Dog shows and breeding (kind of long)

pawzaddict

actually it is true that mutts tend to be healthier than PB and this is all by genetics. Genes that carry defects/diseases are not dominant typically in mutts. Thus why many boxer mixes never experience issues with cancer (a common disease in boxers) and many shar pei or bull dog mixes never have sever eye issues, etc. Its actually a fun and very interesting study.

ChathamHillKennels

That's an unfounded statement. If you selectively breed for lines of dogs with no cancer there will be less occurrence of it, it just requires all the boxer breeders to be on the same page and to potentially abandon breeding lines that have cancer, which for the show minded elitist will not be an option if they breed purely for the cosmetic advantage in order to win a coveted ribbon that the dog has no understanding of. By mixing boxers with another breed you don't eliminate the chance of cancer if its is already present in either line. That's where selective breeding is required and why you need to pay close attention to the lineage of each dog chosen for the mating whether it is a mix or a pure breed. Eliminating cancer from dogs in general requires eliminating greed from the mix and adding understanding behind the choices made. Most breeders only know that this dog looks good and that one does too so lets breed them even if they are related. There's so much more to it. That's what our ancestors knew and what current breeders have either forgotten or don't wish to know.

To properly out cross a Boxer you need to select another breed and a line within that breed without a history of the disease or defects in question. Which is a tough one since all dogs in general even mixes have a %40 to %60 cancer rate. Once you break it down to specific breeds you find the numbers vary, but not by much. Then once you've selected the right specimens for a breeding you keep the best result and do it all over again with completely different lines and keep the best result, then do it again. Once you have several distinct and unrelated hybrid dogs you breed with those lines then take the best specimen and eventually backcross into the purebred line. If you do the right homework then you actually look for other dog breeds that were actually crossbred by our ancestors to create the breed in question. You basically create a boxer from scratch using the same recipe used in the beginning or something as close to it as possible. Selecting the best of the best healthy specimens in doing so. Then when you're finally done, what you have left is a genetically sound animal with every bit as much diversity as the breed originally was.

If I were going to do Boxers all over again I would breed away from the exaggerated under shot bite and focus on lines that weren't afflicted with epilepsy or cancer. And I would select another breed that was proportionately the same physically. Not a haphazard choice by throwing a dart at a board or by saying oh well I have a boxer and this other breed so let me do this. Thats stupid and happens too often.

In a nutshell once a mutt becomes a fad trend, like the doodle craze. The health gets thrown out the window. When they become a commercially bred dog, forget it. They're in the same boat as the purebred dogs. And lets not lose sight of the fact that pure bred dogs were once healthy mutts too. The closed Registry system is what screwed that up. Lets look at some recent additions that should eventually become pools of genetic defects....

The Boykin Spaniel, The Xzolos, the Cane Corso just to name a few were recently accepted into the registry as acknowledged breeds. So they too will eventually become as plagued and riddled with problems as any other breed because one in the system, you are no longer afforded the option of outcrossing.

ChathamHillKennels

Let me add that by researching how a breed was created in the first place you can attempt to recreate it. It requires patience and a determined breeding program. This is Exactly how the Irish Wolfhound was resurrected form extinction. By going back to the basics and recreating it from scratch since the last one that actually coursed a wild wolf died in the Teddy Roosevelt era. Unfortunately since they became a part of the closed registry system once again, the breed is in peril once again and plagued with shortened life spans and genetic defects. So reform in the registries is required.

pawzaddict

I am sorry I do not agree at all, I have done the research and the study and know genetics has a lot to do with diseases and other issues and mutts do not show these traits anywhere near as much as PB.

BTW you speak of designer breeds, these are mutts that people find good traits in so decide to breed them. Not all mutts are turned into designer breeds and almost all mutts do not become a "fad trend"....I would know, I have had plenty of mutts because I do rescue.

Criosphynx

if you are breeding to "deselect" for cancer you are still closing the gene pool...

personally I don't feel that one can select for desireable traits and get ONLY desireable traits. Anytime you close the gene pool by breeding for ONE thing, you are increasing the potential for other defects to crop up. At least on the long term.

The only way to get a truely healthy dog is to get a strain that has been chosen by natural selection, where nature weeds out Any and all defects and keeps the useful mutations.

I personally would take my chances on a mutt (not that iam concerned about health anyway) than a PB from a closed gene pool. I want the puppy that was born in a ditch thats siblings DIDN'T survive...I want the dog that despite emaciation, mange, worms, still is rearing to go...not the dog who was born in a sterile whelping pen whos parents were born in a sterile whelping pen. Thats just me tho.

Im not saying every single mutt is healthier, but a mongrel...not a mixed breed has a better chance of health IMO.

My only 100% PB dog is a medical/mental mess...she is likely a mill dog, but is a perfect example of what a closed gene pool can do in the wrong hands. Its too easy to screw up, and personally Iam not willing to pay $2000 for a dog that has a greater chance of being healthy. In the future when I rescue, they will not be PB dogs, just my personal opinion.

as for the behavior/temprament stuff I simply select for dogs with personalities I can work with, tho I understand that most people select a dog based on apearance and then are quickly overwhelmed with the behavior aspect.

Otherwise I agree LOL

ChathamHillKennels

I'm sorry but your research is flawed or biased based on your love for a good mutt, and who doesn't love a good mutt. Coming from a circle of geneticists and biologists in my family. I can say with extreme certainty that what you've experienced is not the norm and that for every one example you site of a healthy "mutt" I can site 100 of horror stories. The only way to eliminate defects completely is through DNA mapping for these disorders. And without a complete map, Well all we have left is fate.

Like I've said, I've worn the hats on both sides of the fence. I've rescued many mutts and still do. And without a doubt until DNA markers map the road for defect free litters to best option is careful selective breeding. Thats why I say from experience that there's a hard line on each side of the fence. Almost a steadfast culture of camps that don't wish to be shown the light. I like many ideals from both sides and make my own decisions. I certainly don't plan to sway your decision in what you believe. Just to inform those who are willing to listen that there are problems from either perspective and allow them to make their own decisions.

As for the romantic approach that natural selection will weed out the unwanted. Well, sorry but thats just a romantic theory. Deselecting for cancer in a huge population will not thin the gene pool, your theory only applies when we're talking about limited populations. In which case if there are not enough distinct lines within the breed to breed away from the problem then the only logical choice is to outcross with another breed. And the same selective process applies even when doing so. That is where the healthier Mutt comes from. Anything else is like taking a gamble. I'd prefer to take the educated approach. As for sterile conditions, yes I prefer that so do humans in general, we don't opt to give birth is a trash heap over a sterile room if given a choice. That maximizes the odds that our child is born without being subjected to bacteria and viruses before the immune system has a fighting chance to survive the exposure. Its why the mortality rate among newborns is better today than it was 100 years ago.

Using Irish Setters as an example. less than a decade ago you couldn't find many that weren't going blind from PRA. Then the same genetic research labs where my sister worked mapped and isolated the gene for PRA and made this knowledge available to the breeders. They assessed the breeding population numbers and in a collective effort were able to eliminate PRA from the breed. Now the next step is introducing diversity back into it. Although at this point they are a relatively healthy breed. But the fact that they have no PRA makes them an excellent candidate for outcrossing with say a Golden Retriever which has high occurrence of PRA and a 60% mortality rate due to death by cancer.

If natural selection were a good thing, you would see us naturalists struggling with how to save the African Wild dog from extinction. When the population is too small to rebound then extinction is inevitable.

Mikey

I won't get too involved because my gentics in regard to just dogs is lacking but I did minor in genetics.

What pawzaddict is referring to is 'heterozygosity vigor' and it's well founded, and proven that having two different copies (heterozygous) of an allele (which is exactly what happens in 'mutts') makes for a healthier organism no matter what they are.

The way this works is, the deficient allele (those coding for erroneous proteins, and thus undesirable sicknesses in some circumstances) are 'overrun' by the other proper allele. Your genes, and dogs-have two copies, and only one is actively coding. When they are the same copy, you get what you get. When they are different the proper one functions.

pawzaddict

we will have to agree to disagree because my research was definitely not flawed nor biased and I worked hard on it. However I could say the same to you (being biased and all)...seeing you clearly breed. I am speaking of behavioral by any means, I am speaking strictly medical and diseases. I read the first 2 sentences of your comment and that was all I cared to read so I will leave it at that.

pawzaddict

TY this is EXACTLY what I am talking about...it is the health not the behavior that I am speaking of.

Mikey

I think agreeing to disagree is maybe the way to go on genetics of pb vs. mutts. The heterozygosity vigor is one thing that undeniably makes mutts (in dogs, and people and any organism) healthy.

I think CHKennels is trying to say that good breeders work very hard to exclude faulty genes from their breeding stock-

Sooo really, both of you are talking about two different principles -apples and oranges I think