so I went to see some pups today and it was awful :-(

[AllergicToNutters]

They were living in rank cages outside on concrete floors. The smell was horrid. There was Dad and a Portuguese pointer in a cage, Mum was sooo skinny and looked as if she had been bred and bred. The pups looked healthy enough but the one remaining pup ( so I had no choice in selecting one for us) was shaking and whimpering. He was absolutely beautiful but I didn't take him. I felt awful. The pups were kept in a shed away from the other dogs and Mum. They were clearly not 'indoor' dogs. Very sad and don;t know what I can do.....

Flatbread, most responsible breeder would keep a deaf puppy and teach it sign and would only rehome to someone who was fully able to work with a deaf dog.

No responsible breeder would cull puppies.

I also mentioned the Dalmatian-Pointer Backcross in my posts which you seem to have missed, which is a coincidence as you seem to miss a lot of points.

You cannot assume by trying to breed normal hearing Dalmatians you will be unknowingly breeding blind dogs and the point is, a breeder would not breed the blind dog.

The reason Dalmatian's have a high instance of deafness is from irresponsible people whom have breed deaf dogs and NOT health tested their dogs.

I really dont get the point you are trying to make.

by cull i mean kill.

What's so wrong about stopping a dog with a genetic problem from breeding, Flatbread? Isn't that the essence of responsible breeding?

I assume you checked the health and genetic background of the other dog when your dog mated with him.

SDTG - I doubt Flatbread has given any serious thought to the fact her 'accidental' mating is part of a bigger problem than trying to define what constitutes a responsible breeder or how natural selection can work with domestic dogs (which it cant)

Misery,

No one is talking about killing puppies. Just selective breeding.

You cannot assume by trying to breed normal hearing Dalmatians you will be unknowingly breeding blind dogs and the point is, a breeder would not breed the blind dog

That is the point. When you selectively breed, you get unintended consequences. No one who bred Dalmatians in the first place intended that a number should be deaf. It was an unintended consequence of breeding for certain physical characteristics.

Same, way, when you try to remove one undesirable trait, you may be increasing the probability of another recessive gene becoming dominant within the narrow gene pool, or some good genes being lost. This will show up decades later.

but but the overbreeding of dalamations led to an increase of deaf puppies due to unscrupalous breeders overbreeding and not health testing their dogs and by breeding from deaf dogs in the first place...

Flatbread - the reason so many Dalmatian's are born deaf is due to not doing the proper health tests, now that this facility is available all responsible breeders should do it.

Yes, SDT and Misery. Let's ignore all the scientific research and journal publications. There is plenty of large scale empirical studies across countries that show that mutts are healthier and live longer, because of greater genetic diversity. Pure breeds have loads of issues to do with selective breeding. Further selective breeding may just lead to a new set of issues in the future.

When I read your comments I can just see you just don't get how genetics works. That is fine, as it is has to do with probabilities across a population over generations, which requires the ability to abstract. Since you seem fixated on petty digs, I guess you can't really think in an objective way.

Anyway, if this whole discussion made even one person less inclined to going to a breeder to get a purebred, I am happy.

Flatbread, darling, no-one on this thread agrees with what you are posting. Most if not all other posters are with SDT and Misery. I do not think the problem lies with their lack of understanding about the wider issue

When you breed non-selectively, you also get problems, Flatbread.

The problem, as so many have said on here, is unscrupulous and careless breeders (whether of pedigree or mongrel dogs), not selective breeding. At least the responsible breeders who are breeding selectively to eliminate certain genetic problems do have a good idea of the genetic make-up of their dog and its mate.

Oh the irony of being lectured by an irresponsible, back-yard breeder.

I cant believe it's YOU who think WE can't think in an objective way.

Yes, there has been some serious over breeding of dogs which has resulted in genetic defects but this type of breeding hasnt been responsible breeding which is what everyone on this thread has been talking about.

You are truly exhausting and wilfully ignoring certain points and only interested in your own point of view because of your own mistake with your own bitch you are now punishing anyone whom owns a purebreed because you think that justifies your silliness.

No one here thinks irresponsible and uncaring over breeding of dogs is right. We would all admit that this type of breeding has let to genetic problems in breeds but we are talking about RESPONSIBLE breeders.

Your theory on natural selection with domestic dogs is tosh and you know it.

Lol, personal attacks. Refuge of the clueless.

Yes that is exactly the problem. Every single poster on this thread who is not Flatbread, is clueless.

Educate us, oh wise one. I could do with a laugh

Please also explain just who is going to care for this influx of dogs if we encourage yet more BYB?

where is this refuge of the clueless she speaks of? I'd rather be there than where ever Flatbread hangs out.

Flatbread, I am somewhat hesitant to engage with you as I'm not sure that are reading other folk's post with an open mind. I assume that your current situation with you bitch and puppies has made the issue somewhat personal for.

However having some knowledge about genetics I'm happy to agree with you on some points about health outcomes and the diversification of the gene pool.
What I am most interested in is what your end-vision for the pet-dog world if, say, you were put in charge. Genuinely? Do you really want to see the eradication of all pedigree breeds to be replaced with what? A single generic dog? which would look and behave like what? And be owned and desired by whom?

Genuinely interested in your answer.

It would be interesting to regard 'pet dog' as a sub-category within the category of working dogs; to think of a dog's companionship-providing role and ability to thrive in a home atmosphere in the same way that we regard the workings tasks of gundogs, shepherding dogs, etc. The Kennel Club could breed selectively for excellence in that companionship task, instead of for appearance. Pet dogs are working dogs in that sense -- as we can see more clearly when they are actually called on to work in programmes like the Pets As Therapy programme.

I wonder what sorts of dog might emerge from such breeding. There could be physical criteria as well as temperamental ones -- smallish size and so on. But the breeding would be freed of its beauty contest element, and become more like the working-dog breeding programmes that flourished when most purebred dogs were produced with a working function in mind.

I think it would be a v worthy hypothetical exercise qatata. I wonder as you do what might emerge from a breeding programme that focused primarily on temperament and health (not sure how health would be measured mind you given that so many health problems reveal themselves long after dogs have passed the peak of their reproductive lives).

Of course it still leaves the problem of what people want from their dogs in addition to a 'nice' temperament and a long healthy life.

Yes, perhaps it might be interesting to envisage further sub-categories of "working" pet dogs: active household, urban household, small children, elderly owner, jogging owner ...

It could be a whole alternative Crufts.

This thread is getting funny. Allergic, you started an interesting discussion!

Imagine the extreme scenario where we all got dogs from these 'responsible' breeders.

Then no puppies would be born unless there were already homes lined up, and there wouldn't be so many dogs euthanized each year for lack of a home. That doesn't sound so bad to me...

Yes, SDT and Misery. Let's ignore all the scientific research and journal publications.

I did suggest a long way up-thread that you explain the refs you cited instead of just flinging references at people. Unless you explain them, it doesn't help since we didn't all have copies to hand waiting for this discussion; some people also pointed out problems with said research. Also, you seem to have ignored a ref I took the trouble to find for you that said it is possible to take account of getting rid of genetic problems and trying to increase genetic diversity at the same time.

I love dalmatians but I didn't know you can get all those different colours!

redwing - it has taken on a life of its own! clever old me

flatbread i'm afraid it's you who repeatedly appears to not know how genetics and natural selection works. and you never respond to the explanations people offer you on how your understanding is lacking and what it is you don't seem to see.

which makes communication a bit pointless really.

ho hum............

Did you get any further with reporting them Allergic?

Out of interest where abouts are you? The Greyhound place I foster with has no issues with travelling a long way to meet potential owners and no issues with small children. Not sure if you said you had cats? If you do might have to wait for a cat friendly Grey but they have them. Not sure if the other rescue travels far and wide too. I am sure they do. They work pretty closely with each other.