Fascinating Article on Genetics - Your Thoughts? - Page 1

I just found this link posted on another dog board I visit, and think it's worth discussion. The author makes some statements which I am sure are going to ruffle a few feathers. However, as someone trained in biology, I know his statements are accurate. The article is far to long to post here, but I will provide the link to the full text. Some basic genetic terms that may help in understanding the article, which gets a bit technical: Genes occur in pairs, one coming from the mother, one from the father. The location of a particular gene on a chromosome is called the locus (plural: loci) The particular form of a gene is referred to as the 'alelle', eg. 'the allele for blue eyes' If both alleles are the same, the animal is homozygous for that genetic trait. If they are different, it is heterozygous. Some genes have multiple alleles. To use eye color again, let's say there are different alleles for blue, brown, green, black and hazel eyes. Here's where it gets tricky: some alleles are dominant, so if the animal has one allele for blue eyes, and one for brown, the brown-eyed allele will always be the one 'expressed' and the animal will have brown eyes. (NOTE: this is a fictitious example, I don't remember if brown eyes is really dominant over blue...been too many years since I studied this!) So, we say that having blue eyes is a recessive trait. (Same as with the black color in the GSD.) And here's where things really get complicated: Some traits are influenced by more than one gene, making it very difficult to get a particular trait to 'breed true'. This is called polygenetic inheritance or a polygenetic trait. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The idea of the superior strain was that by "breeding the best to the best," employing sustained inbreeding and selection for "superior" qualities, one would develop a bloodline superior in every way to the unrefined, base stock which was the best that nature could produce. Naturally the purified line must then be preserved from dilution and debasement by base-born stock. There is no support for this kind of racism in the findings of modern genetics -- in fact, quite the opposite: population groups that are numerically limited and closed to new genetic inflow are now thought practically certain to be genetically inferior. Certainly towards the close of the nineteenth century it became embarrassingly obvious that the human aristocracies of Europe were degenerating rapidly under their own version of the "closed studbook." * * * Population geneticists insist that limited populations under strong artificial selection, subjected to high levels of incest breeding -- such as our own CKC purebreds -- simply cannot maintain genetic viability and vigour in the long term without the periodic introduction of new and unrelated genetic material. They are referring, moreover, to true outcrossing, the introduction of stock unrelated to the breeding line, not merely the use of a dog which might be from someone else's kennel but is derived from exactly the same foundation stock some generations back. * * * If our dog breeds are to conform to the ideal of "a sound mind in a sound body" (as advocated by the proponents of the Advanced Registry), the fancy must find some way of ensuring that less dog-breeding takes place along the lines of least resistance and cheap gratification [i.e., winning ribbons in the showring] so that greater attention is paid to working characteristics, temperament and trainability. A balanced outlook on breed identity must be restored by integrating canine function with the ideals of conformation, beauty and "type." All kinds of dogs, toy breeds not excepted, can perform useful functions and respond to training. Those aspects of the fancy should be accorded an importance at least fully equal to that of type and co

If our dog breeds are to conform to the ideal of "a sound mind in a sound body" (as advocated by the proponents of the Advanced Registry), the fancy must find some way of ensuring that less dog-breeding takes place along the lines of least resistance and cheap gratification,[winning ribbons in the show ring] so that greater attention is paid to working characteristics, temperament and trainability. A balanced outlook on breed identity must be restored by integrating canine function with the ideals of conformation, beauty and "type." All kinds of dogs, toy breeds not excepted, can perform useful functions and respond to training. Those aspects of the fancy should be accorded an importance at least fully equal to that of type and conformation instead of being regarded as merely optional. For example, breeding and exhibition of utility breeds such as gundogs and sleddogs merely for sale as pets and for dog shows, with no effort made to maintain and advance their working capabilities, is an obvious abuse which must lead inevitably to mental and physical degeneracy in those breeds. * * * Those who attempt to set aside the balanced genomes arrived at by natural selection must struggle thereafter to attain and to maintain fitness in their stock. There is more to this than mouthing platitudes about "soundness." Artificial selection alone, such as that used to produce winning exhibition dogs, involves breeding in a way which flagrantly disregards most of the gene loci in the canine genome. Since genes assort in groups on chromosomes (a phenomenon known as "linkage"), inbreeding and selection for desired traits of superficial appearance unavoidably affect many other genes which are inadvertently selected and often fixed in a homozygous state in total ignorance of what is happening. This may be a major factor in the current prevalence of genetic diseases. Thus natural selection, baulked for a season by artificial selection, high-level nutrition, and advanced veterinary care, reasserts its primacy at a deeper and more serious level when the new genome as set up by the breeder proves flawed through genetic unsoundness, so that healthy and hardy animals can no longer be produced, however typey and attractive to the eyes of the judges the result may be. Link: http://documents.seppalasleddogs.com/html-documents/pbdb21c.htm

{The author of the article is J. Jeffrey-Bragg. He has given permission for the article to be quoted and shared, as long as he is acknowledged as its author.) Modern registries based on a rigidly-closed studbook are throttling the genetic health of all registered dog breeds. Genetic impoverishent is now a real and present threat. Many breeds now bear a genetic load of defects which has grown totally unmanageable as their respective gene pools have become more and more narrow through imprudent breeding and selection practices. Incest breeding, once a convenient tool for the rapid fixation of type in newly-registered breeds, has become virtually standard practice for those who seek success in dog breeding. The net effect has been the decimation of gene pools, widespread homozygosity and the unintended fixation of unknown hundreds or thousands of alleles, many of which are proving to be harmful or lethal to the animals that bear them. [sidenote from Sunsilver: this would explain the 'sudden death' phenomena Louise has noted with the American Shepherd. You only need to take a casual glance at their AKC pedigrees to see the tremendous amount of inbreeding that has been done in the last few decades!] In December 1994 "Time" magazine published a scathing indictment of the American Kennel Club and of purebred dogs and their breeders, targeting in a cover story the problem of genetic ills, suggesting that the best use of pedigree papers was for housebreaking the puppies and recommending that the public satisfy its desire for canine companionship with mongrels. Since then, most of us have known we have an untenable situation on our hands. Our reputation as breeders of purebreds is now in tatters; we are caricatured in the media as greedy, uncaring producers of degenerate animals. The CKC's main response to the situation was a Board policy statement that "reputable breeders will provide a detailed written guarantee of the present and future good health of the dog and will not hesitate to uphold their guarantees." The policy statement, far from helping the situation, only saddled breeders officially with a heavy responsibility without enacting measures which might assist them in living up to it. t is time for us as dog breeders to stand up for ourselves and for our dogs, to reject the imputation that we ourselves are individually to blame for the problem of genetic defects, and to demand swift remedial action by the Club and, if necessary, Agriculture Canada. The crux of the problem is the closed studbook and with it, the ideal of breed purity, the worship of type, and the pre-eminence of the championship show as goal and arbiter of most breeding programmes. Armed with the concepts of population genetics, we can now examine the last century of nineteenth-century dog breeding, ascertain what has gone wrong, and establish ways and means to correct the situation. * * * In the case of the Siberian Husky, which happens to be my breed, with whose early history I am reasonably well familiar), The Canadian Kennel Club opened a registry in 1939, inspected one kennel's dogs and admitted four dozen closely-related individuals to the registry, which was then closed permanently. No effort was made to ensure a broad foundation, nor a numerous one, nor a genetically diverse one. Just how permanently the registry was closed I recently found out when I imported from Russia a dog bred to the Siberian Husky standard! The dog was born in the Ural Mountains well within the boundaries of Siberia, from parents of Chukotkan village origins; he had three generations of known ancestry (without registration numbers since there is no official "Siberian Husky" registry in Russia). I was immediately told that the Club "did not know what to do" about my application to register the dog, that the protocols used to register breed foundation animals in 1939 were no longer valid, and that my dog "should not be used for breeding because i

"should not be used for breeding because it would probably be a long process," in spite of the fact that the dog had a valid FCI Export Pedigree from the Czech Republic (through which he was exported). A year and a half later after repeated in camera discussions, the import was refused recognition by the Board and Registration Committee on grounds of inadequate information (no ancestral registration numbers). Repeated calls for Club inspection of the import and offers to submit the animal to DNA tests and progeny testing were ignored. The registry is closed -- even to new Siberia imports! Predictably enough, Siberian Huskies, which eighty-five years ago were probably the toughest, hardiest variety of dogs on earth, now suffer from the same gamut of genetic defects that afflicts other breeds. Few if any registered Siberians are now able to perform as sleddogs on anything approaching the level of the 1910 dogs imported from Siberia. Probably this is mostly due to the decline in heterozygosity and loss of vitality through inbreeding. What is worse, unmistakable signs of inbreeding depression are surfacing in the breed: rising numbers of Caesarean births, smaller litters, lower birth weights, delicate nestlings prone to infection, etc. * * * NOW I WOULD LIKE to evoke a vision of the future -- but not the distant future. I want to describe how dog breeds might be in the twenty-first century. Instead of all breeds being subjected to arbitrary structures not equally well-suited to them all, each breed would get whatever special measures its breeders thought necessary. Instead of a fragmented canine fancy with ghettos of show fanciers, obedience buffs, and working-dog specialists, dog breeds would have the benefit of a holistic outlook, integrating the various aspects of canine activity and producing well-rounded, versatile, mentally stable animals..... To begin with, we absolutely must open CKC studbooks, in every breed, to new genetic inflow. There can be no long-term genetic health in small populations such as our registered breeds without the periodic infusion of new genetic material. The one big "sacrifice" we shall have to make, if it is really a sacrifice, is to abandon racist attitudes and the concept of rigorous breed purity. We must recognise that first of all, a dog is a dog, species Canis familiaris, and that is his true identity. He is a dog first, before he is a Siberian Husky or a Foxhound or a Doberman; breed identity is subordinate to species identity. We must stop treating breeds as if they were species, abandon the rigidity and narrow typological thinking which has heretofore characterised the canine fancy. We must recognise that dogs are unique individuals and that there is no positive value in trying to create groups of dogs which are all clones or photocopies of a type specimen represented by a breed standard. This should not be too hard, since breeders and judges have never been able to arrive at agreed and consistent interpretations of breed standards anyway. Why, then, should we pretend that a standard, which as it now exists evokes a different imagistic interpretation in the mind of each individual breeder and judge, describes a single ideal type? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Okay, that's enough. Now that the writer has proposed the ultimate heresy, I'll let you read the rest of the article for yourself. Regarding his comments in the last paragraph I posted, re. each judge and breeder having his/her own interpretation of the breed standar, it brings to mind a recent discussion we had on this very topic. Although the breed standard for the GSD has not changed (much) since the days of the breed's origin, our dogs look much, much different than they did 30 years ago, or even 15 years ago. The German show dogs now have a roach in their back, and some are overangulated, and have lost their working ability. The American dogs have b

The American dogs have been bred for extreme angulation, and in most cases, working ability has been sacrificed in the name of an awesome sidegait. Meanwhile, even veteran handler, Jimmy Moses confesses that most of the couldn't even jump over the little fences that surround the show rings, let alone compete in agility or Schutzhund! Lots of food for discussion here, folks! Let's have at it! :-)

Sunsilver, fascinating reading. Have you also read what i consider to be the GSD bible? Malcolm Willis, A genetic history of the GSD? Its the biz.

I agree, thank you , Sunsilver. Lots of really good information to digest and understand. I look forward to reading what everyone has to say on this.

Nope, I probably should get a copy, but I don't breed, so it's not high on my priority list. When finances allow, I'm going to get Fred Lanting's two books first (The Total GSD, and his book on Orthopedics) then I might spring for the genetics book. What I would like to see for the German Shepherd: Competitions to include tests of both working ability and conformation, Genetic and health testing such as OFA made mandatory for breeding. I know the author says testing has been ineffective in eliminating dysplasia, but just LOOK at the number of breeders who still mate dysplastic dogs. (Oh, but they're BORDERLINE...the breeder says. That makes it okay?) Coefficient of inbreeding to be calculated for 10 generations back for each proposed litter. Mating should only be allowed if it is 10% or less. Strict limits imposed on linebreeding/inbreeding to help improve genetic diversity. Judges to focus more on the total dog, and less on awesome movement. Breeders to take mandatory education classes on genetics and reproductive health before being allowed to produce litters.

I have not yet read the entire article; but do we abandon entirely the ideal of breed type? Or allow infusion of new genetic material from what sources, and with what controlling factors? And then, if that would be allowed, would those animals be considered 'foundation supplemental stock'? Interesting, yes, but practisable? Perhaps when people think that so & so's dogs look like they have some Malinios in them, this has in fact already happened? Food for thought.....jh

They just had a show on how smart dogs are right after the Dog Whisperer...It was incredible. I wish I knew the name of it but I have satellite TV so once the show goes off the screen I can't look back and check what it was...Amazing how smart these animals are...