Breeding questions... - Page 2

Diversity to me means breaking out of a line,  no you would not want to breed to a line full of defects, thats just common sense.  You would be breeding the best, just not out of the same one or two lines that are common today.   I will agree to disagree about this with most of you.   Diversity can produce something new and possibly better than the current lines.

Breed to the strengths not the weekness's .     New lines might cure some of the problems we see today.

As far as cloning goes it hasnt worked correctly to date and who wants to see 20 of the same of anything.  In competition you would quickly see the variation is only in the eye of the beyholder.   What would a judge see?   I know it would spoil our world.   I see its strong points in industrial applications but then again, its man trying to play god, and man has never been able to improve on what nature has provided.    I believe in the nature of the universe, its real not a man made myth.  And we cant do anything to control its powers. We cant improve it.   We can only be part of it. 

May the force be with you.....:)

 ...and then there is "hybrid vigor" from outcrossing or even cross-breeding.  That is why hybrids are , generally, known for being more healthy.  Enlarge the genetic pool and you tend to get a better product.  Keep it concentrated and  eventually you end up unable to avoid some problems or improve at all.   Cookie cutters and molds are meant for inanimate objects.  When you get to the point where all the dogs look alike, there is bound to be a problem.  Look what happened to the American lines.

Thank you all for your responses!  Valuable information! :)

I don't think a crossed breed of dog is actually a hybrid, but the myth that mongrels are healthier than purebreds does not really hold up, they are not generally tested for defects the way purebred dogs are and if you compare the number of mongrels that are diagnosed with, say, HD (would only be looked for if the dog showed symptoms) it is probably no fewer in proportion to the number of purebred dogs that are diagnosed only after showing symptoms - the majority of dysplastics are found because of routine hip xrays and their owners would otherwise go through the dogs life totally unaware it had anything wrong with it.   In any event, it would only hold good for one first cross generation, all the offspring would be carriers for whatever hereditary traits were present in each parent for good and for bad.  Having been brought up in a small UK town in the 1950's, latchkey dogs abounded and depending on what area of the town they lived, dogs showed distinct types according to who was the top dog in that area.  Since puppies would typically be given away locally and, assuming they did not get run over or succumb to distemper, join the street population as soon as they were old enough to follow the kids to school, there is no doubt that the top dog would be mating his sisters, daughters and probably granddaughters and the average "out and out" mongrel is probably more inbred than any purebred dog.

Margaret N-J

I completely disagree with pretty much everything you said Kaffirdog.

But then again,  thats what the board is for, different ideas, views, and much diversity.

Everything on earth is basicly inbreed, survival of the fitest and natural selection is the reason things survive and prosper.

It would be nice to have some real facts and statistic's but who's ever kept track ?

Differing opinions are the food of thought Two Moons.  Feed an open mind and you never know what what may grow out of it. 

Some real statistics would be interesting.  What about wild dog populations, are they inbred?  I would have thought so , but don't know, but I bet there is some properly documented evidence to give an idea.  I've read a bit on the internet about the creation of some designer crossbreeds (or new breeds depending on the motive of the people creating them) like the giant Shepherds and the wolf lookalikes and they do not seem to have made dogs any healthier than the founder breeds once they have got past the first crosses, but then, it is mostly anecdotal, very little facts and mostly presented by people who are not neutral.   I know most vets are convinced that inbreeding is the root of all evil in pedigree dog breeding, yet have yet to meet a vet with this theory who has ever looked at the pedigree of a clients dog and therefore has no idea if it is inbred or not or, for that matter, not had just as many crossbreeds in their waiting room as purebreds!  My personal observation does not indicate closely bred dogs overall being any less viable than outcrossed ones, but if there is anything to show the contrary, I am interested to learn.  I accept that a little knowledge can be a misleading thing, eg for years I believed that white GSDs were all sables on the observation of sables appearing in every litter of coloured to white breedings I saw or heard of, right up to the point when I was given a sharp lesson in the colour genetics of white in the GSD, when I talked this rubbish on another forum!  I've got my blinkers off and ready to learn.

Margaret N-J