Printable View
I think we should cross the bulldog to the working pointer as it is robust and healthy, with many individuals going 15 years. In fact I know of one who died last month, a son of the great Wingfield Banner, who died just short of his 17th birthday. This dog was still doing light duties in the shooting season up until last year.
Just busting your balls Tussock. Have a good Friday everyone :D
Hook line and sinker :thumbsup:
English or American?
It's a handline, I'm fishing in shallow waters :D
Actually it may as well be a longline, with the amount of trolling I'm doing this morning!
Regardless of how shallow the water is, he's still well out of his depth on this topic!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Pointer
Cry all you want. My breed is fine, yours has 50 years max :)
As for special temperaments, why did you lock the conversation? A whole lot of projection going on there.
You are the one quoting a 3000 year dynasty of your dog and then when the water got pass your ankles you reached for the lifeline and shut the conversation down mate.......next you will be saying Santa Claus in a myth.
The best thing you can do for british bulldogs would be to ban vets assisting in fertilization and birthing. Should wipe out 99% of them in 10yrs :D
Absolutely. Some folk would find applying such selection 'ruthless' however :PQuote:
Originally Posted by Barefoot
89.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tussock
39.35% of people know that [emoji1]
Sent from my SM-G388F using Tapatalk
So after all these pages of your emotion filled tirades, completely devoid of fact or reason, you still didn't answer the question Tussock. How do you think we arrived at all these diverse types in horticulture and agriculture? Do you think it all happened by accident? What tools did we use to create these breeds?
Not averse to banning AI for dogs that cant naturally mate. Havent AI'd for a while to be honest but some breeds like bulldogs and staffies have high rates of dumb regarding ability to breed. Might be nature giving us a signal.
So far as inbreeding etc, ALL our pure breeds of whatever animal you want to name, are inbred, its been happening since we domesticated animals, now we can put names and numbers to it. Generally as mentioned somewhere grand parent to grandoffspring is about the limit of genetic/societies acceptance of linebreeding for animals but yep its arbitrary.
The no linebreeding at all stance is purist but means we go back to a mishmash and lottery trying to select the best hunting/working/pet dogs again from essentially mongrels. The minute you breed your dog because it runs faster or points better, you are selecting for genes, and that dog will likeley also carry some bad genes and off it goes again.
I get the nausea at bad breeders or breedstandards destroying functionality in some breeds, but Id politely suggest its plenty common for dodgey inbreeding happening with backyard breeders making breeding calls with limited know how and genetics.
This inbreeding discussion got we wondering (to myself) if the Black Robin's very narrow genetic base bode ill for them in the future. I found this research, which is interesting. See chapter 7.
Not sure if it will inform this dog "debate" or not.
https://researcharchive.lincoln.ac.n...pdf?sequence=3
Sorry to crop ya post ethos, this is a valid point.Quote:
Originally Posted by ethos
It's ok to take a moral high ground but I think this is the key point the rock doctor is missing.
I think I recall discussing genetic bottlenecks on the stewart island poisoning thread in another life Tahr.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tahr
For relevance here I would infer that the smaller a population is , the less genetically diverse it is likely to be - for wild animals that means lower fertility and higher susceptibility to disease, for our dogs it means more expression of recessive genes and defects.
The smaller the (dog breed) population the more it benefits from outside genetics.
A dog breeder would argue that means importing a stud dog from overseas.
Tussock -if Im reading his argument right- would argue that could be achieved by crossing with a dog of any breed that fit the bill and buggar the breed standard. I dont disagree in principle, its just more of a lottery as to what traits a non pure bred dog will exibit.
No it does not, not breeding for form or for function gives us the bull dog we see today...both English and American.
In theory the English bulldog should have died out the same time animal baiting did.
The only thing that kept it going was the sport of dog showing.....and that's another subject in its own right.
Natural selection is best observed in wild canines, African wild dogs are a good start....pretty sure they are also playing banjos as well and yet they are suppose to free of many problems suffered by domestic dogs.
Tahr touched on the same thing in the previous thread Ethos just summed up. This is not a natural system, these are species that solely exist because of our intervention.
Breeding a white dog of any breed, to another white dog of any breed is still positive assortative mating. You are increasing the chances that that you will make homozygous the genotype at that loci for white colour expression. You are decreasing the chances of the expression of other colours. This is at its most basic 'true to type' mating. Yes thats right, the dreaded 'I' word. The fact you can look at a breed and identify it by eye means it is breeding true to type. This does not happen by accident.
Secondly, where do you get the notion that this is a recent construct? Do you think that the southern men who cemented your bulldogs genotype (and all its associated problems) imported dogs from as far away as possible? No, they used what was available to them, probably within one single state of the US. Much like the Black Robin example above, a limited gene pool to start with, and a hiding to nowhere as you put it.
To say this process of selective breeding is new to us is frankly delusional. we have been doing it for thousands of years, and it has got us where we are now.
the current english bulldog bears no resemblence to his long legged ancesteor kept for gameness and butcher used.Quote:
In theory the English bulldog should have died out the same time animal baiting did.
if wild pig hunting the way we do it had existed then maybe the real breed would have survived and thrived
could you imagine the current asmatic shortlegged joke of genetic mishandling and down right kennel club cruelty holding a bull by the snout while the butcher sledge hammers it.
if it had half an ounce of usefulnesss it would be crossed into more pigdogs than you could shake a stick at instead it can barely stagger to the letter box to wheeze at the postie 3 days a week.
This here is Teosinte.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7035/6...9ebf8b40_b.jpg
It is a wild type grass, of the Zea family. It is the modern progenitor of every type of corn on the planet today. Yes that's right, corn, one of our biggest and most valuable crops, is a man made construct. We have selectively bred it for nearly 9000 years, and it single handedly funded the giant population explosion that happened at a time most refer to now as the 'agricultural revolution'.
Believe it or not, corn as we know it could not survive on its own without man tending it and protecting it. We have created it from that spindly head I pictured above, into what we know today as corn. Zea species usually grow a single seed head at the top of the plant, about 25mm long. So the ingenious Indians who first started cultivating it by hand very early on retained the ones who sprouted multiple heads, like today's corn, and used them as seed. All this seed, from a handful of multiple headed plants in the whole crop, was used for the next years crop, immediately assortative mating on the genotype for double heads. Once the crop was homozygous for multiple heads, which wouldn't take long, maybe a few seasons, then size of the heads could be selected for. Now multiply this selection by every harvest for 9000 years and tell me that selective breeding is a new fashion.
This husbandry has got us where we are as a species. To take away from it and say this has all happened in the last 200 years is frankly short sighted and ill informed.
The dog, good old Canis, has been with us for over double the length of time that corn has! Are you still going to tell everyone here that this is recent?
this quoting you, post 19 in the other thread:
"The rise of this style of breeding in the last few hundred years coincides with a change in social philosophy. The scientific attitude that animals are equivalent to machines, with no sentience of any kind. They are incapable of suffering and are simply objects to be used as humans see fit.
Before this resurrection of old Greek philosophy in the west such breeding practices were considered abhorrent. "
again, post 28
"Its only in the last 200 years or so this disturbing sport of competing to produce the most identical mutant sprung up in England. This is not the origin of good dogs, just a weird sport that sprung up among English middle class aristocratic wannabes."
Actually it did survive in the southern states of America when the breed was bought out there in the 1700-1800s, there you go tussock you have a date, it was in fact used as a pig dog and still is today, it became know as the American bulldog or earlier on an English White.Quote:
Originally Posted by gsp follower
It was later bred back to the English bulldog by a bloke called Johnson and this was the start of the bow legged Johnson type.
And as for this part, don't belittle the other readers. We are talking within the same clade at least.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tussock
No, those indians were simply selecting the best. Just like Kawhia is about to do :)
Sit down before you hurt yourself bud.
Sounds pretty much like the system I breed under, bloody Germans write down everything, it's what fucked them at NurembergQuote:
Originally Posted by Tussock
Traits.....performance traits, you are trying to confuse the issue.
Too many breeds have been fucked by the interpretation of the "breed standard" by puppy farmers. All in the interest of making money from selling "their" breed. I have seen it with the Alaskan Malamute, one of the most primitive breeds. Frigging yanks breeding them smaller so they can sell them to ego-tripping apartment-dwellers, and here, even bigger wankers breeding pitbulls to be "mean." I concur with just about everything you have said on the subject, Tussock, for what it's worth.
Nobody here in this discussion will argue with that. Breeding to a confirmation standard alone is a quick way to ruin, it is well documented in many breeds. Nobody here was discussing that. The original poster asked how the people with great success in breeding performance animals have done it, and who was brave enough to do it down under. Traditionally you find people who breed for what it does, not what they looks like, have a great variation of physical type in their kennels as performance is the priority. My own dogs would get laughed out of the conformation show ring, and long may that last. It is what they do that concerns me, and with out that purpose they would cease to exist.
I have posted more extensive thoughts elsewhere but having now read this new thread I want to add a couple of things. I have never taken any notice of COI's I look at the paper and that tells me commonality and how close it will be and then I have to decide if I am going to go that close. If I am going too close though, the danger in the COI, is that it might reassure me I am not and so I go against my gut and do it. So long as I am prepared to deal with the results. I will continue, however to breed based on what my eye tells me about the dogs I am using and my experience with them. I would never personally select a dog purely on pedigree. As an aside, my last (first) litter was bred back to "Brick" and there was a lot of commonality. The next will be virtually a total out-cross. Why? I want to see the difference for myself and again, I have to be prepared to deal with the results.
But here is why I believe this discussion is going nowhere. Tussock is quite rightly outlining the pitfalls of line breeding purely for aesthetics with no thought to performance. That the Bulldog has become so grotesquely deformed is actually proof that line breeding works. What we have got is what the breeders wanted. The fault is not the method they used to achieve that, but should be viewed as an abuse of a legitimate method for selfish purposes... winning a ribbon and to hell with the dog.
Attachment 57329
The show people achieved exactly what they wanted... a dog that could win in a show ring, but it can no longer perform. The person using the same techniques but breeding to functionality based on performance will also get a result of exaggerating the performances features, if care is taken. Line breeding works but must be fully understood and the reasons for it must always be to produce a better dog, NOT to produce a deformed specimen to win a ribbon on a lawn somewhere.
Had the focus of the Bulldog breeder been function it is likely we would today have a dog extremely similar to the original with much greater ability to perform and handle. Line breeding, done correctly would have been the best way to achieve that. Line breeding hasn't been the issue... focus and selfishness of breeders has been the issue. The same method could have been the savior of the "original type" as much as it has been the demise... again, it's not the method, but the application.
Pedigree dogs exposed creates a lot of controversy where it is viewed and discussed, and it takes a similar line to what Tussock has. This is flawed and correct at the same time. Line breeding IS NOT THE ISSUE. It is the reasons and goals of those using line breeding that is the issue. When done with no other goal than a better performing dog there should be few issues, but if it's just to try and get a litter of dogs that all have one white left ear and one black right ear then ultimately we can end up with dogs with three of each.
exactly when a heatlhy useful animal is the target and its a success its line breeding when it goes wrong for whatever reason its inbreeding.:O_O:
somebody should have been prosecuted over the english bulldogs cruel fate.
Here you go, Tussock...
Pelorus Jack, the mascot | NZHistory, New Zealand history online
Quote...'bull pup of honest parentage, clean habits, and moral tendencies'.
