Foto
Hoffnung nun gestorben!!
Aber nicht anonym!!

Bloggen.be/hd ist NICHT verantwortlich für Einträge im Gästebuch! IP-Adressen der Schreiber werden ggf. den Behörden zugeleitet!

UNBEDINGT LESEN!!
  • Umsatz nur für Elite-Gross-Züchter = Umsatzübung im SV / VDH
  • Verstöße gegen Zuchthygiene und Ethik im SV und im VDH
  • Team Marlboro Cheaters - Brief an Dachverbände
  • Pflegefall Schäferhund?!
  • KURZ BERICHT – Über Handel und Gewerbe im SV und im VDH
  • Indiana's Story
  • Tiefenwahrnehmung Februar 2016: Umsätze mit Deckgeld
    Inhoud blog
  • Für all diejenige die nicht auf den soziale Medien mitlesen können
  • Wie redet man so?
  • Reaktionen darauf
  • Hören wir auf! Es hat keinen Sinn!
  • Das Debakel – Die Schande
  • OHNE WORTE
  • Messler
  • Was heute im SV zählt!
  • Das soll eine Hündin sein?
  • Beschwerden der Hobbyzüchter (die sich an die Regeln halten)
  • Reinrassige Schäferhunde
  • FÜR ALLE, DIE ES BETREFFEN KÖNNTE
  • Richterseminar in Augsburg – für Gewerbebetreibenden?
  • Altes Zitat... von Messler
  • Darf man die Reisen der Zuchtrichter in Frage stellen?
  • Leserzuschrift 24/11/2017
  • Messler Interview 2.
  • Messler Interview
  • Insider kommentieren, die Zweite
  • Insider kommentieren
  • Ohne Papierkram, keine Zuchtschau, und keine Bewertungen
  • Auslese-Zucht im Verein für Deutsche Schäferhunde SV e.V., Augsburg
  • Rassestandard und seinen Abweichungen – Ist Quoll blind?
  • Stichwort Gebrauchsqualitäten / Gangwerk
  • Mémoires – Le duc de Saint-Simon gewidmet
  • Messlers Messkommission
  • Im SV keine Decakte für normale Schäferhundzüchter!
  • Kein Betrug im SV?
  • Campeonato de Pastor Alemán, Mexiko 2016
  • Kommentar
  • Zuschrift mit Frage und Kommentar
  • German Shepherd Dog “World Union” (WUSV) thrown out of the FCI
  • Kündigung Vertrag FCI mit WUSV
  • Wikileaks, Panama Papers, Paradise Papers, Bloggen…
  • Unsicherheiten FCI und WUSV
  • World Dog Show 2017 Leipzig: ‘And the Winner is…’
  • Impressionen - Gute Laune zum bösen Spiel
  • Der Spencer di Casa Massarelli kriegt jetzt ne Schaufel!
  • Armistice? Niemals! Waffenruhe? Fehlanzeige!
  • Leipzig 2017
  • FCI World Dog Show & German Winner Show - Leipzig 2017
  • Grösse Geschäfte mit Chinesen – Eine Auswahl
  • Vorbei Flutlichtschau OG Wildeshausen!
  • Wer machte schon den Vergleich mit dem Schweinetrog?
  • Prüfung im hohen Norden – Gibt es Verdachtsmomente?
  • Zusammenfassungen Infos aus Skandinavien
  • Trübe Gedanken
  • Hundefabriken
  • Hundehandel unter dem WUSV-Dach
  • Bloggen.be/hd - Massvoll im Ton, aber bestimmt in der Sache!
  • Messler versus Realität - AT-Atrappen! Aber Sieger!
  • Beweise gefällig 02.
  • Beweise gefällig 01.
  • Und, Herr Präsident Messler!
  • Umsätze ausgelesener Züchter (im Kreis der Kölner Klüngel)
  • SV-Vereinspräsident schwer unter Druck - Leserzuschrift
  • Türkei ist WUSV
  • Abändern von Ahnentafeln für Zuchtrichter
  • Der Präsident fragt! Die Mitglieder antworten!
  • Tautz schwenkt die Fahne für die Teletaktbenutzer!
    Archief per week
  • 11/12-17/12 2017
  • 04/12-10/12 2017
  • 27/11-03/12 2017
  • 20/11-26/11 2017
  • 13/11-19/11 2017
  • 06/11-12/11 2017
  • 30/10-05/11 2017
  • 23/10-29/10 2017
  • 16/10-22/10 2017
  • 09/10-15/10 2017
  • 02/10-08/10 2017
  • 25/09-01/10 2017
  • 18/09-24/09 2017
  • 11/09-17/09 2017
  • 04/09-10/09 2017
  • 28/08-03/09 2017
  • 21/08-27/08 2017
  • 14/08-20/08 2017
  • 07/08-13/08 2017
  • 31/07-06/08 2017
  • 24/07-30/07 2017
  • 17/07-23/07 2017
  • 10/07-16/07 2017
  • 03/07-09/07 2017
  • 26/06-02/07 2017
  • 19/06-25/06 2017
  • 12/06-18/06 2017
  • 05/06-11/06 2017
  • 29/05-04/06 2017
  • 22/05-28/05 2017
  • 15/05-21/05 2017
  • 08/05-14/05 2017
  • 01/05-07/05 2017
  • 24/04-30/04 2017
  • 10/04-16/04 2017
  • 03/04-09/04 2017
  • 27/03-02/04 2017
  • 20/03-26/03 2017
  • 13/03-19/03 2017
  • 06/03-12/03 2017
  • 27/02-05/03 2017
  • 20/02-26/02 2017
  • 13/02-19/02 2017
  • 06/02-12/02 2017
  • 30/01-05/02 2017
  • 23/01-29/01 2017
  • 16/01-22/01 2017
  • 09/01-15/01 2017
  • 02/01-08/01 2017
  • 25/12-31/12 2017
  • 19/12-25/12 2016
  • 12/12-18/12 2016
  • 05/12-11/12 2016
  • 28/11-04/12 2016
  • 21/11-27/11 2016
  • 14/11-20/11 2016
  • 07/11-13/11 2016
  • 31/10-06/11 2016
  • 24/10-30/10 2016
  • 17/10-23/10 2016
  • 10/10-16/10 2016
  • 03/10-09/10 2016
  • 26/09-02/10 2016
  • 19/09-25/09 2016
  • 12/09-18/09 2016
  • 05/09-11/09 2016
  • 29/08-04/09 2016
  • 22/08-28/08 2016
  • 15/08-21/08 2016
  • 08/08-14/08 2016
  • 01/08-07/08 2016
  • 25/07-31/07 2016
  • 11/07-17/07 2016
  • 04/07-10/07 2016
  • 27/06-03/07 2016
  • 20/06-26/06 2016
  • 13/06-19/06 2016
  • 06/06-12/06 2016
  • 16/05-22/05 2016
  • 09/05-15/05 2016
  • 25/04-01/05 2016
  • 18/04-24/04 2016
  • 11/04-17/04 2016
  • 04/04-10/04 2016
  • 28/03-03/04 2016
  • 21/03-27/03 2016
  • 14/03-20/03 2016
  • 07/03-13/03 2016
  • 29/02-06/03 2016
  • 22/02-28/02 2016
  • 15/02-21/02 2016
  • 08/02-14/02 2016
  • 01/02-07/02 2016
  • 25/01-31/01 2016
  • 18/01-24/01 2016
  • 11/01-17/01 2016
  • 04/01-10/01 2016
  • 21/12-27/12 2015
  • 14/12-20/12 2015
  • 07/12-13/12 2015
  • 30/11-06/12 2015
  • 23/11-29/11 2015
  • 16/11-22/11 2015
  • 09/11-15/11 2015
  • 02/11-08/11 2015
  • 26/10-01/11 2015
  • 19/10-25/10 2015
  • 12/10-18/10 2015
  • 05/10-11/10 2015
  • 28/09-04/10 2015
  • 21/09-27/09 2015
  • 07/09-13/09 2015
  • 31/08-06/09 2015
  • 24/08-30/08 2015
  • 17/08-23/08 2015
  • 10/08-16/08 2015
  • 06/07-12/07 2015
  • 08/06-14/06 2015
  • 01/06-07/06 2015
  • 11/05-17/05 2015
  • 04/05-10/05 2015
  • 27/04-03/05 2015
  • 20/04-26/04 2015
  • 13/04-19/04 2015
  • 06/04-12/04 2015
  • 23/03-29/03 2015
  • 16/03-22/03 2015
  • 09/03-15/03 2015
  • 02/03-08/03 2015
  • 23/02-01/03 2015
  • 16/02-22/02 2015
  • 09/02-15/02 2015
  • 19/01-25/01 2015
  • 12/01-18/01 2015
  • 05/01-11/01 2015
  • 30/12-05/01 2014
  • 10/11-16/11 2014
  • 03/11-09/11 2014
  • 27/10-02/11 2014
  • 20/10-26/10 2014
  • 13/10-19/10 2014
  • 06/10-12/10 2014
  • 29/09-05/10 2014
  • 22/09-28/09 2014
  • 15/09-21/09 2014
  • 08/09-14/09 2014
  • 01/09-07/09 2014
  • 25/08-31/08 2014
  • 18/08-24/08 2014
  • 28/07-03/08 2014
  • 21/07-27/07 2014
  • 14/07-20/07 2014
  • 07/07-13/07 2014
  • 30/06-06/07 2014
  • 23/06-29/06 2014
  • 09/06-15/06 2014
  • 02/06-08/06 2014
  • 26/05-01/06 2014
  • 19/05-25/05 2014
  • 12/05-18/05 2014
  • 05/05-11/05 2014
  • 28/04-04/05 2014
  • 21/04-27/04 2014
  • 14/04-20/04 2014
  • 24/03-30/03 2014
  • 10/03-16/03 2014
  • 03/03-09/03 2014
  • 24/02-02/03 2014
  • 17/02-23/02 2014
  • 10/02-16/02 2014
  • 03/02-09/02 2014
  • 20/01-26/01 2014
  • 13/01-19/01 2014
  • 06/01-12/01 2014
  • 30/12-05/01 2014
  • 23/12-29/12 2013
  • 16/12-22/12 2013
  • 09/12-15/12 2013
  • 02/12-08/12 2013
  • 25/11-01/12 2013
  • 18/11-24/11 2013
  • 11/11-17/11 2013
  • 04/11-10/11 2013
  • 28/10-03/11 2013
  • 21/10-27/10 2013
  • 14/10-20/10 2013
  • 07/10-13/10 2013
  • 30/09-06/10 2013
  • 23/09-29/09 2013
  • 16/09-22/09 2013
  • 09/09-15/09 2013
  • 02/09-08/09 2013
  • 26/08-01/09 2013
  • 19/08-25/08 2013
  • 12/08-18/08 2013
  • 05/08-11/08 2013
  • 29/07-04/08 2013
  • 08/07-14/07 2013
  • 01/07-07/07 2013
  • 24/06-30/06 2013
  • 17/06-23/06 2013
  • 10/06-16/06 2013
  • 03/06-09/06 2013
  • 27/05-02/06 2013
  • 20/05-26/05 2013
  • 13/05-19/05 2013
  • 06/05-12/05 2013
  • 29/04-05/05 2013
  • 22/04-28/04 2013
  • 15/04-21/04 2013
  • 08/04-14/04 2013
  • 01/04-07/04 2013
  • 25/03-31/03 2013
  • 18/03-24/03 2013
  • 11/03-17/03 2013
  • 04/03-10/03 2013
  • 25/02-03/03 2013
  • 18/02-24/02 2013
  • 11/02-17/02 2013
  • 04/02-10/02 2013
  • 28/01-03/02 2013
  • 21/01-27/01 2013
  • 14/01-20/01 2013
  • 07/01-13/01 2013
  • 31/12-06/01 2013
  • 24/12-30/12 2012
  • 17/12-23/12 2012
  • 10/12-16/12 2012
  • 03/12-09/12 2012
  • 26/11-02/12 2012
  • 19/11-25/11 2012
  • 12/11-18/11 2012
  • 05/11-11/11 2012
  • 29/10-04/11 2012
  • 22/10-28/10 2012
  • 15/10-21/10 2012
  • 08/10-14/10 2012
  • 01/10-07/10 2012
  • 24/09-30/09 2012
  • 17/09-23/09 2012
  • 10/09-16/09 2012
  • 03/09-09/09 2012
  • 27/08-02/09 2012
  • 20/08-26/08 2012
  • 13/08-19/08 2012
  • 06/08-12/08 2012
  • 30/07-05/08 2012
  • 23/07-29/07 2012
  • 16/07-22/07 2012
  • 09/07-15/07 2012
  • 02/07-08/07 2012
  • 25/06-01/07 2012
  • 18/06-24/06 2012
  • 11/06-17/06 2012
  • 04/06-10/06 2012
  • 28/05-03/06 2012
  • 21/05-27/05 2012
  • 14/05-20/05 2012
  • 07/05-13/05 2012
  • 30/04-06/05 2012
  • 23/04-29/04 2012
  • 16/04-22/04 2012
  • 09/04-15/04 2012
  • 02/04-08/04 2012
  • 26/03-01/04 2012
  • 19/03-25/03 2012
  • 12/03-18/03 2012
  • 05/03-11/03 2012
  • 27/02-04/03 2012
  • 20/02-26/02 2012
  • 13/02-19/02 2012
  • 06/02-12/02 2012
  • 30/01-05/02 2012
  • 23/01-29/01 2012
  • 16/01-22/01 2012
  • 09/01-15/01 2012
  • 02/01-08/01 2012
  • 26/12-01/01 2012
  • 19/12-25/12 2011
  • 12/12-18/12 2011
  • 05/12-11/12 2011
  • 28/11-04/12 2011
  • 21/11-27/11 2011
  • 14/11-20/11 2011
  • 07/11-13/11 2011
  • 31/10-06/11 2011
  • 17/10-23/10 2011
  • 10/10-16/10 2011
  • 03/10-09/10 2011
  • 26/09-02/10 2011
  • 19/09-25/09 2011
  • 12/09-18/09 2011
  • 05/09-11/09 2011
  • 29/08-04/09 2011
  • 22/08-28/08 2011
  • 15/08-21/08 2011
  • 01/08-07/08 2011
  • 25/07-31/07 2011
  • 18/07-24/07 2011
  • 11/07-17/07 2011
  • 20/06-26/06 2011
  • 13/06-19/06 2011
  • 06/06-12/06 2011
  • 30/05-05/06 2011
  • 23/05-29/05 2011
  • 16/05-22/05 2011
  • 09/05-15/05 2011
  • 02/05-08/05 2011
  • 25/04-01/05 2011
  • 18/04-24/04 2011
  • 11/04-17/04 2011
  • 28/03-03/04 2011
  • 21/03-27/03 2011
  • 14/03-20/03 2011
  • 28/02-06/03 2011
  • 21/02-27/02 2011
  • 07/02-13/02 2011
  • 31/01-06/02 2011
  • 17/01-23/01 2011
  • 10/01-16/01 2011
  • 01/11-07/11 2010
  • 25/10-31/10 2010
  • 16/08-22/08 2010
  • 21/06-27/06 2010
  • 07/06-13/06 2010
  • 31/05-06/06 2010
  • 24/05-30/05 2010
  • 19/04-25/04 2010
  • 08/03-14/03 2010
  • 22/02-28/02 2010
  • 25/01-31/01 2010
  • 11/01-17/01 2010
  • 30/11-06/12 2009
  • 23/11-29/11 2009
  • 09/11-15/11 2009
  • 19/10-25/10 2009
  • 28/09-04/10 2009
  • 21/09-27/09 2009
  • 31/08-06/09 2009
  • 24/08-30/08 2009
  • 17/08-23/08 2009
  • 13/07-19/07 2009
  • 06/07-12/07 2009
  • 22/06-28/06 2009
  • 18/05-24/05 2009
  • 27/04-03/05 2009
  • 13/04-19/04 2009
  • 06/04-12/04 2009
  • 30/03-05/04 2009
  • 23/03-29/03 2009
  • 16/03-22/03 2009
  • 09/03-15/03 2009
  • 16/02-22/02 2009
  • 09/02-15/02 2009
  • 12/01-18/01 2009
  • 27/10-02/11 2008
  • 29/09-05/10 2008
  • 22/09-28/09 2008
  • 15/09-21/09 2008
  • 08/09-14/09 2008
  • 01/09-07/09 2008
  • 30/06-06/07 2008
  • 14/04-20/04 2008
  • 07/04-13/04 2008
  • 31/03-06/04 2008
  • 11/02-17/02 2008
  • 14/01-20/01 2008
  • 07/01-13/01 2008
  • 24/12-30/12 2007
  • 10/12-16/12 2007
  • 26/11-02/12 2007
  • 19/11-25/11 2007
  • 12/11-18/11 2007
  • 05/11-11/11 2007
  • 29/10-04/11 2007
  • 22/10-28/10 2007
  • 15/10-21/10 2007
  • 08/10-14/10 2007
  • 24/09-30/09 2007
  • 17/09-23/09 2007
  • 27/08-02/09 2007
  • 01/01-07/01 2007
  • 25/12-31/12 2006
  • 02/10-08/10 2006
    Mailen Sie uns!

    Schreiben Sie uns. Wir freuen uns auf jegliche Reaktion.

    Hüftgelenksdysplasie und Ethics beim DSH
    Sie möchten einen niedlichen Deutschen Schäferhund kaufen?
    Überlegen Sie sich das bitte gut, Sie wissen nicht was auf Sie zukommt!
    16-02-2008
    Klik hier om een link te hebben waarmee u dit artikel later terug kunt lezen.Purebred Dog Breeds into the Twenty-First Century

    Purebred Dog Breeds into the Twenty-First Century: Achieving Genetic Health for Our Dogs
    by Dr. Jeffrey Bragg

    What is a Canine Breed?

    What is a breed? To put the question more precisely, what are the necessary conditions that enable us to say with conviction, "this group of animals constitutes a distinct breed?"

    In the cynological world, three separate approaches combine to constitute canine breeds. Dogs are distinguished first by ancestry, all of the individuals descending from a particular founder group (and only from that group) being designated as a breed. Next they are distinguished by purpose or utility, some breeds existing for the purpose of hunting particular kinds of game,others for the performance of particular tasks in cooperation with their human masters, while yet others owe their existence simply to humankind's desire for animal companionship. Finally dogs are distinguished by typology, breed standards (whether written or unwritten) being used to describe and to recognize dogs of specific size, physical build, general appearance, shape of head, style of ears and tail, etc., which are said to be of the same breed owing to their similarity in the foregoing respects.

    The preceding statements are both obvious and known to all breeders and fanciers of the canine species. Nevertheless a correct and full understanding of these simple truisms is vital to the proper functioning of the entire canine fancy and to the health and well being of the animals which are the object of that fancy. It is my purpose in this brief to elucidate the interrelationship of the above three approaches, to demonstrate how distortions and misunderstandings of that interrelationship now threaten the health of all of our dogs and the very existence of the various canine breeds, and to propose reforms which will restore both balanced breed identity and genetic health to CKC breeds.

    In order for canine breeds to fulfill their destinies effectively, the three distinct axes along which breeds are distinguished must have equal importance and consideration, otherwise serious problems arise. Breeds cannot be distinguished by ancestry alone, by purpose alone, or by typology alone. Unless these three vectors of breed identity interrelate fully and cooperatively, the fullness of that identity is missing or marred. Unfortunately, this full and cooperative interrelationship is a rarity in our contemporary dog world. The criteria of ancestry are applied rigidly and mechanically; the criteria of purpose and utility are subordinated or not considered at all; the criteria of typology are applied in a highly exaggerated, obsessive fashion. The interaction of the three approaches is seldom considered and almost never is a sustained effort made at the integration of the three.

    The Origins of Dog Breeds

    Canine breeds come into existence in many different ways and their beginnings are very often shrouded in obscurity. Let it not be thought that the three or four hundred-odd dog breeds now extant are the only ones possible, or that there cannot be any more truly new breeds. Such is the genetic plasticity of the dog that there is no end to the possible unique variations of which the species is capable. New breeds are born and old breeds die periodically. The genetic transformation of the dog goes on ceaselessly, and for that reason it is impossible that any breed should remain frozen, with all its characteristics fixed and unchanging, for any appreciable length of time. It must be realized that canine breeds are manmade, created by artificial election out of the endless diversity of the canine gene pool. Breeds must not be confused with species or even subspecies, which occur naturally under the influence of natural selection; dog breeds are only unstable manmade varieties which would not survive unchanged in the natural world without human management.

    An important characteristic of breeds is that they are created by breeders -- not by registries or protective organizations such as The Canadian Kennel Club. The origin and course of a canine breed is in the hands of its breeders, first, last and always. It is the business of cynological associations to facilitate and support the work of dog breeders and not vice versa. The purposes of the Animal Pedigree Act, under which CKC is incorporated, are the promotion of breed improvement and the protection of those who breed and purchase animals; such is the mandate of the Act and therefore of the Club [Animal Pedigree Act, §3(a,b)]. All else is secondary.

    Ordinarily a breed has already existed for an appreciable length of time before it reaches the point of becoming a recognized breed served by a registry. Nonetheless, the event of its "recognition" by a registry such as CKC is always a crucial one in the history of a breed. As things now stand, breed recognition is far more crucial (and ultimately damaging to the welfare of the animals) than it need be or ought to be, but more of that anon. First let us examine what is needed to start a new and unique canine breed.

    Four essential characteristics usually distinguish the origin in the genetic sense of a new breed (as opposed to the discovery, popularization and "recognition" of, for example, an autochthonous breed which may have existed in a particular region for a long time without connection to formal cynological structures). The first and most crucial characteristic is the founder event in which a finite number of individual canines is chosen to contribute genetic material to found a new and unique canine population. They may all be quite similar, or they may be widely divergent one from another (as when Bulldog and Mastiff specimens were used to create the Bullmastiff breed). What matters is that a finite and sometimes quite small number of individuals are selected from the existing canine population and set apart so that their genetic material alone forms the gene pool for the new breed. That is in fact the next characteristic: isolation. If the founder group continues to exchange genetic material at random with the general canine population, a new breed will not result. Without genetic isolation of the new founder group, the differentiation that creates a new breed cannot take place. The logical consequence of this isolation is the next characteristic: inbreeding. If the founder group is of small or moderate size, such inbreeding cannot help but occur. Even if the founder group should be quite large, ordinarily those who guide the breeding which creates the new breed will find it necessary at some stage to employ a strong degree of incest breeding or inbreeding, to facilitate the weeding-out of undesired characteristics and the fixation of desired traits. Particularly if individuals of widely divergent type and physique are involved, inbreeding will be required to set up a stable genome in which random variability is kept within limits defined by the breeders. The final essential factor is artificial selection, since inbreeding alone will not serve to fix type characteristics and to eliminate unwanted traits. The breeders must select among the individuals produced in early generations so that only hose displaying the desired characteristics are allowed to produce subsequent generations. Without the four factors of the founder event, isolation, inbreeding and artificial selection, new breeds ordinarily do not come into existence. These four tools are used to define a new genome which, hopefully, contains only the traits desired by the creators of the new breed and is able to reproduce itself, with its distinguishing characteristics, to a fair degree of stability and consistency.

    The Healthy Continuation of Breeds

    Purebred dogdom is even now in serious trouble through a general failure to distinguish between what is necessary to establish a breed and what is desirable to continue that breed in perpetuity. Most registered breeds are less than a century old as registered breeds; many are but fifty or sixty years old. Yet nearly all breeds now show levels of expression of genetic defects that must be considered unacceptable. Over 500 distinct genetic defects have been cataloged in various breeds of purebred dogs and more continue to come to light regularly. Some of these have reached very high levels of incidence, creating problems for breeders and dog owners, threatening the health of entire breed populations. What is worse, in many instances organized control programs seem relatively ineffective. Although such programs successfully identify affected animals, in some cases individuals with several generations of "clear" ancestry stubbornly continue to produce affected stock. Let us try to examine what has gone wrong and what must be done to correct the situation.

    First of all it must be recognized that practices which were essential for the differentiation and establishment of a new breed may not necessarily be desirable for its continuation over time and may in fact be prejudicial to a breeds continued existence over the long term.

    Let us take isolation, for example. Without genetic isolation, it would not be possible to control the genome of a new breed still few in number. It takes time and careful breeding to fix a new combination of characteristics; while that is being done, the regular addition of new genetic material would generally be counterproductive. Yet in the long term, if genetic isolation is maintained, it will necessarily lead to degeneration through genetic drift. Similarly inbreeding, if it continues to be practiced after the need for it is past, will lead to a steadily increasing state of homozygosity which may well destroy the genetic health of the new breed. Even artificial selection, if carried on too strongly for too long, can combine with isolation and inbreeding to reduce drastically the effective breeding population, thus eroding the genetic health of the breed.

    The Fallacy of Breed Purity

    The present structure of The Canadian Kennel Clubs studbook registry (and others like it) embodies a fallacy which is directly responsible for the current genetic crisis in purebred dogs: the fallacy of breed purity. The ideal of the purified lineage is seen as an end in itself; accordingly, the studbook has been structured to reflect and to enforce that ideal rigidly and absolutely. This insistence on absolute breed purity arises from nineteenth-century notions of the "superior strain" which were supposedly exemplified by human aristocracies and thoroughbred horses; this same ideal, pushed to an illogical conclusion on the human plane, resulted in the now discredited "scientific racism" of the Nazis, who tried through selective human matings to breed an Aryan superman. The idea of the superior strain was that by "breeding the best to the best," employing sustained inbreeding and selection for "superior" qualities, one would develop a bloodline superior in every way to the unrefined, base stock which was the best that nature could produce. Naturally the purified line must then be preserved from dilution and debasement by base-born stock. There is no support for this kind of racism in the findings of modern genetics -- in fact, quite the opposite: population groups that are numerically limited and closed to new genetic inflow are now thought practically certain to be genetically inferior. Certainly towards the close of the nineteenth century it became embarrassingly obvious that the human aristocracies of Europe were degenerating rapidly under their own version of the "closed studbook."

    The ideal of breed purity as applied to purebred dogs has resulted at the end of the twentieth century in a subculture that holds "purebred" registered animal stock to be qualitatively superior to crossbred or "mongrel" stock. (The word "mongrel" is in fact part of the vocabulary of racism, being applied equally to canine stock of no recognizable breed, to animal crossbreeds and to persons of mixed race!) In this subculture -- presided over in Canada by the CKC -- it is thought to be of paramount importance that purebred stock be maintained unsullied by any genetic influence external to the supposedly superior strains that are produced by registered breeding in a closed studbook from a small group of foundation stock. New members of the CKC are required to subscribe to "Conditions of Membership" whereby they promise to have nothing to do with "dogs which are not purebred" (with the exception of family pets and boarders), "purebred" being specifically defined as referring only to dogs "registered individually or eligible for registration in records of the CKC." Litters which are made the subject of complaints that they may not be purebred are investigated and in many cases ceremoniously withdrawn from the registry by resolution of the Clubs Board of Directors. Whether you like the word or not, this is effectively a special variety of racism in concept and in practice.

    Not all dog breeders are in agreement with the proposition that breed purity is more important than anything else, particularly when they are confronted with the problem of breeding dogs to demanding performance standards. Mostly such dissenters are obliged to carry on their breeding without the benefit of centralized pedigree record keeping and official certificates of registration -- for example, those who breed "Alaskan huskies", the high-performance racing sled-dogs that dominate both short and long distance dogsled racing, keep pedigree records and maintain sophisticated breeding programs, but only as individual breeders. Yet sometimes even participants in established purebred registries engage in a subtle kind of rebellion, quietly breeding according to their own judgment in defiance of formal restrictions. Thus the Racing Greyhound Club of Australia, when it recently subjected a broad sample of stock from its registry to DNA testing, is rumored to have discovered that many pedigrees failed to match DNA ancestry findings and that considerable interbreed crossing had apparently occurred. Similarly most Siberian Husky fanciers are aware that some CKC bloodlines may have received surreptitious infusions of genetic material from non-purebreds or from other breeds. In some circles one even gets the distinct impression that "its OK to crossbreed occasionally if you have a good reason for doing it and you manage it in such a way that no embarrassingly obvious mongrels are produced" -- i.e., "just don't get caught!" Thus the sanctity of breed purity may sometimes be less than inviolate in actual practice.

    Population geneticists insist that limited populations under strong artificial selection, subjected to high levels of incest breeding - such as our own CKC purebreds -- simply cannot maintain genetic viability and vigor in the long term without the periodic introduction of new and unrelated genetic material. They are referring, moreover, to true outcrossing, the introduction of stock unrelated to the breeding line, not merely the use of a dog which might be from someone else's kennel but is derived from exactly the same foundation stock some generations back.

    16-02-2008 om 00:00 geschreven door Jantie  


    15-02-2008
    Klik hier om een link te hebben waarmee u dit artikel later terug kunt lezen.Reading and reflecting material - Part 2

    The Genetic Tide Continues to Swell: Will DNA marker research stop the flood?

    The tide of concern about genetic health continues to swell within the purebred dog fancy, driven on by scrutiny from without. The threat of punitive legislation, already a reality in Europe, is widespread in the USA and the contagion seems certain to reach Canada as well. Conventional screening methods appear to be a proven failure as far as curing genetic disease (rather than simply reducing it somewhat). As veterinarian breeder Ms. Chidiac-Storimans once wrote in Dogs in Canada, "obviously, breeding clear to clear does not work." Yet great optimism is expressed in canine journals despite the seeming crisis proportions of genetic disease.

    DNA marker research now holds the limelight. The US$750,000 canine genome project at the University of Michigan, reported in the press in 1990 as expected to identify DNA marker sequences for over 400 canine genetic diseases, has actually established 625 markers and as a "demonstration project" was able to link one marker to a specific genetic disorder, copper toxicosis in Bedlington terriers. This and several other DNA tests for breed-specific disorders are now marketed by VetGen in Ann Arbor MI, where the University is also located. The Scottish Terrier Club of America recently paid US$50,000 to establish a DNA marker for canine von Willebrand's disease in their breed; other breed clubs are reportedly queueing up to pay similar sums for similar purposes. Obviously there is money to be made in canine genetic diseases, though perhaps not by dog breeders.

    Even if every breed club had that kind of money to spend on marker development, and every breeder could afford $50 to $135 per test for all his dogs, there would remain plenty of room for doubt concerning whether the strategy of DNA marker tests followed by radical selection and culling would solve the problem of genetic disease. Gene pools of purebred dog breeds, already stripped and impoverished of genetic diversity by twenty or thirty generations of inbreeding and selection, may not withstand a massive wave of radical selection followed by yet more inbreeding. What happens when all or most individuals in a breed tum out to be "carriers" of the same defect? Breed gene pools represent only a fraction of the total canine species genome. Genetic diversity in purebreds is limited from the outset, by selection inherent in breed development and by the sometimes distressingly small numbers of founder animals when breed registries are first established. A gene pool is like a bank account - you cannot make withdrawals forever and never make a deposit. Yet the closed studbook system prohibits making more than one deposit! The fetish of "breed purity" demands that after the founder registrations the stud book must remain forever closed to new genetic input. When examined closely this concept of strict breed purity must be regarded as a racist ideal, similar in nature to the "scientific racism" promulgated by Hitler's Nazi party. Why do we denounce racism and eugenics on the human level, only to tum about and defend the selfsame ideals as the only decent norm for breeding dogs?

    Any description or defense of a project involving breeding across existing breed lines for practical purposes, such as the Wirehaired Pointing Griffon Club of America project, is met with aggressive rebuke. If every effort to restore genetic health, hardiness, or working ability through outcross breeding is to be condemned as a betrayal of the "purity of the breed," then the entire purebred dog concept may be doomed to failure through inbreeding depression, the general loss of vitality and viability. Those who are quick to stigmatise serious outcross programmes as "Foufons" and "crossbreds" betray their utter ignorance of population genetics, yet that ignorance still meets with general approbation. Too bad, because at this point, the application of population genetics principles may be the sole strategy that can possibly pull the purebred dog fancy out of its genetic dilemma.

    Genetic diversity is held to be essential to maintain species soundness and environmental fitness, but genetic diversity is what most purebreds seriously lack. Responsible scientific opinion now connects this lack of diversity with the canine genetic crisis. However much the racist mind may condemn the idea, there is but one way to restore lost genetic diversity in a population, and that is by new gene inflow - in other words, by outcross breeding. When will the purebred dog fancy awake from its dream of purified bloodstreams and allow the new gene inflow necessary to restore genetic health to our dogs?

    (This article by J. Jeffrey Bragg, President and Chair of the Working Canine Association of Canada and founder of the Seppala Siberian Sleddog Project, was a followup to the award-winning DOGS IN CANADA article "The Genetic Tide: Will it Leave us High and Dry?"

    15-02-2008 om 00:00 geschreven door Jantie  


    14-02-2008
    Klik hier om een link te hebben waarmee u dit artikel later terug kunt lezen.Reading and reflecting material - Part 1

    The Genetic Tide: Will it Leave Us High and Dry?

    Copyright ©1995 J. Jeffrey Bragg

    WE HEAR MORE AND MORE these days about genetic defects, with good reason. A year ago Time™ Magazine published a pre-Christmas exposé cover story on hereditary problems in purebred dogs. Now the Council of Europe urges EEC member states to adopt its "Multilateral Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals" banning the breeding of animals whose breed points handicap them, regulating breeders in an effort to halt the increase in inherited health problems.
    Many breeds we used to think of as hardy natural types -- even tough Arctic animals like Samoyeds, Siberian Huskies and Alaskan Malamutes -- are now routinely screened for four or five different genetically-related problems. These include deep-seated, serious disorders: central nervous system problems such as epilepsy, immune system malfunctions such as autoimmune thyroiditis. In addition to hip dysplasia, we now worry about osteochondritis, elbow and patella dysplasia, half a dozen distinct eye problems, and more.

    At first it was thought that x-rays, screening and selection would ensure genetic health for our dogs. But thirty years of hip x-rays have not wiped out HD, although progress has been made in some breeds.
    Screening and selection for one defect is just fine. But what do you do when suddenly five or six distinct problems must be screened for? Veterinary costs soar. You must select against so many traits that your breeding programme is turned upside-down. Especially if you fancy a serious working breed, as I do: you cannot manage a four- to six-way screening schedule and still select for working ability, breed type and conformation. In a small kennel on limited funds, breeding only two litters a year, it just isn't practical.
    The books on dog-breeding hold no answers. They tell us how to use inbreeding, line-breeding and outcrossing, they teach us the basics of Mendelian genetics; these help to manage one or two traits at a time. But genes don't assort one trait at a time! Genes are linked in groups on chromosomes. While we were all using inbreeding and line-breeding to "fix" desirable traits of breed type and conformation, something else happened, and now we get a steady increase in unwanted traits that we call genetic defects.

    The science of "population genetics" is old stuff to wildlife biologists, but few dog breeders in this country know much about it. Yet it could have told us about the problems that we would have by practising artificial selection, breeding from small founder groups with no new gene inflow for decades, using sustained incest breeding without the brutal tempering influence of natural selection.
    Today, when most registered breeds are fifty to a hundred years old, bred within a closed Studbook the entire time, population geneticists tell us that we cannot continue these practices any longer if we want healthy canine companions. They say new genetic inflow is needed to counter random drift in small breed populations and to restore heterozygosity -- genetic diversity -- where it has been lost through inbreeding. They tell us that we are overusing popular sires and add that the German Shepherd Dog, despite millions of actual individuals worldwide, has an effective genetic population of from 400 to 600 animals only! Time-honoured breeding practices are now labelled "genetic genocide".
    Breeds such as Salukis, Siberian Huskies, and Basenjis could easily restore hardiness and diversity by importing primitive stock from their countries of origin, but C.K.C.'s closed Studbook cannot accept such imports.

    Perhaps the closed Studbook has outlived its usefulness. In the early days of purebred dogdom, it was a useful device to promote fixation of breed type. Now it has become a dead hand, dragging down the health of our beloved dogs.
    The C.K.C., unlike most other Canadian livestock associations, makes no provision for grading-up, crossing, or new breed development. Its Studbook remains rigidly closed. Each C.K.C. breed is genetically isolated. No protocol exists for the acceptance of new foundation stock in C.K.C. breeds. The Club's procedures seem stuck in a nineteenth-century mould.
    The upsurge in genetic problems -- and the media and government attention they attract -- make it obvious that radical change is needed. The question is, can it come in time? Or is our Club too inflexible to meet the challenge of placing real breed improvement above the demands of tradition and show-ring fashion? Is type more important than health? If we cannot breed healthy, hardy, happy dogs, there are those in our society who will question our right to breed at all.

    This article was written just before the Seppala Siberian Sleddog became an evolving breed. It was published in "Dogs in Canada" magazine's February 1996 issue. Submitted by DIC to the Dog Writers Association of America annual competition, it won a Maxwell Medallion in the "Essays and Opinions" category for that year.

    14-02-2008 om 00:00 geschreven door Jantie  




    >

    Blog tegen de wet? Klik hier.
    Gratis blog op https://www.bloggen.be - Bloggen.be, eenvoudig, gratis en snel jouw eigen blog!