A book I've been skimming through-"The Bond" by Wayne Pacelle is interesting. Some of the things like the horrors of the meat industry I knew about already. I also take what he writes with a grain of salt. I'm still offended by him exonerating Vick. I'm not even bothering with THAT chapter. But I was curious about the breeding chapter. I've only been a dog person for a decade so I still learn something new every day. When he writes about purebreeds he talks about how inbreeding makes for the breed specifications but also messes up the health of the dogs. The he adds that bad breeders can find more loopholes than the NRA to support what they do. One story he tells is about a Ridgeback breeder. There were puppies born without the ridge of hair on their backs. The breeder complained that young veterinarians are so unreasonable in such matters. So she had to find an older vet to euthanize the " defective" pups. I'm sure this is just illustrating how extreme bad breeders can go but wow...
Most likely to hide the fact there was a mix. But back up time 25 to 30 years and breeders would just kill them, then dig a hole in the woods. ( Something that still goes on.) Inline breeding with the proper testing can be good, to many don't and it's a train wreck. I would put it around 80% of the so called breeders I see on the internet I would run from. Reviewed a ton when I got Mouse, called several, visited a couple, and took about 6 months time wise.
I wouldn't read anything by that man. There are many positive people out there writing books to read something from an anti pet camp. Which I understand you take it with a grain of salt that's good. I'm not sure what the question is though? As for what was written. Ridgeback breeders usually cull ridgeless pups as they are not to standard or show quality. Most do this by putting them in pet homes. Though some might do lethal culling I don't believe it common place. You will find bad breeders in any breed just as there will always be bad pet owners. Inbreeding doesn't exactly "mess with the health" that's too simple & broad. When you inbreed you are more likely to produce pups that inherit an identical allele from both parents. The COI will tell you the likely probability of this. If this is a simple recessive for a disease that both carry then pups have a 1 in 4 chance of being affected which means about 25% of the litter will have the disease & half be carriers. If it's a polygenic trait then inbreeding over generations could see a higher frequency and possibly more advanced in the disease depending on what disease it is specifically. If it's a dominant trait then it won't matter if you inbreed or even if you cross breed. Using the Ridgebacks the ridge is dominant so if you breed to another breed about half the pups will still have ridges. It works the same with disease. If you breed Mastiff with PRA to another breed about 50% of litter will have it. The big concern I'd see from prolonged inbreeding would be loss of MHC diversity. This would lead to health concerns. But that isn't something that happens in a few generations of an individual breeder kennel. It would lead to the possibility of disease susceptibility and higher cancer rates. What you start with & what degree of inbreeding you do will also determine if you see inbreeding depression or not. You want to keep diversity within a breed it's very important. This is why some breeds are in a dire state now. Due to the founder affect within a breed you can still get recessive disease without inbreeding too. Just because you breed unrelated dogs doesn't mean a litter will be healthy. The same applies to any trait really. There are diseases also spanning breeds or that are common in dogs. LMost I don't know what you mean about a mix. From my understanding they only PTS the ridgeless pups not the whole litter. Many Ridgebacks are NOT homozygous for ridge so they can produce ridgeless pups. What is ironic is that the ridge mutation is what leads to dermoid sinus in some Ridgebacks but the ridgeless were considered "defective" and culled. I'd take a ridgeless Ridgeback any day of the week! I do understand the ridge is a defining trait so I'm not putting down breeders who are breeding them.
From the article "The only way to guarantee that one dog will be exactly like another is by cloning." Not at all. Cloning is proven not to give animals which are exactly alike. Some people have deep pockets so they do it anyway. Due to environment, epigenetics, copy number variation & somatic mutation clones are different than their originals. They can look & behave different just as so called "identical twins" do. They are also less healthy typically than their original & have shorter life spans. Most average pet owners don't have the money to clone but for anyone considering it they need to realize they won't get a carbon copy. I fully agree people shouldn't breed to get another dog like their own either. I also hate it when they say their friend or family said their dog is the best "whatever breed" they've every seen. Right, that means nothing at all too me. I remember also a lady saying her dog has the best temperament; she wanted to breed him yet contradicted herself saying he's nervous & skittish dog. I'm not confident in a lot of what people claim. ETD I forgot to say in my original reply I remember reading something by a Ridgeback breeder who's mother had also been a breeder. She used to drown the pups with white socks. So yes people will do cruel things for a senseless, trivial reason. Less breeders employ lethal culling these days however unless it is for a serious health reason. Most are going to sell to pet homes where they are spayed or neutered.
@Bulldogs4Life It was a general statement as to, many times to hide the chance of any mixing they will PTS any pups who are not correct. It was not about the case of the Ridgebacks. Yes many more breeders do the spay or neuter contracts with pups who are pet quality only, but in cases like EM bitches who throw pups who have to much white or are fluffies, many of those are PTS.
Oh I thought you were talking about RR. Are you saying you know EM breeders today who PTS white marked or fluffy pups? Wouldn't anyone be interested in such pet quality animals. More white is many times going to happen in a breed with any white at all, I think it is a very trivial matter. Did EM historically have more white?
I don't know beans about breeding but I guess my original post addresses the concept of breeders putting down a mutt litter because they aren't up to standard? I mean WTF these are living puppies. Nope I don't understand.
I don't think it was mutts & I don't believe most breeders do that anymore. At least not in the US. But I guess you would be surprised if you are not familiar with culling. In the old days it used to happen more often in a lot of breeds for non sense. While people had pets for some their wasn't a huge concept of pet quality. Or as you say mention "mutts" since people might not have understood genetics of certain traits, even if they the litter was pure they might not have wanted others to believe they had "mutts" & thought a trait was associated with mix breeding even if it wasn't. Still others sought perfection and didn't want the imperfection known. There are probably a number of other reasons. It really can cause a loss of genes (even with spay & neuter) when their are strict, trivial standards that people become obsessed with. Then further when they breed to a new trend & breeds are split as well. While you might not understand you have to look at many things which people did over the years slavery, child labor, a time when domestic violence was legal, ect (and of course all the bad things still go on even with laws). With the things humans do to each other it's not shocking what they are capable of doing to animals.
Sad that in the same vein...my Mom used to relate how when she was a little girl every Spring she was allowed to get a cat. And every Fall that cat would just run off. My grandfather had a handgun and my grandparents didn't really want a cat in the house. Finally there was a cat named Nippy who didn't "disappear" like the rest. My grandmother apparently found a soft spot for Nippy. Guess that's just the way it was in those days.
As someone who's well past their sell by date I can remember as a young child it was common practice to cull puppies of unwanted litters. Very few dogs were spayed or neutered, including our own Lab x Staffie. I well remember her giving birth to 13 puppies of which my father gassed 12, leaving her with just one puppy who was later given to a neighbour. I now live in a small village in rural Hungary and during the 8 years I've seen many dogs come and go Very few have died from old age, from natural causes or have been sent to rescues, but having spoken to various people, I know for a fact that any dog with behavioural issues, or deemed not fit for purpose, or are products of accidental litters are PTS. I've owned pure bred dogs for many years, but just recently I have to admit I get the hell in with people who have little or no understanding of genetics and label all pure bred dogs as "mutants". Before I bought Georgina, my second Shar-Pei, I spent months searching for a suitable breeder as I particularly wanted a puppy that only had a Central/Eastern European bloodline Georgie comes from 5 generations of Russian, Serbian and Hungarian Pei and is FCI, MEAO registered. At 4 months old she developed entropion which in her case was severe and to cut a long story short took 4 tackings and 5 months to restore her sight from 5% to about 70%. At 13 months old she had a 5th and final operation which restored her sight to !00%. Being a responsible owner and fully aware she carries a genetic defect she has been spayed despite being otherwise healthy. The biggest mistake I (unwittingly) made was to post on another forum, details about Georgie's entropion, explaining it was caused by an autosomal recessive gene. Whilst the majority of responses were sympathetic, one person took it upon themselves to give me a lecture about how entropion is entirely due to poor breeding, and how "unhealthy" breeds like Pei, Pugs, Bulldogs to name a few, should be allowed to die out. The fact that their own dog, a cross breed, suffers from hip dysplasia which is also a genetic trait appears to have been conveniently overlooked. To me this is an example of "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing" especially for anyone one.who has a prejudice against owners of pure bred dogs. Genetics is a complex subject as yet little understood about how genes not only affects the health and looks of a dog but also governs other traits such as behaviour and nutrition. One of the beauties of owning a pure bred is that you have well defined parameters to work with, and if you've done your homework properly you know what to expect both good and bad which you don't have with a "mutt". P.S I've just re-read what I've written and apologise in advance if it comes over as a rant!
