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

Thank you

I'm not confident at all in the pedigree. The inbreeding could be worse or it could be better but either way, not knowing for definite the real pedigree, makes breeding a lucky dip. I could pick a bitch that looks like its not related but could end up in fact being very related if you see what I mean. That in itself could be a huge issue.

My boy has no known health problems. Temperament is a whole different issue though.

That is the crux of the problem I think. Everyone seems to agree with this, yet some then go on to make statements such as "massive in-breeding" "massive health problems" and state them as fact. If they were to put the word potential in front of their statements then I don't think I'd have as much of a problem. I'd probably still ask them why they think that tho'.

There seems to be a lot of look my pedigree shows x mating with y that's too much in-breeding. Yet when asked whether their pups/dogs have health problems, the answer seems to be no, in most cases. But he might have!

Info on COI:

http://www.dogstuff.info/playing_coi_sharp.html

Ah you caught me out not updating my profile naughty me! calling me a liar however I feel is a bit on the strong side.

As for not posting until now well thats freedom of choice.

The most successful British kennel ever, Wardrobes Boxers, owned by Constance and Wilson Wiley, followed a program of very close line-breeding and in-breeding. Brother-sister, father-daughter matings gave them many great champions. Of course, the Wileys knew the the faults and virtues of their dogs for generations back and planned matings accordingly. It is only with this great depth of knowledge, and the preparedness to cull, that in-breeding should be undertaken.

The above is from a boxer forum as you mentioned boxers earlier thoght it might be interesting.Allthough I don't condone inbreeding I think this shows its not confined to wolfy type breeds and inbred dogs can be very succesful

I totally disagree with the above statement (highlighted). I wouldn't say the 'vast majority' of these dogs are bred in this way at all.

Excellant comments xx

Thanks for the info, I wonder if someone is going to start a thread on Boxers

I'm a total newbie when it comes to inbreeding and health issues although I have known for manay years that it can cause health problems.
The way I see it is that with one stud dog (with perhaps a non visible genetic defect) mated with many bitches (one or two of which may carry the same genetic issue) will produce many pups and perhaps pass on the defective gene. Two pups (that carry the defective gene) from this stud and two different bitches are then mated and the litter produced has problems because of the doubling up of the defective gene. Some of these pups may not show a problem until they are much older but they have already been bred. Its then too late. The problem is there and is being passed down.

Being such a new breed I feel that much more could have been done to prevent the health issues that are showing up already no matter how many or how few there may be. We are not talking about a breed that started over 100 years ago when science and genetics were not available to test for issues.

Perhaps I'm talking rubbish, its just my thoughts.

I think you have hit the nail on the head when you used the word perhaps.

Efes 123 has made some excellent points re inbreeding.

Out of say 1000 pups bred from brother/sister matings (of any breed) where both parents were free of any known genetic disorders, how many actually have health problems?

Since SOME inbreeding/linebreeding is required to establish 'type', to what extent is inbreeding/linebreeding acceptable? In other words, how exactly does one inbreed to fix 'type', whilst keeping health risks to a minimum? And what studies have been done to ensure that we know the answer to this?

excellent post
doesn't sound like rubbish to me

Thanks arctic.wolf I'm glad it made sense lol.

I know this can happen in all breeds and not just wolfie looking ones but I think its time for breed clubs to put more stringent rules on health testing for breeders. I'm sure there will be a fair few good breeders that will happily do them. At least then, proof that tests have been done, will give us owners the chance to see who the really good breeders are and may show up the one's that dont really care. We will then have the choice instead of the pot luck that we get now.

Mutual admiration society Great post.

Now you have to go stand in the corner with a silly hat on

I don't think you're talking rubbish, it's a good sensible post, but it is your opinion and not fact.

I think the key word is can.

I think the only way forward is for proof of acceptable breeding practices to be put out in the open. Without this judgement is made.
Even the sceptics, on this thread, have admitted that information is not forthcoming and this is part of the problem. So lets get all the info out from all sides so we can make up our own minds. If people know what really happened in the beginning and subsequently, lets hear it!
The numbers of times people have said that all their questions have been answered to their satisfaction - post the questions and the answers. It would be so easy to clear up this situation - why is it not being done?

But are tests available to show if a dog is carrying epilepsy, Addisons and VWD? I know there isn't one for epilepsy so all that can be done there is to not breed from those known to have the condition.

Yes, NI owners on this board have used these 'tools' on their dogs.
Of course they have been used by other breeds but my point is that they are indorsed by NIS