[nq:1]It's infrequent in working dogs, [nq:2]Repeat after me: "In my, [nq:1]not in

Melinda Shore:

[nq:1]not in a way that has to do with genetic diversity.[/nq]
Of course it does. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that genetic material is randomly distributed throughout the entire population, including across breeds, although, come to think of it, at this point in the discussion I'm coming to conclude that you're capable of doing just that.
[nq:1]The fact is, most breeds (JRTCA aside) don't have open registries and aren't likely to. And I don't know anyone who is making judgments about who is or is not a responsible breeder who embraces making mixes.[/nq]
And this is why I'm concluding that you're not very smart. Occam's law states, basically, that we should keep it as simple as possible but no simpler. People tend to forget that last clause. Similarly, an objective in dog breeding is to keep the gene pool as diverse as possible but no more diverse, where "as possible" means excluding other breeds, excluding (where reasonable) dogs with genetic diseases, and so on.
[nq:1]But severely limiting the number of available quality dogs due to AR propaganda creates an even more serious issue.[/nq]
Oh, knock it off with the animal rights stuff, already. You're like Jerry's buttsniffers with those guys.

Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - (Email Removed)

Sending more troops into a war is properly called an "escalation."

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Sandy in OK:

I think we are possibly be using a different definition of "diverse" I'm not talking about "charateristics": I'm talking genetically. It's infrequent in working dogs that one dog is so influential that everybody rushes to breed to him and then goes about setting type by lining on him. In conformation it is a frequent occurrance. In some breeds, breeders are hard pressed to find an acceptable dog who is not closely related to a popular sire or dominant line when an issue rears its ugly head.
[nq:1]As a specific statement regarding health (which is what Robin, and previously you, were referring to), it is also untrue.[/nq]
[nq:2]I personally do think that greater diversity creates a healthier population.[/nq]
[nq:1]I used to think I could be a horse when I grew up. Boy, was I ever surprised and disappointed to find out I was wrong![/nq]
The difference being, there is a fair amount of scientific evidence to back up my "think"
[nq:2]But there are more places to go to breed away from a problem without creating another one.[/nq]
[nq:1]Do you also personally think that those outcrosses are without their own genetic problems?[/nq]
In certain cases (like the BINGO theory on epilepsy) no. In general, science tells us that a more diverse gene pool is a healthier population and has a greater chance of survival as a POPULATION. That doesn't say that there are never defective individuals. I could provide some very thought provoking articles on the subject. But I'm not certain anyone here is actually interested in scientific theory.

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Melinda Shore:

[nq:1]It's infrequent in working dogs that one dog is so influential that everybody rushes to breed to him and then goes about setting type by lining on him.[/nq]
Repeat after me: "In my breed."

Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - (Email Removed)

Sending more troops into a war is properly called an "escalation."

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Melinda Shore:

[nq:2]Repeat after me: "In my breed."[/nq]
[nq:1]actually, no,[/nq]
All right! Parochial ain't just a school.

Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis - (Email Removed)

Sending more troops into a war is properly called an "escalation."

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

shelly:

[nq:1]Yes, let's just ignore the elephant in the living room, shall we?[/nq]
More like your little friend, the red herring. You should really stop doing that, if you want to be taken seriously.

Shelly (Warning: see label for details)
http://www.cat-sidh.net (the Mother Ship)
http://esther.cat-sidh.net (Letters to Esther)

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Tara:

@attbi s71:
[nq:1]The big difference I see in working lines versus show lines in many breeds is the persistence of myth that ... and doesn't care. Or the HD (or other disease) is fairly mild but capable of being passed on, or whatever.[/nq]
Boy, this truth should be yelled from the mountaintops.

And boy have I heard that particular brand of *** from a few "working line" breeders..of more than one breed.

Tara

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

Tara:

@panix3.panix.com:
[nq:2]actually, no,[/nq]
[nq:1]All right! Parochial ain't just a school.[/nq]
Holy crap! Is this actually being extrapolated to all breeds?

That is entirely untrue.
Tara

This thread originates from within 'usenet', and as such the content and users are not guaranteed to have been moderated by our community.

RE: "Don't touch my bone" page 33

Related forum topics: