Rottweiler breeding and Tea cup Yorkie

Paul91

ezridax wrote: »

Can someone give the name and addressess of some pounds, kennels or animal shelters and i'm sure i can sort both the mother and sister out then get my Rotty neutered without the whole breeding scenario.

a good country wide one is www.irishanimals.ie it lists all the animals in a lot of the other dog welfare groups

Rotties are in this page http://www.irishanimals.ie/rottiedobie_homes.html

Small dogs/Terriers are here http://www.irishanimals.ie/terriers_homes.html

Cass

lrushe wrote: »

'Fundamentailist' was your word not mine.........

I know. Whats your point?

I was making the distinction between professionals that do the necessary work and the fundamentalists that refuse to entertain other views.

You described the professionals as fundamentalists, whereas i corrected you and said they are professionals, you come across as the fundamentalist. Unable to see any other views or opinions other then those you've heard, picked up or read somewhere.

I'd like to end my participation in this thread as i don't want it to deteriorate into a slagging match.

Once again lads, thank you for the advice on both subjects.

lrushe

I've had pedigree dogs for the past 15 years of different breeds and other than their yearly visits to the vet none have had to have any additional treatment for any defects or breed related illness. My last dog to pass away was a 13 year old GSD, by all accounts one of the most defective breeds. I now have a 9 year old Japanese Spitz who shows no sign of slowing down and is as active as he was when he was a year old plus a four year old Chihuahua who is the same. Every dog I get I research the bloodlines and the breeder. I request health certs etc. and my dogs are given the best care under my ownership resulting in my dogs living a long active life. If people were a bit more picky about the dogs they buy and scrutised the breeders a bit more there would be less room for shady ones.
Again I will say I am not naive enough to believe that every breeder has their breeds best interest at heart but the breeders of my dogs all have had, and the results are in front of my eyes to see.
In short my point is people shouldn't be breeding their dog because 'Joe Blogs' down the road said it was a nice looking dog and he has a friend who has a dog of the same breed so they think they should breed them, nor should they breed their dog because a family member would like a pup, leave it to the people who know what they are doing and give the pedigree dog a chance.

Paul91

lrushe wrote: »

In short my point is people shouldn't be breeding their dog because 'Joe Blogs' down the road said it was a nice looking dog and he has a friend who has a dog of the same breed so they think they should breed them, nor should they breed their dog because a family member would like a pup, leave it to the people who know what they are doing and give the pedigree dog a chance.

hey there, i understand your point, but the defectiveness in pedigree dogs has come about from the inbreeding inherent in getting a pedigree, I’ve always been told that “mongrels” are on the whole healthier than “pedigrees” – not sure is this is an old wife’s tail – but any scientist will tell ya that breeding within the same group causes problems, did you see the program on pedigree dogs on TV3 about 6 months or so ago?

lrushe

Paul91 wrote: »

hey there, i understand your point, but the defectiveness in pedigree dogs has come about from the inbreeding inherent in getting a pedigree, I’ve always been told that “mongrels” are on the whole healthier than “pedigrees” – not sure is this is an old wife’s tail – but any scientist will tell ya that breeding within the same group causes problems, did you see the program on pedigree dogs on TV3 about 6 months or so ago?

Mongrels are genetically healthier than pedigrees there is no denying that but in these times there is no need to rely on matings between dogs just a short journey from each other, sperm from healthy studs can be frozen and shipped all over the world to give a degree of diversity to a pedigree if breeders are willing to put in the time and money and only geniune breeders will go to this trouble, I'm not saying every mating between pedigree dogs should be done through IVF I'm just using it as one example. I did see that programme on TV3 and the first time it was shown on BBC1 and this is why I would urge people who don't know enough about breeding not to do it or you end up with dogs like the ones on that programme, equally buying a dog from a breeder without the necessary health certs also encourages this.

Paul91

do they post pedigree history for pooch's on the internet like a family tree, be interesting to see how close some of the matings are, i think on the program they mated mothers with sons

peasant

lrushe wrote: »

I would urge people who don't know enough about breeding not to do it or you end up with dogs like the ones on that programme, equally buying a dog from a breeder without the necessary health certs also encourages this.

That's all fine and dandy but there is another issue that you keep ignoring:

Pedigree breeding in and by itself is destroying the breeds. No matter how professional the breeder, how well researched, how well health tested the breeding dogs are.

The reason for this is:

Sloppily speaking, a pedigree dog is nothing but a genetic mutant whose mutation has been made a permanent feature by repetitve breeding with identical mutants (or even worse, close relatives).
And therein lies the crux of the matter ...be exluding all the other dogs that didn't show that same feature (be that hair colour/length, size, shape, whatever) you automatically exclude a large amount of genetic information from that new breed. The problem then gets further compounded in that in order to "improve" the breed (i.e. getting it ever closer to the breed standard) out of the already shallow gene pool only a few individuals (show winners) are allowed to breed. With IVF it gets even worse ...a handful of stud dogs father several generations of new dogs.
Over the generations the gene-pool gets turned into a gene-teacup and the dogs get sicker instead of healthier.

lrushe

Paul91 wrote: »

do they post pedigree history for pooch's on the internet like a family tree, be interesting to see how close some of the matings are, i think on the program they mated mothers with sons

Not so much a family tree but if you get the names of dogs in a bloodline your can trace it back, some dogs if they have been successful enough can be googled and found on the Internet.
As far as I know, and I'm not 100% sure before anyone jumps down my throat, the IKC won't register Mother to Son / Father to Daughter matings, either way reputable breeders wouldn't even consider doing it.

lrushe

peasant wrote: »

That's all fine and dandy but there is another issue that you keep ignoring:

Pedigree breeding in and by itself is destroying the breeds. No matter how professional the breeder, how well researched, how well health tested the breeding dogs are.

The reason for this is:

Sloppily speaking, a pedigree dog is nothing but a genetic mutant whose mutation has been made a permanent feature by repetitve breeding with identical mutants (or even worse, close relatives).
And therein lies the crux of the matter ...be exluding all the other dogs that didn't show that same feature (be that hair colour/length, size, shape, whatever) you automatically exclude a large amount of genetic information from that new breed. The problem then gets further compounded in that in order to "improve" the breed (i.e. getting it ever closer to the breed standard) out of the already shallow gene pool only a few individuals (show winners) are allowed to breed. With IVF it gets even worse ...a handful of stud dogs father several generations of new dogs.
Over the generations the gene-pool gets turned into a gene-teacup and the dogs get sicker instead of healthier.

So by you're reckoning zoo's should stop trying to save the siberian tiger (there's less than 200 left in the wild), black rhino (there's less than 2,500 left in the wild), panda (less than 1,600 left in the wild) etc., these are all pretty shallow gene pools, cheetah's are so closely bred now that you can graft skin from one to another and their bodies won't reject them, should we give up on them? By these standards the pedigree dog has alot of potential.
My dogs are not closely related, my current pups bloodlines from each parent come from two different countries. If faults can be bred into a dog by bad breeding by the same arguement they can be bred out with good breeding. The show world is coming round to the reality that some breed standards are harming some breeds (GSD for example) and are distancing themselves from extreme traits. There are more than a 'handful' of stud dogs the world over and each country has slightly different ideas of what a certain breed should be so you're not resigned to just one group of people's ideals. It will take a long time to undo the damage done to alot of breeds and step one is to stop novelty breeding hence my reply to this thread. I love the three breeds I have and I'd rather do my best to give them and their kind a chance than wash my hands of them and declare that they have no hope.

peasant

lrushe wrote: »

If faults can be bred into a dog by bad breeding by the same arguement they can be bred out with good breeding.

And that's where you are wrong.

All that good breeding can do is not make things worse, and that's the best case scenario.

You cannot however "fill up" the genepool again. Those genes that were previously excluded through selective breeding, they are irretrievably lost to the breed and can only be found outside of it.

The other problem of course is, that very very little is actually known about what gene sequences do what exactly, which desirable traits carry hidden defects, which are dominant and which are recessive, and how certain crossings effect the outcome.

Breeding is very much a retrospective affair. You can see where the bloodlines have come from, what traits were present and what illnesses weren't. You can't predict the future however.
Crossing two seemingly perfect bloodlines more often than not throws out surprisingly negative results. Most of those only rear their ugly face after a long time.


EDITed to cover your edit:

lrushe wrote: »

So by you're reckoning zoo's should stop trying to save the siberian tiger (there's less than 200 left in the wild), black rhino (there's less than 2,500 left in the wild), panda (less than 1,600 left in the wild) etc., these are all pretty shallow gene pools,.

Whoah ...apples & oranges.
Endangered species are just that, endangered. Of dogs we have so many that we have to kill the surplus. Also, species are species ...breeds are fashion.

lrushe

peasant wrote: »

And that's where you are wrong.

All that good breeding can do is not make things worse, and that's the best case scenario.

You cannot however "fill up" the genepool again. Those genes that were previously excluded through selective breeding, they are irretrievably lost to the breed and can only be found outside of it.

The other problem of course is, that very very little is actually known about what gene sequences do what exactly, which desirable traits carry hidden defects, which are dominant and which are recessive, and how certain crossings effect the outcome.

Breeding is very much a retrospective affair. You can see where the bloodlines have come from, what traits were present and what illnesses weren't. You can't predict the future however.
Crossing two seemingly perfect bloodlines more often than not throws out surprisingly negative results. Most of those only rear their ugly face after a long time.

Your making the 'gene pool' sound like it consists of a few hundred animals and a few different genetic combinations and if this were the case I would agree with some of your points but in reality its considerably bigger than you give it credit for and has alot of potential for repair, not every GSD has bad hips, not every Chi suffers from hydrocephauls and I believe with alot of hard work a healthier version of existing breeds can exist in the future. Its more sensational and dramatic to highlight pedigree dogs that suffer at the hands of irresponsible breeders or owners who didn't know any better than to show health happy dogs which live out long healthy lives with no suffering and die of old age and in most cases this is what happens, it plays on people's emotions especially in a nation of dog lovers like ours and makes the job of those trying to help pedigree dogs that much harder

lrushe

peasant wrote: »

And that's where you are wrong.

All that good breeding can do is not make things worse, and that's the best case scenario.

You cannot however "fill up" the genepool again. Those genes that were previously excluded through selective breeding, they are irretrievably lost to the breed and can only be found outside of it.

The other problem of course is, that very very little is actually known about what gene sequences do what exactly, which desirable traits carry hidden defects, which are dominant and which are recessive, and how certain crossings effect the outcome.

Breeding is very much a retrospective affair. You can see where the bloodlines have come from, what traits were present and what illnesses weren't. You can't predict the future however.
Crossing two seemingly perfect bloodlines more often than not throws out surprisingly negative results. Most of those only rear their ugly face after a long time.


EDITed to cover your edit:

Whoah ...apples & oranges.
Endangered species are just that, endangered. Of dogs we have so many that we have to kill the surplus. Also, species are species ...breeds are fashion.

I used this analogy in response to your comments on gene pools. Genetics are genetics they don't discriminate between species, if you can bring one species back from the brink then why not all?

peasant

lrushe wrote: »

Your making the 'gene pool' sound like it consists of a few hundred animals and a few different genetic combinations

That's because it does.

If you look at the history of any modern breed all of them can be traced back to a handfull of "founder animals". Those are the dogs that the "inventor" of the breed was so enamoured with that s/he tried to reproduce them. So a few dogs that came close to the ideal were chosen to breed and their offspring selected for closeness to the ideal. To further solidify the breed some very close breeding between the offspring of the founder animals took place until good enough uniformity of the breed could be guaranteed.

All dogs of one breed stem back to those same founder animals, only in some very popular breeds do you get several founders who jumped on the gravy train later.

If the breed was lucky, it has more than two founder parents and perhaps even some outcrossing along the way ...if it isn't, then they are all inter-related.

But it gets worse ....
Breed standards over the generations have all been tightened down, allowing for less and less variation, (these days every hair colour and length has its own breed) and the number of eligible reproductive animals has gotten ever smaller. Only show winners are allowed to breed and of those only the best reproduce in significant numbers. Stud dogs fathering hundreds of puppies are quite normal.

So you're starting off from a handful of animals and then you SELECT their offspring excluding ever more deviations from the norm along the way ...if that doesn't make for a shallow gene pool than I don't know what does.

peasant

lrushe wrote: »

I used this analogy in response to your comments on gene pools. Genetics are genetics they don't discriminate between species, if you can bring one species back from the brink then why not all?

Newsflash ...a breed of dog is not a species, it's a breed.
The species is canis familiaris, not GSD or Chihuahua.
And a Panda is genetically 100% Panda, whereas a Chihuaha probably only carries 50* or less percent of all possible canine genes ..the rest has been bred out.

Also, what the zoos are doing is not "bringing back" but conserving what little is left. Once it's gone it's gone ...you can't bring it back (with the exception of spontaneous, natural mutation of course)


*this figure is not researched, just a wild guess on my behalf, I'm no genetics expert either

lrushe

peasant wrote: »

Only show winners are allowed to breed and of those only the best reproduce in significant numbers.
So you're starting off from a handful of animals and then you SELECT their offspring excluding ever more deviations from the norm along the way ...if that doesn't make for a shallow gene pool than I don't know what does.

Not only show winners were allowed to breed, the fastest greyhounds were bred, the healthiest sheepdogs were bred, the strongest cart dogs were bred, the most alert guard dogs were bred, the hounds with the most stamina were bred, obedience champs, agility champs, schutzhund champs were bred. Again there are more than a 'handful' of animals to breed from.
My GSD hadn't one show champion in her bloodlines, all the champions in her lineage were obedience champs and she was a fit dog until old age.

peasant

lrushe wrote: »

sheepdogs, cart dogs, guard dogs,hounds

The alert reader will notice that none of the above are specific breeds, but types of dogs :rolleyes:

While dogs were still being bred for type, all was fine in the doggy world.

It didn't matter then if a good sheepdog was yellow or black or spotted, it didn't matter if it had long, short, or curly hair. It dind't really matter either if it was big or small, as long as it was fit for its job.

These days its different ...remember that poor Pekinese that won crufts the other year? That poor animal could hardly walk, never mind breathe ...but it won best of show because it was truest to its (perverted) breed standard.

That's what has gone wrong with breeding. We don't care about ability and health anymore ...just looks.

(and no ...agility/obedience/Schutzhund trials within a breed do not make things better ...they only sort the few remaining healthy ones from the cripples, but they do nothing for genetic variety)

lrushe

peasant wrote: »

Newsflash ...a breed of dog is not a species, it's a breed.
The species is canis familiaris, not GSD or Chihuahua.
And a Panda is genetically 100% Panda, whereas a Chihuaha probably only carries 50* or less percent of all possible canine genes ..the rest has been bred out.

Also, what the zoos are doing is not "bringing back" but conserving what little is left. Once it's gone it's gone ...you can't bring it back (with the exception of spontaneous, natural mutation of course)


*this figure is not researched, just a wild guess on my behalf, I'm no genetics expert either

Thanks for the newsflash:rolleyes:
Take the DNA from a Chi and a wolf and you will find very little difference, the domestic dogs has had certain genes suppressed to some degrees but they are still there, they are still 100% dog.
Why do zoos put so much effort into their breed and release programmes if there is not hope for the animals they breed, their geneticists obviously must think its worth the effort.

peasant

lrushe wrote: »

the domestic dogs has had certain genes suppressed to some degrees but they are still there, .

Nope ...they're not supressed, but gone ...vanished.

Try and breed a wolf-like looking dog out of a population of Chihuahuas for example ...you can't

lrushe

peasant wrote: »

The alert reader will notice that none of the above are specific breeds, but types of dogs :rolleyes:

While dogs were still being bred for type, all was fine in the doggy world.

It didn't matter then if a good sheepdog was yellow or black or spotted, it didn't matter if it had long, short, or curly hair. It dind't really matter either if it was big or small, as long as it was fit for its job.

These days its different ...remember that poor Pekinese that won crufts the other year? That poor animal could hardly walk, never mind breathe ...but it won best of show because it was truest to its (perverted) breed standard.

That's what has gone wrong with breeding. We don't care about ability and health anymore ...just looks.

(and no ...agility/obedience/Schutzhund trials within a breed do not make things better ...they only sort the few remaining healthy ones from the cripples, but they do nothing for genetic variety)

I named types because it was quicker than naming every breed I was referring to.
I disagree that, to use your example, sheepdogs could be any colour, white GSD were abandoned as they were too hard to see on snow covered hillsides.
I can't argue with you on the Pekinese, that dogs was a disgrace, even some Pekinese breeders were shocked that that dog won. But this is one dog and doesn't represent all pedigree dogs, it represents what good breeders are trying to get away from.
Again you trying to make out that there are only a few good, fit pedigree dogs left doing obediece etc. and I would argue that there are more out there than you give credit for.

lrushe

peasant wrote: »

The alert reader will notice that none of the above are specific breeds, but types of dogs :rolleyes:

While dogs were still being bred for type, all was fine in the doggy world.

It didn't matter then if a good sheepdog was yellow or black or spotted, it didn't matter if it had long, short, or curly hair. It dind't really matter either if it was big or small, as long as it was fit for its job.

These days its different ...remember that poor Pekinese that won crufts the other year? That poor animal could hardly walk, never mind breathe ...but it won best of show because it was truest to its (perverted) breed standard.

That's what has gone wrong with breeding. We don't care about ability and health anymore ...just looks.

(and no ...agility/obedience/Schutzhund trials within a breed do not make things better ...they only sort the few remaining healthy ones from the cripples, but they do nothing for genetic variety)

peasant wrote: »

Nope ...they're not supressed, but gone ...vanished.

Try and breed a wolf-like looking dog out of a population of Chihuahuas for example ...you can't

I don't have 100 years to prove or disprove your argument as that's how long it took to create the modern Chi and presumably how long it would take to get your 'wolf-like looking dog'

peasant

lrushe wrote: »

I disagree that, to use your example, sheepdogs could be any colour, white GSD were abandoned as they were too hard to see on snow covered hillsides.

A sheepdog is any dog that is trainable to direct the movements of sheep on command ...collie types for example on this island. Before the breed "border collie" became fashionable and when collies where still doing real work instead of herding ducks for competitions at weekends, a "collie" could be any colour and of almost any coat, as long as it was trainable. These days a collie is either black&white or it looks like Lassie ...and few of them do really well at herding while lots of them are just hyper.

As for the GSD ...good old Freiherr von Stephanitz, the founder of the GSD breed actually had a white GSD in his breeding group. It was only later, long after his death, that the Schaeferhundverein decided that white GSDs were no longer desirable and they excluded them from the breed standard (they have now re-appeared as swiss or canadian shepherd ...but they exclude the tan ones from their standard)



Also, in spite of its name, the "German Shepherd Dog" was never used for shepherding, certainly not in Germany. In fact, it is pretty useless at shepherding and Germany has to this day some well established ancient local shepherd dog types that do a far better job at it.


EDITed to add:

lrushe wrote: »

I don't have 100 years to prove or disprove your argument as that's how long it took to create the modern Chi and presumably how long it would take to get your 'wolf-like looking dog'

Believe me, it would be impossible. The genes for large size, long snout, long legs and proper nose have long since been bred out of the Chi, never to be seen again (in a Chi)

lrushe

peasant wrote: »

Also, in spite of its name, the "German Shepherd Dog" was never used for shepherding, certainly not in Germany. In fact, it is pretty useless at shepherding and Germany has to this day some well established ancient local shepherd dog types that do a far better job at it.

I've seen with my own eyes German Shepards being used in herding in Germany and if you knew GSDs at all you'd know there is very little they are useless at!!!

peasant

lrushe wrote: »

I've seen with my own eyes German Shepards being used in herding in Germany

but never by professional shepherds, just in some trial somewhere.

(or you might have confused them with the Gelbbacke ...that's one of the ancient types that I mentioned above)



Here's an overview of them:
http://www.altdeutschehuetehunde.de/?id=10

EDITed to further explain why GSDs are useless as shepherds (in Germany)
In contrast to here or in Britain, shepherding in Germany doesn't happen in relatively small fields or on mountain sides, but rather with very large herds that are constantly on the move from large open land to large open land, often on public roads and even through villages (at least that used to be the case). The herds are massive and have to be controlled by several dogs at a distance. Because the herds are so big, the dogs are often out of direct influence of the shepherd and required to bring in some thinking of their own into the job. They have to bring up the rear or front guard pretty much independently of the shepherd who is usually found in the middle.

In short, they need to make independent decisions. The GSD on the other hand is bred for extreme bidability and very much at sea when asked to decide for itself ...it just sits there and waits for commands that never come.

lrushe

I don't know if he was a 'professional shephard', he was bringing sheep up a lane? If the dog he had wasn't a GSD he was a very good copy. Was a little taller, slightly shorter coat and his/her coat hadn't as much black as the dog in the photo. I didn't speak to the man to confirm the breed (can't speak German) but I've had GSD most of my life and the dog looked identical?

peasant

Well, here's a whole page of GSD's that aren't

http://www.altdeutschehuetehunde.de/index.php?id=21&gallerie_id=1&gallerie_titel=Gelbbacken

or this one ...a cross between "Gelbbacke" and "Fuchs"



But I won't dispute the possibility that somebody, somehwere has trained their GSD to look after a few sheep ...it's just that the GSD is not THE german shepherds dog of choice, despite its name.

lrushe

Again not as dark and slightly shorter coat? I mightn't be as knowledgeable about the world outside dogs, but dogs I do know!

peasant

As above ..it might well have been a GSD.
What i'm trying to tell you is that, despite its name, traditionally the GSD was never used for any professional shepherding in Germany. Certainly not when the breed was invented or up to 20 years ago.

Things have changed, the large herds have all but disappeared, somebody somewhere might well keep a GSD and a few sheep.

But we're a gazzillion miles off topic and I think I've said about all that can be said on this anyway

lrushe

peasant wrote: »

As above ..it might well have been a GSD.
What i'm trying to tell you is that, despite its name, traditionally the GSD was never used for any professional shepherding in Germany. Certainly not when the breed was invented or up to 20 years ago.

Things have changed, the large herds have all but disappeared, somebody somewhere might well keep a GSD and a few sheep.

But we're a gazzillion miles off topic and I think I've said about all that can be said on this anyway

True, I think I have aired my views enough on this subject. Good Night!

Discodog

There has been a lot of talk about checking out your breeder. I am going to be vague here deliberately as I do not want to identify individuals. I know someone who's beloved large breed dog died of old age. He had heard the stories about puppy farms etc so he did some research before getting a replacement pup.

He paid a fortune (well into 4 figures) & bought a puppy from a man who claimed & had a website, to be the chairman of the certain large breed association of Ireland. He was given a superb pedigree & vet certs. It turned out that the association did not exist, the docs were all fake & the dog has already incurred vet bills of over €5000. Many people visit a nice family home & see a bitch with puppies. Often the bitch isn't even the birth mother & the puppies have come from a puppy farm.

Jemima Harrison (the Journalist who exposed pedigree dogs) went to Crufts in disguise. She recorded breeders & the kennel club saying that they would wait for the heat to die down & then carry on as normal.

I have had Boxers & I would love another one but there is no way that I could buy a pup & deny a rescue dog a home.