When Was Your Breed Developed?

[Neil]

I have read various dates for the origin of some breeds that defies what I know of history. Like the Vizsla being over 800 years old.

It is my belief that none of the sporting breeds are much older than 150 years, most just barely over 100 years. It is pretty clear there were no registries prior to that time, so there were just "types" of dogs, usually those kept and bred by a rich person and were given their name. But they were bred pretty promisculously, and few surviving records were kept and none are reliable. Prior to the shotgun, other than the 12 or so people that hunted with falcons, and the few that used nets, there was no need for a pointing or flushing dog.

Usually what the current clubs proclaim is an old painting or description that in their mind looks or sounds a lot like a ( fill in the blank ), to me it looks or reads much like any mutt of the period.

Up until the advent of the middle class there was a very small market for pure bred dogs, say the 1950's, most were developed by and for the rich, and their records are very suspect. Since most of the poor were illiterate prior to 1900 I don't see even if they were to have hunted with nets that they could have kept accurate records of breeding.

Pure bred animals are a relative new development, and still unproven. There is a good bit of evidence to suggest it will be unsuccessful. Until recently all the breed were in flux, with a lot of out crossing and sloppy record keeping, and not until DNA were the registries valid. It is doubtful that 10% of the pedigrees going back before 2002 are correct, a lot of lying went on in all breeds, none more so than the pointer.

We know up to 100 years ago that they were still breeding hound and setter into the pointer, and there is little doubt that the pointer was then used to bred into the setter and most of the continental breeds of today.

So in my mind we have less than 10 years of provable pure bred sporting dogs.

I would really like for someone to educate me with fact,

Neil

[twofeathers]

Sounds as though your in the mood for a good ol argument. Good luck with that.

[Neil]

Sorry it came across that way, I really want to learn and discuss, not argue.

I will continue to work on not sounding so argumentative and authoritative, honest.

I am not a modest guy, but I do know I can always learn. To paraphrase a friend who writes for SS, "Often in error, never in doubt".

There is a chance (albeit slight) that someone can show me reliable breeding records prior to 1875.

The truth is that without DNA documentation, I don't trust any of it, do you?

Again, sorry,

Neil

[twofeathers]

To be honest I totally agree with you. What you said did not anger me at all, and it was not I who will be arguing with you. However I am not a breeder. And quite a few "breeders" make more $$$ per pup because of pedigrees of which we both agree could possibly be doctored up to look as good as one would like. And also not only the breeders but those who were buyers and led to believe the $1500 dog they bought is probably better than the $300 dog they saw advertised in the local paper due to this.

To be honest I chuckled after reading yoour post and just thought......Wow thats a pretty brazen remark this guy must have brass b@lls!

[Neil]

Actually I think you missed my point, I do not think a GSP is a GSP, or a Brittany a Brittany, they are not all the same.

Now I am willing to pay the $1,500 for a pup, based on the sire and dam and my personal trust in the breeder. It is when you go back 3 or 4 generations that I go, well maybe. I am not paying for a dog that has been dead for 20 years, let alone 100 (which you are doing if you buy from the paper).

To get even more controversial, whereas I think DNA a great thing, I think it will spell the end to pure bred dogs as we know them now. The old time breeders knew they had to out cross often, not just to other lines, but to other breeds.

I hope I am wrong, but I fear that 20 years of true pure breeding will set all breeds back, except perhaps for the Lab, with its very large gene pool.

Every question why all the race horse track records were set 30 - 40 years ago despite controlled breeding, while human runners get faster each year?

The underlying point is that I think breeds have improved not because they are 800 years old, but because of knowledgeable breeders,

Neil

[twofeathers]

After re-reading your post I guess an even more common misconception would be to generalize what everyone calls a pure bred anything. Pure to what genes they have now. Or pure to original genes. Scientifically evolution in the term itself eliminates purity from all species.

I do get what your saying, I think, but if outcrosses happened already and they did to "better" the breed how can you call any of it pure bred? I guess it may only be an opinion. Or the way you entertain the thought of PURE breeding.

[quoteI hope I am wrong, but I fear that 20 years of true pure breeding will set all breeds back, except perhaps for the Lab, with its very large gene pool.

Every question why all the race horse track records were set 30 - 40 years ago despite controlled breeding, while human runners get faster each year?

][/quote]
Humans have been inbreeding ,outbreeding, overbreeding all kinds of breeding for tens of thousands of years were all "mutts" to put it in doggy terms. Yet there are distinguishable traits to different breeds much as in dogs.

The underlying point is that I think breeds have improved not because they are 800 years old, but because of knowledgeable breeders,

If this statement is true then todays knowledgeable breeders will continue to do the same only you may have to change your opinion on what a pure breed is.

[solon]

I agree with your general premise that strict adherence to the pure bred concept is harmful in the long run and many geneticists agree with that too. The formation of registries and worship of the "pure bred dog" came out of the time when eugenics was a popular idea, early in the 20th century. One of my dog breeds, the Small Munsterlander, is known to be fairly old, partly because there were similar looking dogs in old paintings and because there were records starting in the late 19th century. Nevertheless, there is some evidence that some of the founders of what would become the modern version of the breed did some outcrosses to the Brittany.

There was a paper in Science on the analysis of the dog genome and data from 80 some breeds was included (I would give you the reference, but I am having trouble finding my copy). The data were able to group breeds based on DNA marker similarities, thus different breeds were identifiable by their genomes. This just proves that they have been distinct long enough. Found: Science 304: 1160, 2004. Parker, HG; et al.

I think breed standards are useful to keep breeds looking like their type, but devotion to purity is misplaced. There is a series of articles online that shows how quickly an outcross can be returned to type. The authors crossed a Corgyi with a boxer to introduce the genes for bob tails into boxers. Within 4 to5 generations they had returned the dogs to typical boxer type, with retention of the bob tail trait. I will post that link later when I find it. The point is that new traits can be introduced by crossing breeds and the dogs returned to type fairly quickly by back crossing. There is no need for rigid adherence to "purity".

I am out of time for this post.

Solon

[Maurice]

Actually I think you missed my point, I do not think a GSP is a GSP, or a Brittany a Brittany, they are not all the same.

Now I am willing to pay the $1,500 for a pup, based on the sire and dam and my personal trust in the breeder. It is when you go back 3 or 4 generations that I go, well maybe. I am not paying for a dog that has been dead for 20 years, let alone 100 (which you are doing if you buy from the paper).

To get even more controversial, whereas I think DNA a great thing, I think it will spell the end to pure bred dogs as we know them now. The old time breeders knew they had to out cross often, not just to other lines, but to other breeds.

I hope I am wrong, but I fear that 20 years of true pure breeding will set all breeds back, except perhaps for the Lab, with its very large gene pool.

Every question why all the race horse track records were set 30 - 40 years ago despite controlled breeding, while human runners get faster each year?

The underlying point is that I think breeds have improved not because they are 800 years old, but because of knowledgeable breeders,

Neil

Good post Neil, I agree. I think the DNA proof will hinder the breeders and some of the breeds.

Mo

[dan v]

Still a work in progress

[dan v]

Good post Neil, I agree. I think the DNA proof will hinder the breeders and some of the breeds.

Mo

Mo,

The proverbial canary in the coal mine will be, IMO, the "off breeds". Gordons, Vizslas, Weim's etc.

Dan

[JKP]

Pure bred animals are a relative new development, and still unproven. There is a good bit of evidence to suggest it will be unsuccessful. Until recently all the breed were in flux, with a lot of out crossing and sloppy record keeping, and not until DNA were the registries valid. It is doubtful that 10% of the pedigrees going back before 2002 are correct, a lot of lying went on in all breeds, none more so than the pointer.

Sounds right to me...except the bit about the Pointer...I'll let the Pointer experts comment on that.

I have DD...they are mutts...created from other (barely!!) existing breeds starting around 1880. IMO, the founders had the right idea when they defined what the breed should do and some physical characteristics but allowed open breeding at the beginning with the proviso that folks shared truthfully breeding information. Early on, breeding was encouraged on the basis of performance, not pedigree.

Don't know if Craig Koshyk (you out there) checks this site, but he is publishing a book on the history of many hunting breeds. One of his main contentions (if I understood him correctly) was that breeding on the basis of blood (pedigree), as started in England in the mid 19th century, has been very destructive for pure bred dogs. Hybrid vigor coupled with performance breeding has been far more successful in producing healthy and talented working dogs.

BTW, any system can be gamed...however for decades, all DD are tattooed at 7 weeks. Breedwardens inspect kennels, health of dogs, etc. Dogs are inspected at every performance event or evaluation for their registry tattoo. Not a lot of wiggle room. Stud dog owners must testify that they observed breedings take place and that they disclosed all known health/genetic defects that the stud dog might have.

[Razor]

Every question why all the race horse track records were set 30 - 40 years ago despite controlled breeding, while human runners get faster each year?


Neil

If you are talking about Secretariat, he was a freak of nature with an abnormally large heart. I doubt there will ever be a horse that comes close to his Belmont record.

[crackerd]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/18/scien ... wanted=all
So which came first, Neil: the pharoahs--or the pharoah hound? Or did a basenji beat 'em all? (I would've asked a basenji, but they're bred not only not to bark, but not to talk either--so it must be pure breeding that means they have no outcrosses nor crossed wires).

You know how some of the spaniels got tabbed, right? All born into the same litter, but some were labeled cocking (cocker) spaniels, some springing (springer) spaniels. Don't know about the purity of breeding, but there are at least two other spaniels breeds that sort of kept each other afloat with infusions of blood over the years. This one

was down to eight animals in the aftermath of World War II. The show fancy largely saved it--at least on this side of the pond--but what they saved it for hasn't done it any good as a gundog. Now there's a British Heritage Breeds outfit http://www.british-heritage-dog-breeds.co.uk/ that may be holding on to function over form, never a bad thing.

MG

[Neil]

Hybrid vigor coupled with performance breeding has been far more successful in producing healthy and talented working dogs.

I have seen others use the "Hybrid vigor" phrase, but since dogs are all the same species, is it really a hybrid? I thought a hybrid was a sterile inter-species offspring like a mule or what ever the lion - tiger is, liger?

I need to do some research on terms, unless one of you can give me the answer offhand.

I know guys that still study pointer pedigrees back for 30 years to decide which pup to buy, even knowing the admitted fraud.

Neil

[cody]

Very interesting, I have never looked at it this way. As breeds become more "pure" Maybe it will make semen that was collected before DNA more valuable?

[ezzy333]

Hybrid vigor coupled with performance breeding has been far more successful in producing healthy and talented working dogs.

I have seen others use the "Hybrid vigor" phrase, but since dogs are all the same species, is it really a hybrid? I thought a hybrid was a sterile inter-species offspring like a mule or what ever the lion - tiger is, liger?

I need to do some research on terms, unless one of you can give me the answer offhand.

I know guys that still study pointer pedigrees back for 30 years to decide which pup to buy, even knowing the admitted fraud.

Neil

Hybreds are a cross between two speices. Crosses between two breeds of the same speice is simply a crossbred. Purebred is a term to use for an animal that will produce young like themselves. I think in most cases they used to use 7 generations but think it might be less today, just not sure. Its probably just as much a crossbred in regards to any crossbred vigor to breed to an unrelated dog within your breed as it is to go to another breed. This is where the small gene pool of the rare breeds causes a problem as there just aren't many if any that are not related fairly close up.

Ezzy

[tommyboy72]

Neil as far as the Vizla being 800 years old I posted that the other day and it came from an article I was reading awhile back stating that there were cave drawings in Hungary with a man and a dog that closely resembled the Vizla and the authors belief that the dog was a Vizla. The article was about the origin of the Vizla but I cannot for the life of me remember where I found the article or I would direct you to it. Sorry I will see if I can locate the article for you.

[Gordon Guy]

I've read a book or two on breeding (Which makes me dangerous) and the author indicated that inbreeding does not have to be the death sentence of a breed but can be used to strengthen it. He gave an example of an island off the east coast where horses have lived for many generations and have developed a specific type, "Tacky Marshies" maybe. These horses are known to be healthy and great workers, In their situation "Mother Nature" or better said the horses themselves determined which horses were to breed. Let the strong survive. However when Man (sorry ladies) gets involved and we choose inferior speciemens based on what have you...all heck breaks loose and inbreeding can lead to unwanted results.

I'll see if I can find that book and subsequent paragraph this evening.

Tom

[solon]

My understanding is that hybrid vigor refers to the reversal of inbreeding depression or other improvements that occur when two separate lines of the same species are crossed. This is very common in agriculture, where for example there are many types of hybrid corn strains.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_vigor

Solon

[JKP]

I've read a book or two on breeding (Which makes me dangerous) and the author indicated that inbreeding does not have to be the death sentence of a breed but can be used to strengthen it. He gave an example of an island off the east coast where horses have lived for many generations and have developed a specific type, "Tacky Marshies" maybe. These horses are known to be healthy and great workers, In their situation "Mother Nature" or better said the horses themselves determined which horses were to breed. Let the strong survive. However when Man (sorry ladies) gets involved and we choose inferior speciemens based on what have you...all heck breaks loose and inbreeding can lead to unwanted results.

I imagine inbreeding/incestuous breeding can work if true natural selection is allowed to occur. The real problem is when humans get involved.

[Thunder]

The term Hybrid means a number of things depending upon the context. However, when using the term Hybrid Vigor it specifically means that when two highly inbred strains or bloodlines of the same species are crossed the resultant offspring are generally stronger, healthier and often larger than either of the parents, and tend to be free of line specific defects. While the effect is probably still present when crossing differing but "not so inbred" lines the results tend to be less dramatic and often dificult to quantify.

[Thunder]

I've read a book or two on breeding (Which makes me dangerous) and the author indicated that inbreeding does not have to be the death sentence of a breed but can be used to strengthen it. He gave an example of an island off the east coast where horses have lived for many generations and have developed a specific type, "Tacky Marshies" maybe. These horses are known to be healthy and great workers, In their situation "Mother Nature" or better said the horses themselves determined which horses were to breed. Let the strong survive. However when Man (sorry ladies) gets involved and we choose inferior speciemens based on what have you...all heck breaks loose and inbreeding can lead to unwanted results.

I imagine inbreeding/incestuous breeding can work if true natural selection is allowed to occur. The real problem is when humans get involved.

It is highly unlikely that inbreeding would ever occur in the absence of human intervention. Relative to dogs... individuals of other species such as wolves, coyotes, etc. are virtually indistinguishable from each other. Humans use inbreeding to magnify the differences between bloodlines and minimize variation within a bloodline. Nature is not so inclined. Compare the differences between a coyote in New Mexico and a coyote in New York.... now look at an Irish Wolfhound and a Pomeranian. Such variation within a species would never occur in nature.

[mcbosco]

1500's, they started showing up in paintings....

[Gordon Guy]

I disagree that inbreeding doesn't happen in the wild. There have been many isolated populations of animals that have existed i.e. the galopigus islands, and the example that I already gave is well documented. Mother nature is just more brutal in her culling process.

[ezzy333]

I've read a book or two on breeding (Which makes me dangerous) and the author indicated that inbreeding does not have to be the death sentence of a breed but can be used to strengthen it. He gave an example of an island off the east coast where horses have lived for many generations and have developed a specific type, "Tacky Marshies" maybe. These horses are known to be healthy and great workers, In their situation "Mother Nature" or better said the horses themselves determined which horses were to breed. Let the strong survive. However when Man (sorry ladies) gets involved and we choose inferior speciemens based on what have you...all heck breaks loose and inbreeding can lead to unwanted results.

I imagine inbreeding/incestuous breeding can work if true natural selection is allowed to occur. The real problem is when humans get involved.

It is highly unlikely that inbreeding would ever occur in the absence of human intervention. Relative to dogs... individuals of other species such as wolves, coyotes, etc. are virtually indistinguishable from each other. Humans use inbreeding to magnify the differences between bloodlines and minimize variation within a bloodline. Nature is not so inclined. Compare the differences between a coyote in New Mexico and a coyote in New York.... now look at an Irish Wolfhound and a Pomeranian. Such variation within a species would never occur in nature.

Inbreeding does happen in nature but the reason you don't see the difference in yotes compared to dogs is that in nature looks is seldom the deciding factor as to what survives and prospers. Color, size, strength, may under certain circumstances all make a difference and if they do you will see that change prosper, but the deciding factor in nature is does it cause the animal to be better adapted to its habitat in some way. But you still have to remember that inbreeding does not bring new genes or new characteristics to the table but instead just strengthens what is already there. So most of the random changes happen from out crossing while inbreeding just strengthens which inturn adds uniformity. Our dogs were with few exceptions bred for certain traits and to set those traits once they were established inbreeding was used. And after 7 generations along with culling the undesirable traits, a new purebred was established. Hence, many different breeds with different looks, bred for different purposes that all came from the same beginning.

Ezzy

[ACooper]

Inbreeding absolutely happens in the wild, that is where we get sub species/ new species. It usually happens in isolated populations islands etc. The reason why inbreeding in the wild doesnt show the same ill effects as it does in domestic animals is mother nature culls all but the strong and does it without emotion. Something most people have shown they cant or wont do.

[Gordon Guy]

I have a situation right now where I have two stud dogs that i am thinking about breeding and i don't know which one to go with. Pete is a very nice dog, has style, lots of point, very biddable and a fun dog to hunt behind. The other is his litter mate, Gus. Gus is a beautiful specimen of a Gordon Setter. Has all those same characterists with a better conformation but...is a handful, precious as all get out... maybe not as biddable, he still stays in touch just not as often and it's from a far. I have to pay attention to him more. He is the top dog as far as dominance is concerned between all my dogs. Which one would you choose? Most hunters, I think, would choose Pete. The guys I hunt with like Pete. But if mother nature were in charge Gus would win because he's the "Top Dog" in the group.

What a deliema...

That's where we as humans kinda screw up - We use our emotions to make decisions which is not always the way to go.

[ACooper]

I disagree that inbreeding doesn't happen in the wild. There have been many isolated populations of animals that have existed i.e. the galopigus islands, and the example that I already gave is well documented. Mother nature is just more brutal in her culling process.

I just read this one I didnt realize that I said the same thing with different words, of course I agree 100%

[AndersonSkiTeam]

If mother nature was in charge I highly doubt we would have any pointing breeds unless they were working jointly with a flusher or a "creaping pointer"

Tough to eat if you only point your food.

[ezzy333]

I have a situation right now where I have two stud dogs that i am thinking about breeding and i don't know which one to go with. Pete is a very nice dog, has style, lots of point, very biddable and a fun dog to hunt behind. The other is his litter mate, Gus. Gus is a beautiful specimen of a Gordon Setter. Has all those same characterists with a better conformation but...is a handful, precious as all get out... maybe not as biddable, he still stays in touch just not as often and it's from a far. I have to pay attention to him more. He is the top dog as far as dominance is concerned between all my dogs. Which one would you choose? Most hunters, I think, would choose Pete. The guys I hunt with like Pete. But if mother nature were in charge Gus would win because he's the "Top Dog" in the group.

What a deliema...

That's where we as humans kinda screw up - We use our emotions to make decisions which is not always the way to go.

I don't think this is a dilemma. You have to decide which traits you are breeding for and go that way. If closer working dogs for foot hunters is your goal then Pete is your choice, However, if a wide ranging pups that show more independence is your goal then you go with Gus. And since they are littler mates their pups may be almost identical but that's how I would decide and go from there.

Ezzy

[Gordon Guy]

Ezzy, The decision could be as simple as that. If I let it. But the point is that I'm trying to make, is that the decision to breed Pete may be counter to what might happen if I let nature take it's course. Gus is a stronger more dominant dog and he may be that way for a reason, Maybe Gus's "DNA" is better suited to carry on, but If I intervene than I may make the wrong decision based on personal subjectivity. From what I've read and heard say this is why inbreeding can cause problems.

Actually I think I'm going back to the Sire. Someone once told me that "if you like the dog, breed to it's Sire." The Sire is a better choice only because it's much more difficult to breed to the Dam.

Thanks

[dan v]

Tom,

On a forum many years ago that I used to frequent, a fella bred pointing labs. He was a big fan of letting the females decide.

[Thunder]

I disagree that inbreeding doesn't happen in the wild. There have been many isolated populations of animals that have existed i.e. the galopigus islands, and the example that I already gave is well documented. Mother nature is just more brutal in her culling process.

Horses on an island is not an example of inbreeding. It is simply a population within a species that has been geographically isolated. The same thing goes for the Galopogos. Inbreeding is parent / offspring and it seldom ever occurs in the wild. It absolutely never occurs in canids... which is what the topic is. Breeding dogs back to their parents has been a standard method for creating new bloodlines for centuries. If inbreeding in canids (wolves, coyotes, etc.) occured in the wild there would be as much variation as there is in dogs... instead of virtually none. On a slightly separate note... dogs and coyotes are not separate species... both are subspecies of wolves. One of the requirements for being a species is reproductive isolation. Meaning that individuals can only successfully produce fertile young by mating with other individuals within the species. Both dogs and coyotes can breed with each other and both can breed with wolves and all such unions produce fertile young.

[ezzy333]

I disagree that inbreeding doesn't happen in the wild. There have been many isolated populations of animals that have existed i.e. the galopigus islands, and the example that I already gave is well documented. Mother nature is just more brutal in her culling process.

Horses on an island is not an example of inbreeding. It is simply a population within a species that has been geographically isolated. The same thing goes for the Galopogos.

Inbreeding is parent / offspring and it seldom ever occurs in the wild. It absolutely never occurs in canids... which is what the topic is. Breeding dogs back to their parents has been a standard method for creating new bloodlines for centuries. If inbreeding in canids (wolves, coyotes, etc.) occured in the wild there would be as much variation as there is in dogs... instead of virtually none.

On a slightly separate note... dogs and coyotes are not separate species... both are subspecies of wolves. One of the requirements for being a species is reproductive isolation. Meaning that individuals can only successfully produce fertile young by mating with other individuals within the species. Both dogs and coyotes can breed with each other and both can breed with wolves and all such unions produce fertile young.

I broke this quote out into three paragraphs because the middle one is exactly wrong. New types just like the yote/wolf cross is how you get new and different types. Inbreeding doesn't change anything but just strengthens the characteristics that are already there. We have inbred white mice used in the labs for so many generations that they are all identical now, which has really aided the research they use them for. And the mice have not degenerated in to some weak sickly individual but are as strong and healthy as ever.


Ezzy

[slistoe]

Yeah, what Ezzy said.

[Thunder]

I disagree that inbreeding doesn't happen in the wild. There have been many isolated populations of animals that have existed i.e. the galopigus islands, and the example that I already gave is well documented. Mother nature is just more brutal in her culling process.

Horses on an island is not an example of inbreeding. It is simply a population within a species that has been geographically isolated. The same thing goes for the Galopogos.

Inbreeding is parent / offspring and it seldom ever occurs in the wild. It absolutely never occurs in canids... which is what the topic is. Breeding dogs back to their parents has been a standard method for creating new bloodlines for centuries. If inbreeding in canids (wolves, coyotes, etc.) occured in the wild there would be as much variation as there is in dogs... instead of virtually none.

On a slightly separate note... dogs and coyotes are not separate species... both are subspecies of wolves. One of the requirements for being a species is reproductive isolation. Meaning that individuals can only successfully produce fertile young by mating with other individuals within the species. Both dogs and coyotes can breed with each other and both can breed with wolves and all such unions produce fertile young.

I broke this quote out into three paragraphs because the middle one is exactly wrong. New types just like the yote/wolf cross is how you get new and different types. Inbreeding doesn't change anything but just strengthens the characteristics that are already there. We have inbred white mice used in the labs for so many generations that they are all identical now, which has really aided the research they use them for. And the mice have not degenerated in to some weak sickly individual but are as strong and healthy as ever.


Ezzy

Just for the record...I am a biologist by profession and have worked in the biomedical research / Pharaceutical field for over thirty years. The first decade of my career was spent working directly with the very mice you describe. You cannot compare thousands of generations of strictly controlled forced inbreeding to anything that occurs in nature. Plus which, many of the strains of mice that have been created through inbreeding are indeed "Sickly" by design. The NU/NU mouse for instance lacks a thymus and is completely hairless, its immune system is so defective that they have to be raised in isolators because simply breathing the same air as us would kill them. There are strains that become spontaniously hypertensive and even strains that develop beta-amyloid plaques in their brains and slip into dementia. There are strains of rats that are spontaniously obese and grow so large that they can no longer walk. None of these animals would ever have occured in nature in the first place and certainly wouldn't survive outside of a laboratory.

Wolf/coyote crosses are flukes that pop up rarely. They are not a new subspecies. Not everyone here is using the same lexicon. The word "inbreeding" has a few specific meanings but none of them have anything to do with crosses between subspecies. That is, in fact the exact opposite.

[ezzy333]

Inbreeding is parent / offspring and it seldom ever occurs in the wild. It absolutely never occurs in canids... which is what the topic is. Breeding dogs back to their parents has been a standard method for creating new bloodlines for centuries. If inbreeding in canids (wolves, coyotes, etc.) occured in the wild there would be as much variation as there is in dogs... instead of virtually none.

On a slightly separate note... dogs and coyotes are not separate species... both are subspecies of wolves. One of the requirements for being a species is reproductive isolation. Meaning that individuals can only successfully produce fertile young by mating with other individuals within the species. Both dogs and coyotes can breed with each other and both can breed with wolves and all such unions produce fertile young.

I broke this quote out into three paragraphs because the middle one is exactly wrong. New types just like the yote/wolf cross is how you get new and different types. Inbreeding doesn't change anything but just strengthens the characteristics that are already there. We have inbred white mice used in the labs for so many generations that they are all identical now, which has really aided the research they use them for. And the mice have not degenerated in to some weak sickly individual but are as strong and healthy as ever.


Ezzy

Just for the record...I am a biologist by profession and have worked in the biomedical research / Pharaceutical field for over thirty years. The first decade of my career was spent working directly with the very mice you describe. You cannot compare thousands of generations of strictly controlled forced inbreeding to anything that occurs in nature. Plus which, many of the strains of mice that have been created through inbreeding are indeed "Sickly" by design. The NU/NU mouse for instance lacks a thymus and is completely hairless, its immune system is so defective that they have to be raised in isolators because simply breathing the same air as us would kill them. There are strains that become spontaniously hypertensive and even strains that develop beta-amyloid plaques in their brains and slip into dementia. There are strains of rats that are spontaniously obese and grow so large that they can no longer walk. None of these animals would ever have occured in nature in the first place and certainly wouldn't survive outside of a laboratory.

Wolf/coyote crosses are flukes that pop up rarely. They are not a new subspecies. Not everyone here is using the same lexicon. The word "inbreeding" has a few specific meanings but none of them have anything to do with crosses between subspecies. That is, in fact the exact opposite.

I am well aware of the different strains that have been bred but none were bred by inbreeding. By it's very nature inbreeding can not bring any new genes to the table. The different strains have to be developed by out breeding or mutation and then is kept in the line by inbreeding so it won't be lost.

If you were going to start a new sub-specie of the wolf/yote cross which is the out-breeding then we need to get two of those individuals and start an inbreeding program to set the characteristic so it can reproduce itself and remain in the gene pool forever.

Both the sickly and healthy strains mice were created by the outbreeding and then is was set by not bringing in new genes but continueing to breed to the indiviuals that carry those genes by inbreeding. If inbreeding changed any genes then they couldn't use it to maintain the ones they want.

I don't think I can explin it any better than that so I hope you understand. If not someone else will have to explain it for you.

Ezzy

[dan v]

You know, you could have had a nice back and forth....but then you went here:

I don't think I can explin it any better than that so I hope you understand. If not someone else will have to explain it for you.

[Thunder]

I am well aware of the different strains that have been bred but none were bred by inbreeding. By it's very nature inbreeding can not bring any new genes to the table. The different strains have to be developed by out breeding or mutation and then is kept in the line by inbreeding so it won't be lost.

If you were going to start a new sub-specie of the wolf/yote cross which is the out-breeding then we need to get two of those individuals and start an inbreeding program to set the characteristic so it can reproduce itself and remain in the gene pool forever.

Both the sickly and healthy strains mice were created by the outbreeding and then is was set by not bringing in new genes but continueing to breed to the indiviuals that carry those genes by inbreeding. If inbreeding changed any genes then they couldn't use it to maintain the ones they want.

I don't think I can explin it any better than that so I hope you understand. If not someone else will have to explain it for you.

Ezzy

I am honestly not trying to start a fight... but did you miss the part where I mentioned that this is what I do for a living???? All of the strains of mice that I mentioned were created by strict inbreeding, that is not my opinion nor is it debatable... it is a fact. Jackson labs in Bar Harbor Maine has perhaps the largest inventory of bizarre strains of mice and rats in the world and virtually all of them were created by singling out individuals who exhibit new or unusual traits and breeding them back to their parent. These new traits arise spontaneously through mutation (as you mentioned) and are propagated through strict inbreeding.

Let me give an example of what I am trying to explain because I am not doing such a good job so far. If you took all of the dogs in existence today (or at least a few representative examples of each breed) and found an island that provided all of the necessary things for them to survive an just cut them loose....... over time you would find that all of the young being born on the island would be essentially indistinguishable from each other and there would little if any sings of the original purpose bred breeds. They would all be medium sized about 40 lbs with relatively short coats and erect ears. All of this ......... because Inbreeding seldom if ever occurs in nature.

By the way... I haven't taken offense at any of this and I hope I am not being offensive. At the company where I work I am considered a subject matter expert on some of this and I am actually trying to be of some help.

[ezzy333]

Thunder,

I am honestly not trying to start a fight... but did you miss the part where I mentioned that this is what I do for a living???? All of the strains of mice that I mentioned were created by strict inbreeding, that is not my opinion nor is it debatable... it is a fact. Jackson labs in Bar Harbor Maine has perhaps the largest inventory of bizarre strains of mice and rats in the world and virtually all of them were created by singling out individuals who exhibit new or unusual traits and breeding them back to their parent. These new traits arise spontaneously through mutation (as you mentioned) and are propagated through strict inbreeding.

This is exactly what I have been saying. A chacteristic showed up due to mutation or from outbreeding and it has been progated through inbreeding. But like you say, they didn't come about because of inbreeding but are strictly maintained by it.

And you are right about what our dogs would look like after many generations but there again not because of inbreeding but rather from just not breeding for any particular traits. If on the other hand each of the dogs would breed within their own family they would still look pretty much as they do today. You just have to have new genes if something is going to change and there is no other way to get them than to go outside of your line of breeding.

Ezzy

[Thunder]

Exactly.... even today the best bloodlines of gun-dogs are kept high quality by selectively bringing in genetics from outside the line. While most current day bloodlines are not Inbred, per se, they are often quite "line-bred". As you stated, inbreeding to a great extent and line-breeding to a lesser extent both concentrate characteristics. Unfortunately, they can concentrate negative characteristics as well as positive ones. In the early days of dog breeding it wasn't easy to know that you were passing on things like hip dysplasia and the such because it wasn't something that was readily visible in a young dog.

As to the original post.... the question of how old a breed is... there are quite a few breeds that have been around for quite a while. We may have legitimate differences of opinion as to whether they were a breed or just a type in the early days but even in the early days there were enthusiasts who were quite diligent about their breeding programs. Setters, pointers and spaniels have certainly been around a very long time.

[Neil]

Setters, pointers and spaniels have certainly been around a very long time.

There is great deal of evidence up until the 1930's all of those breeds were often outcrossed, first setter to pointer, then pointer to setter, and setter to spaniel. Then for 70 years or so, they lied about it, except for the red setter, which was done openly, the rest secretly.

Now we have DNA, which will restrict those practices, so we will see.

Even with DNA, the only thing I believe about a breed is the Mommy and Daddy,

Neil

[Ruffshooter]

The Stories behind the breeds development is fascinating to me. Really the breeds may have been close to type but tweeking went on for years or decades later. But the basic type and reason for the dog is older than the "registered history of the Breed".

I like the stories fully true or not. Most of the Stories and histories have basis in fact just no paper work to back it up. More interesting to me. But I like knowing when we have a breed that is to the end type, that we work to preserve it.

Rick

[Prairie Hunter]

I hope I am wrong, but I fear that 20 years of true pure breeding will set all breeds back, except perhaps for the Lab, with its very large gene pool.

The underlying point is that I think breeds have improved not because they are 800 years old, but because of knowledgeable breeders,

Neil

I know a few breeders that have been breeding the same GSP lines since the '70s, and they are still producing very good dogs. Their lines go back to some of the great old German dogs. They guard their lines religously, so I don't think they lied about what they bred to.

You are correct, it is knowledgeable breeders that have improved, or at least refined, the various breeds.

[Prairie Hunter]

I agree with your general premise that strict adherence to the pure bred concept is harmful in the long run and many geneticists agree with that too. The formation of registries and worship of the "pure bred dog" came out of the time when eugenics was a popular idea, early in the 20th century. Solon

I disagree. Most of those geneticists have read a lot, written a lot, and based their hypothesis on studies of sheep breeding, oyster breeding, etc. It would be interesting to find out how many have actually participated in a selective breeding program for dogs. One of the most famous studies was based on how inbred cheetahs are, and that they are in jeopardy of extinction as a result. Yet the event, or series of events that caused the genetic bottleneck happened about 10k years ago, and the cheetahs are still around. Go figure.

I think breed standards are useful to keep breeds looking like their type, but devotion to purity is misplaced. There is a series of articles online that shows how quickly an outcross can be returned to type. The authors crossed a Corgyi with a boxer to introduce the genes for bob tails into boxers. Within 4 to5 generations they had returned the dogs to typical boxer type, with retention of the bob tail trait. I will post that link later when I find it. The point is that new traits can be introduced by crossing breeds and the dogs returned to type fairly quickly by back crossing. There is no need for rigid adherence to "purity".

There is a difference between brining in a trait like bob tails, and breeding performance dogs. I think you would have to look at how many desireable traits would be lost because of such an outcross, and how many undesireable trait would be brought into the breed as a result. A prime example is the show people that have bred for looks and not for ability (i.e. Irish setters, Weims, cockers, etc.). They got the look they wanted, but look at the price the breed paid.

[Neil]

[

I know a few breeders that have been breeding the same GSP lines since the '70s, and they are still producing very good dogs. Their lines go back to some of the great old German dogs. They guard their lines religously, so I don't think they lied about what they bred to.

The German breeds did some of the most out crossing, they had good reasons like world wars and such. Following both wars, the records and the breeds were in disarray, to say the least.

One of the purposes of the breed wardens was to out cross and still maintain "type", if you kept accurate records and only bred within the breed and this pure bred thing worked, there would be little need for an expert to approve a specific breeding.

Even though we all, including me, often talk about breed strengths, things they are known for; e.g. GSP as good retrievers, pointers as wide, hard driven hunters, fur and feather for the continental breed. The truth is you are as likely to find a Brittany with a high retrieving drive, a pointer that hunts close, or a setter that is hard headed as the reverse.

The breeds only breed true to type as long as the top breeders are so inclined. Until DNA all records are suspect. I do think that out crossing was done to improve the breed/line, and hidden from the public because most do not understand, not that the breeders were crooks. There is an old saying, "he will sell you the cake, but not the recipe".

Oh, on the race horse thing, not all the track records that go back were not set by Secretariate, he only ran at a few tracks. The truth is if the goal is faster horses and I would assume it is, then the pure bred thing has not worked for them. They are able to sell horses for great prices, but they aren't faster.

There is evidence to suggest in all domestic animals, record keeping of breeding, and development of breeds has always been for marketing. A way to sell the animals as being superior. Of course, many of the breeds and lines are superior, but it is due to the breeders, not any magic in the breed itself.

Neil

[solon]

I agree with your general premise that strict adherence to the pure bred concept is harmful in the long run and many geneticists agree with that too. The formation of registries and worship of the "pure bred dog" came out of the time when eugenics was a popular idea, early in the 20th century. Solon

I disagree. Most of those geneticists have read a lot, written a lot, and based their hypothesis on studies of sheep breeding, oyster breeding, etc. It would be interesting to find out how many have actually participated in a selective breeding program for dogs. One of the most famous studies was based on how inbred cheetahs are, and that they are in jeopardy of extinction as a result. Yet the event, or series of events that caused the genetic bottleneck happened about 10k years ago, and the cheetahs are still around. Go figure.

The cheetah is hanging on, but barely. One of the big problems with an inbred population is the susceptibility to diseases. A good example of that is what happened to native peoples in the Americas when Europeans brought diseases like small pox to the new world. Some groups suffered 90% mortalities. The reason is that pathogens evolve and adapt to their hosts and the more inbred the host, the faster they gain virulence. It is thought that if you catch a viral disease like a cold from a close relative, it is likely to be more severe. With loss of genetic diversity there is a loss of adaptability to changing conditions.

I think breed standards are useful to keep breeds looking like their type, but devotion to purity is misplaced. There is a series of articles online that shows how quickly an outcross can be returned to type. The authors crossed a Corgyi with a boxer to introduce the genes for bob tails into boxers. Within 4 to5 generations they had returned the dogs to typical boxer type, with retention of the bob tail trait. I will post that link later when I find it. The point is that new traits can be introduced by crossing breeds and the dogs returned to type fairly quickly by back crossing. There is no need for rigid adherence to "purity".

There is a difference between brining in a trait like bob tails, and breeding performance dogs. I think you would have to look at how many desireable traits would be lost because of such an outcross, and how many undesireable trait would be brought into the breed as a result. A prime example is the show people that have bred for looks and not for ability (i.e. Irish setters, Weims, cockers, etc.). They got the look they wanted, but look at the price the breed paid.

There is certainly a difference between introducing a single dominant trait like bob tails by cross breeding and dealing with multi gene traits like performance. It still depends on what the breeder is selecting for. I understand your point, that decades of selective breeding could lose what has been accomplished by an outcross. I wouldn't suggest a radical outcross of a performance dog to a dissimilar breed, but there have been many outcrosses within the sporting breeds, some of which have been very successful. There are the usual rumors of EP x GSP crosses, and I think I have seen some, particularly with dogs being run in AF trials. These were very white GSPs being run that the owner said had lost most of the usual GSP versatility. He said if they put their nose to the ground for scent, they were out of the program. The ES cross to the Irish Setter to get the modern Red Setter has to be considered a success from my point of view. I would say if a breeder can produce a better dog, that breeds true to type, and proves it by winning, then why disqualify it from competitions because it is not "pure". We all would want better dogs wouldn't we?

Solon

[tommyboy72]

I have just been reading along here and paying attention. I would just like to interject a question. Seems to me if you really wanted to improve a breed or to at the very least produce multiple trial winners the thing to do is clone or develop "test tube" puppies. Find the dogs that best fit your program or the breed standard or the idea of conformation and clone them or take the eggs from the "perfect" female and mate them to the sperm from the "perfect" male and produce the so called "perfect" puppy. I know money will come up as an issue and I know many kennel owners/trainers/trialers etc. do not have the money for this but the owners of many of the high powered trial dogs are doctors, lawyers, judges, businessmen, etc. do have the money for this. Could you imagine having a dog that won a national championship and cloning him and being able to go back and fix the training mistakes that you made? It is like having the same fantastic slate to start with time and time again but being able to figure out where you as a trainer screwed up and making yourself and the dog better. Just a thought. Wonder how long it will be before someone actually attempts something like this with dogs.

[crackerd]

It's been done, and done with dogs, just not competitive dogs. It ain't the prohibitive price, it's ROI that excludes the human variable--training. All dogs don't train alike, and all trainers don't train alike. So what made a dog a national champion in the hands of one trainer may make it a trial washout in the hands of another. And owners who've had a national champion undoubtedly want another but if they're the sporting folks most of them are, they don't want the same NC.

Besides, NCs are a little less valued in some disciplines (pointing and flushing) than others--in retrievers, rather than a NC or three every year for every breed, there are two national champions--open and amateur--a year for all retriever breeds combined. Why would the top dawgs amongst retriever owners leave to science what a flash of their wallet can accomplish?--then again, I know a dog that a quarter-mil on the table right now hasn't reached the take it or leave it stage of negotiations.

MG

[CherrystoneWeims]

Isolated populations have problems when they inbreed.

http://www.reproduction-online.org/cgi/ ... 8/1/11.pdf


Marsh Tackies were not an isolated breed. They are along the coast of the Carolinas and Georgia. Quite a sturdy breed (although I think they are a mix of breeds and people tend to lump them under one name here in the Lowcountry!)
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2008 ... kies38818/

I think you are probably thinking of the ponies of Chincoteague.