of my post?
Why are genetic defects so prevelent in AKC dogs? I'm familiar with genetics, which is the core of the conversation. BTW it isn't hard to breed healthy dogs. Mixed breeds are the route. Stop the silly breeding for looks.
Let's deal with question one at a time in order of importance.
Why are genetic defects so prevelent in AKC dogs? I'm familiar with genetics, which is the core of the conversation. BTW it isn't hard to breed healthy dogs. Mixed breeds are the route. Stop the silly breeding for looks.
Let's deal with question one at a time in order of importance.
I figured it would be hard for you to answer my questions.
But I'll start by answering yours above. Although I would reword the question like this "Why are genetic defects so prevalent in purebred dogs?" because we see the same health issues by breed in dogs registered by other registries such as UKC and ASCA. This is not specifically an AKC issue. Nor is it specifically a canine issue. It is an issue in any population of animals of a given species (or breed) in which the gene pool has been restricted by artificial or environmental means.
The larger the gene pool the greater amount of genetic diversity. Genetic diversity is advantageous because it produces hybrid vigor (the ability for a percentage of individuals to adapt to changes in the environment thus maintaining survival of the species) and reduces the incidence of deleterious recessive traits doubling up in any one individual. But, along with those two positive aspects, a larger degree of genetic diversity also causes an increase in variation of other traits...phenotype (appearance), temperament, instinct, drive, etc...which is a negative when attempting to produce animals of a similar form and function.
Any breeder of a pure breed (dogs, cats, horses, cattle, sheep, etc.) must carefully balance those positives and negatives, considering the pros and cons of linebreeding, inbreeding and outcrossing in their breeding program in order to produce healthy animals of a recognizable similar appearance and function. Not just dog breeders.
I believe the reason we see more genetic disease in dog breeds is because dogs are way more popular as pets and much easier to breed from a management perspective than are horses and cattle, for example. So any Joe Blow clueless person can and does do it. And does it poorly.
DC, you and I will never see eye to eye on this topic since you clearly are against purebred dogs in any form. That's fine by me. I don't care what you are for or against. I do care about misinformation and will generally strive to address that since misinformation is always counterproductive.
I know you have a military background and I am surprised that you cannot see the extreme advantage that certain breeds like the Malinois...some lines of which have been very carefully bred for the many specific traits required for their job...offer in service to the military and law enforcement and thus to all of us. I can sense you replying that we should just then breed for function. But remember...the principles of genetics apply no matter what single trait (or small group of traits) you are selecting for. Select for function only and you also end up with a small gene pool and less genetic diversity which causes loss of hybrid vigor and increases the chance of deleterious recessive homozygosity. Oops! There go your fabulous working dogs down the drain.
Ranchers and farmers did (and still do) breed for function alone with my breed (Aussies) and they end up with dogs with health problems...bad hips, eye problems, epilepsy, structure so poor the dogs break down. Of course they just kill those dogs with great working ability whose health gets in the way and start over. If that's your idea of easy you can have it. I'm not interested.
BTW, mixed breed dogs are not in any way free of hereditary health problems. Which makes sense if one understands genetics...the genes for disease are there and will eventually make an appearance sooner or later depending on the mode of inheritance. Purposely breeding a population of mixed breed dogs, using only the healthiest dogs, will eventually create a population with a small gene pool and all the same problems that ride along. And allowing mixed breed dogs to breed of their own choice (as opposed to purposeful breeding by humans; an approach our society would never condone) will result in unhealthy dogs too. As it does in the wild where such animals suffer and die.
Your statement "BTW it isn't hard to breed healthy dogs." is specious and naive.
Why are genetic defects so prevelent in AKC dogs? I'm familiar with genetics, which is the core of the conversation. BTW it isn't hard to breed healthy dogs. Mixed breeds are the route. Stop the silly breeding for looks.
Let's deal with question one at a time in order of importance.
First let me say I love all dogs mixed and purebred and devote a significant amount of time (and money) to dog rescue. I also agree that for some breeds trying to achieve a certain look as been a detriment to the breed. Having said that there are plenty of mixed breeds out there with hip dysplasia and other health issues. I had a friend adopt a mixed breed from a shelter who has had way more health issues than my purebred GSD ever had. Even if no one ever bred another pure bred dog again, it would not guarantee 100% healthy dogs.
First let me say I love all dogs mixed and purebred and devote a significant amount of time (and money) to dog rescue. I also agree that for some breeds trying to achieve a certain look as been a detriment to the breed. Having said that there are plenty of mixed breeds out there with hip dysplasia and other health issues. I had a friend adopt a mixed breed from a shelter who has had way more health issues than my purebred GSD ever had. Even if no one ever bred another pure bred dog again, it would not guarantee 100% healthy dogs.
Exactly. There are registries that track and monitor the disease occurrence in many breeds. They are their to assist the breeders to select the right dogs and try and eliminate these traits.
No one is tracking what is going on with mixed breeds. So, don't assume, because you don't hear about it, it doesn't happen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But your ignorance of the science of classical, behavioral and population genetics as well as how disease research is conducted leads you to simplistic solutions that can never work in the real world.
