How pure is pure...

[Athebeau]

Well, finally Dogs in Canada has picked up on my rant about purebred dogs

A friend of mine just picked up this months subscription...she only sent me a paragragh of the jest of the editorial. I am going to pick up my copy tonight. I'm so excited, maybe now the Canadian kennel club will open up their stud books and allow some healthy crossbreeding into stagnant gene pools. This is a great day for our loyal Canines!

Here is a little bit of the article that she was telling me about

“How Pure is Purebred”

Slavish adherence to a closed gene pool contributes little to the improvement of breeds

“If ‘purebred’ means of unmixed descent, then it can hardly be applied to our recognized breeds—those registered by our kennel clubs………….Despite the craving for unsullied blood, invented breeds like the Kromfohrlander, Chinook and Eurasier are now recognized as breeds abroad……….When cross-breeding improves a breed, it should be welcomed”

And goes on and on, but it’s fairly interesting. They also make mention of examples such as ‘ the surreptitious use Borzoi blood to alter the shape of the Collie’s head”

 

[Renee750il]

You instigator, you, Athebeau

 

[Athebeau]

I know
I just can't help myself.

I never thought it was very smart to breed dogs they way they have been breeding. Some breeders have altered their guarantee's to state so long as the dog can live as a pet...so, this saves them in case of slight to moderate HD, ED, Heart Murmurs etc. And this is from top producing Newf breeders.

You could still keep the same purebred dog look and behavioral motor patterns etc. That would be easy to do. If you took some of the breeds that were orginally used to develop your breed, or breeds that are simular then you could still keep the reason for breeding them. For example, with the Newf' why not throw in some Lab's, or Tibetain Mastiff and many other breeds. It would still require research and health testing...but, doesn't every one agree that it would be smarter breeding and healthier. People could still show and have guidelines to follow which would keep it so people know the appox height, coat, shedding/non shedding etc.

I guess you can only introduce your purebred dogs to people as inbred mutts so many times before they start catching on...haha

 

[evenstar7139]

*sigh* While I am an advocate for the elimination of hereditary health problems, it depresses me to think of seeking cross breeding as the answer. I would rather see hereditary disease eliminated through the development of genetic tests that determine the pressence of hidden disease genes in the DNA which would enable breeders to only breed dogs without these genes and to produce puppies without them either. Thus genetic disease would be deleted from their bloodline.

 

[Doberluv]

For example, with the Newf' why not throw in some Lab's, or Tibetain Mastiff and many other breeds.

If you just throw in other breeds, the breed in question would deteriorate because there's something called fixing a type which has to do with geno and pheno-typing, where every litter comes out looking the same.

These Labradoodles and such have, to date, not been fixed, so that they don't all come out looking the same. I suspect it's due to these byb who don't know what they're doing. I certainly don't know a lot about genetics but I do know that simply mixing in other breeds does not a purebred make. And if all you're getting out of a few dogs is inconsistancy, then that's no different than breeding mixed breed dogs.

Mixed breeds Healthier? How does anyone figure that? Who's to say what inherited diseases a mixed breed dog aquired from his purebred ancestors? Mixing mutts aren't any healthier than mixing purebreds in general. It all depends on WHAT dogs are being bred and what diseases are carried down to the offspring. If someone takes a huskey, lab, sheherd mix who inherited hip dysplasia from it's Shepherd grandfather, retinopathy from it's Lab mother and whatever huskey get from that relative and breeds it to a Doberman-Lab mix where the Doberman parent had dilated cardiomyopathy, cancer and Von Willebrand's Disease and the Lab part of the equasion had elbow dysplasia and liver mal function, do you honestly think the pups are going to come out fit as a fiddle?

Reputable breeders strive to get rid of genetic problems and strive to improve the breed. They don't breed dogs with marked genetic problems. Some breeds, it is true have diseases which are indeed in all the lines. This is a problem, but throwing in a mixed breed dog or a dog of another breed doesn't solve anything. Then you mess up the geno/pheno fixing that has been in place for centuries in some cases. Should they start all over again in order to clean things up? Wouldn't the same mistakes happen again, over centuries, what with a fair number of unscrupulous breeders out there to mess things up?

I think only the dogs who's ancestors were relatively free of most problems, should be bred and go from there.

 

[Fran27]

What I don't understand is how, by crossbreeding, you're going to stay close to the standard? I don't see that happening for generations and generations...

 

[Athebeau]

I don't think people realize just how serious and scary purebred breeding has become. I think you will find in time that the information I am posting is going to become reality...already biologists and other informed people who study genetics worry about the danger of continuing current purebred breeding. Purebred dogs are only a small group of mixed breeds, with few founding dogs and bitches...some breeds less than others.

The new "holistic" breeding would be healthier and you could still stay within some standards...most times you would only be using the breeds used to create your breed. This is nothing like "designer" breeding...more like breeding for health.
I think every one could benefit from reading this article.
http://seppalasleddogs.com/documents/pbdb21c.htm
And you might want to pick up a book by Raymond and Lorna Coppinger (they are biologists) and they explain how purebred breeding has "created" the very diseases we are now trying to breed out. It's quite contradictory as once you get one genetic disease out another pops up. Take a look at the breed specific genetic health problems/diseases sometime.

PUREBRED DOGDOM is even now in serious trouble through a general failure to distinguish between what is necessary to establish a breed and what is desirable to continue that breed in perpetuity. Most registered breeds are less than a century old qua registered breeds; many are but fifty or sixty years old. Yet nearly all breeds now show levels of expression of genetic defects that must be considered unacceptable. Over 500 distinct genetic defects have been catalogued in various breeds of purebred dogs and more continue to come to light regularly. Some of these have reached very high levels of incidence, creating problems for breeders and dog owners, threatening the health of entire breed populations. What is worse, in many instances organised control programmes seem relatively ineffective. Although such programmes successfully identify affected animals, in some cases individuals with several generations of "clear" ancestry stubbornly continue to produce affected stock. Let us try to examine what has gone wrong and what must be done to correct the situation.
First of all it must be recognised that practices which were essential for the differentiation and establishment of a new breed may not necessarily be desirable for its continuation over time and may in fact be prejudicial to a breed's continued existence over the long term.
Let us take isolation, for example. Without genetic isolation, it would not be possible to control the genome of a new breed still few in number. It takes time and careful breeding to fix a new combination of characteristics; while that is being done, the regular addition of new genetic material would generally be counterproductive. Yet in the long term, if genetic isolation is maintained, it will necessarily lead to degeneration through genetic drift. Similarly inbreeding, if it continues to be practised after the need for it is past, will lead to a steadily increasing state of homozygosity which may well destroy the genetic health of the new breed. Even artificial selection, if carried on too strongly for too long, can combine with isolation and inbreeding to reduce drastically the effective breeding population, thus eroding the genetic health of the breed.

Yet sometimes even participants in established purebred registries engage in a subtle kind of rebellion, quietly breeding according to their own judgment in defiance of formal restrictions. Thus the Racing Greyhound Club of Australia, when it recently subjected a broad sample of stock from its registry to DNA testing, is rumoured to have discovered that many pedigrees failed to match DNA ancestry findings and that considerable interbreed crossing had apparently occurred. Similarly most Siberian Husky fanciers are aware that some CKC bloodlines may have received surreptitious infusions of genetic material from non-purebreds or from other breeds. In some circles one even gets the distinct impression that "it's OK to crossbreed occasionally if you have a good reason for doing it and you manage it in such a way that no embarrassingly obvious mongrels are produced" -- i.e., "just don't get caught!" Thus the sanctity of breed purity may sometimes be less than inviolate in actual practice.
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.

 

[Athebeau]

Just to add this breeding program has nothing to do with designer doodle breeding. Most of the doodle crossbreds are more inbred than some purebred dogs...so, no I am not saying that that type of breeding is proper.

This breeding program is similar to the protocol that people follow when keeping a healthy working group of dogs...Alaskan Huskies, even Border Collies can vary greatly in size, height, coat, ears up - down etc. This would be well researched healthy breeding.

evenstar7139 *sigh* While I am an advocate for the elimination of hereditary health problems, it depresses me to think of seeking cross breeding as the answer. I would rather see hereditary disease eliminated through the development of genetic tests that determine the pressence of hidden disease genes in the DNA which would enable breeders to only breed dogs without these genes and to produce puppies without them either. Thus genetic disease would be deleted from their bloodline.

evenstar, you mention it depresses you to seek crossbreeding as the answer to ending genetic disasters? how do you think purebred dogs were created...they are all crossbreeds. I think more in the terms of how unhealthy it is to have a small group of dogs and inbreed them and have to inbreed because the kennel clubs tell me to. Also, the law of genetics, you remove one genetic disease from a line of dogs a new one will pop up. Basically health testing is just like moving dye around in a water ballon. You can not delete genetic disease from an inbred gene pool, the law of genetics goes completely against that therory.

Doberluv Reputable breeders strive to get rid of genetic problems and strive to improve the breed. They don't breed dogs with marked genetic problems.

There is so much involved in genetics and even health cleared lines of purebred dogs can throw genetic disasters...it's the law of genetics...mother natures does not care too much for inbreeding. I have seen it happen to the best breeders doing all the health tests, doing indepth research still breed genetic disasters. Also, there are not too many breeders who show who are out there "bettering"" the breeds. It's basically who's winning this year, which dog is making an "impact" in the ring. I know for a fact many purebred dogs with HD, ED and many other genetic health problems obtain championship titles...I've seen it first hand and have a purebred with ED, he's a champion in 3 Countries...bettering the breed??? hmmmm

We as man have gone against every rule of mother nature when breeding purebred dogs. breeders make excuses, tell people they do genetic health clearances which is ironic as it's the purebred breeding which is causing most genetic disease in the first place.

 

[Doberluv]

Wow! Well, as I said in my previous post, I don't know much about genetics. I do realize that even with cleared dogs, some gene can sneak in from way back. This is truly a scary thing. About nature and wild dogs....how do they do it? I mean, wasn't there a small group of wolves to begin with in a given geographic area and wouldn't they breed within a small number of wolves or a few packs? How would they migrate enough to avoid mixing closely with same wolves or ancestors in the same lines?

Now, they mention something about breeds which have been around only for 50 or 60 years. What about ancient breeds like the Chihuahua. It's predecessors have been traced back to the Toltec period. Of course, the Chihuahua of today hasn't been around that long, but pretty darn long. They don't have too terribly many health problems. Did they infuse other breeds up until recently and then start fixing the type do you suppose? And then the problems start? And look at the Doberman. It is a recent breed and it's got more than it's fair share of health issues. I always read that the Germans were very good at quickly fixing a type. It didn't take them long to go from getting various types in their litters to having them come out the same. So, they must have hurried up and started breeding relatives in order to do that.
Can you explain better what exactly is genetic drift? I'm almost getting this. LOL.

But the kennel club standards and showing and judging is all there is to go by. You can't have people get wind of all this and start throwing in this breed and that to solve the problem. They'd end up doing it all wrong probably. So, until this is sorted out, they can't start to make a system of going about working the problem....right. (?)

Well, that's very interesting. Tomorrow when I have more time, I'd like to read that link. Thanks for sharing all that. It is something worth researching further.

 

[Doberluv]

OMG...this is so weird. This is, I think the same thing I posted on another forum. I skimmed the very first part of it and rushed to post it, thinking it looked interesting, and thought I'd come back later and read it more thoroughly. I just went back and I see that it is the same stuff. LOL.

 

[Athebeau]

First Doberluv, I want to thank you for taking the time to read the links I provided. I also applude you for at least mulling this over. It's been a topic I have been very interested in for the past few years. I know many purebred breeders used to go to the shows, listened to the true genetic diseases they were plagued with...but, bring up a subject like holistic breeding and you feel like finding something to crawl under...sometimes people who strongly believe that what they are doing is right will hear no other suggestions.

I know it's confusing, and we have been brain washed into believing that the purebred breeders are the be all know all of the dog world. That's not always the case, and from reading that some breed clubs in order to perserve their breeds have been secretely crossbreeding all along in order to get rid of genetic disorders.

Just to give you an idea, any of our current purebred dogs are not "ancient" breeds being perserved...can you imagine the mess they would be in. By reading Ray Coppingers book you learn how dogs evolved..it started when man started having permanent settlements. The first dogs to evolve were mongrels, by natural selection...man had nothing to do with it. They were scavengers living off human waste.

There were races of dogs somewhat like we humans...and there were many dogs all over the continents which evolved to suit their environment. In the continenent of canada you would have had inuit type dogs...further south the smaller the dogs, high mountain areas Guardian type mastiff races evolved, greyhound and saluki type, further south on the eqator chihauhau type dogs...notice type or race...not purebreed.

We can look at pictures of ancient dogs and see simularities in our current breeds...but, the dogs back then bred by natural selection...and when man did thier migration tours dogs followed and had more of an opportunity to breed with others dogs from hundreds of miles away. So, basically crossbreeding and natural breeding eliminated most inbreedings.

Just to add that there are still natural mongrels all over the world especially in 3rd world countries that are just feral dogs and breeding by means of natural selection. These dogs are very healthy, plus, being in one area the dogs could be mistaken for purebred dogs as they are all uniform in size, shape etc. it's not due to inbreeding, it's due to the dogs having evolved to suit thier environment...for example if I went way up North you have a race of humans called eskimo's...to suit their environment their eyes are slanted and evolved due to natural selection to suit their cold northern life style...this is natural selection...but, all eskimo's have the same eyes, skin tone etc...not because they inbred to achieve this...it is all due to natural selection and what body feature will most help them survive.

The other thing I find interesting is that todays purebred breeding started in the Royal family and in that era when people thought of purebreeding and blue bloods...you would think with our modern technology and education we would know that the purebred breeding programs of that era should have become extinct when they started realizing it wasn't working.

Doberluv, I think you will find the following link to be very interesting. It basically goes over the new holistic breeding program which Dr. Bragg thinks will start taking place within the next 10 years. Now that I heard they had that article in Dogs in Canada...I think we will see this become reality.

http://www.netpets.com/dogs/reference/genetics/bragg5.html

The notion that genetic disease can be controlled, much less eliminated, by screening programs and selection has not been borne out by general experience. Those who promote such a notion are engaging in a cruel, self serving deception. It may be that a breeder can sometimes improve his odds against producing defective stock in a given mating by screening the parents, but experience has proved that screening will not solve our genetic problems in any wider sense. Despite generation after generation of "clear" stock, bloodlines can still produce more and more affected animals. That is because our problems are inherent in the closed studbook/incest breeding system. In order to restore genetic health we shall have to adopt a different system.

 

[BlackDog]

First Doberluv, I want to thank you for taking the time to read the links I provided. I also applude you for at least mulling this over. It's been a topic I have been very interested in for the past few years. I know many purebred breeders used to go to the shows, listened to the true genetic diseases they were plagued with...but, bring up a subject like holistic breeding and you feel like finding something to crawl under...sometimes people who strongly believe that what they are doing is right will hear no other suggestions.

I know it's confusing, and we have been brain washed into believing that the purebred breeders are the be all know all of the dog world. That's not always the case, and from reading that some breed clubs in order to perserve their breeds have been secretely crossbreeding all along in order to get rid of genetic disorders.

Just to give you an idea, any of our current purebred dogs are not "ancient" breeds being perserved...can you imagine the mess they would be in. By reading Ray Coppingers book you learn how dogs evolved..it started when man started having permanent settlements. The first dogs to evolve were mongrels, by natural selection...man had nothing to do with it. They were scavengers living off human waste.

There were races of dogs somewhat like we humans...and there were many dogs all over the continents which evolved to suit their environment. In the continenent of canada you would have had inuit type dogs...further south the smaller the dogs, high mountain areas Guardian type mastiff races evolved, greyhound and saluki type, further south on the eqator chihauhau type dogs...notice type or race...not purebreed.

We can look at pictures of ancient dogs and see simularities in our current breeds...but, the dogs back then bred by natural selection...and when man did thier migration tours dogs followed and had more of an opportunity to breed with others dogs from hundreds of miles away. So, basically crossbreeding and natural breeding eliminated most inbreedings.

Just to add that there are still natural mongrels all over the world especially in 3rd world countries that are just feral dogs and breeding by means of natural selection. These dogs are very healthy, plus, being in one area the dogs could be mistaken for purebred dogs as they are all uniform in size, shape etc. it's not due to inbreeding, it's due to the dogs having evolved to suit thier environment...for example if I went way up North you have a race of humans called eskimo's...to suit their environment their eyes are slanted and evolved due to natural selection to suit their cold northern life style...this is natural selection...but, all eskimo's have the same eyes, skin tone etc...not because they inbred to achieve this...it is all due to natural selection and what body feature will most help them survive.

The other thing I find interesting is that todays purebred breeding started in the Royal family and in that era when people thought of purebreeding and blue bloods...you would think with our modern technology and education we would know that the purebred breeding programs of that era should have become extinct when they started realizing it wasn't working.

Doberluv, I think you will find the following link to be very interesting. It basically goes over the new holistic breeding program which Dr. Bragg thinks will start taking place within the next 10 years. Now that I heard they had that article in Dogs in Canada...I think we will see this become reality.

http://www.netpets.com/dogs/reference/genetics/bragg5.html

We can't replicate what happens in nature. Just throwing in random breeds together doesn't make a dog healthier. A lot people want to believe that mixes are healthier than purebred but you have to consider that most people don't see the mass majority of the mixes with health problems. Why? because they usually die before they end up in shelters. The ones you get to pick from at a shelter are the healthiest of the mix population and there are so many because it represents how many people have been breeding irresponsibly. Yes, you can produce a healthy mix breed dog, but it is far more likely you will produce something less than satisfactory (health or behavoir wise). Unfortunately,most of people the people that are breeding purebreds are no more knowledgable than the ones breeding mixes. This is the reason for the problem with most purebreds, not the limited gene pool. There are simply too many people out there making a quick buck and ruining the purebred name, leaving many dog lover's to turn to the mutt for solitude.

 

[BlackDog]

"It may be that a breeder can sometimes improve his odds against producing defective stock in a given mating by screening the parents, but experience has proved that screening will not solve our genetic problems in any wider sense."

Responsible breeders don't bred dogs with defects in their background. They only choose dogs of good health. Unfortunately, there aren't many responsible breeders around to the above senario is true for most breeders.

"Despite generation after generation of "clear" stock, bloodlines can still produce more and more affected animals."

If the stock is clear generation after generation where are the affected animals coming from?

"That is because our problems are inherent in the closed studbook/incest breeding system."

No, it's because of irresponsible breeding. It's caused by people who don't know what they are doing throwing their two dogs together to produce puppies.

 

[Fran27]

Blackdog has a point... I also think it's bad breeding that has developped all those problems, over the years. But for the sake of the agreement, let's say people try to reintroduce new blood by inter breeding dogs again now, to make them healthier... How will they know that the breeds will be healthier?

Let's take newfs. Let's say breeders decide to breed them with a Bermese Mountain Dog to get new blood in the lines. First, how many unwanted puppies will have to be bred this way before we get close to the newfoundland standard again? Second, if HD can always appear in newfs even if they have 3 generations of dogs with perfect hips, how can you know that it's not the same problem with the Bermese Mountain Dog and that you won't just get BMD/newf mixes with terrible hips?

Frankly, I'm not sure the situation is 'fixable' without losing the breed standards in the first place. I do like the idea of breeding very healthy mutts, but it takes us again to the good old argument of why breeding more mutts when so many are dying in shelters?

That type of breeding would be ok for working dogs, in my opinion, but that's it. For companionship, it's pretty obvious that something needs to be done about the surpopulation before adding more dogs because of 'research'.

 

[Doberluv]

Responsible breeders don't bred dogs with defects in their background. They only choose dogs of good health. Unfortunately, there aren't many responsible breeders around to the above senario is true for most breeders.

Did you read all that which Athebeau posted? All of it, the links? Don't you see? It doesn't matter if health dogs, free of any genetic defect are bred and only those healthy dogs are bred. That won't erradicate defects from showing up at some point. The very nature of breeding relatives from a small gene pool precludes these defects. It is, in itself what causes mutation in the genes. (well...I don't know if you call it mutation, but it causes genetic drift. (?) Do I have that right? Clear, healthy dogs who have common relatives as ancestors, bred over and over, within those lines is what causes the genetic defects. So it doesn't matter if they use dogs clear of defects or not. Redundancy creates defects in genes. Breeding dogs with defects is not the only thing which makes more dogs with defects.

That link IS exactly the one I stumbled across when I was curious about something and that's the one I posted on the other board. LOL. I'm still wading through it and the links which shoot off of it. Thanks.

 

[Fran27]

The thing is, what did people expect? Did they really think they could inbreed dogs with their parents/sibblings/whatever and not have any consequences? When you think of it, it's just so sad that people's folly is making so many dogs suffer nowadays. As far as I'm concerned, it would be better off to stop making purebred dogs altogether.

 

[Doberluv]

The various purebred dogs have and still do serve very important purposes. If they were all mixed up, we'd lose the wonderful services these dogs provide. Hunting dogs, tracking dogs, vermin hunting terriers might not be as proficient at what they do. Those little dogs probably wouldn't be small enough to do their job. Protection dogs might lose some of their ability, due to a melding of temperaments. They wouldn't be as "ferocious." Or they might lose their agility and strength. The creation of these specific traits has served mankind and that would be a shame to lose that. IMO.

I am only getting a glimpse of this whole thing, but I'd like to learn more about it. I have yet to read all of that link. But there has to be a way to breed dogs, still have those individual breeds, but avoid some of these defects in genes. There has to be a way.

 

[BlackDog]

It doesn't matter if health dogs, free of any genetic defect are bred and only those healthy dogs are bred. That won't erradicate defects from showing up at some point. The very nature of breeding relatives from a small gene pool precludes these defects.

Yes, you got that right. There will always be something that pops up because natural mutations. That's just how genetics work. But, a good breeder is one that will work with knowing that that will happen because its just apart of nature. They will do the best they can to free their line of genetic defects through testing and knowledge of each generation of dog before there's and how that comes into play with the future generations. Most of the problems purebreds have aren't created by genetic mutation within a small gene pool. They are created my irresponsible breeders. I agree, there is only so much anyone can do to keep dogs free of any possible defect. There is a limit, but that limit is determined by nature. Natural mutations do occur even in the best breeders line. The difference is, a good breeder works with nature, knowing that something will pop up, and getting out of their line as quickly as possible. A irresponsible breeder won't do anything. A responsible breeder has far less problems than a irresponsible one. In nature, mutations pop up and natural selection works itself out, until another one comes. With breeders it is the breeders responsiblity to get the bad trait out as it would have been done in nature.

The very nature of breeding relatives from a small gene pool precludes these defects.

It can, if you don't watch the traits that are going together. But the same can be said with a large gene pool. You can avoid most problems when you know the genetic background of their sire, dam, their relatives, and how they will come together. Increasing gene pool only does not garrentee a healthier dog.

Clear, healthy dogs who have common relatives as ancestors, bred over and over, within those lines is what causes the genetic defects.

What you are taking about sounds more like inbreeding. Where close relatives are bred. If you do nothing but breed close relatives over and over, than yeah, that does create problems. But good breeders mostly do line breeding. Where some of the dogs are distant relatives but not closely enough related to create problems from inbreeding. When they need new blood they may import a dog from another state, or even country, that fulfilled the demand they need. That's out crossing. But they don't need to go so far as to bring in a whole new breed into the gene pool just to get genetic variation and avoid problem.

On the contrary, this is what creates new ones. When you mix two different breeds, you are throwing all these new genes together that haven't beed together before. You don't know how they will line up. It can bring out the best of both breeds or the worse. More often, it brings out the worst because the whole reason you are breeding those two together is to improve both,or one of the breeds, as you stated. You agknowledge that they had something wrong with them to begin with that needed improving so how could throwing another breed with it that needs improving fix the problem? It makes it worse.

But that's assuming that there are no healthy, and mentally sound, purebred dogs today. I personally don't believe it. There are dogs around today that follow their given standards. But not nearly enough. The real problem we are facing is educating people on ways to improve the breed. For every BYB and pet store that sells a puppy the good breeders are set back a step and more people are getting frusterated, claiming all purebreds to be defective, and thinking mutts are the only solution.

 

[Doberluv]

The difference is, a good breeder works with nature, knowing that something will pop up, and getting out of their line as quickly as possible.

Well, from what I've gathered from reading a little bit of that link, certainly have miles to go before I sleep, (lol) is that good breeder or not, they can't get it out of the lines because they're working with the same gene pool. Now, I understand about inbreeding vs. line breeding, but apparently it's still too close. There's not enough diversity in spite of spreading genes around from non-direct relatives. The gene pool is small in most breeds, regardless of whether they're closely related or not and that's what is causing this phenomenon with the genes.

But I really cannot discuss this intelligently because I'm not very well informed....YET. LOL. I'll let Athebeau take it from here. LOL.

 

[Athebeau]

Doberluv, I am so glad I have someone I can discuss this with...it's such a relief. You explain this therory much better than I do...you said every thing I wanted to say...but you make sense

I think we will be seeing a huge difference in how dogs are being bred in the near future. I also think we will see the CKC opening up the stud books...I think people will be surprised at how much sense this breeding makes when they understand it more.