PennHIP result

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

Norman I get the impression that you conclude that this study about foxes is absolute proof of your contention that working aptitude in dogs is genetically determined, and that we all should accept the conclusions without question?

Am I right?

Shaun

[nepstein]

Shaun wrote:

Norman I get the impression that you conclude that this study about foxes is absolute proof of your contention that working aptitude in dogs is genetically determined, and that we all should accept the conclusions without question?

Am I right?

No you are wrong and I find you question bizarre given all of the ancillary information I have earlier provided on whether selection can change behavior such as working ability, which is the subject of our debate. You must be aware that I have constantly quoted from professionals in the field, offered sites from geneticists working dog breeders and handlers confirming that fact, not the contention, that selection is required to maintain an exaggerated trait such as retrieving, detection, protection, hunting, setting herding, tending or any trait that has been selected for man’s needs. Once any trait/behavior or traits/behaviors have been selected they can only be MAINTAINED through aggressive breeding to another like example on an ongoing basis. Ongoing means not every once and a while but every breeding i.e., a working breeding. Regarding the affects of selection via a study, no one should accept any one study as an absolute proof of anything unless like results can be replicated many times by other scientists, as the facts have in this instance. Now you may not find it supportive of my position that a group of scientist in 40 years, by selecting just for the trait of biddability changed the behavior of a fox, into the behavior of a dog, but I do. Given your question I can only conclude that you have not read the evidence I have offered, because if you had read them, we wouldn’t be having this debate. I brought up the fox study knowing that many in this group believe as you do that traits/behaviors are hardwired in a breed thus can’t be altered by selection e.g., all Labrador’s will retrieve with the same drive because they once did. Even the best trainer can’t train for nerve, better temperament, courage and work ethic if, because of selection, they are absent or represent a shred of what they once were. Please, anyone explain to me why the AKC show GSD, selected first, and most times only, because it mirrored a standard, is now for the most part, weak of nerve, weak of temperament, has little if any work ethic and has, for all intent and purpose, lost the ability to perform its function, literally walks on its hocks, is very different in phenotype and genotype than the working GSD, selected because of its ability, working conformation and working temperament. Does anyone really believe that these show GSD's can be resurrected by better training? Or believe selection had nothing to do with these changes that occurred within the same breed with almost the identical standard? From the now famous paper,

Rossettes to Ruin:

“Irish Setters, once famed at finding birds, are now so brain-befogged they can no longer find the front door. Cocker Spaniels, once terrific pocket-sized birds dogs, have been reduced to poodle-coated mops incapable of working their way through a field or fence row (and is today the most feared breed by vet techs, while the working Cocker Spaniel is today in England an active hunter and a sound companion) . Fox terriers are now so large they cannot go down a fox hole. Saint Bernard, once proud pulling dogs, is now so riddled with hip dysplasia that it's hard to find one that can walk without surgery in old age”.

That the Bulldog was once so agile and courageous that it was used for bull bating but because of selection for showing it now can barely walk in the sun for more than two or three block, can’t give birth on its own and needs surgery to breathe properly and now the term courage is never used in describing this breed. Are you saying that these changes are the result of just bad luck? That approximately 8% of all Dalmatians are born completely deaf (bilaterally deaf); another 22% is deaf in one ear (unilaterally deaf or unilaterally hearing). That translates into 30 % of Dalmatians are born with some type of hearing defect. Why? I guess some more bad luck or maybe genetics had something to do with it.

Regarding selection affecting function:

Former AKC President Kenneth Marden has acknowledged the role of the show ring in killing off working breeds when he wrote: "We [the AKC] have gotten away from what dogs were originally bred for. In some cases we have paid so much attention to form that we have lost the use of the dog." What he was saying was we SELECTED for form over function and because of that, lost function because of our selection process. If selection had nothing to do with this unfortunate outcome why do you believe the past president of the AKC said such a thing after he left office? Could it be that he is now finally thinking of the breed instead of the breeder. Does anyone really believe all of these changes came about because of some genetic fluke and had nothing to do with selection and will right itself, if just give it enough time. The sad thing is, because of the mountain of evidence that has already proven that selection defines traits, that this is still the subject of debate. I could go on with many more examples but don’t want to be accused again of being boring. I of course realize why show breeders don’t want to accept the above, because if they did those same breeders would then have to come to grips with the fact, that there selection process is ruining our pure breeds. Or they can continue looking a their moon made of green cheese. Regards Norman

[buliebuse]

Norman dearest
You are not boring - just long winded sometimes.LOL.
I personally think that over here in the UK that I do not want the KC to register the breed. There are alot of people on this board who would disagree with me - that is fine .If everyone thought the same we would all want to marry the same person etc & there would then be a small gene pool to work on.
I am certainly no expert - but if you breed from 2 'aggressive' dogs I don't think it necessarily means the pups will also be that way inclined.
Regards
Ju

[nepstein]

Ju, that’s interesting but that is not the thrust of this debate. The argument is, do you believe as I do, that a behavior can be changed by man’s selection or do you agree with Shaun that a behavior can’t be change. If you agree with Shaun then what facts can you offer, other than your opinion of the results of two breedings, that will counter what scientist, geneticists, and breeding history has long ago proven, that by selection behaviors can be changed.

That wasn’t so long was it. (g) Regards Norman

[buliebuse]

Norman dearest
I agree with neither.
Nature/nurture springs to mind.If you have a prospective puppy owner who comes to you with badly behaved children - why would you expect the puppy to turn out any differently?
I do naively believe that circumstances & upbringing etc has alot to do with problems that may arise
Regards
JU ;D
PS impressed by the short response - I think mine is now longer!

[mayahund]

Jun 12, 2008 12:29:31 GMT nepstein said:

The argument is, do you believe as I do, that a behavior can be changed by man’s selection or do you agree with Shaun that a behavior can’t be change. Regards Norman

Hi Norman!
Haven't followed the debate closely but now you struck my nerve ;D
I have (in my own head) an ever ongoing dialogue regarding genes versus environment.

What is the "cause" of one thing and can it be changed/turn out differently because of different environment? With environment I'm thinking; the level of energy in the family the dog comes to live, the amount of engagement, social/environment training/no such training, excersice/no excersice versus just staying/guarding on the farm.

Well, I've tried to zoom in on this regarding my own bb's and found that it's not that easy to just say one or another! As you know I try to find the limits for what a bb can do (in other things than protection work(which might come!)) and my dogs keep on amazing me.

But to reach a conclusion, which I really don't feel I have reached just yet, I do so far believe that we owners have a huge impact on especially the bb's compared to many other breeds.
Ewa

Just to clarify myself, I do not think a "bad" (nervous, unstable etc) dog can ever get better however much you train/work.

But if you have a pretty descent set of genes to start off with then the environment is also equally important in forming the dog.

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

Hello Norman "No you are wrong"

May I ask why you used that particular study as an example and what the study means to you, what conclusions do you draw from it?

Regards
Shaun

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

"Rossettes to Ruin:"
"Irish Setters, once famed at finding birds, are now so brain-befogged they can no longer find the front door."
What all of them? Where is the proof?
All of these comments by this author sound like propaganda to me. Where is the proof?

"Are you saying that these changes are the result of just bad luck?"
No, but I am not saying that just because some things are genetically determined, all things are.

Generalising about problems and their causes mean nothing to me, they are just generalisations and I understand them as that, they hold nothing usefull to me.


Shaun

[nepstein]

Ewa always good to hear from you and suggest you read the entire debate. You used the following quote of mine to begin your reply:

The argument is, do you believe as I do, that a behavior can be changed by man’s selection or do you agree with Shaun that a behavior can’t be change. and then continued as to why you correctly believe that how a dog is raised can make a difference.

Let me clarify, the argument at hand. It is no so much about genes vs. environment but how those deleterious genes came into being i.e., selection as I believe or happenstance as Shaun believes . Ewa you and I both are in agreement that husbandry can make a difference for the better, but correct husbandry, with discipline, boundaries and limitations playing a major role in how a dog is raised. Some consider a dog sleeping in your bed, eating at your table, being comforted during stress, over feeding, correct husbandry but unlimited love may result in a poor environment that will in time confuse the dog as to its boundaries and limitations, and if continued can produce an unbalanced dog. Regards Norman

[nepstein]

Norman wrote:

"Are you saying that these changes are the result of just bad luck?"

Shaun replied:

No, but I am not saying that just because some things are genetically determined, all things are

Your above begs the following question, and your answer would be very helpful in understanding your position. What changes in a dog, are genetically determined and what changes are not genetically determined? Or do you think natural selection i.e., evolution, is just propaganda. Moreover it would be very helpful and unusual if you could provide some proof, and not just your opinion, as to what behaviors in a Boerboel are hardwired and therefore not subject to selection, and which are, as this is the crux of our argument. Regards Norman

[buliebuse]

Now then you 2 guys am getting confused (easily done)
I do not believe that all behavior/looks are genetic.
Take myself for instance, I am a true ginger , but this has come from great,great grandparents from both sides.No one else in the family tree has the same disability. LOL.Hoping if I let my children 'mate' they will have gingers.!
I cannot fault Ewa at all - both her dogs Chili & Mubi whom I met last year were absolutely brilliant - have not as yet met the wee man.
Regards
Ju

[nepstein]

Ewa regarding environment, I thought a more definitive definition may be in order.

From John Armstrong "Before moving on to a more detailed discussion of genetics, I would like to take a brief look at what is meant by "environment", in the present context. For a puppy, the first environment it encounters is that of the mother's womb. Is the mother well nourished, healthy, and free from stress? How old is she? Is this her first litter? How big is the litter? Once the puppy is born, it experiences a new environment where it has to compete for food and attention. Litter size is still a factor. How much food does the puppy get? How much attention does it get from the mother, the breeder, and the eventual owner? Does it have a safe and healthy environment? Does it have other dogs to associate with? Etc., etc."

Therefore environment is not just what the dog experiences in the home but what the dog experiences beginning in the womb. Norman

[nepstein]

Ju wrote in part:

I do not believe that all behavior/looks are genetic.

So IYO which ones are not genetic. From John B Armstrong geneticists:

"What traits (or characteristics) are inherited?

The answer is almost all -- from temperament to size and coloring, as well as genetic diseases like PRA. (Infectious diseases are not, though the susceptibility to them may be to a greater or lesser extent.)

Regards Norman

[nepstein]

Shaun wrote:
May I ask why you used that particular study as an example and what the study means to you, what conclusions do you draw from it?

Previously asked and answered but in an effort to be accommodating, this from my reply #61 yesterday which I have paraphrased below.

“Regarding the affects of selection via a study, no one should accept any one study as an absolute proof of anything unless like results can be replicated many times by other scientists, as the facts have in this instance. Now you may not find it supportive of my position which is (that by selection, behaviors can be altered) that in 40 years a group of scientist, by *selecting* just for the trait of biddability changed the behavior of a large number of silver foxes, which are very aggressive towards man, into a fox mirroring the behavior of a dog that requires human contact, but I do.” [/i]

However In an effort to be more enlightening, another reason I selected that particular study, out of the many available to me that supports my position, that selection can alter a behavior, is because that particular study is easily understood and because there was a video as part of the study, which is even more illustrative of the changes that took place.

Now you are pretty good at asking questions, how about answering some. For example here are a few pointed questions that for some reason you keep avoiding answering.

• What changes in a dog, are genetically determined and what changes are not genetically determined? Or do you think natural selection i.e., evolution, is just propaganda

• Please, anyone( that includes you Shaun) explain to me why the AKC show GSD, selected first, and most times only, because it mirrored a standard, is now for the most part, weak of nerve, weak of temperament, has little if any work ethic and has, for all intent and purpose, lost the ability to perform its function, literally walks on its hocks, is very different in phenotype and genotype than the working GSD, the most used service dog in the world today, selected because of its ability, working conformation and working temperament. Does anyone really believe that these show GSD's can be resurrected by better training? How can anyone sustain the belief that selection had nothing to do with these changes that occurred within the same breed with almost the identical standard?

• Former AKC President Kenneth Marden has acknowledged the role of the show ring in killing off working breeds when he wrote: "We [the AKC] have gotten away from what dogs were originally bred for. In some cases we have paid so much attention to form that we have lost the use of the dog." What he was saying was we SELECTED for form over function and because of that, lost function because of our selection process. If selection had nothing to do with this unfortunate outcome why do you believe the past president of the AKC said such a thing after he left office? Could it be that he is now finally thinking of the breed instead of the breeder? Does anyone (that includes you Shaun) really believe all of these changes came about because of some genetic fluke and had nothing to do with selection and these poor show cripples will right themselves, if just given enough time.

• If not by selection, how do you think a trait or behavior came to be?

• Please name me one dog breed that has maintained its viability by selecting breed stock because it mirrored a standard i.e., show breeding.

• If selection is not at work then why don’t serious working trainers and or handlers want to breed their performance dogs with a show dog selected first because it mirrored a standard? And why don't serious breeders who select breed stock for showing want to breed their show dogs to a working dog.

• If selection is not relevant then why is there a split between the working communities and show communities of almost all performance dogs?

Understand these have all been asked before. So to borrow a phrase, it gets a bit boring, to ask you pointed questions with little or no response. Try answering these as your answers would go a long way in validating your position that selection play little or no part in behaviors. Regards Norman

[mayahund]

Jun 13, 2008 16:50:03 GMT nepstein said:

Ewa regarding environment, I thought a more definitive definition may be in order.

From John Armstrong "Before moving on to a more detailed discussion of genetics, I would like to take a brief look at what is meant by "environment", in the present context. For a puppy, the first environment it encounters is that of the mother's womb. Is the mother well nourished, healthy, and free from stress? How old is she? Is this her first litter? How big is the litter? Once the puppy is born, it experiences a new environment where it has to compete for food and attention. Litter size is still a factor. How much food does the puppy get? How much attention does it get from the mother, the breeder, and the eventual owner? Does it have a safe and healthy environment? Does it have other dogs to associate with? Etc., etc."

Therefore environment is not just what the dog experiences in the home but what the dog experiences beginning in the womb. Norman

[mayahund]

Jun 13, 2008 16:50:03 GMT nepstein said:

Ewa regarding environment, I thought a more definitive definition may be in order.

From John Armstrong "Before moving on to a more detailed discussion of genetics, I would like to take a brief look at what is meant by "environment", in the present context. For a puppy, the first environment it encounters is that of the mother's womb. Is the mother well nourished, healthy, and free from stress? How old is she? Is this her first litter? How big is the litter? Once the puppy is born, it experiences a new environment where it has to compete for food and attention. Litter size is still a factor. How much food does the puppy get? How much attention does it get from the mother, the breeder, and the eventual owner? Does it have a safe and healthy environment? Does it have other dogs to associate with? Etc., etc."

Therefore environment is not just what the dog experiences in the home but what the dog experiences beginning in the womb. Norman

I have NEVER objected that. On the contrary, with human babies, they know! So why shouldn't pups!
Ewa

[mayahund]

Jun 13, 2008 15:32:01 GMT buliebuse said:

Now then you 2 guys am getting confused (easily done)
I do not believe that all behavior/looks are genetic.
Take myself for instance, I am a true ginger , but this has come from great,great grandparents from both sides.No one else in the family tree has the same disability. LOL.Hoping if I let my children 'mate' they will have gingers.!
I cannot fault Ewa at all - both her dogs Chili & Mubi whom I met last year were absolutely brilliant - have not as yet met the wee man.
Regards
Ju

[mayahund]

I am having huge problems publishing my thoughts!!!
They show up like not valid...and then half of my reply goes...
Talk to you guys tomorrow
Ewa

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

hello Norman, "Let me clarify, the argument at hand. It is no so much about genes vs. environment but how those deleterious genes came into being i.e., selection as I believe or happenstance as Shaun believes"
All genes come into being by happenstance, no person creates genes, a gene can only be manipulated once it is there. It is true that a gene can be put into a living thing, but that gene was already in another living thing first. In other words no matter how much pressure a breeder puts on his breeding dogs to eliminate a particular trait, it can be rectified.

Mankind cannot create Genes at this time. Niether in the laboratory nor by making a living thing behave in a certain way. Mankind can map the way a gene travels through different generations and then increase or decrease the likelyhood that any particular gene gets passed on in subsequent generations by selective breeding or by transplanting a gene.

In other words, a breeder cannot create a gene and a breeder cannot mathematically destroy a gene either. All a breeder can do knowingly is concentrate a gene or dilute it.
Now anything that is unnaturally concentrated will by the laws of physics have a natural pressure on it to be diluted until it reaches the natural state, likewise anything that is diluted will have the same natural force on it to reach the original concentration.
This is science, in Danish it is called ligevægtsloven, I do not know what it is called in English but it is as follows.
"Ligevægtsloven. For en given reaktion vil der altid være mindst to reaktioner:. En fremadrettet og en tilbagegående. " My translation: "For any given reaction, there will always be 2 reactions:. One forward reaction and one reverse reaction".

All of our lives depend apon this being correct.

"What changes in a dog, are genetically determined and what changes are not genetically determined?"
Norman you come along and hijack a thread that had PennHIP testing as a subject, you make your claims that dog behaviour is genetically manipulated and nor you are asking me to prove which behaviours can be genetically manipulated. This is your arguement, you say that behaviour is genetically manipulated, you prove it. You want me to believe it then you show me that it is right.

I have never proclaimed any knowledge about which features of a dog can be genetically manipulated using the science level we have today and which cannot, This is science at a level that is way over my head, outside my sphere of interest and would be speculation at the same degree as your posts.

"Please, anyone( that includes you Shaun) explain to me why the AKC show GSD, selected first, and most times only, because it mirrored a standard, is now for the most part, weak of nerve, weak of temperament, has little if any work ethic and has, for all intent and purpose, lost the ability to perform its function, literally walks on its hocks, is very different in phenotype and genotype than the working GSD, the most used service dog in the world today, selected because of its ability, working conformation and working temperament."
Although you have several times written posts of similar content about this subject, they all describe a situation as you or others you agree with see it, there is absolutely no proof that your statement is correct, where are all the controlled studies/experiments that prove your case?

"Does anyone (that includes you Shaun) really believe all of these changes came about because of some genetic fluke and had nothing to do with selection and these poor show cripples will right themselves, if just given enough time."
Are you saying that only show dogs are cripples? Will the working dog cripples right themselves too? Is this what you call proof? If it is you have absolutely no chance of convincing me of anything else than the fact that your posts are one sided and are based on emotional manipulation instead of fact.

"If not by selection, how do you think a trait or behavior came to be?" I think that behaviour towards man is just a variant of normal flock behaviour, in other words the dog has adopted man into his flock mentality because at some stage it was in the dog´s interest to do this.
It is my opinion that trouble occurs when man doesn´t know how to react properly in the dog´s way of thinking.

"Please name me one dog breed that has maintained its viability by selecting breed stock because it mirrored a standard i.e., show breeding."
This is an impossible question to answer, I would just as well ask you to name me one breed where all the individuals have lost the ability to do anything.

"If selection is not at work then why don’t serious working trainers and or handlers want to breed their performance dogs with a show dog selected first because it mirrored a standard? And why don't serious breeders who select breed stock for showing want to breed their show dogs to a working dog."

There is no accounting for personal preferences Norman, the fact is that for your statement to carry any weight, you would have to prove that all show breeders always omit working dogs and all working breeders always omit show dogs, and we all know that is not true, what the lunatic fringes do in life has little effect on the vast majority.

" If selection is not relevant then why is there a split between the working communities and show communities of almost all performance dogs?"
The split is there because people that belong to the lunatic fringe put it there. It has nothing to do with genetics. Given any point of view, there will always be people that believe in extremes. The majority of us just keep away from that sort of person.

"Understand these have all been asked before. So to borrow a phrase, it gets a bit boring, to ask you pointed questions with little or no response. Try answering these as your answers would go a long way in validating your position that selection play little or no part in behaviors."
Norman, which questions do you ask that I avoid? If I feel that I am qualified to answer you I do. Make a list for me and I will comment them all after your list.
Shaun

[bakkies]

Jun 13, 2008 16:50:03 GMT nepstein said:

Therefore environment is not just what the dog experiences in the home but what the dog experiences beginning in the womb. Norman

A scientist (Gansloser), working together with the german Boerboel Club made a study about it and came to the comclusion that pups react to stress ect. of their mother in the womb and the hormones released by the mother. You might ask the www.1bcd.de about the results, it was very interesting.

[nepstein]

This article was just published in Dog World. For some it's propaganda for others it's another wake up call. Norman


Fighting for the future of the dog
by Hellmuth Wachtel
12 Jun 2008 09:51


WHY DO WE need to fight for the future of the pedigree dog?
It is because of the deleterious consequences of our present breeding system which urgently needs to be reformed after 150 years as it is severely jeopardising the health and even the survival of dog breeds.
Therefore it must be modified and adapted to the present state of progress in population and molecular genetics.
Formerly dogs were bred for some working task like hunting, herding, watching, tracking and so forth – and perfect health was a foremost requirement.
However, today most dog breeds or the majority of dogs in a breed have lost their original role.
This has brought about degeneration, severe inherited diseases, loss of natural instincts, as well as adaptive efficiency and social and everyday intelligence owing to close breeding (inbreeding and line breeding), giving rise to inbreeding depression and its consequences.
Inbreeding is a developmental stress factor, impairing maintenance of adequate levels of biological functions (homeostasis). The results of this are a decrease in vitality as well as in immunological infection defence, fertility, reproductive and brood care behaviour, intelligence and mental capacities.
Striving to achieve close Standard conformation by close breeding leads to the continuous increase of inbreeding levels owing to heavy use of favourite sires, the seclusion of the breed population from any ingression of genetic diversity from outside and often an extremely small original founding population producing a genetic bottleneck.
The guiding breeding rule up to today was using only dogs with the highest quality level this has meant limiting breeding stock to a very small number of dogs, particularly sires.
Today, as a result, studies of breed populations from the British and American Kennel Clubs show a steady loss of genetic diversity (heterozygosity), so that the highest diversity is now found in breeds which were the last to be recognised, and vice versa.
The earliest recognised breeds showed highest diversity loss and thus greatest genetic endangerment.

Quality rule
So, the ‘best-to best’ quality rule, while giving good results in the short term, has turned out to be disastrous and must be changed.
It inevitably leads to accumulating inbreeding levels accompanied by risk of inherited diseases and finally inbreeding depression which will ultimately endanger the breed.
That corresponds to the warning for dog breeds: “Kennel Club recognition can impair your health.” Indeed, several working dog breeds have strived to escape kennel club recognition in Britain and the US, often in vain (for example, Parson Jack Russell Terriers, Border Collies).
In consequence, expenses for tests on genetic diseases and general medical care are making ownership of purebred dogs less and less affordable and/or acceptable on the part of dog fanciers.
So, today, many dog lovers either prefer a mongrel from a shelter or one of the new ‘designer dogs,’ that is mixed breeds from planned crosses like Labradoodles.
While mongrels are cheap to get, the ‘designer dogs’ are highly priced, often exceeding the price level of purebreds.
These dogs, while certainly not free of inherited or other diseases, are in my opinion on average distinctly less prone to most hereditary diseases and mostly exempt from inbreeding depression, or, in other words, will show heterosis (hybrid vitality).
In addition, in contrast to ‘common’ mongrels, ‘designer dogs’ like Labradoodles (Labrador Retriever x Poodle), Cockapoos and the like are predictable as pups owing to the genetic ‘uniformity rule’ of mix-breed animal conformation in the first generation.
However, this and heterosis gets gradually lost if those mix-breeds are crossed among themselves in the next generation, so in my view only first generation ‘designer dogs’ should be bred and bought, in order to have the full advantage of acceptable uniformity and high heterosis.
However, the foremost contemporary objective of dog breeding should be raising the health of the purebred dog since their health risks keep on increasing.

An illusion
Unfortunately, it seems to be a common belief that veterinary medicine is already on the way to defeating all inherited diseases so pedigree dogs are going to be healthy again and breeding methods could proceed just as before.
This is an illusion, it would mean forgetting that inbreeding depression is just such a terrible foe of the purebred dog but by contrast can often easily be defeated by strictly cutting inbreeding levels.
Sometimes crossing out to a similar breed and back breeding might be necessary and should not be shunned as it was always a common emergency measure to save breeds in dire straits of diversity loss – as so many are today.
Uniformity of Standard conformation has reached a level that selection is sufficient to maintain it. Thus, in my opinion, the following method of breeding is imperative to raise the health standard of purebred dogs to near the level of both kinds of mixbred (mongrel) dogs.
Certainly show ring competition is a legitimate way of evaluating dog’s aesthetic qualities for an ugly dog has little chance in this world, no matter how healthy it may be, and we like attractive dogs since, after all, we want to see that, among other traits, dogs have appealing looks.
But it is ruinous to carry on in the usual way any more. The principal rule of mating the ‘best to the best’ has led to a dangerous situation which must be acted upon so that it can be rectified.
But the only way out of this quandary depends upon the puppy buyer.
The dog breeders are caught in a system of hard competition which inevitably compels them to follow an old outmoded system of showdog breeding.
But no doubt dog lovers wish for another dog: a beautiful dog certainly, but with good health, vital and strong and with high adaptability to our changing environments.
Furthermore they need to be trainable, sociable, long-lived and gifted with good pet qualities.
In conclusion, in addition to the usual requirements dogs destined to compete in the show ring should have low fixed inbreeding coefficients and should have passed some functional performance indicators like endurance or sprint test or other physical tests according to the aptitudes of the breed.
Special sports medicine tests may be also suitable for them.
This means that potential puppy buyers should ask for these tests as basic requirements in order to acquaint the breeding community with the changes needed to the current antiquated and ruinous ways to a method which is ultimately destined to secure a sustained preservation of canine health while maintaining show competition quality without further causing harm.
Due to the laws of economy, the stock of purebred dogs on the market will inevitably be according to the market’s requirements. Producing healthy puppies requires well informed buyers and breeders.
Today, the level of breeders’ education and engagement is often high but market constraints and heavy competition (specifically requiring show traits without insisting on health traits), plus low average knowledge of buyers prevent a change, due to insufficient information levels.
Basically this should be the task of the veterinary medicine profession but sadly engagement in this field is weak, to put it mildly.

Positive trigger
In disease studies inbreeding coefficients are rarely given, and there is just one study on longevity of purebred dogs and inbreeding coefficients.
This study, however, showed that a Standard Poodle with less then 6.25 per cent inbreeding depression showed no longevity difference compared to mongrels.
As far as I know there has never been an information campaign aimed at decreasing inbreeding as an imperative factor for better health although it would be a first step likely to achieve a considerably better health in pedigree dogs.
Hopefully the ‘designer dog’ boom can trigger such a development with decisive and positive benefits for purebreds.The alternative is unthinkable.

[nepstein]

Meike and others I am very interested in hearing what your opinions are regarding my below statement and Shaun's reply.

Norman wrote:

"Please, anyone( that includes you Shaun) explain to me why the AKC show GSD, selected first, and most times only, because it mirrored a standard, is now for the most part, weak of nerve, weak of temperament, has little if any work ethic and has, for all intent and purpose, lost the ability to perform its function, literally walks on its hocks, is very different in phenotype and genotype than the working GSD, the most used service dog in the world today, selected because of its ability, working conformation and working temperament."

Shaun's reply.

Although you have several times written posts of similar content about this subject, they all describe a situation as you or others you agree with see it, there is absolutely no proof that your statement is correct, where are all the controlled studies/experiments that prove your case?

Moreover, do you believe the AKC show GSD and the working GSD under the umbrella of the SV phenotypes are the same and if you believe them to be different do you believe selection has anything to do with these differences. Additionally, IYO do you believe that the AKC/show GSD can perform its work in the same manner and with the same zeal as the working GSD and do you belive selection had anything to do with these differences.

For you information this is what is required for a working GSD in order to get a litter registered with the SV.

For GSDs in Germany, puppies will not be registered unless both parents are/have - registered with the GSD breed club (the only FCI recognized GSD registry in Germany) - passing hip scores using the breed club's hip radiograph scoring system - an approved working title (schutzhund or German-style large flock sheep herding) earned at a breed club sanctioned trial using a breed club working judge
- a conformation rating of "Good" or better earned at a breed club
sanctioned conformation show using a breed club conformation judge - DNA profile on file with the breed club also - sire must be at least 24 months of age - dam must be at least 20 months of age
- linebreedings 2-2 and closer are forbidden - average of both parents' BLUP hip scores must be no higher than a value
that was roughly the breed median when the program started
- AI is forbidden - max. 60 breedings annually for the sire
- stud dog owner must report the mating same day of mating to the breed club - breed club breed warden must inspect the litter within 3 days of birth - litter must be tattoo'd by a breed club breed warden before they are 8 weeks old; tattoo # will be put on registration papers and for positive ID the tattoo is always checked against the registration papers at trials, conformation shows, when taking hip radiographs, etc.- elbow dysplasia screening is for now optional, may become mandatory in the future

This is what is required for a AKC show GSD in order to get a litter register.

Be a paid up member of the AKC You do the math.




Regards Norman

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

Norman, thank you for your information regarding GSDs, perhaps you could also include a couple of links to message boards about GSDs so that those that are interested in GSDs can go there and improve their knowledge about that race. If you did that maybe we could keep this board to talk about Boerboels??

Regards

[nepstein]

Shaun I am speaking about the Boerboel, their problems and their future and you could see that if you were not so myopic. The greater part of this debate has been about traits, and whether they can or can not be altered (muted or exaggerated) by disruptive or artificial selection. For reasons I can not understand you seem to believe that traits can only be altered by natural selection and not artificial selection. This is a critical discussion, because how and why traits are altered, defines the future of this breed or any pure breed. The German Shepherd Dog has a 100 year data base the Boerboel does not even have a one year data base. The German Shepherd Dog has a defined show and working community and because of selection, most of us can readily see the differences in each. The Boerboel, for all intent and purpose has only a show community. Can we learn from the German Shepherd Dog's success and failures? I think we can you think we can't. Not that it matters to science, but it for some reason does to you, both the German Shepherd Dog and the Boerboel are in the same family, (Canis lupus familiaris) as such are subjects to the same selective breeding choices and the results of those choices. Moreover you believe that selection, if applicable, only is to a few artificially selected traits but not to all traits. There is absolutely no scientific basis or fact to support that belief, but you persist in the face of another study that has been pretty well accepted, evolution. If that wasn’t enough you then go on to state that even if *some* traits have been altered they will correct themselves by way of the theory of ligevagtsloven, and you were kind enough to give a synopsis of that theory for those of us unfamiliar with it, to wit: "Now anything that is unnaturally concentrated will by the laws of physics have a natural pressure on it to be diluted until it reaches the natural state, likewise anything that is diluted will have the same natural force on it to reach the original concentration. This is science, in Danish it is called ligevægtsloven.” However in you zeal to substantiate your ideas about breeding and selection, you should have considered the following. That this theory regarding deleterious genes might be true if only the pressures were that of natural selection and the defective animals would not be healthy enough to survive and reproduce. That's Darwin and that most certainly is true but this, as we all know, does not apply to dog breeding because pure dog breeding is all about artificial selection, not natural selection. Regards Norman

[bakkies]

Hi Norman,

I am sorry I have no idea how the GSD are registered. I know that we have performance Line papers (Leistungszucht), Show breeding papers (Schönheitszucht) and white papers (GDS which parents have no papers at all).

The performance line dogs like ours are mostly grey or black, they do not have the normal, typical color of GSDs. Dog handlers, authorities and sportsmen only buy from performance bred dogs.

All this selecting has not prevent that the GDS is one of the breeds with the poorest health. It wasn´t uses by the police for years, they bought Malinois instead of GSDs but it seems like the nerves and health of the dogs get better.

Sorry but I am not into breeding of the GSD, I do not like them therefore I have no interest in them. But I can agree with most of the things you write about them Norman.

Regards
Meike

[nepstein]

Mieke appreciate your reply as you have been the only one respond to my question as to whether anyone believes there is no difference between the AKC show GSD and the working GSD. That said I agree with you in that the GSD is one of the breeds with the poorest health, it being understood that maybe 3% of GSDs today are bred for work. The rest are show bred and/or pet bred hence the reason for there poor health. Consider what the founder of the German Shepherd Dog breed said of that breed: "Shepherd dog breeding is working dog breeding, or it is not shepherd dog breeding." That would make something on the order of 97% of dogs today who are "recognized" as GSDs, are not really GSDs. It seems the Malinois is a favorite breed of yours but unfortunately as there popularity increases there health and temperament will decrease. I’m not a betting man but I would bet my house that you, being a working handler, do not use a show Malinois or show anything for your work or in your breedng, and the reason is simple, because of selection they can't or won't.

Regards Norman

[buliebuse]

JHC
Ju

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

Ok, I´ll bite on this subject about GSDs that Norman says is not about GSDs but about Boerboels.

Meike writes "Dog handlers, authorities and sportsmen only buy from performance bred dogs."
In other words the health of these dogs can ONLY be attributed to PERFORMANCE breeders and show breeders are not in the equation.

Furthermore, Meike adds that " All this selecting has not prevent that the GDS is one of the breeds with the poorest health. It wasn´t uses by the police for years,"
If the police did not use it because the performance breeders bred them to have poor health (the police only bought from performance breeders), then it sounds to me like they are no better than the show breeders that Norman seems to blame for everything under the sun.

Now this is definately my last post about the subject of GSDs, or as Norman would have us believe are now called Boerboels. I rest in my conclusion that nothing is proved and that to get a complete dog, it is best to stay away from those that advocate strictly show AND those that advocate strictly work.

For me it doesn´t matter if the dog is out of balance to one side or another, it is still out of balance and both sides give their own set of problems. I want a dog that does the work it is supposed to AND looks like it is supposed to AND is healthy. Settling for anything else is cutting the breed short.





Regards
Shaun

[bakkies]

Jun 16, 2008 18:50:24 GMT nepstein said:

It seems the Malinois is a favorite breed of yours but unfortunately as there popularity increases there health and temperament will decrease. I’m not a betting man but I would bet my house that you, being a working handler, do not use a show Malinois or show anything for your work or in your breedng, and the reason is simple, because of selection they can't or won't.

Hi Norman,

the ammount of GSDs in the german police has increased over the last 2 years. They do not want Malinois anymore because of the same problems you have mentioned above.

I have chosen a breeder who´s main goal is the health of their dogs. I have chosen a breeder that I trust 100% and toled them what I want.

There is no comparison working a Malinois and working a Boerboel, but I am satisfied with the quality. A Boerboel can never be as quick as a Malinois but I like a stable dog who knows what he wants.

We will never win any competitions in VPG or obedience but have won 2 where the temperament and agility was tested.

To make a long story short: Performance breeders may have bad dogs as well as show breeders may have good dogs. If a breeder tests the dogs the chances are bigger to get what you want. If I want performance, then I buy from someone whose dogs are tested and selected but I have no guaranty that the dog will develop like I want it to.

Argg, this is so hard for me to write in english...

[nepstein]

Shaun wrote in part:

Furthermore, Meike adds that " All this selecting has not prevent that the GDS is one of the breeds with the poorest health. It wasn´t uses by the police for years," If the police did not use it because the performance breeders bred them to have poor health (the police only bought from performance breeders), then it sounds to me like they are no better than the show breeders that Norman seems to blame for everything under the sun.

Your above conclusion is not accurate,via Laura Sanborn.

“According to the Breeding Manager of the (London) Metropolian Police K9 unit, 95% of the police patrol dogs in the UK are GSDs, and reports of the demise of the GSD for police work there are greatly exaggerated. The UK differs from North America in using single purpose police dogs... GSDs, malinois, etc. for patrol work (apprehension / bitework), and retrievers & spaniels for scent detection work. In North America, a majority of patrol dogs are dual purpose, certified in both patrol and scent detection work”.

Then as is your want, from the above you then leap to the conclusion that performance breeders are no better than show breeders. That is wrong on so many levels and is obvious to anyone who has bred and then trained each. If what you maintain is accurate then PLEASE provide me the proof, that one pure breed, has maintained its vitality, health and temperament by selecting breed stock for just show breeding and show training (G), and then PLEASE identify that breed. You might recognize the question as I have asked it for over 4 years without an answer. If you can’t then stop with this silliness that show breeders and performance breeders are one in the same and by there selections affect temperament, courage, nerve, biddability, work ethic, mental soundness and correct conformation, equally.

Shaun wrote in part:

I rest in my conclusion that nothing is proved and that to get a complete dog, it is best to stay away from those that advocate strictly show AND those that advocate strictly work.

So you suggest to your minions to stay away from a working breeding i.e., a Boerboel that is a healthy and selected for breeding because they are able to perform their function if called upon. Spoken like a confirmed beauty breeder and because of statements like your above, that has once again been confirmed. Shaun I have learned that there is no golden middle for a correct example of a working breed i.e., a Boerboel. Either they can or they can’t and the only way to create those that can is by breeding only to those that can, on an ongoing basis. Otherwise you will in time get Boerboels of weak temperament that sometimes can or can't. So if you want to suggest to a prospective buyers to first consider those Boerboel's that hopefully sometimes can i.e., a beauty breeding, I suggest we change the verbiage in our beauty breeder's web sites to the following: We breed for a healthy Boerboel that will guard and protect, be a good companion and be of sound temperament, most of the time or maybe not at all. For the record, a breeder who does not test their breed stock by the work of the breed, or in lieu of that rigorously tested by a disinterested third party for ALL the traits assigned to this breed, but does x-ray and breeds primarily to mirror a standard, is a beauty breeder. To suggest that this just described method of selection will maintain any working breed is flies in the face of breeding history. But of course some Boerboel breeders write there own history.

Shaun wrote in part:

I want a dog that does the work it is supposed to AND looks like it is supposed to AND is healthy. Settling for anything else is cutting the breed short.

Well you won't get what you want by breeding towards the golden middle. Why? Because as any working breeder knows in every correct working breeding there is only a small percentage that are correct. The result of breeding two dogs that are in the middle range of correct temperament and work ethic will be even fewer if any correct examples and even fewer the longer you select in this way. Why? Because an exaggerated trait won't stay that way unless it is selected on an ongoing basis. If you disagree, please google "genetic drift" for conformation of this. A conformation breeders should know that because in order to stabilize type they breed tight. If a conformation wants a larger head he or she selects for that trait every time in order to lock in that particular trait. So if that is true in conformation why is it equally true in stabilizing geotypic traits. Regards Norman