Problems in Applied Genetics: Purebred Dogs and Disorders

[Broomstick]

This is a series of clips on YouTube, so if you don't want to watch the whole thing just go with the first one and you'll get the idea. (sort of tl:dw - too long, didn't watch). Me, I rode out all six:

Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 - Part 5 - Part 6

For tl:dw - purebred dogs are inbred to the point that breed champions are often incredibly fucked up. A lot of dogs bred from these fucked up dogs are also fucked up. Breeders appear blind to the problems in their breeds.

Now, I just can't get all internet tough-guy on these breeders. They DO care, very deeply, about their dogs. I don't think they desire to hurt their dogs. I think they are sincere in their belief that what they do is, in fact for the betterment of the breed.

They're still wrong.

And it's an example like this that makes me concerned about campaigns to "better" X, Y, or Z (be it rice or people) via genetic engineering. Not because I believe there are cackling, evil masterminds out there, but because of the damage that has been caused by people who are utterly sincere in wanting to do what they believe is "best".

After all, selective breeding IS genetic engineering. It may be crude by some standards, but it is done with the aim to get certain, deliberate effects. There is no question that these breeders are getting the effects they desire. The problem is that they are so busy trying to do what is possible, so busy trying to achieve their goals, that they lose sight of the landscape in which they work. If these oddly shaped dogs were, in fact, healthy, if the Cavalier King Charles Spaniel breed did NOT have hereditary heart disease, if they did NOT have a high incidence of syringomyelia, it wouldn't matter much that people were breeding dogs to look as they do. The problem is that the breed does have a high incidence of those disorders, and that breeders are so very focused on one aspect of the breed they ignore the rest of the dog. They refuse to admit that their very appealing champions are carrying genetic disorders, and refuse to breed for the health of their animals as well as appearances.

And I repeat - these are people who love their dogs, who sincerely DO care about them!

This sort of thing is not limited to dogs. Thoroughbred horses are very inbred as well, and suffer from problems although the breeders of those horses purposely insist on only registering horses produced through natural mating and not artificial insemination as a means of limiting how many foals a stallion can sire, to prevent one champion from siring the entire next generation. Also, sires and dams will have at least been healthy enough to mate normally - that's a low bar, but even so, one at least one dog breed is unable to meet any longer.

And, of course, most of us are at least somewhat familiar with the outrages perpetrated in the name of eugenics in the 20th Century.

So - now we have more advanced genetic engineering. What is to stop us from fucking up again? Sincerity and caring are not enough as well meaning people have demonstrated. You can't attribute this to ignorance - we know inbreeding can be a bad thing, yet people do it anyway. These people are not "evil", I don't think there is any intention to cause harm here... and yet it occurs.

So - some points for consideration:

1) Why is it that people fuck up breeding things?
2) What is the appropriate level of regulation of the breeding of domestic animals?
3) How do we prevent this sort of problems in the future?
4) What are the implications for using genetic engineering to improve the human species?

[B5B7]

I saw this when it was shown as a documentary on TV. From my recall of what I saw, I would disagree that these people have a sincere liking for dogs - they simply ignored all criticism of their efforts and were only interested in how the animals met their ridiculous artificial show standards that had no link to the health and welfare of the dogs.
Secondly, they had really bad attitudes and from what they said when interviewed it was also obvious that they didn't understand basic genetics. So, their behaviour and beliefs reflect no way on genetic engineering advocacy, which is connected to people with deep understanding of genetics and specialist medical professionalism.

[Zixinus]

1) Why is it that people fuck up breeding things?

Because people don't understand the depth of genetics they are meddling with. They do not understand the problems of inbreeding or even refuse to acknowledge it, preferring their ancestral (and sometimes very wrong, such as basing itself on eugenics) knowledge and passed-down handbooks (such as those who's most important details of the breed depend on appearance rather than proper anatomy). Genetics are a mess and not easy to follow.

In the case of the documentary, many of the breeders look like as if they do it out of hobby or having it start as a hobby, sometimes even inheriting the job.
Look at the chairmen Roby Erwing (sp?): he still is hung up on the idea that inbreeding close relatives is a bad idea and somehow thinks (IIRC) that he can "breed away" from this problem. The problem may is also be cultural (view of nobility and "pure blood" or whatever). I think that breeders should be ridiculed a bit too, saying that obviously sick dogs are sick and referring to veteranian's (or even stating the obvious, like "holy shit what is wrong with that terrier's feet?") opinion over their own (when the chairmen spoke I wanted to scream "letting dogs hump each other is not a skill").

2) What is the appropriate level of regulation of the breeding of domestic animals?

First off, some kind of regulation of breeders and making sure that they understand some genetics or at least some basic understanding of genetic diseases.

Second off, the acceptance that some breeds have to die. Period. Either you make a radical breeding programs that will use out-breeding and focus on getting the genetic diseases out or simply accept that some breeds have to die, such as the "bulldog". If there is any government oversight over breeding, have those punish genetic problems. Sterilization of genetically diseased animals should be encouraged.

Third, have immediate and permanent bans on any animal that has genetic diseases or inherited disorders (like harmful spine ), even if they have to take away the awards and whatnot retroactively (except perhaps training awards). This will encourage breeders to start recognising health issues.

Fourth, I think that breeders should look at wild relatives of their animals rather than arbitrary, appearance-based handbooks. Dogs should be compared to wolves, not no a set of rules that can be interpreted in thousand ways.
Of course, I am not talking about complete relation, that breeders should breed towards wild animals but rather just viewing wild relatives as the basis that breeds come out from.

3) How do we prevent this sort of problems in the future?

First off, by not allowing a fashion culture into breeding: that what went very wrong with many British breeds. Ridiculing them at any turn would only be but a start. Once you got them out, you can work something. Once you got fashion out, you have

Mandatory check by veterinarians would be an improved step, as well as supporting good breeding programs.

Also, I heard something about "strengthening the breed" (taking a similar but different male and then breeding towards preferred properties again).

4) What are the implications for using genetic engineering to improve the human species?

Depends on what we want to change. Creating a master-race of some sort is a bad idea for obvious reasons, even ignoring nazi ideology. However, trying to see what can be done with harmful genetic conditions and diseases may be helpful and worthwhile. In fact, that is what some early eugenicists advocated, perhaps not entirely without reason.

Other than that, I am unsure of the potential of genetic modification, so I don't know.

[Vehrec]

I think a lot of these 'dog lovers' are just pet owners, not show breeders. The problem comes of course, when the damn show breeders define and dominate the breeding practice, along with their hangers on and for-proffit dog breeders, who have little to no interest in the quality of life of the animals.

Frankly, a little professional genetic engineering could do wonders for these breeds, but only if applied on a very broad scale and to address real concerns-not to create 'perfect dogs' with designer coats and length of limb.

[Starglider]

Equating problems caused by dog breeders (of whom I know a great many) to potential problems with genetic engineering is almost exactly equivalent to saying 'medieval doctors tried to cure people with leeches and trepanation, therefore all modern cancer drugs are bound to be worse than useless'. Or maybe 'stupid alchemists, thinking they could turn lead into gold, obviously this means we can't trust the people at CERN not to blow up the planet'. I recall you made these dangerous and idotic overgeneralisations in the last fusion power thread you participated in, and here you are doing it again. There are numerous real and serious issues with genetic engineering, but these have absolutely nothing to do with problems resulting from with crude breeding techniques and general prescientific ignorance.

[Broomstick]

1) Why is it that people fuck up breeding things?

Because people don't understand the depth of genetics they are meddling with. They do not understand the problems of inbreeding or even refuse to acknowledge it, preferring their ancestral (and sometimes very wrong, such as basing itself on eugenics) knowledge and passed-down handbooks (such as those who's most important details of the breed depend on appearance rather than proper anatomy). Genetics are a mess and not easy to follow.

I'm not convinced ignorance is the fault here. I'm more and more convinced it's priorities that are misplaced. There are breeders who don't produce fucked up puppies, that's why working dogs like police animals aren't fucked up and considerably healthier. I don't know about British practice, but the US kennel clubs (there are two over here) distinguish between "show" lineages and "working" lineages - the working ones being those that supply actual working dogs as opposed to canine eye-candy. There are actually two types of shows for Siamese cats in the US, those that cater to the "modern" look, and those that cater to the traditional or "appleheaded" Siamese (guess which variety is healthier). So it's not something inherent in dog or cat breeders that forces them to distort the animals to death, it's a matter of priorities - those who breed for actual working dogs have a priority on able-bodied animals rather than strict appearances, and the same may well be true for those breeding "traditional" or "heirloom" varieties of breeds. Those breeders who specialize in working dogs or traditional cat breeds are no more or less educated than those breeding show animals - the difference is priorities. Which is more important to you, that the animal conforms to a visual appearance or that the animal is healthy/able to work?

You don't need to be a Ph.D. in genetics to breed healthy animals - people have been doing it since the neolithic. But where some primitive herder was interested in, say, tough, healthy sheep with stamina that would grow and thrive on pastures in all weather, and healthy dogs able to help with the herds on long days over rough terrain, modern breeders can keep their sheep indoors and sheltered, and the dogs no longer need to work. There is irony i those that rant about the "cruelty" of working dogs, but actually it's the need for working dogs that have kept some varieties healthy.

In the case of the documentary, many of the breeders look like as if they do it out of hobby or having it start as a hobby, sometimes even inheriting the job.
Look at the chairmen Roby Erwing (sp?): he still is hung up on the idea that inbreeding close relatives is a bad idea and somehow thinks (IIRC) that he can "breed away" from this problem. The problem may is also be cultural (view of nobility and "pure blood" or whatever).

I think you hit something important here - culture. He knows inbreeding is bad, that's why he immediately discounts it for humans, but the culture in which he is immersed, show dog breeding, allows him to think it OK for his dogs. In fact, deep down these people do know better, hence their defensiveness and why they scorn "outsiders" who react with revulsion to the extreme inbreeding.

It would be interesting to note if there is a correlation between extreme dog breeding and how egalitarian a society is or isn't.

It would be interesting to note if the fact there are two major kennel clubs in the US has any effect on dog breeding here, as they are in some competition with each other, and whether any such effects are good or bad for dogs.

The US also has breed clubs not associated with either US kennel club that insist on health standards, DNA testing, and so forth - and I believe other countries also have breed clubs that take similar measures. So you can't blame ALL breeders, as clearly some are prioritizing dog health over strictly cosmetic appearances.

And really, I wouldn't dismiss some of the worst cases as "hobbyists" - one can breed dogs as a hobby and produce healthy puppies, one can advocate for healthy breeding practices even when one isn't a breeder. There is a dog breeder down the road from me who raises American Pit Bull Terriers for the love of the breed, and he deliberately breeds them to be highly socialized, mild-tempered dogs rather than fighters. I've seen his operation and it's dogs in large kennels, living in groups rather than isolated, and the animals appear quite healthy and happy. I know a number of people who have bought dogs from him, and their dogs are all very friendly, calm, and socialized. I've also run into people upset at buying one of his puppies because their dog wasn't "mean enough". It always gets back to people fucking things up, doesn't it?

A lot of amateur hobbyists know extreme inbreeding is a bad idea - it seems to me it's the professionals, the ones showing champions, who are messed up about the issues. How about the judges involved in these contests? If they started rewarding those German Shepherds that could actually walk properly then the breeders would follow, wouldn't they? It's all about winning for some folks I guess.

I think that breeders should be ridiculed a bit too, saying that obviously sick dogs are sick and referring to veteranian's (or even stating the obvious, like "holy shit what is wrong with that terrier's feet?") opinion over their own (when the chairmen spoke I wanted to scream "letting dogs hump each other is not a skill").

Quite. I wanted to scream preventing dogs from humping is the skill here, knowing which ones NOT to breed no matter how "pretty" they are.

2) What is the appropriate level of regulation of the breeding of domestic animals?

First off, some kind of regulation of breeders and making sure that they understand some genetics or at least some basic understanding of genetic diseases.

Frankly, this may be an area where a little knowledge is worse than none at all. I don't know too many pet owners who think they know better than their vet, but some of the breeders in the documentary clearly don't want scientists "interfering". Think some of those breeders think a bit too highly of their own knowledge, and maybe if they were less confident of being right they'd be more open to listening. Again, these people do have an understanding of "basic" genetics, the problem is that they think that basic understanding makes them experts. It doesn't.

Second off, the acceptance that some breeds have to die. Period. Either you make a radical breeding programs that will use out-breeding and focus on getting the genetic diseases out or simply accept that some breeds have to die, such as the "bulldog". If there is any government oversight over breeding, have those punish genetic problems. Sterilization of genetically diseased animals should be encouraged.

That's a bit harsh. Yes, there may be some moribund breeds, but keep in mind, there ARE "English bulldogs" outside of England. If there are healthy members of the breed outside of England than it may be possible to keep the breed going by sterilizing those that should not breed and bringing in dogs of the same breed that are less inbred and not so closely related. In other cases, there may be enough healthy individuals to provide a viable breeding stock. There may also be breeders outside the kennel club system who have been breeding for health all along - presumably, where healthy German Shepherds for the police force come from, for example. Such animals don't meet the standards of snobs, but would allow a breed to continue in a healthy manner.

Of course, this would require some actual work, and a lot of screaming as "ancient" bloodlines come to an end, and rational thought, and other things humans aren't particularly well known for.

Third, have immediate and permanent bans on any animal that has genetic diseases or inherited disorders (like harmful spine ), even if they have to take away the awards and whatnot retroactively (except perhaps training awards). This will encourage breeders to start recognising health issues.

That probably is long overdue - if you're going to breed animals you have to be willing to deal with the unhealthy ones unfit for breeding.

Fourth, I think that breeders should look at wild relatives of their animals rather than arbitrary, appearance-based handbooks. Dogs should be compared to wolves, not no a set of rules that can be interpreted in thousand ways.
Of course, I am not talking about complete relation, that breeders should breed towards wild animals but rather just viewing wild relatives as the basis that breeds come out from.

Personally, I'd like to see agility and ability become a mandatory part of confirmation shows - sure, breed for a look but only award prizes to animals that are physically fit. A border collie shouldn't be judged solely on looks but on how well it can herd - which was their original purpose. Labrador retrievers should, perhaps, be judged on retrieving (there's a reason that word is part of the breed name, after all). This in tandem with tracking genetic problems and not permitting affected animals to breed.

Do you think it would have an effect if pugs were required to be able to run an agility course as part of judging? It would start to give advantage back to animals that can actually breathe, you know?

3) How do we prevent this sort of problems in the future?

First off, by not allowing a fashion culture into breeding: that what went very wrong with many British breeds. Ridiculing them at any turn would only be but a start. Once you got them out, you can work something. Once you got fashion out, you have

Mandatory check by veterinarians would be an improved step, as well as supporting good breeding programs.

Are there any good breeding programs out there already that could be imitated? With or without association with a national kennel club.

Also, I heard something about "strengthening the breed" (taking a similar but different male and then breeding towards preferred properties again).

"Outbreeding" - it will, of course, outrage the purists. Either import more distantly related animals of the same breed from abroad, or breed related breeds. For example, the Cavalier King Charles and the King Charles spaniels are related, so there is an opportunity for some outbreeding to mitigate breed problems while not turning every dog into a mutt.

(Personally, I've only ever owned mutts. I adore mutts. I have nothing against purebreds, but I come from a family that adopts shelter animals)

4) What are the implications for using genetic engineering to improve the human species?

Depends on what we want to change. Creating a master-race of some sort is a bad idea for obvious reasons, even ignoring nazi ideology. However, trying to see what can be done with harmful genetic conditions and diseases may be helpful and worthwhile. In fact, that is what some early eugenicists advocated, perhaps not entirely without reason.

Ah, but entirely leaving aside the Nazis (who invariably make an appearance it seems) what about the damage done by eugenists in the first half of the 20th Century? Knowledgable medical professionals who sincerely thought they were making the correct choice by, say, sterilizing infants who suffered seizures in order to prevent epilepsy and feeblemindedness? (Frequently without even informing the parents, much less getting consent).

Eugenics in humans has a very dismal history, full of well intentioned people fucking up.

Other than that, I am unsure of the potential of genetic modification, so I don't know.

There's no reason we couldn't modify humans as we have every other animal. We are somewhat happened by the long generational periods, but genetic engineering could enable us to engineer people modified as drastically as dog breeds are now in a human-useful time frame. Not that I in any way advocate that we should do that.

But what do our cultures value? Appearance? Intelligence? Sociability? When people list those traits, do then consider overall health? What about those considering overall health - is ability to get along with others at least as important, and if so, what about genetic influences on that? Which is more important to humanity, eliminating poor eyesight and bad teeth, or eliminating jackasses?

[Broomstick]

Equating problems caused by dog breeders (of whom I know a great many) to potential problems with genetic engineering is almost exactly equivalent to saying 'medieval doctors tried to cure people with leeches and trepanation, therefore all modern cancer drugs are bound to be worse than useless'.

Actually, doctors do still use leeches (but admittedly in fewer instances) and trepanation actually did save some lives, as evidence by skulls with drastic head injuries that also show evidence of years of life beyond the accident that caused the injury.

The problem isn't ignorance - someone who is ignorant of dog medicine and genetics can nonetheless consult an expert called a "veterinarian" for expert advice. The problem is (at least in part) dog breeders who refuse to consider new information. I don't think a single one of them intended to breed horrific genetic diseases into their dogs, but there is a deep divide between the people that go "Oh, this is terrible - how can we fix/prevent this going forward?" and those stubbornly saying they've done it this way for X number of years and goddammit we don't want those pesky scientists interfering!

Or maybe 'stupid alchemists, thinking they could turn lead into gold, obviously this means we can't trust the people at CERN not to blow up the planet'. I recall you made these dangerous and idotic overgeneralisations in the last fusion power thread you participated in, and here you are doing it again.

Um... what? Are you sure you're not confusing me with someone else? Cite, please.

There are numerous real and serious issues with genetic engineering, but these have absolutely nothing to do with problems resulting from with crude breeding techniques and general prescientific ignorance.

There is nothing "crude" about maintaining lineage and breeding information, nor is it based in ignorance. It's a form of genetic technology that has served mankind well for thousands of years. The problem isn't the science or the technology, it's what we do with it that's the problem.

All tools have benefits - that's why we make them. But all tools also have dangers, which is why we have safety rules and procedures. Given our past history - albeit with a technology you personally regard as "crude" - what should we be concerned about going forward, and how should we safeguard against misuses of technology while continuing to reap maximum benefits from it?

[Zixinus]

I'm not convinced ignorance is the fault here. I'm more and more convinced it's priorities that are misplaced. <snip between show and working dog bit>

I am not 100% certain, but I believe that this is due to how environment selects and effects breeding: people picking dogs that do work well and don't emphasize linage that much may end up being better breeders than those that are obsessive about who breeds with who and that the lineage is not "muddled" or whatever.

I believe that "natural" breeding for working dogs actually make something more reliant on natural selection, and between an unfeeling or unknowing force of nature and sheer human stupidity evolution may produce better results than humans doing things wrong. After all, you have a gene-pool and you have a pressure: dogs that do their job well (as well as learn their job well) are favored over those dogs that don't (which are probably killed, thrown out, starved or whatever).

In fact, deep down these people do know better, hence their defensiveness and why they scorn "outsiders" who react with revulsion to the extreme inbreeding.

In the case of the documentary, I believe that is the problem they are trying to show: that the reason health standards and the like are not adopted more strictly is because that then these breeders would leave, causing problems in other ways (such as the kennel losing support/prestige, perhaps even money).

And really, I wouldn't dismiss some of the worst cases as "hobbyists"

I don't. I know that there are some good breeders out there that have a day job or even took breeding as a second job. I merely speculate that some of those people took up breeding in their way without properly looking up things and then never bothering to do.

Or worse, and more likely, is that at one point their ancestors did so. They didn't understand breeding, but figured out their own ideas, won a primitive award and figured that their own flawed ideas and attitudes are superior. Then passing that down the family, because that's how its done. Which would fit into the whole Victorian hobby thing that the documentary talked about.

Again, these people do have an understanding of "basic" genetics, the problem is that they think that basic understanding makes them experts. It doesn't.

I personally don't think they do, merely that they think they do. That is, they follow a collection of dearly-out-of-date handbooks based on fashion and pop-science is right and superior, pointing to old documents showing how they were (and of course disregard that those early breeds were extremely different than other breeds due to pride).

I would be willing to wager that when measured their ability to understand breeding versus livestock farmers, the farmers would win. By a landslide.
Look at the chairmen again: when asked about the breeds, he talked about how he personally knows every dog. That doesn't sound like a technical answer of any sort to me.

That's a bit harsh.

Yes, but we are talking about allowing the growth of animals that will suffer in their life (sometimes to a very high degree) due to human negligence/stupidity versus not allowing them to come to a world of suffering to begin with. That, and it would be simpler than watching a once-noble dog breed die out as slowly and painfully as possible.

If a dog can't breed and requires artificial means to breed, than it shouldn't be used as stock.

Of course, this would require some actual work, and a lot of screaming as "ancient" bloodlines come to an end, and rational thought, and other things humans aren't particularly well known for.

And this is why they should die. If these people are not willing to introduce much-needed genetic stock into the bloodlines, it would be better to kill the breeds than to watch them further mutate into degenerate creatures barely able to live something that is an easy life for a dog and are sore to an eye (seriously, those terrier's legs).

I mean, look at this, a cut part of documentary. This is not a healthy breed. This is an abomination.
WARNING! While safe for work, the video linked contains imagery that will require eye bleech of either female human variety or cute and cuddly variety, if not some other.

Personally, I'd like to see agility and ability become a mandatory part of confirmation shows - sure, breed for a look but only award prizes to animals that are physically fit.

Agreed. Let them run around a treadmill a bit. If a dog can't run a bit, than it has no place to be called best of anything.

Again, except for shows where they show off the training of the dogs rather than the breeds.

Do you think it would have an effect if pugs were required to be able to run an agility course as part of judging? It would start to give advantage back to animals that can actually breathe, you know?

The reason they don't do it is because then you would have to cut out 90% or more of the dogs entering the competition. Perhaps they know and find it pointless to rebel. Perhaps they suspect and don't dare to test it.

(Personally, I've only ever owned mutts. I adore mutts. I have nothing against purebreds, but I come from a family that adopts shelter animals)

If I were to get a dog, which is unlikely as I am likely to see a life of going from a flat to another flat, I would get a mutt or a working dog breed that I check with a vetenarian that the breeder doesn't know (and with a bonus effect, make sure that the vet doesn't know that he's talking about a purebreed here). Perhaps do the same thing with the parents.

But on a shorter notice, I would prefer a mutt over some degenerate purebreed, if for nothing else but because I don't want to spend millions on treating genetically-cause health issues.

But what do our cultures value? Appearance? Intelligence? Sociability? When people list those traits, do then consider overall health?

Alyrium may elaborate on this, but the fundamental problem is that those things do not make any sense on a genetic level. There is no gene for "high intelligence" (whatever that means on a biological level) or "good looks" (again, what is that on a genetic level?).
Furthermore, genes and DNA is messed up in regards of code: even if you know what you are changing, it is more likely than not that you'll fuck everything up.

For example, you have a designer-baby with great appearance, good socialbility and high intelligence. How do you know how much is it due to upbringing? How do you know that those tweaked genes won't cause mayor, mayor problems down the line?

[Broomstick]

I'm not convinced ignorance is the fault here. I'm more and more convinced it's priorities that are misplaced. <snip between show and working dog bit>

I am not 100% certain, but I believe that this is due to how environment selects and effects breeding: people picking dogs that do work well and don't emphasize linage that much may end up being better breeders than those that are obsessive about who breeds with who and that the lineage is not "muddled" or whatever.

People certainly did keep track of lineages. Thoroughbred horses have been tracked since the 1600's for example - they just didn't do it purely for the sake of lineage. A thoroughbred with the finest of lineages that couldn't run well was useless and would not be used for breeding more race horses. It was always lineage + performance, which might be one reason that among thoroughbreds that survive their racing years living into their 20's isn't uncommon (assuming good treatment - obviously you can destroy any animal) which is a good long life for a horse. There is the problem that in recent years some possibly hereditary foot problems have crept into the breed, but nothing at all like purebred dogs, and it's being tracked with an eye to eliminate it if that is the case.

Same for other animals - stock was tracked, and studs recorded. But, again, it wasn't enough for a draft horse to have good parents, it had to pull well. Cattle, sheep, goats, etc. were judged not solely by parentage but also by how well they produced meat, milk, and wool. That's a major difference - these dog breeder are entirely opposed to bringing in "new" blood, but stockmen will experiment with crossing cattle/sheep/pigs/whatever in order to produce a better animal, and for some animals types at least - dairy and wool and egg laying in particular - longevity of productive life was always valued, and that required a certain base level of health.

The worst problems seem to be when the animals become purely ornament. Koi and goldfish both have varieties that are as physically distorted as show dogs, and incapable of surviving in the wild. Animals should be fashion accessories or home decorating items.

I believe that "natural" breeding for working dogs actually make something more reliant on natural selection, and between an unfeeling or unknowing force of nature and sheer human stupidity evolution may produce better results than humans doing things wrong. After all, you have a gene-pool and you have a pressure: dogs that do their job well (as well as learn their job well) are favored over those dogs that don't (which are probably killed, thrown out, starved or whatever).

It's still artificial selection, not natural, but it's probably closer to natural in that the pressure comes from more than one area. As the man in the documentary said, when bulldogs were used to actually fight bulls if they weren't agile they were dead, regardless of how "pretty" they were. People who breed working dogs certainly want good looking animals, and that's likely because of the long association between shiny, thick coats of fur and health, for example. But, again, looks weren't the sole critera, parentage wasn't the sole criteria, health and ability were also clearly just as important if not more so. So perhaps multi-factorial selection produces better results by not over-specializing the animal. After all, wild animals have to do more than one thing - attract a mate, find food, survive enemies, survive weather... all different requirements. If the animal can't do all of the above it won't leave descendants.

Contrast to a toy poodle. It just has to look "cute". That's it. Nothing else required.

In the case of the documentary, I believe that is the problem they are trying to show: that the reason health standards and the like are not adopted more strictly is because that then these breeders would leave, causing problems in other ways (such as the kennel losing support/prestige, perhaps even money).

Hmm... I wonder which kennel clubs are non-profit organizations and which aren't, and if that makes a difference?

I would be willing to wager that when measured their ability to understand breeding versus livestock farmers, the farmers would win. By a landslide.
Look at the chairmen again: when asked about the breeds, he talked about how he personally knows every dog. That doesn't sound like a technical answer of any sort to me.

I agree, it's a terrible answer. If you're going to engage in selective breeding sentiment cannot rule. It doesn't matter if an animal is pretty, friendly, or your favorite - if it has a potentially lethal flaw you can't allow it to breed.

However, livestock farmers have fucked up, too. Some varieties of cattle became dangerously inbred after the debut of artificial insemination because suddenly everyone could purchase champion bull semen, so a lot fewer bulls sired the next generation, then the next generation, then the next.... and only after problem started cropping up did folks wake up and realize that suddenly all the cattle of variety Q or P were first cousins. NOW cattle breeders are trying to preserve diversity as well as champions, and there is growing interest in "heirloom" breeds to "rescue" some of the inbred cattle and other domestics.

This makes the thoroughbred restrictions on any other than natural mating look much more sensible - it limits how many foals any one stallion can generate. Inbreeding can still occur, but it is much less common, and happens accidentally less often.

A champion dog should not be siring 30+ litters of puppies. That wouldn't happen naturally, and it reduces breed diversity.

That's a bit harsh.

Yes, but we are talking about allowing the growth of animals that will suffer in their life (sometimes to a very high degree) due to human negligence/stupidity versus not allowing them to come to a world of suffering to begin with. That, and it would be simpler than watching a once-noble dog breed die out as slowly and painfully as possible.

If a dog can't breed and requires artificial means to breed, than it shouldn't be used as stock.

Agreed. However, I would not object to breeders who are willing to restore the breed to health if such is possible. I expect they won't be the same breeders who own today's show champions, though.

If the animal can have a comfortable life then I'd be fine with neutering it and offering it as a pet. If it can't...well, as much as people hate to hear it, sometimes mercy killing is kindest. And that is, indeed, a problem - animals that 50 or 100 years ago would have been put down without question are now sold as purebreds by unscrupulous breeders out to make a fast buck.

Of course, this would require some actual work, and a lot of screaming as "ancient" bloodlines come to an end, and rational thought, and other things humans aren't particularly well known for.

And this is why they should die. If these people are not willing to introduce much-needed genetic stock into the bloodlines, it would be better to kill the breeds than to watch them further mutate into degenerate creatures barely able to live something that is an easy life for a dog and are sore to an eye (seriously, those terrier's legs).

As I said - if there are breeders willing to abide by rules to make a breed healthy for the dogs in question I'd support their efforts - I just think it's unlikely to happen without drastic changes.

But what do our cultures value? Appearance? Intelligence? Sociability? When people list those traits, do then consider overall health?

Alyrium may elaborate on this, but the fundamental problem is that those things do not make any sense on a genetic level. There is no gene for "high intelligence" (whatever that means on a biological level) or "good looks" (again, what is that on a genetic level?).
Furthermore, genes and DNA is messed up in regards of code: even if you know what you are changing, it is more likely than not that you'll fuck everything up.

For example, you have a designer-baby with great appearance, good socialbility and high intelligence. How do you know how much is it due to upbringing? How do you know that those tweaked genes won't cause mayor, mayor problems down the line?

When I said appearance I didn't mean something as vague as "good looks" but rather specific and very controlled traits. For example, if we're talking designer babies, that would be something like parents being able to select skin, hair, and eye color. Clearly eye color is easier, having fewer variables than skin or hair, but that could well be within our reach in a generation. What are the consequences of certain eye colors becoming fashionable? What about exotic colors that have never occurred in humanity before? Well, alright, probably not a huge issue (probably) but what if some parents wanted a pinto-colored child? What about social stigma being attached to certain color combinations? (Like that doesn't happen already...)

As you pointed out, we don't know what consequences may be down the line. Programming blue eyes doesn't seem like it would be a problem, does it? But eye pigment seems linked with other pigments, like skin, and we already know that the pale skinned are more prone to skin cancer. Or, in the other direction, if the fad becomes dark skin that could make people more vulnerable to vitamin D deficiencies. That's just what we can anticipate. That doesn't mean I think we should never use genetic engineering on people, but because at this point we don't know what we don't know, and we also know that humans have really fucked things up in the past, proceeding with caution seems like a good course of action. We should probably start with instances where the benefit is clear and worth some risk, probably with otherwise lethal disorders.

[mr friendly guy]

Ok, I just have to say those videos Broomstick posted are quite out of synch. It sort of became comedy gold when they said <insert person> defends Pugs looking like this (they showed what a modern pug looked like, having already shown the image of the pug from 1880 out of sync), and now looking like this (but the showed the image of a human when they said that). Man such awesome breeding.

[Darth Holbytlan]

I had the same issue as mr friendly guy. I ended up digging up this link instead, which was quite tolerable. It also wasn't missing 15-30 seconds of show in between each segment.

[Slacker]

I don't really follow dog breeding, but one of my hobbies is tropical fish and I sort of follow some of the breeding that occurs in that hobby. Some of the mutations encouraged in things like goldfish or mollys are truly staggering-it's to the point where the fish can't function without constant supervision.

But, just to poke a hole in the idea that genetic engineering can't ever be a positive thing for the pet industry, look at Glo-fish. Scientists tracking genetic markers on zebra danios (popular as experimental fish due to their durability and inexpensiveness) inserted jellyfish genes to give them a fluorescent 'glow'-either red, green, or yellow. Unlike inbreeding programs that produce things like balloon mollys and bubblehead or celestial eye goldfish, these fish are completely functional and lead a 'normal' life for a fish-indeed, they school with unmodified danios. It's a great example of genetic engineering producing an aesthetically pleasing fish that isn't inbred. Trust me, biologically speaking a 'balloon' version of a fish or a bubblehead goldfish is just as crippled as some of those bulldogs.

[Edi]

Cat breeds suffer from much the same kinds of problems as dog breeds when inbred. Persian and Siamese cats, for example, but also others. Maine Coons are bred for size and they are getting to a size where the physical frame is simply not strong enough to support all that mass and they suffer from various back, hip and joint problems. Ragdolls (of which I have two) can have problems with their eyes (one of mine does, he lacks stereo vision and thus is very careful about jumping anywhere).

The problem is that since a lot of the pets of a given breed are acquired from breeders who have show varieties, they focus on the show types almost exclusively and on that scene it is the outward physical appearance that is the main driving factor that overrides nearly everything else, including breed health when you go far enough.

A diversity of bloodlines and paying attention and focus on attributes other than just a single aspect of something is the only workable basis to do selective breeding of any kind. Dog and cat breed problems are the result of shortsighted people not seeing the forest from all the trees that are standing in their way.