Steve

my bosses daughter has a "cav cross poodle' its meant to be she showed me a picture but its got the head of a beagle no doubt about it, also has cav markings but poodle coat a little bit wavy not full on though. he is also 15 kgs..alot bigger than a cav. how much does a beagle usually weigh steve? im sure that he is the size of a beagle. although just viewed pictures. i didn't ask how much they paid not game enough, i assume probably about a thousand. boss tried to tell me ages ago that she went to a reg breeder of cavs and i was very exited to find that out only to be totally disappointed that it was a cross bought at a petshop. And this lady is a school teacher you'd think she'd know a bit more about what to do and how to go about buying a puppy. but no. sorry a bit offtopic. Thats really the whole point could have a bit of anything in it.

One of these dogs is a purebred beagle the other is a beagle cross cav - right now every now and then I have a cherry eye to contend with but let these fellows in on an open stud book and in 10 years I will be fighting MVD and SM. Nup.

The fact that we have reciprocal deals with the UK kennel club means that sooner or later the dogs allowed in with an open stud book will appear on at least some of ours but reality is that I dont think the ANKC will hold out and tell animal rights and people who are pushing for open stud books to bugger off .Its only a matter of time that they open up - The fact that they have already banned close matings is taking us closer and fuels the base line media crap that we are where we are because of in breeding. I would like to see them fight back and promote the fact that the stud books have always been able to be opened and still can be without needing to change anything. The whole idea that one of those beagle cross cavs which look every bit a purebred beagle is allowed in and we then start to see SM and MVD in a breed that doesnt have it? Not on my shift.

That is the least of my concerns I trust breeders to make the best decisions for their breeding programs and if the dog in question is legitimately good for their breeding programs they will use them .I wouldnt use a dog I knew nothing of except that it looked like the breed unless there were extremely mitigating reasions as to why I should. That has nothing to do with peer pressure or attacks but because I use the pedigree system to track health and temperament etc and include that information as part of my selection for a mating. Im afraid that the ability to use close breeding in an appropriate situation will be taken away . So therefore rather than increasing the freedom to make the right decisions as appears to be the general intent of a push for opening stud books that we will be limited to having to do as we are told based on a generic decision rather than what is best in our own back yards and our own breeds. The MDBA registry has the option of a breeder being able to bring in another dog and opening the stud book but not just because the dog looks like its a good example of the breed. I think the fact that they are opening stud books only based on conformation it simply backs up what is being said of them - that they only care about the way the dog looks and that is first and foremost what they select for. It shows little respect for the stud system and why it came about or should be used in my opinion.

I don't either under those conditions. However the notion that a dog without a pedigree is going to be genetically different to those in the stud book might bear closer inspection. Two limited register dogs would produce that now.. from within the existing gene pool. sorry i am going to go out on a limb here and say i do have a problem with it in my own breed. I have enough trouble trying to keep out PL in my bloodlines and to introduce more dogs that i don't know their lines beyond 3 generation when i have proven that they can pick up this genetic problem from at least 5 - 6 gens back. Years ago I bred Ragdoll cats. Some breeders came along and said there was a limited gene pool and they wanted to introduce new blood and make new colours .So the CFA said go ahead. I was really against this as back then the breed was bombproof - had no known nasty recessives and was fertile and all was well. To this day I never got why they allowed the program to go especially as they used breeds which had known genetic disorders. I held out and refused to breed any of the the new lines and over several years watched as cardio myopathy showed up and bunch of others that had never been there before. Now 20 years later I wouldnt be able to buy a cat to breed with in that breed that didnt have cats from those outcrosses in there somewhere. Same withthe bob tailed boxer - by now its up to around 18 generations and anyone who thinks they will be able to own a boxer indefinitely that doesnt have a drop of corgi in it indefinitely is fooling themselves. My point is once its done its done so we had better get it right. In your case there is no saying that someone may be out there who is breeding chi's and has kept the same records as you and has done everything the same except register their pups - AND - There are more things to look at in your breed than just PL - so it would all depend on what info you had and what you were selecting for. However the same result could be achieved if the health issues as well as titles were recorded some place where every one could get access to them. Of course the big deal is that in breeding causes lack of fertility and blah blah blah so for those most likely to make laws PL etc will be the least of their considerations.

Do you think the dog is obsessing over her ? It should be following her and Im not sure that anything you do is going to stop a Maremma shredding its bed. Im impressed she gets the dog to sit on a bed!

ok thanks. i have a light 5m chain that i put him on once for about 1/2 hr or so it cannot tangle so should be ok. should i still be in the pen with him? i have read that you should push him to the ground if he chases, is this right?? Ive never had to consider pushing them to the ground but I would say it wouldnt always be easy to catch them. When peoplesay they have been working with chickens that could mean a whole heaps of different ways they have been working with them. Some have them inthe pens, some outside the pens - some have no pens etc but in a dog 7 months old that has already been working with chickens I wouldnt expect that you should be seeing this kind of behaviour so Im guessing "working with chickens" wasnt really what you thought it was. Pushing them to the ground is difficult in a 7 month old and it might let you do that once but it will get harder to catch it to do it very often. Stamping your feet , raising your voice and throwing a soft clump of dirt works well here. If you tether him in the pen you dont need to stay there with him. He needs to be with the chickens 24 hours a day but only able to touch them or get too close when you are there so you can correct him if he gets too playful - it shouldnt take very long to train this out of him but at this age he wont just train himself.

I dont have a problem if all stud books are open as long as there is more going on in considering a dog for entry other than the way it resembles the breed and that the breeders are able to say what they are aiming for and why this will take them there.

Actaully it was the breed clubs that prevented it. And I am sure that is why the open stud book has nothing to do with consulting with the breed clubs, it is across the board to prevent this from every happening again. I also think the government has a very big gun to the KC's head and it really is now a case of our way or the highway. I mma so very sure (my crystal ball has been dusted off and is working very well) they are gearing up to have some sort of control on inbreeding levels which will use the Mate Select system. no i don't think so. i really don't think that will happen. as i also said earlier that was ignored that i went to a meeting with my controling body (dogsvictoria/VCA) and the president addressed about 100 members (room was jam packed) to tell us that the government looks to VCA for direction as VCA is one of 5 key organisations to advise the govt. i believe right beside RSPCA and others. the govt also asked VCA about another very well known issue and i contacted VCA and asked if i am allowed to print it here on DOL but I am not allowed as they want to address public/media their own way on all of this, but its just an example that the govt are in no way putting their foot down and saying this is how it is going to be done and we are now going to do it - tough, they firstly gather their key organisations as they have done recently, and then hold a meeting and discuss some more before they decide to do that. i believe you are describing a society of communism, perhaps? I believe you dont know the full story - and what is going on from the other side. I believe that some havent worked out yet that the CCs are representing a minority group and times are changing. How much impact did Voc dogs have when breeding Scottish fold cats was made illegal? When it became a crimminal offence to take a debarked dog to a dog show? To make it a crimminal offence to breed a carrier? The agenda is for one overriding body which will regulate all dog related issues and while they may give the CCs a token seat - just as they did in the UK it will be rather like 10 wolves sitting down with one sheep and voting on whats for dinner. The CCs have already gone along with them by introducing various regs which have set the scene for them to take it further and make it law.

I think dogs are not mice either. So really only dogs (unless it proves my point and the all rules of fair play are out! LOL).

Not agreeing or disagreeing Steve but Australia is a damn big Country. And concidering alot of SS's statements arise from internet browsing, one just never knows which agenda SS is going by. Agenda ? Why does it matter? Healthy debate which pushes us to re assess what we think is a good thing surely? If OUR agenda is the betterment of the breeds and the dogs we personally breed then being challenged and having a place where we can belt it out - maybe even learn something is healthier than us staying in our comfort zones and stroking each other to PERHAPS justify mistakes we may have made and in advertently cause dogs to suffer when we can prevent that. The wolf thing is interesting but how does that relate to what is happening in my back yard when what is happening in the wolf study isnt what is happening in my back yard ? Purebred dog breeders dont breed their dogs in any way that a wolf colony breeds - for us or at least for me it isnt relavant . We select the mates based on the many things we take into account to try to breed the healthiest puppies and the husbandry methods we use in our loungerooms is hardly comparable in any way and surely by now we all know just as many studies done on inbreeding and natural selection to show a bit of ours. Which is exactly what I said. However making along list of species that inbreed, is no different from making a long list of animals that do not closely inbreed, and neither list proves it is good or bad for our dogs, as they are not those animals. More importantly it is all negated by the fact we do the selection not nature, so all bets are off. Personally I woudl sugest all human example not be used for a lot of reasons, the main one being that has been already used by PETA very sucessfully and I would never feed into that idea. I agree so perhaps we should just stick to studies done on purebred breeding of mammals - where the variables more closely resemble what we do - or what we should do. No more wolves and no more people ;)

So who should answer for it taking 40 years? Surely if someone knows its a problem and there is a way of fixing it - its a no brainer - fix it. Remember the agenda should be to stop dogs suffering - If an antiquated system is what is holding it up better we now re assess the sytem so that in future when we find a way of fixing something we can go ahead and use it.

Bryann..a open stud book can define and promote a breed, a breed does not need a clsoed stud book to exsist. There are many breeds that work with in open stud books. I have listed many of them before. One of the best example here in OZ is the Ozzie made working kelpie, see the WKC web site. It is an open stud book that allows outcrossing and back crossing. I would also say they have excellent breed type, but even more importantly excellent breed type in working traits. Tthis breed was well established and develope long ago and it continues to be well bred by the working community. A Ture Blue Aussie Job and very well done! Purebred breeders have always had the ability to apply to have the stud books opened and they still do. Not much point in beating up SS about their belief that opening stud books across the board is the answer as this is exactly what the UKKC have done and without doubt sooner or later teh ANKC will bend to animal rights push and do the same thing. My argument is that its still being done based on conformation which in my opinion is nothing more than a bandaid - because its still about selection.

The wolf article was used by Shortstep to suggest the application of "genetic rescue" to purebred dogs thus: And yes Bryann you have missed something. Shortstep has stated that the health issues of all purebred dogs can only be resolved by outcrossing to different breeds. And that this should be forced upon us all. You have also missed Steve taking issue with Shortstep's assertions and solutions. Im disagreeing with shortstep on some of the things she says and trying to debate the issue - Im not taking issue with shortstep. I respect her and her right to voice her opinion and I embrace the opportunity to bash it out. It makes me think, reassess what I know and where I stand - and why. Im happy to say if she changes my mind and proves me wrong and I assume she is woman enough to do the same assuming our agenda is for the benefit of our dogs -and for me thats all Im interested in its a good thing.

Not agreeing or disagreeing Steve but Australia is a damn big Country. And concidering alot of SS's statements arise from internet browsing, one just never knows which agenda SS is going by. Agenda ? Why does it matter? Healthy debate which pushes us to re assess what we think is a good thing surely? If OUR agenda is the betterment of the breeds and the dogs we personally breed then being challenged and having a place where we can belt it out - maybe even learn something is healthier than us staying in our comfort zones and stroking each other to PERHAPS justify mistakes we may have made and in advertently cause dogs to suffer when we can prevent that. The wolf thing is interesting but how does that relate to what is happening in my back yard when what is happening in the wolf study isnt what is happening in my back yard ? Purebred dog breeders dont breed their dogs in any way that a wolf colony breeds - for us or at least for me it isnt relavant . We select the mates based on the many things we take into account to try to breed the healthiest puppies and the husbandry methods we use in our loungerooms is hardly comparable in any way and surely by now we all know just as many studies done on inbreeding and natural selection to show a bit of ours. Among antelopes incestuous matings are the rule. The African reedbuck, for instance, has two young at a birth, male and female, which mate together when mature. Only when one happens to die by accident does out- or cross-breeding occur and this is true of the smaller antelopes too, It’s the same with red deer . Brother and sister tigers mate as a the norm and among African buffaloes, breeding occurs mainly among the immediate offspring of the same cow. The cattle from La Plata in the Falkland Islands, not only quickly multiplied from just a few , but they also broke up into smaller herds according to colour, and the close inbreeding became more intensive because of the cattle’s own instincts. Many animals do chase off the younger males and don’t let any new comers in so the, males mate with their own daughters. In nature among some monkeys constant matings between the head of the horde and his daughters, sisters and other close relations, happen. Among most animals, including elephants , the leading male mates with his daughters, grand-daughters, and great-grand-daughters, as long as he is able to keep other males away. Even when he isn’t strong any more that doesn’t stop the incest because usually it will be one of his sons which take his place. In New Zealand the red deer began as 3 and were introduced in the 1800’s from England and last count about ten years ago the herd numbered over 5,000. They show no signs of disease and they are superior in vigour and health to the original parent stock. A fellow called Kronacher, starting with one male and three females (a mother and two daughters) of ordinary goats, and in bred for eight generations, without any loss of size, physical development, milking capacity, fertility or vitality. In fact their fertility tended to increase. And he declared that in this case he practised no selection whatever. In 1916 Professor Castle stated that he had successfully bred Drosophila, brother and sister, for 59 generations, without obtaining any diminution in either vigour or fertility. Moenkhaus crossed the same fly, brother and sister, for 75 generations, without harmful consequences. Hyde and Schultze achieved the same result with mice. Castle tried rats, and Popenoe guinea-pigs, and both concluded that no deleterious effects could be ascribed to the in bred system of mating. King experimented with white rats, mating brother and sister regularly for 22 generations, and among these inbred rats some were obtained which proved actually superior to the stock rats from which they had sprung. The males were 15 per cent. heavier, and the females 3 per cent, while the fertility was nearly 8 per cent. Higher. There are hundreds of studies done on in breeding in humans going way back in history but more modern studies in human population genetics are The Pitcairn islanders, the Kisar Hybrids, the Bastards of Rehoboth, and the people of the island of Batz, all of whom are examples of human breeding with close inbreeding without harmful results. The Bataks of Sumatra, who also habitually marry their first-cousins, are some of the healthiest people in the Indian Archipelago. The chiefs in Polynesia and New Zealand have all been noticed for their superior height, looks and vigour. And throughout Polynesia the closest inbreeding in mating is among the chiefs. Therefore, humans are just as capable as some of the animals of thriving on close inbred matings, if the strains are healthy. Now - in breeding isnt the cause of problems but not being careful to select for or away from something important in any breeding program - whether that be outcrossing, crossbreeding or inbreeding we can see issues arise which will cause the dogs we breed to suffer. lest not forget in the examples we use for pro inbreeding that usually any born which cant survive in its natural habitat or which was deformed etc either perished or was thrown off a cliff. We have actually seen something different and decided because it was different we would breed like to like to be able to have more of them. So 100 % its what we select for - its quicker if we in breed but theoretically we could still get the same results eventually if we only selected like for like. Opening the stud books is going to lead us no where as long as we keep selecting in ignorance and thats why I dont want regs on banning of in breeding or the stud books being open to any dog unless that dog can pass more than a cursory glance to tell me it looks like its a purebred - and unless the breeder can articulate why they are choosing that dog and what they are hoping to achieve in their breeding program.

Oh Dear. You need to go back and start as if the dog hasnt had anything to do with chooks. The dog has to know that it can never play with the chooks or the animals its working with - its the first basic job you need to do. Chucking a clod of dirt at him when he does attempt this works well with a gruff voice. You have to be present from a short distance so your dog should be with the chooks when you are doing things around the yard as you want to be able to monitor his activities to correct him the minute you see him wanting to play with the chickens, and he should be corrected immediately . If you are not able to be there when the dog is loose he should be pen in a safe area close to the chickens he is to protect or tied up where they can get to him but he cant get to them.

Shortstep has ANKC dogs and breeds some of the best working dogs in the country.

So toydog, what do you thinkof the British Kennel club haveing done this, they are now an open stud book for all breeds including chi, any dogs that looks like the breed passes any maditory health tests will be registered, 3 generations later the pups are full KC registration ready for export to OZ! Actually this is what happened way back in the 1930's with the Tibetan Terriers, one of the main sires of early litters was an unknown parentage dog found on a dockside and was accepted into the studbook because he looked like a TT, went in front of a panel and was judged to have all the characteristics of a TT, so therefore must have been a TT, he went on to be the foundation sire of one of the well known kennels of the early years. However the lady who was the foundation breeder of the TTs was not amused to have this happen and the shit hit the fan so to speak, but life went on and he went on to produce lots more progeny. No DNA tests back then, just observation. So history is repeating itself, gee haven't we come a long way, not. Story goes that when wheatens were accepted into the Irish Kennel Club (despite being the oldest of the native Irish terrier breeds), they lined up a bunch of wheatens and irish terriers and went, 'That one's a wheaten, that one's an irish terrier, that one's a wheaten ...' It is probably the case that this needs to be done now in some breeds but while ever we are going to have purebred dogs exist sooner or later its only a bandaid unless we also do many other things including utilise the science and resources which are now available to us - just picking a dog to add to a breeding program based on how much it resembles a breed in this day and age without taking a whole heap more into account is for me pretty dumb. then what ? Will we still see peopel having pressure on them to breed less rather than increase the gene pool, will we see the stud books opened indefinitely and what is it exactly that we will need to test for or will testing be no longer necessary and if so for how long ? For me the whole thing seems to perpetuate the problem - selecting dogs for their phenotype . It will increase the gene pool overnight and stop the bad bad inbreeding activity - only a good thing if you believe that is all its going to need to prevent dogs suffering. How long before they yell about selecting for the phenotype and not just the dreaded inbreeding. Sooner than we think I reckon. I think if we are going to open the stud books that it needs to be presented as a program where we can see the method and the desired outcome for the breed for each dog presented as a possible candidate to be accepted without a registered pedigree . Without that how is it prgress? .

I don't see anyone attempting to deny it. The issue is with people concluding that if some breeds are in trouble, then ALL breeds are. I personally take issue with the idea that outcrossing is the magic bullet for all health concerns. No one knows for sure what introducing new genes will produce when offspring are again linebred to re-establish type. I see some people trying to deny it though their intent maybe simply to defend their own breeds but in my opinion its not just an issue with assumptions that all breeds are in trouble - though I agree this is definitely one of the issues. But even if they are never line bred again and type isnt considered important you are still going to see each recessive being more prevalant as there is a reducing gene pool due to social pressure. Problem is no one knows which recessives or what to watch out for or test for = more not less dogs with recessive disorders. It is - what appears to be - an inability for some to accept its a much more complex issue than is being presented. This constant carry on about in breeding as if it is stopped it will be the magic bullet, and the fact that each breed has a different set of circumstances which will all need to be addressed or not addressed on a case by case basis with all of the tools and resources possible to be available for use, is rarely acknowledged. In all honesty I cant see much point in all of the finger pointing and accusations about how blah blah blah came about especially when those telling us how it came about havent much clue about this breeding of this species or of particular breeds, that there is no research on incidences or prevalence and they seem to rely on what they think they know about humans to carry on about what is best for dogs. That they show no respect what ever for any potential experience base or knowledge and assume they know better about what does or does not need to be done is another. The start place appears to be we are ignorant cruel people who care nothing for the animals we live with and therefore that we are incapable of finding the problems, the solutions and being in capable of doing whatever is required on a breed by breed, dog by dog basis to ensure purebred dogs exist and will be healthy regardless of their breed unless big brother comes in to decide what is best . there is never a word mentioned about the fact that purebred dogs rely on in breeding to exist as they do and it is what we do. It bothers me that this has brainwashed purebred breeders who also think in breeding is a terrible sin without taking a look at the whole picture. Breeders shouldn't have to rely on animal rights propoganda to learn about breeding principals and husbandry issues with their species and it is folly to do so. Even more so because our numbers are dropping, breeders are doing some things which rather than helping is reducing the gene pools - and our CCs have decided to play a game which doesnt really consider the big picture again mainly pushed by animal rights and propoganda about puppy farms.

There is no denying that some dog breeds are in trouble - we make fools of ourselves in trying to deny that - and because they are BREEDS of course this has come about because the dogs were in bred and SELECTED FOR certain traits. Again over and over - its not in breeding which caused this - its is what has been selected for. These traits were what the breeders wanted and the results of the pedigree analysis done by Sydney Uni proves they didnt get it by closely in breeding anyway. No one knows yet what the long term outcome is going to be of selecting for certain health results or scores which we are muscled into taking into account. If a dog has good hips - forget about the other couple of hundred thousand genes select for that and we wont know for a lot longer than it takes to work out that breeding for the way the dog looks has created health issues. We dont know whether, when we select for low hip scores that we are losing other genes which may be impacting on immunity or a million other things yet either. That would be the case if we were breeding first cross dogs only selected for low scores as much as it will if we breed cross bred dogs only selecting for low scores or purebreds selecting only for low scores. We have to select for good health, longevity, temperament and predicitibility of management requirements AND select away from potential recessives which are prevalent in the breed to be able to breed consistently healthy dogs generation after generation with the new science and tools which are now at our disposal which have only been available to us in recent history. Here's the deal. We breed purebred dogs. The reason we choose to do that rather than breed cross bred dogs is because we believe that even though some families can live with any dog or any breed that many cannot . We believe that if we can breed dogs which are predictible we can have a better chance of having them and the families which take them live happily ever after. Because we are breeding consecutive generations and not just one - first cross - we need to consider what is in the mix which will show up in future. This is something which is unique to purebred breeders of any species. Without this we would not have different breeds of sheep, cattle, horses blah blah blah.That is not to say that first cross breeders are the bogey man but because we are looking at future generations and the impact our decisions will have on the families and the dogs we need more education , more skills, more tools and more knowledge to get it right - because what we breed will be used to breed with.We do need to work with recessives and take them into consideration where a cross bred breeder does not. Knowing what recessives to look for and test for and eliminate from a couple of dozen choices makes it much easier to do that than it is if we have thousands of potentials which may show up any old time. The fact of the matter is someone has to be mindful of what will come next when they breed dogs which will be used for breeding or there is never any chance of improving on anything and every dog bred will be the result of pot luck. Not only will the obvious characteristics be a crap shoot but so too will whether or not the dog will suffer with a genetic disorder. With the pressure on to desex dogs and breeders - purebred and cross bred - being treated as low life pondscum every single day the canine gene pool used for or suitable for breeding reduces. No doubt about it some breeders have selected for extremes in the breed standard without understanding the impact that may have on the health of the dogs into the future - whether they did this by breeding close relatives or not the decisions they made in selecting the dogs they bred have caused some dogs to suffer. Anyone from any group who is going to deny that needs to go and sit in a corner and re think what they think they know. No doubt about it when some breeders have been concerned about the phenotype of the animal in order to conform to a breed standard - regardless of how that was interpreted - they have over looked the need to identify and remove animals from their breeding programs which have not been what is best for future generations. No doubt about it something needed to be said and said pretty loudly in order for breeders to be more aware of the pros and cons with regard to health for generations to come which are impacted by the decisions they make in their selection of breeding dogs. No doubt about it some of us still havent got it and the race is on to try to make those breeders see the light or at least to shut up about the fact that they dont get it publicly and to change their beliefs and objectives in their breeding programs before we are all penalised and restricted because of that but there are 500 reasons why we are where we are now and dozens of things which need to be addressed and worked on and whether or not we breed the occassional litter which is closely related is the very least of them. We need to identify the problems and devise plans to fix them by looking at the whole issue objectively not by jumping on one popular uneducated belief perpetuated by people who dont get why we do what we do and which will threaten not aid the health of our dogs.

So do you want ANKC to close the stud book to UK imports that go back to their new apendix registered dogs? These dogs will not have pedigess listed even if they have them (I think). So would be just any dog by a purebred kennel club standards I would think. For example a WKC dog could be imported to the UK and now registered into the KC, 3 generations later his great grand pups could find their way back to OZ, so would you want to block these dogs from being in the ANKC due to the apendix working dog in the pedigree? What will you do if the ANKC did like the KC did and just announce with out warning, they are doing the same open stud book policy here !!! Now shortstep - thats not what Im saying at all - I think you know that - and what will I do when the ANKC does what the UK kennel club did - nothing any different to what Im doing now.

Yes we would not want to bring that cross bred back into the kennel club now would we. LOL So yes this is true if you want to leave the kennel club you are free not to inbred, point well made and well taken...LOL My case rests LOL No I dont think so - as a working dog breeder you are able to mate your working dogs with other working dogs which are not registered and still remain a member - you just cant register your puppies. Oh yes that is very good, as it keep the money for membership coming in and the well bred working bred pups out. That is just the image ANKC should be promoting right now. LOL In basis I agree with you but I dont want any old dog being able to be placed on the registry and surely there has to be some line in the sand .

LOL well I think you have about as good as idea of what recessives are hidding in your dogs as I do in my dogs, Zip as in Zero. But we both know they are there hidding, or atleast I hope you know that. This is a common argument that inbreeding helps to control disease. To me it is far better to have resessive genes not concentrated so that we never or very seldom see them. Verses concentrating them to the point they show up and now we have to deal with. Often by more inbreding in attempts to get rid of them. All the while concentrating some other recessive we did not know was there. It is a dog chasing it's tail game if you ask me. (which I am sure you did not LOL) Except that Ive been inbreeding for 30 plus years and you havent. Id say Id have a heaps better chance of knowing the recessives which are in my yard over what you know are in yours.

Yes we would not want to bring that cross bred back into the kennel club now would we. LOL So yes this is true if you want to leave the kennel club you are free not to inbred, point well made and well taken...LOL My case rests LOL No I dont think so - as a working dog breeder you are able to mate your registered dogs with other working dogs which are not registered and still remain a member - you just cant register your puppies.

LOL well I think you have about as good as idea of what recessives are hidding in your dogs as I do in my dogs, Zip as in Zero. But we both know they are there hidding, or atleast I hope you know that. This is a common argument that inbreeding helps to control disease. To me it is far better to have resessive genes not concentrated so that we never or very seldom see them. Verses concentrating them to the point they show up and now we have to deal with. Often by more inbreding in attempts to get rid of them. All the while concentrating some other recessive we did not know was there. It is a dog chasing it's tail game if you ask me. (which I am sure you did not LOL) I worked my heart out for years to eliminate cherry eye from my lines and then bought in a couple of queensland dogs - lots of champs in their pedigree and no common ancestors and now I know its back - waiting . As long as I never breed any of them - no worries but the fact is Im not a cross bred breeder and I breed for future generations I dont breed without the intent of keeping the best so should I choose to just breed one litter from them put them all out as pets - there will be carriers no affected or do I keep the best and hope its not a carrier - and/ or that the new boy Im bringing in - lots of champs in the pedigree doesnt carry the crap either? How long before I see it again - how long before anyone taking one of my dogs for breeding sees it? Tell me again why did I bring in a dog which had the ability to do this ? Oh thats right - no line breeding.