If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"Mile Sullivan" wrote in message om... That sounds like great advice, Diana. Unfortunately, some of these breeders lie and, short of bringing a lie detector along with me, I can't tell if they're being truthful or not. I guess it's just a matter of waiting and watching. Can't you just ask for a copy of the health cert results as well as pedigree for the litter? That would pretty much cover any issues you might have as far as inbreeding is concerned. -- Emily Carroll Dealing 80s Toys - Rainbow Brite - My Little Pony - More Fluttervale Labradors: www.geocities.com/diamonds_in_her_eyes/dogs/ CPG: www.geocities.com/cyberpetgame/ 4-H Club: www.geocities.com/woofsandwiggles/ --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.532 / Virus Database: 326 - Release Date: 10/27/2003 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Tee, inbreeding/linebreeding is a complicated issue. I know most
breeders are not vets and probably don't have any credintials whatsoever. They are self-proclaimed breeders. I've been researching this inbreeding topic extensively, and most of the people who say there are no ill effects are breeders. Those with the proper credintials, I.E. Vets and Geneticists agree that severe inbreeding will lead to decreased immune systems, reduced vigor, unstable temperament, and a host of other problems. Very careful and selective linebreeding can improve the breed, but I don't believe these self-proclaimed breeders are qualified to do this. So when you say "acceptable", I can't help but wonder just who this practice is acceptable to. Those who only sell under limited registration seem to think they're better than the people who are looking for a high caliber dog. I personally get my dogs fixed, but I'll be damned if someone is going to FORCE me to do it. It's a matter of principle. I would say a kick in the shins would be more appropriate than a pat on the back. "Tee" wrote in message ... Mike, inbreeding or line-breeding in dogs is not only normal but acceptable. When people think of inbreeding they think of human/human where defects are likely to happen. That's not the case with dogs. Many breeders line breed to either try and double up on specific traits they can't find available elsewhere or to keep specific traits out that would come in from outside lines. A breeder who sells on limited registration does so to prevent buyers from breeding the puppies unless they intend to show them and prove that they are worthy (in terms of conformation) to be bred. They're keeping their pups from going to homes where they'll be little more than money-makers, overbred, and under-loved. IMO any breeder who sells on limited registration or s/n contracts should be given a large pat on the back for doing something to help decrease the number of unwanted pets in the world. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
You're a classic example of what I'm talking about. This big brother
(or in your case Big Sister attitude of co-ownership is ludicrous. Anyone who would sign such a contract is gullible and naive. It just opens the door for some deranged breeder to decide she wants her dog back and go after some unsuspecting, responsible dog owner for no good reason at all. You folks are a scary bunch. It's unfortunate that canine world has been reduced to this. This is why these popular breeds are being bred out of existance and people are being forced to make a crap shoot and just buy from a pet store. Thanks to people like you, the pet stores do a thriving business! "Andrea" wrote in message ... "Mile Sullivan" wrote in message m... I personally know two breeders who severely inbreed their dogs and then sell them. They actually will take a female from the litter, breed her with her father Not /necessarily/ a horrible thing to do, mind you, provided it is done by someone with the knowledge of the line, their dogs, proper health testing, etc. It may also vary from breed to breed in terms of its acceptibility. Linebreeding, (a step out from what is commonly called inbreeding in dogs eg father/daughter, brother/sister, etc) is very common and often preferred. until she can't produce any longer, Ugh. and then repeat the cycle with the next litter. Ugh, ugh, ugh. What really gets me is that some (I said SOME not ALL) of these breeders are the same ones who try to force the AKC "limited" registration or produce ridiculous contracts preventing you from breeding your own dogs. This is a GOOD thing. Sorry, no sympathy from me. I would be suspect of any breeder who didn't. Any non-show pup from me goes out this way. Heck, my show pups go out with a contract and a co-ownership. I believe this is a way for them to stem competition from new breeders rather than their "holier than thou" attitude of claiming it's to prevent irresponsible breeding. Well, your welcome to your opinion. You might be right in some cases. Your characterization of responsible breeders doesn't work in your favor here. The reason doesn't matter, because less dogs is a good thing. There is no need for the average pet owner to breed a dog, ~especially~ if it's from the folks described above, assuming you've done so accurately. You can't have it both ways here. If you think there's a problem with their breeding practices, why would you want to breed the offsping? This is a GOOD thing. If you are interested in becoming involved with purebred dogs, you intend to show/work your dogs and health screen, most breeders are more than happy to work with you. But you have to be willing to show your dedication and sincerity. Joe Blow pet owner has neither the desire to dedicate the time to learn what is needed to breed dogs well, nor is he usually equiped with it at the outset. Such a person should not be breeding dogs. Period. Even more amazing is that these same inbred dogs are AKC registered! Why is that amazing? If they are purebred, and correctly registered, then why should the registry not accept them? I know this guy quite well and believe he really does breed a high caliber lab. (His litters are not frequent and he has a long waiting list so I'm not going to give out his name in case you wanted to ask) That's just stupid. You should /promote/ good breeders. My question is: Is there any way to tell if a puppy has been inbred The pedigree. or overbred? Get a sire or dam report from the AKC. Assuming you mean bred many times by "overbred". Could this be used to tell the quality of a breed? Short answer: No. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Mile Sullivan wrote: Tee, inbreeding/linebreeding is a complicated issue. I know most breeders are not vets and probably don't have any credintials whatsoever. They are self-proclaimed breeders. I've been researching this inbreeding topic extensively, and most of the people who say there are no ill effects are breeders. Those with the proper credintials, I.E. Vets and Geneticists agree that severe inbreeding will lead to decreased immune systems, reduced vigor, unstable temperament, and a host of other problems. Very careful and selective linebreeding can improve the breed, but I don't believe these self-proclaimed breeders are qualified to do this. Hmmmmm. YOu haven't done enough research. There are actually very few veterinarians who know enough about the topic to pose an opinion. Many breeders ARE far more educated on this subject than most veterinarians, ,who may have had genetics for a semester at most, when the breeder may have decades of actual hands-on experience and expertise. One veterinary expert who did study canine genetics was the late John Armstrong, who advocated outcrossing and ran a list called cangen-l about canine genetics and the issues with in/line breeding. However, of equal stature is George Padgett, DVM, author of Control of Canine Genetic Disease, and he is not anti line/inbreeding. Lately, there's been some work that suggests that selective inbreeding within a population may be the way to go. For instance, a particular related line of dogs within a breed may have excellent hip scores. If outcrossed with no thought to anything but outcrossing, they may lose those excellent hip scores. However, say those dogs also have a fair amount of cancer, but another line within the breed has little cancer but could use improvement on hip scores. Crossing those two inbred lines may result in an overall improvement in the breed. OTOH it may also result in dysplastic dogs with hip dysplasia. This isn't a simple subject. YOu can't make any broad statements. Line and inbreeding can be wonderful tools. So can outcrossing. But for any breeding scheme to work breeders must understand the strengths and weaknesses not only of their own dogs, but of their ancestors. They must test, they must be honest. I know a good number of "inbred" dogs who have lived very long, healthy lives. I happen to own an "outcrossed" dog at the moment who is also extremely healthy and who is from a line of dogs who lived well past the average in my breed. No easy answers. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Mile Sullivan wrote:
Tee, inbreeding/linebreeding is a complicated issue. Some aspects are, but most aren't. I know most breeders are not vets and probably don't have any credintials whatsoever. They are self-proclaimed breeders. "self-proclaimed"? Nonsense. I've been researching this inbreeding topic extensively, and most of the people who say there are no ill effects are breeders. Those with the proper credintials, I.E. Vets and Geneticists Vets generally aren't geneticists, and know no more about genetics than any other well-informed layperson. That's still reams more than the know-nothing contingent. agree that severe inbreeding will lead No, dear. MAY lead. Nothing's sure but death and taxes. snipI personally get my dogs fixed, but I'll be damned if someone is going to FORCE me to do it. It's a matter of principle. You probably look funny, being noseless and all. -- Mary H. and the Ames National Zoo: Regis, Sam-I-Am, Noah (1992-2001), Ranger, Duke, felines, and finches |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"Mile Sullivan" wrote
snip Thanks to people like you, the pet stores do a thriving business! If no one bought dogs from them, they would not be in business. Blame the folks who are part of the cycle - the millers and their buyers. The fact that you're most concerned about is the contract, and LR and spay/neuter is very telling. It's one thing not to want to buy a dog on a co-ownership, but quite another to fail to see the value in spay/neuter contracts. I'm curious - would you buy a puppy that was already altered if it was offered on full ownership? -- -Andrea Stone Saorsa Basenjis http://home1.gte.net/res0s12z/ The Trolls Nest - greenmen, goblins & gargoyle wall art www.trollsnest.com |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"Mile Sullivan" wrote in message om... You folks are a scary bunch. It's unfortunate that canine world has been reduced to this. This is why these popular breeds are being bred out of existance Its clearly a waste of time to argue logically with you, so I won't bother, but I'd love some clarification of the above sentence. How exactly can popular breeds be bred out of existance? That is oxymoronic. Christy |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|