Salukifan

What modern educational thinking starts with the premise of the educator rubbishing a practitioners prior efforts based on minminal knowledge of practices and no practical experience in the subject? I didn't at any stage rubbish your efforts. Practical experience in dog breeding is not required to understand population genetics. And I will not argue that an understanding (even basic) of genetics isn't useful for a breeder. But it's not enough and I argue that "genetic diversity" is NOT the holy grail that should take precedence over all other breeding goals. You can breed very poor dogs that have very low COIs. At some point you have to evaluate and select breeding stock based on their soundness, type and temperament. Enter the use of breed standards. Perhaps we must simply agree to disagree.

I'd be running some blood work. My immediate reaction was "how's his thyroid function". Behavioural changes like this are worth checking out with your vet.

What modern educational thinking starts with the premise of the educator rubbishing a practitioners prior efforts based on minminal knowledge of practices and no practical experience in the subject?

i think in a lot of cases, i dont want to know it would be too depressing Thanks for the vote of confidence. haha, no probs. When you look at how exaggerated and deformed some breeds have become in 100 years, coupled with the a common thread among the fancy of reluctance or refusal to see that there is anything wrong, it doesn't instil a lot of confidence Well despite my apparent lack of qualificatiion (in your eyes) to breed, I am trying to take my breed forward. My bad. Armchair criticism of my efforts must be borne because I have no choice. I am committed enough to wear it but I don't have to enjoy the opinions of people who think they know better. So be it.

i think in a lot of cases, i dont want to know it would be too depressing Thanks for the vote of confidence.

Of course it is. That's the entire point of any purebred system regardless of species. If you want "unexpected traits" random breeding is the epitomy of that. Arent' you selecting for certain traits, and have no way of predicting which vital bits you can't see will fall by the wayside when you crossbreed? Won't you be backcrossing and limiting genetic diversity when you've done it? Bite strength, bite inhibition. degree of reactivity, guarding levels, prey drive, pack drive, human aggression, dog aggression, other temperment features. The whole point of a restricting a gene pool is increase the incidence of desireable traits in offspring and decrease the incidence of undesireable ones. Its not just about looks. So we outcross - and open up a whole new range of possible outcomes. Without a shadow of a doubt some of the most potentially dangerous dogs I have seen were Mareema/Golden Retriever crosses. A random mix of bite strength, bite inhibition, protectiveness and territorial aggression. But if genetic diversity was the desired outcome, they got that in spades. Seriously, have you thought this stuff through or are you repeating a line of thought you've read somewhere. Popular sire syndrome and tight inbreeding are problems created by breeders, not breeds. Lets not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Perhaps you need to meet more breeders because clearly the ones you're basing this stuff on don't seem to be up to snuff. As I said, people are free to outcross to their hearts content to fix what they perceive to be problems with pedigree dogs. However, don't expect the very system being rejected by such breeding to welcome the product of that breeding with open arms. Just out of interest, what will your next pup be a cross of?

Course and hold at bay only thank God, not bring down... I don't think too many dogs would survive a lion hunt if they had to actually tackle such a beast. Quicky google though says they would kill baboons - those are formidable in their own right. Big teefs.

absolutely. hence there are some dogs that fit the standard, yet are likely unable to do the job they were meant to. hence the standard is not enough to 'preserve' the working side of a dog breed without the test of work. It's illegal to course live game in every state of Australia. What "test" shall sighthounds be put to?

Good point. The standard is the standard - styles within it may vary and change but "breed type" doesn't.

That is a red flag for me. This is an adolelescent dog. He may be feeling his way in the pack structure. He is large. The consequences of mismanaging or failing to manage this behaviour could be tragic. First step - off to the vet. Full check up. Amputees tend to have residual levels on pain if they aren't given remedial treatment. That could be an issue. Next step - behaviourist - a good one experienced with dog aggression is a MUST. Childrens' safety depends on it. They need to stop feeling sorry for him and excusing any behaviour based on the fact that he is a rescue and deal with this. NOW Low cost? Nope. But what is the price they place on their childrens' safety? If they cannot afford to deal with the issue then I'm sorry, but return the dog to the rescue. It's not worth the risk. And the hugging stops. Today.

Of course, no one is forcing anyone to breed to a standard, to not outcross or not to breed dogs that are their intellectually individual "version" of their "breed". You just can't register them with an organisation that has a Register based on recognised pedigrees and agreed breed standards. Having one's cake and eating it springs to mind. The idea of pedigreed dogs as genetically less diverse (and therefore more predictable in their characteristics) does not sit easily with the idea of genetic diversity being the be all and end all of dog breeding. It's either purebred or it ain't from where I sit. Outcrossing involves culling what you don't want from the results you get... limiting genetic diversity, then line breeding to set it, limiting genetic diversity. If absolute genetic diversity is your aim, then unpredictability of outcomes is your game. No thanks.

No, but they have "fundamentals" and say its too early for a standard yet. From the Australian Koolie website: That's hardly winging it.

So what's your proposal for Whippets? And what will outcrossing fix? Genetic diversity. The idea is not necessarily to 'fix' something that is broken, but to prevent something from becoming broken. Well thanks all the same but if you can achieve a COI of less than 1% with a mating within a breed, I'm not sure what outcrossing for the sake of it brings to the party. Lets just agree to disagree on that. how many generations did you calculate that on? Yes, it is entirely possible to find fairly unrelated dogs still in the whippet breed. This is probably why they are still reasonably healthy. I commend you for your consideration of the low inbreeding coefficient of your litter as a priority. But it will get harder. Especially with some of your peers repeatedly perpetuating the heavy line-breeding and the use of popular sires. It is just a matter of time. I agree to disagree, I'll leave you alone :) Seven. Low COI is desirable but not my priority. Type and temperament come first. Sometimes sires are popular for a reason. Some of those reasons include soundness and prepotency. It's not all about the ribbons.

So what's your proposal for Whippets? And what will outcrossing fix? Genetic diversity. The idea is not necessarily to 'fix' something that is broken, but to prevent something from becoming broken. Well thanks all the same but if you can achieve a COI of less than 1% with a mating within a breed, I'm not sure what outcrossing for the sake of it brings to the party. Lets just agree to disagree on that. I think there is plenty of collaboration amongst breeders. I have pups placed with breeders and their parents haven't been born yet LOL

Given that I've got a bitch in whelp now and pups on the way, I'm not sure how I can view the existing standard as anything else. Theoretically a broader view is possible but as a person who's poured over that standard and who's going to be selecting my next generation breeding dog based on it, I am living in the now. I personally don't have any issue with the current standard and I'm trying to stay within it. I don't have the luxury of selecting dogs based on changes that might never happen. So dogs that I think will be too big, that don't conform as closely as possible to the desired standard won't get to stay.... for me the Standard as it is now is what I have to work to.

So what's your proposal for Whippets? And what will outcrossing fix?

If the cap doesn't fit, then by all means don't wear it but you were sharing space with a person who thinks that outcrossing is the solution to most issues associated with pedigree dogs. In the world of sighthounds, its a view that gets a fair work out in some circles.

Glad it worked out. A very tough decision but I think it was only going to get tougher. Good luck with your new pup! :)

Miss Whippy: Nope, never said that. l said that they should be adhered to unless the "why" of a change can be answered. I said you didn't get to pick and choose what parts of the standard mattered. I also said that standards could be changed. But with a process, not on the gut instinct of people who have a view that pedigree dogs are somehow flawed and that breed standards are the cause of it.

In the case of Whippets, rethought by whom? The Americans? The originators of the breed didn't have an issue with eyes matching coat colour and, so far as I know, no such thought crossed their minds. They have only to look at the eyes of raptors and some other predatory mammals to refute any such thought.

Best explanation of the "why's" of a breed standard I have ever read.

Yep and look at how much breeds have changed over the years. Back onto whippets for me. They were supposed to be small enough to hide under a poachers coat, and silent when they hunted so as not to draw attention to themselves or their owners. I wonder how many whippets could be hidden under a coat now. One of the things that strikes me about the old Whippet photos was the degree of variation in the heights of dogs. Given that you had dogs with Greyhound, IG and terrier ancestry, that doesn't suprise me. Perhaps this was part of the reason they decided to put minimum and maximum heights in the breeds standard. On the issue of show dogs, conformation extremes and fitness for function, I am in furious agreement with you. However I do not regard that as a reason to outcross or change the breed standard which calls for moderation.

I'd be arguing that as colour has no impact on breed function, that the standard should stay as it is or return to it. I'll also chain myself to the doors of the ANKC if they want to raise the height standard here. But the whole point is that it there a process for changing standards and my individual opinion isn't the key issue. However as the owner of dilute Whippets, I think the American emphasis on dark eyes is short sighted.

I've seen raciing greyhounds with jaws so overshot they'd never catch and hold prey. Is this what we should aspire to? Greyhounds were not developed to run on oval tracks - so that sport takes them in a different direction from their original function too.