Page 21 of 24 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 238

Thread: The Ups & Downs Of Getting a Pup

  1. #201
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AngelanBatty View Post
    BDL: For your attention....
    Yeah we posted at the same time.. Thou 12% is still high, better then 30%!
    Rubylisious


  2. #202

    Default

    No. It's not 12% death.

    It's 12% will be born deaf. Not all Dalmatian breeders are with the breed club so not all of that 12% will die.

  3. #203
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AngelanBatty View Post
    But the theory of the patches is not true. And they are trying to get everything fixed? They are working on the problem. Sure there are unscrupulous breeders who don't care - unfortunately that is the same for every breed. The majority are trying to do the right thing. They are trying to find and solve the issue. Stopping them from breeding just decimates the breed, it doesn't solve anything and given that other dogs suffer from hereditary deafness too, the dalmatian breeders finding this gene may go on to help with other breeds too.

    I'm not saying they are all doing the right thing. I am saying that the rules are there for a reason and until you know everything about the particular breed and the effort that is going in to fixing the deafness issue, it is not your place to decide that what they are doing is wrong.

    Every breed has some kind of genetic issue. Just like we do, we still have babies being born with a variety of genetic defects and doctors and scientists are still searching for the reasons. Do you believe people should stop breeding to prevent genetic disease?
    I am argueing that the problem would be fixed more quickly - with less pups being pts - if they would adjust the breed standard and broaden the gene pool. It is that stubbornly sticking to the "pure genes" that I find utterly incomprehensible. It strongly reminds me of a historic political movement that I shall not name.

    If they want to use the dogs as lab rats to gain knowledge so they can help other dogs in the future, I suppose that is their choice. But that has nothing to do with ethical breeding.

    You told me off before for making a comparison to humans! My argument then being that babies don't get pts when they have a genetic defect and cannot be "homed", while dogs do.

  4. #204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beloz View Post
    I am argueing that the problem would be fixed more quickly - with less pups being pts - if they would adjust the breed standard and broaden the gene pool. It is that stubbornly sticking to the "pure genes" that I find utterly incomprehensible. It strongly reminds me of a historic political movement that I shall not name.

    If they want to use the dogs as lab rats to gain knowledge so they can help other dogs in the future, I suppose that is their choice. But that has nothing to do with ethical breeding.

    You told me off before for making a comparison to humans! My argument then being that babies don't get pts when they have a genetic defect and cannot be "homed", while dogs do.
    Hang on, the UKC has already made a decision and has already allowed the registration of an outcrossed Dalmatian who has gone on to compete at Crufts. Yes that is one example BUT obviously they are starting to work on it. They are starting to expand the gene pool....

    There will always be those who are gung-ho about 'pure genes' but they are a dying breed themselves. The health and welfare of the dogs is at the forefront of the governing bodies objectives.

    There is no point adjusting the breed standard to allow patchy dogs because the size of their spots/patches does not have any effect on their deafness....

  5. #205
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,290

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AngelanBatty View Post
    No. It's not 12% death.

    It's 12% will be born deaf. Not all Dalmatian breeders are with the breed club so not all of that 12% will die.
    Weren't you arguing that they should all be pts though? In favour of healthy pups?

    I wonder how many pups 12% is?

    If they managed to reduce the number from 30% to 12% that is a fairly good outcome indeed. And that makes my criticism more aimed at breeders in the past than at current breeders. The way they have achieved this reduction (over god knows how much time?) is still unethical in my eyes though.

  6. #206

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beloz View Post
    Weren't you arguing that they should all be pts though? In favour of healthy pups?

    I wonder how many pups 12% is?

    If they managed to reduce the number from 30% to 12% that is a fairly good outcome indeed. And that makes my criticism more aimed at breeders in the past than at current breeders. The way they have achieved this reduction (over god knows how much time?) is still unethical in my eyes though.
    Yes I was, and I stand by that statement.

    Where did the 30% come from????

    I agree that it is sad, but I can appreciate why it is necessary. We have enough issues in the dog world without being inundated by deaf, difficult dogs. It's heartbreaking and tragic, but I agree with why it needs to be done.

    But you don't know how they have achieved the reduction? How can you disagree with something that you don't have ANY information or details on?

  7. #207
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Northern NSW
    Posts
    751

    Default

    This 12% failure. Does it include those with unilateral deafness?

    Or are they considered suitable for sale?

    Or are they often not diagnosed until later in life?
    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v450/Chippo/Dogsx4blackbackground.jpg
    ... Jade ...

    Aha yeah me too! wee wee or pee pee and poo poo's or poopie

  8. #208

    Default

    Uni's are (apparently) harder to diagnose BUT are not considered suitable for breeding though are rehomeable.

    For those who don't know a Unilateral is deaf in one ear.

    The 12% is for those completely, irreversably deaf.

  9. #209
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Canberra
    Posts
    4,290

    Default

    It's hard to find stats on this: Heritability and segregation analysis of deafness in U.S. Dalmatians.

    I found a table somewhere that said it was more like 12% if only bilateral dogs were bred. So maybe the "improvement" is solely due to more testing being done to exclude unilateral dogs from breeding.

    And I thought the 30% was mentioned by someone defending the breeders in this very thread first.
    Last edited by Beloz; 11-04-2011 at 10:41 AM.

  10. #210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lexie44light View Post
    It was mentioned earlier in the thread? I believe Misschief said it? If its incorrect a 12% definate death rate is still really bad.
    Actually I believe Beloz was the first to say 30%.
    Misschief was the first to say 12%.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •