hypers987 wrote:

History of the genetic faults (eyes, teeth) would have been present in the grandparents of the dog, since it is a dominant gene. Therefore, the parents should have never been bred. Genetics, when you know what to look for and you know genetics and dominant and recessive traits, are NOT by chance. Their is a chance for a pup to have all recessive genes, but that is highly unlikely and rarely happens, that pup would be lucky. That's why good breeders never breed a dog that has a dominant genetic disturbance.

ETA- I will NEVER be able to run my Kale because of BYB. He has a congenital defect in his left shoulder. (And its not because of line breeding, it's because or POOR breeding)

To add to this:
Actually, Phenotypically normal genotypically affected happens quite often depending on how many different traits you're dealing with. If you're dealing with 2 different genetic traits in a breeding - nine dogs will be phenotypically normal for both traits. Three dogs will be phenotypically normal for the first trait and affected by the second. Three dogs will be Phenotypically normal for the second trait and affected by the first and one dog will have both traits.

Then if you're only dealing with one trait it depends on the pairing of the parents. Pheno/Genotypically normal will produce all pheno/genotypically normal offspring. If you have one pheno/geno normal and one pheno normal/geno carrier two offspring will be pheno normal carriers and two will be pheno/geno normal. If both parents are pheno normal/geno carriers you will get one pheno/geno normal, two pheno normal/Geno carriers and one pheno affected and homozygous recessive. The list goes on (note: this is for recessive traits only).

All of those breeds you listed conform to a standard (written or otherwise) when they're being bred because you have to have a specific structure to do certain kinds of work (we had this discussion before)

Also - Seppala Siberians are Siberian Huskies through and through (and there are several who are still registered with the AKC and CanKC) - my breeder has a few.

They're just a "line" of Siberian's and not everyone chose to register or didn't keep up with it (this isn't a "recent" thing either).

No one here has "purebred" elitism? Not sure where you got that from. What we do have is a love of the breed and proper breeding ethics. I am very much an advocate of mixed breeding IF it is for a specific WORKING purpose.

hypers987 wrote:

History of the genetic faults (eyes, teeth) would have been present in the grandparents of the dog, since it is a dominant gene. Therefore, the parents should have never been bred. Genetics, when you know what to look for and you know genetics and dominant and recessive traits, are NOT by chance. Their is a chance for a pup to have all recessive genes, but that is highly unlikely and rarely happens, that pup would be lucky. That's why good breeders never breed a dog that has a dominant genetic disturbance.

Correct. However, I am not sure these traits are genetics persay, but are a trait of these dog's lineage. I am no geneticist. But when said "genetic" disturbance does not surface until 10-12 years old? That perfectly healthy and clean testing animal that has been bred can produce a couple generations before the disturbances develop. Dog A bred at 2 years old. Produces Dog B. Dog B is bred at 2 years old (Dog A is now 4) and produces Dog C. Dog C is bred at 2 years old (Dog A is now 6, Dog B is now 4) and produces Dog D. Dog D is bred at 2 years old (Dog A is now 8, Dog B is now 6, Dog C is now 4) and produces Dog E. Dog E is bred at 2 years old (Dog A is now 10 years old and goes deaf and blind. Dog B is now 8, Dog C 6, Dog D 4).
Dog B was sold in California to a breeder in Idaho. Dog C was bred in Idaho at same kennel. Dog D was sold to a kennel in Arkansaw. Dog E was bred at same Kennel. When Dog A develops its issues, the breeder contacts Dog B's owners to pass on the info. Dog B was sold 5 years ago to another kennel and has sired multiple other litters in yet another state. All of which are healthy in their young age. But as the dogs get older, some go deaf by 4 years old, some by 8. Some lose vision in one eye at 6, or 10.

Most breeders rotate out their breeding stock by a certain age. Lets say 5 years old they retire their dogs. They are sold out to a family on a spay/neuter contract. The dog goes deaf and blind 5 years later, and the new owners don't bother to tell the kennel because it doesn't matter to them, they've lost the breeder's info, moved to a different state, etc... So the breeder never got the memo that their great and mighty stud dog had degenerative diseases in old age. So they continue breeding the line.

Yes, in a perfect world, testing would be conclusive and keep us from ever passing on bad genes. Unfortunately our world is far from perfect.

Correct me if I am wrong, but Hip/Eye certs get outdated, do they not? Which is why people ask WHEN the tests were done? Just because a dog tests clean from hip displasia doesn't mean it won't develop it later in life. Correct me if I am wrong, my knowledge is shady there.

Eye certs should be done every year and prior to any breeding if having not been done already in that year. Eyes are good for 12 months.

Hip certs can be prelim'd at 18 months and then final at 24. Hips only have to be done once. A dog most often cleared and develops HD much later in life (think senior years) - it is most likely NOT genetic.

As could be said for many of these things you listed (re: blind rotting teeth and deafness). If the dog gains one of these things at 10 years old - it is most likely not genetic (in some rare cases it could be). Therefore since it's not genetic the breeder wouldn't worry about it being passed on. Now - if the dog in fact go blind and deaf by 4 then there is most likely an underlying problem that could also be genetic - but could also be environmental.

[quote=" I also agree with Megan, dogs are INSTINCT driven, humans are not, we can choose. Dog can smell a female in heat for a mile, and will travel that far upon instinct, not choice. [/quote]

I read her original statement wrong I think. I read it as they don't get to choose, we get to choose for them. Apologies.
But it makes me wonder... when we are genetically tested, and find out we are a carrier for Down Syndrome, and we CHOOSE to create a child that has a huge chance of having a life altering disability... where does that put us?
And if I breed a healthy dog ONCE who tests clean on everything and have 5-10 puppies ONE TIME that are given or sold for a low cost to friends, family, and other highly screened and qualified people, where does that put me? I do not see anything wrong with that. I see a responsible dog owner creating more responsible dog owners. Because I will take the time to mentor the new owners, help them, train with them, provide support.

[quote="As could be said for many of these things you listed (re: blind rotting teeth and deafness). If the dog gains one of these things at 10 years old - it is most likely not genetic (in some rare cases it could be). Therefore since it's not genetic the breeder wouldn't worry about it being passed on. Now - if the dog in fact go blind and deaf by 4 then there is most likely an underlying problem that could also be genetic - but could also be environmental. [/quote]

This is the point I am trying to get across. It may or may not be genetic. It may or may not be environmental. It may or may not be passed on. There is no certainty in creating life. There are so many circumstances and odd things that happen that you really can't say for certain (at least I wouldn't) that a CH line dog will for a FACT be healthier than a backyard bred dog, regardless of testing. Sure, it helps the chances. Yes, it should be done. But I never say never, because Murphy has a way of kicking your ass when you utter that word.

(Sorry, I messed up the quote tags and can't figure out how to fix them...doh)

But you will note that the odds of a disease like those being inherited are in fact near zero when they are acquired in the senior stage of life.

You cannot use those things as a basis for the reasons people should or should not breed when if they are inherited they will most likely show up at birth or prior to the age of 5 (give or take). Take Merle and the blind/deafness associated with it. Or take PRA or JC who will blind a puppy from within a few days of birth up to 3 years of age. Or inherited HD that will be onset most likely well before 5 years of age whereas environmental HD will develop in the senior years.

This is just very basic almost an oversimplification if you will (at least until I find what I"m looking for)

Niraya wrote:

But you will note that the odds of a disease like those being inherited are in fact near zero when they are acquired in the senior stage of life.

And what about when it has become a breed trait? When puppy after puppy turns up deaf sometime down the road, and all their teeth rot out, regardless of care? But no one knows until the lines have been passed on for several generations? That may not be genetic, but it is still a breeding issue.

As for linebreeding, I wouldn't make my dogs do something I would not. I would never consider mating with my grandfather (rest his soul). And I don't feel it is appropriate for my dogs either.

It shouldn't be a breed trait nor should it ever become known as one. If people started noticing this (no matter how many puppies were produced over however many years) if was noticed and then noted as genetic* (*I will find the information on the inheritance eventually). Then the "responsible" breeders would have "culled" (Note: Culled doesn't mean killed it means placed as pets spayed and neutered). The litters, spayed/neutered at least one parent if not both and done the appropriate research to determine who is carriers and who was truly affected and discontinued the use of the dogs as breeding dogs.

And yes - inheritance CAN be proven and can be proven as to whether or not the trait is recessive or dominant.

Autosomal recessive traits tend to occur in one generation and then skip one or two generations until carrier descendants are again mated allowing the genes to be expressed.

Autosomal Dominant traits occur in successive generations (no skipping).

Sex-linked traits may skip generations.

Polygenic traits may skip generations or may appear to be erratic in occurrence.

Niraya wrote:

Autosomal recessive traits tend to occur in one generation and then skip one or two generations until carrier descendants are again mated allowing the genes to be expressed.

Autosomal Dominant traits occur in successive generations (no skipping).

Sex-linked traits may skip generations.

Polygenic traits may skip generations or may appear to be erratic in occurrence.

I really admire your ability to turn any thread into a genetics conversation. LOL!

Genetics is science - not luck of any kind. It may seem that way for traits we don't know modes of inheritance for - but I can assure there is no luck involved in it if you properly do the research into the dogs that are within any specific line.

Also, I don't know if you saw my question on the Grand Champion lineage of your mothers dogs but I would like to know the answer if you could .

goaliechick41 wrote:

Niraya wrote:

Autosomal recessive traits tend to occur in one generation and then skip one or two generations until carrier descendants are again mated allowing the genes to be expressed.

Autosomal Dominant traits occur in successive generations (no skipping).

Sex-linked traits may skip generations.

Polygenic traits may skip generations or may appear to be erratic in occurrence.

I really admire your ability to turn any thread into a genetics conversation. LOL!

Thank you very much - it's an art I'm perfecting

goaliechick41 wrote:

Niraya wrote:

Autosomal recessive traits tend to occur in one generation and then skip one or two generations until carrier descendants are again mated allowing the genes to be expressed.

Autosomal Dominant traits occur in successive generations (no skipping).

Sex-linked traits may skip generations.

Polygenic traits may skip generations or may appear to be erratic in occurrence.

I really admire your ability to turn any thread into a genetics conversation. LOL!

I"m not the type to say "I told you so" usually but... told you so lol. Alright carry on, I'll go back to spectating now

Hey - I just trying to share what I've learned and have had the opportunity to learn about from people far more knowing than I. Any person who considers serious breeding should learn these things.

I am not even seriously considering breeding and it's something that is important to know IF I should.

Niraya wrote:

All of those breeds you listed conform to a standard (written or otherwise) when they're being bred because you have to have a specific structure to do certain kinds of work (we had this discussion before)

Also - Seppala Siberians are Siberian Huskies through and through (and there are several who are still registered with the AKC and CanKC) - my breeder has a few.

They're just a "line" of Siberian's and not everyone chose to register or didn't keep up with it (this isn't a "recent" thing either).

No one here has "purebred" elitism? Not sure where you got that from. What we do have is a love of the breed and proper breeding ethics. I am very much an advocate of mixed breeding IF it is for a specific WORKING purpose.

My point is that if all these very specific parameters exist for the husky to be the ideal sled dog, how come dogs that don't fit within those very specific parameters can kick their asses? If the standard for a purebred kelpie is so important to that breed, why are the more functional versions the ones that don't meet the standard?

How come a dual title agility klee kai has the worst back end I've ever seen on a klee kai?

I think its clear I'm a huge advocate of breeding for functionality. I belong to an arena of dog owners and lovers and trainers and breeders who do things differently, because their dogs are for a different purpose.

I didn't say anyone was an elitist, I just don't subscribe to any of the elitist crap. Id go into it, but I'm in a particularly grumpy mood, and have really given every ounce of civil human being to this post as it is. Its not that I'm annoyed by you, its outside stuff, and I particularly don't want to be harsh with my words to someone who keeps it civil.

I understand

I fully back breeding for proper conformation and functionality (Form follows function) 100%. Like I said - I fully support intentional mixed breeding when the dog is being bred to WORK. (Work is subjective I understand).

I also understand that everyone interprets things differently and that also plays a part.

But that's all I have to say on that since you're grumpy. Mr. Grumpy pants ! Maybe you and I can have a more private discussion on these things another day ?

Niraya wrote:

Also, I don't know if you saw my question on the Grand Champion lineage of your mothers dogs but I would like to know the answer if you could .

I do not know the exact answer. I meant to imply that his brother was a GC. And I am not 100% sure that is AKC. My mom did a lot of UKC showing, and at the time I didn't know there was a difference.

Niraya wrote:

Hey - I just trying to share what I've learned and have had the opportunity to learn about from people far more knowing than I. Any person who considers serious breeding should learn these things.

I am not even seriously considering breeding and it's something that is important to know IF I should.

I appreciate all the info. As I said in a previous post, I have A LOT to learn before I decide to breed or not. And by breed, I mean have ONE litter. I do not mean own a breeding kennel. I am not dead set in breeding. In fact, I decided I didn't want to and took the spay/neuter contract. Trading $78 for a $200 value is pretty tempting though. And I felt bad making him pay for the vet visit, as I would have had to take her in anyway for the cut on her cheek. I felt slightly shady having him reimburse me for it all when I would have had to anyway. Part of the trade eases my conscience. And I don't have to worry about getting her spayed by 6 months old, which is what the contract stated. I have yet to research if it is better to let them go through their first heat or not first.

Niraya wrote:

I understand

I fully back breeding for proper conformation and functionality (Form follows function) 100%. Like I said - I fully support intentional mixed breeding when the dog is being bred to WORK. (Work is subjective I understand).

I also understand that everyone interprets things differently and that also plays a part.

But that's all I have to say on that since you're grumpy. Mr. Grumpy pants ! Maybe you and I can have a more private discussion on these things another day ?

Absolutely. Not this week, though. This week my only goals are to not poison myself, my human housemates, or the cats. It will take every ounce of focus I have outside of my working hours.

It's all personal preference. Any vet will almost always tell you spay before the first heat to basically drop the chance of cancer to zero. Spaying after the first heat will up the chance but not dramatically. Spaying after the second heat really has no affect on the chance of getting it so there isn't really a point.

Spaying prior to the closing of the growth plates will almost always cause the dog to grow taller (almost all spayed pets are always taller than what they would normally be) and spaying will cause weight gain (but can be balanced by proper diet and maintaining exercise, obviously).

Spaying also will prevent the roaming of dogs around your house (remember, a male can smell a bitch in heat up to 5 miles away with no wind!) will prevent any chance for an accidental litter and will eliminate the risk of Pyometra.

K9_Eric wrote:

Niraya wrote:

I understand

I fully back breeding for proper conformation and functionality (Form follows function) 100%. Like I said - I fully support intentional mixed breeding when the dog is being bred to WORK. (Work is subjective I understand).

I also understand that everyone interprets things differently and that also plays a part.

But that's all I have to say on that since you're grumpy. Mr. Grumpy pants ! Maybe you and I can have a more private discussion on these things another day ?

Absolutely. Not this week, though. This week my only goals are to not poison myself, my human housemates, or the cats. It will take every ounce of focus I have outside of my working hours.

You stick to them goals! I'm almost always around so

Niraya wrote:

Spaying prior to the closing of the growth plates will almost always cause the dog to grow taller (almost all spayed pets are always taller than what they would normally be) and spaying will cause weight gain (but can be balanced by proper diet and maintaining exercise, obviously).

So if I want to make sure Ahsoka stays within breed range (assuming she isn't predisposed to grow taller than standard), I should wait longer to spay her. When (ish) do the growth plates close?

Varies for every dog - I'd say between 18 months and 2 1/2 years is a safe bet for a Siberian.

Now (since I'm easily confused) did you opt for limited registration or full? The whole thing with the vet and the spay contract all got me confused. lol

Niraya wrote:

Varies for every dog - I'd say between 18 months and 2 1/2 years is a safe bet for a Siberian.

Now (since I'm easily confused) did you opt for limited registration or full? The whole thing with the vet and the spay contract all got me confused. lol

I went with full, which was my first choice. So I could take my time to decide to spay her or not.

Niraya wrote:

It's all personal preference. Any vet will almost always tell you spay before the first heat to basically drop the chance of cancer to zero. Spaying after the first heat will up the chance but not dramatically. Spaying after the second heat really has no affect on the chance of getting it so there isn't really a point.

Spaying prior to the closing of the growth plates will almost always cause the dog to grow taller (almost all spayed pets are always taller than what they would normally be) and spaying will cause weight gain (but can be balanced by proper diet and maintaining exercise, obviously).

Spaying also will prevent the roaming of dogs around your house (remember, a male can smell a bitch in heat up to 5 miles away with no wind!) will prevent any chance for an accidental litter and will eliminate the risk of Pyometra.

All this information is 100% true and accurate.

The reason that some people choose to wait to spay until after 1st heat is because it gives the dog a chance to reach sexual maturity, and as such, develop hormones as it usually would.

I personally believe in waiting for 1st heat. The extra estrogen helps during the 1st year of training and socialization.

IT ABSOLUTELY RAISES THE RISK OF PYOMETRA AND CANCER.

That is a risk that I personally accept, but not one I recommend to other dog owners.

Now you know both sides of the debate.

I spayed Bella at 16 months - a little sooner than I'd have wanted but for her heart it was the best decision as her condition will only get worse. She stayed within the standard but she did gain the weight (family shit and my father's lung transplant interfered with her training and exercise which also contributed as did the stress of the situation).

If you choose to spay you could still show in UKC altered (which would be a much more friendly environment for you to show her in). And until you do get her spayed you could show her in UKC. I feel it would just be a much better environment than jumping straight into AKC.