Things you think are 'wrong' with wolfy type crosses/new 'breeds'? Discussions

Efes was concerned enough to ask about his own dog, I actually think he is very concerned just looking for all the back up to confirm his thoughts.

Heck no I`m not saying that though for the most part when breeds were originally developed, [ going back hundreds and in some cases thousands of years ], it was`nt about `purebred` but `work` bred.

Going back through the age it`s just how they came out
Nowadays with genetics knowledge breeders can plan to an extent, [ or know pretty much what to expect percentage wise rather than plan I should say, and show breeders perhaps rather than working dog breeders ], a percentage of colourings from matings of whichever colours bred but before things like that became known on a genetic level no they were`nt bred `for` colour or markings but for work ability, and whatever colours came out just `were` and were`nt specifically planned for or against, except white, oft seen as non-suitable for working sheep but some have proven that wrong in terms of the belief behind it that sheep would`nt respect a white working dog, but knowledge being available on the dangers of merle to merle creating deaf white`s should mean no one taking that risk.
At one time many many years ago in the US there was what seemed to be a fad for deliberately breeding white BCs but thankfully that seemed to pet`re out in the main, though annoyingly there has been an increase lately in the US in breeding for white or white predominant Rough Collies, typical of `never mind the health cos don`t they look pretty` mindset

I know this is`nt perhaps something which might seem connected to the topic but really I think it`s very much connected in terms of using available knowledge, something clearly lacking in the originators of the wolfy looking breeds because unless given proof to the contrary I seriously doubt they know/knew a thing about what they were doing in terms of breed development, and the inbreeding made clear on so many pedigree`s, [ and anyone falsifying the pedigree they give to a buyer which shows inbreeding rather than trying to hide it is pretty stoopid ], says to me that they have zero idea about what they have been doing wrong.

Azz asks what we think is 'wrong' with these breeds. He asks people not to post rumours and rubbish.

And actually, if 1% of affected dogs turned out to be from the same line, then I believe it could be significant. Perhaps not the end of the breed, but this sort of thing should be addressed to ensure it doesn't affect the future population.

I'm afraid I can't post statistics as I have no access to reliable information. I have seen pedigrees which, if they are assumed to be correct, which is looking increasingly doubtful, the levels of inbreeding look worrying. I am basing my opinions on what I have read regarding inbreeding and lack of genetic diversity upon health, not tittle tattle.

If you read papers published in decent papers (not just rubbish off some site on the internet) they will all come to the same conclusions on inbreeding and health. This is fact and has been observed in controlled ecpeiments on other species, but obviously, this can't apply to NIs. Lucky them.

I don't know what you're expecting to see? The fact that there are congenital problems at this stage is worrying to me - it may not worry you as you obviously think this amount of inbreeding is sustainable. If you think the breed is doing just fine, so be it, but I'm glad there are people concerned for its future, who are embracing what was said at a recent talk on genetics.

OK.. if you like to base your opinions on numbers of posts on a forum, then that's just great.

Its only 5% of the 73 dogs on this forum.
I actually think 5% is quite high for a new breed, however unless you can gather information from every owner who has a wolfy dog (not just this forum) you will never have a true figure & therefore this percentage you want will just go round in circles.

Well then he should be working out the COI (if that's even possible/reliable with so few dogs on a pedigree) and reading some decent material instead of trying to get figures out of people on a forum to deduce some arbitrary percentage which might, or might not, in his opinion, show that there's some kind of problem. If he thinks people on here are lying or trying to discredit the breed in some way, then why not try and make an appointment with a qualified geneticist and seek a trusted opinion?

I don't know what you're expecting to see? The fact that there are congenital problems at this stage is worrying to me - it may not worry you as you obviously think this amount of inbreeding is sustainable. If you think the breed is doing just fine, so be it, but I'm glad there are people concerned for its future, who are embracing what was said at a recent talk on genetics.[/QUOTE]

Correct me if I'm wrong weren't there members of the NIS at the genetics talk ? this would suggest that they were interested in genetics and health.

I don't really know much about genetics but how is it possible to start a breed without inbreeding?

Nope not what I'm saying. The pedigrees that have been posted have also been called into question because they contain lots of mistakes, wrong parents etc. What I then say if that if this is true, how can those same people use those same pedigrees to prove the in-breeding? They can't have it both ways.

Also I've never said there isn't a problem regarding in-breeding. You've seen how many pedigrees posted on here, and made the conclusion that out of the thousands of dogs, this is a big enough number to indicate "huge quantities" of in-breeding. That's what's B*******s. There are absolutely no facts or evidence to back up uyou r statement, apart from half a dozen pedigrees, that may or may not be right. I wasn't there at conception, but I refuse to be swayed by half a dozen posters on this site that come out with the same old half truths without any being able to point to a cold hard fact.

Oh what brilliant data! Show's over guys - nothing to worry about!

[/QUOTE]Correct me if I'm wrong weren't there members of the NIS at the genetics talk ? this would suggest that they were interested in genetics and health.

I don't really know much about genetics but how is it possible to start a breed without inbreeding?[/QUOTE]

Are you condoning inbreeding then?

And did we ever establish if you are an NI owner - always good to know when we are dealing with facts

So new question - Why are there still so many patchy & curly tail pups being born after 20 years of trying to breed it out?
Why are patchy / curly tailed dogs still used as breeding stock if its something you dont want in the breed?

Correct me if I'm wrong weren't there members of the NIS at the genetics talk ? this would suggest that they were interested in genetics and health.

[/QUOTE]

Yes, Julie Kelham was there but she said the week before she would never attend anything organized by Sandra Curry

I wouldn't know, but if I were to start a breed, I'd be looking to minimise it. The thing is, it's still going on today. To what extent, noone knows as there is so much ambiguity over pedigrees.

I have no idea who was at the talk as I wasn't there I'm afraid. I really hope they are interested in genetics and health, and use the talk as an introduction to their research.

Thank you Dawn, but don't try and put words in my mouth. I'm not some evangelist stating that there's nothing wrong here. I came on this site, read some comment, thought it was worth while to ask some questions of my own breeder and club, plus some others. Not to confirm my thoughts, but to question what had been posted. That's what I do, when someone makes a statement I tend to question it, not accept it blindly.

All I'm doing is just asking those that have made statements such as "huge quantities" massive in-breeding" "massive number of health problems" to actually quantify those statements. What do they actually mean by a massive number? They must have some idea, else they'd say a number, not a massive number.

I'd have thought 5% was low for a new breed. Wouldn't it be expected to have a higher number at the beginning? and then slowly lower as the breed stabilised?

Still nowhere near as high as 40% for King Charles.

He's pedantic, he cant help it.

Yes, Julie Kelham was there but she said the week before she would never attend anything organized by Sandra Curry [/QUOTE]

Relevence?

You cant seriously suggest we go by the figures of forum members dogs

This arguement holds no water for me:?

It is like saying I am fat but they are fatter, which means I am not fat anymore.

Why should I do that. I'm not the one making statements.

Am I being so unreasonable to ask that if someone makes a sweeping statement that they back it up with a fact or two? I'm not accusing anyone of lying.