![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
trixtahThe latest POTC is a pile of pants. I laughed precisely twice in the entire bloody drawn-out mess. Lopping off an entire hour would not have been wasted at all... and speaking of waste, what possessed the cast to do it? The joys of contracts, I suppose. I actually didn't mind the resolution, but the whole lead-up was crap with a big crap on top. (Oooh, I said crap, again!)
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
saluqi had some questions about people's perceptions of owners of pure-bred dogs (as she is), and elicited some interesting results. Firstly, the old chestnut that mutts are in some way "healthier" than pure-breds. Well, no. Look at elementary genetics. Let's say one dog is perfectly healthy, and the second dog has hip displasia, and the hip displasia is controlled by a recessive gene (I'm assuming). To actually suffer from the displasia, the second dog needs to have both bad genes. If the two dogs breed, all their offspring will have one healthy gene and one displasia gene, but won't show any symptoms (if it's recessive). If two of those offspring breed, they will have 25% chance of a pup with the displasia - it will have inherited both bad genes. 75% of the offspring will not develop the problem, although 50% can still pass the bad gene on.
(ETA: I buggered up the second row with my IIs and iis - the middle two white ones should be around the other way. Duh.)
Now, in the next generation, there is a chance of "outbreeding" the bad trait, by selecting only the 25% of offspring with the good genes to breed from, or breeding that good 25% with the 50% that have a mixed inheritance, and thus reducing the incidence of the mixed-gene strain to only 25% of the offspring. And so on. Of course, you can do the opposite and "inbreed" an undesirable gene in exactly the same way.
Breeding everything in sight to a poodle and calling it a "designer" dog is just bollocks. Assuming that the hypoallergenic coat (one of the things these *oodle mixes are promoted on) is a dominant trait, your first generation will be ok in that respect. After that, who knows what you'll end up with? The only advantage with cross-breeding dogs is that the German shepherd cross is perhaps less likely to have a displasia gene if perhaps the other parent comes from a breed that doesn't usually manifest the problem. Tough shit if your cross is with a golden retriever (just as much chance of it being there).
To evolve a breed's characteristics, some inbreeding has had to be done, of course, to "fix" the qualities that are being looked for. And given the health and/or skeletal problems some breeds have, like bulldogs, bassets, pugs and so on, I wouldn't own one of those. But that is due more to mechanical problems (the basset's back is often too long to support its weight comfortably, for example) resulting from bad design, and not paying attention to side-effects. With the Victorian craze for "dominating nature" in every respect they could come up with, no wonder some stupidities resulted. Responsible breeders these days will only select from the animals who are healthy and epitomise the breed.
With responsibly-bred purebred dogs, you at least know what you're getting. A proper breeder knows the parents' lines, and will not be breeding dogs with any inheritable issues. I would never buy an animal from a pet shop ("pure bred" or not) because you don't have a clue what you're getting. A responsible breeder does not sell their prized animals to a shop for $50 where any Tom, Dick or Harry can buy one with no vetting. They will only sell to a responsible person who will invest several hundred dollars in their pet. Such breeders will always insist that the animals are returned to them (not dumped in a shelter) if the owner can no longer take care of them.
Personally, I'm not so invested in a particular breed (yet) that I'll go out of my way to obtain a purebred pup. I'd probably take a rescue dog that is of a mature age. Preferably something like a retired greyhound, or an adult that has had a decent home life and has had to be surrendered for a specific non-behavioural reason. I will not adopt "cute puppies" that some idiot has allowed his mongrel bitch to give birth to (and which are often the cull animals that some backyard "breeder" hasn't been able to foist onto a pet shop).
Some people might make the argument that there are too many dogs in the world, and we should only be adopting the rescue ones. Well, the same thing could be said about babies - there are a hell of a lot of those, and perhaps we should only be adopting the abandoned ones? Actually, I think many people would agree that there are too many babies and pets being born without the appropriate consideration and care. I'd rather have a carefully bred pedigree dog or cat that has been nurtured every second of its life, and which was bred to highlight and maintain the qualities of a particular breed, than any neglected and ill-bred mutt that happens to end up in a pet shop. It's not "rescuing" one to buy from those places - people get paid, and so they produce more to exploit the market. And what do you think happens to those cute puppies that don't sell?
saluqi had some questions about people's perceptions of owners of pure-bred dogs (as she is), and elicited some interesting results. Firstly, the old chestnut that mutts are in some way "healthier" than pure-breds. Well, no. Look at elementary genetics. Let's say one dog is perfectly healthy, and the second dog has hip displasia, and the hip displasia is controlled by a recessive gene (I'm assuming). To actually suffer from the displasia, the second dog needs to have both bad genes. If the two dogs breed, all their offspring will have one healthy gene and one displasia gene, but won't show any symptoms (if it's recessive). If two of those offspring breed, they will have 25% chance of a pup with the displasia - it will have inherited both bad genes. 75% of the offspring will not develop the problem, although 50% can still pass the bad gene on.(ETA: I buggered up the second row with my IIs and iis - the middle two white ones should be around the other way. Duh.)
Now, in the next generation, there is a chance of "outbreeding" the bad trait, by selecting only the 25% of offspring with the good genes to breed from, or breeding that good 25% with the 50% that have a mixed inheritance, and thus reducing the incidence of the mixed-gene strain to only 25% of the offspring. And so on. Of course, you can do the opposite and "inbreed" an undesirable gene in exactly the same way.
Breeding everything in sight to a poodle and calling it a "designer" dog is just bollocks. Assuming that the hypoallergenic coat (one of the things these *oodle mixes are promoted on) is a dominant trait, your first generation will be ok in that respect. After that, who knows what you'll end up with? The only advantage with cross-breeding dogs is that the German shepherd cross is perhaps less likely to have a displasia gene if perhaps the other parent comes from a breed that doesn't usually manifest the problem. Tough shit if your cross is with a golden retriever (just as much chance of it being there).
To evolve a breed's characteristics, some inbreeding has had to be done, of course, to "fix" the qualities that are being looked for. And given the health and/or skeletal problems some breeds have, like bulldogs, bassets, pugs and so on, I wouldn't own one of those. But that is due more to mechanical problems (the basset's back is often too long to support its weight comfortably, for example) resulting from bad design, and not paying attention to side-effects. With the Victorian craze for "dominating nature" in every respect they could come up with, no wonder some stupidities resulted. Responsible breeders these days will only select from the animals who are healthy and epitomise the breed.
With responsibly-bred purebred dogs, you at least know what you're getting. A proper breeder knows the parents' lines, and will not be breeding dogs with any inheritable issues. I would never buy an animal from a pet shop ("pure bred" or not) because you don't have a clue what you're getting. A responsible breeder does not sell their prized animals to a shop for $50 where any Tom, Dick or Harry can buy one with no vetting. They will only sell to a responsible person who will invest several hundred dollars in their pet. Such breeders will always insist that the animals are returned to them (not dumped in a shelter) if the owner can no longer take care of them.
Personally, I'm not so invested in a particular breed (yet) that I'll go out of my way to obtain a purebred pup. I'd probably take a rescue dog that is of a mature age. Preferably something like a retired greyhound, or an adult that has had a decent home life and has had to be surrendered for a specific non-behavioural reason. I will not adopt "cute puppies" that some idiot has allowed his mongrel bitch to give birth to (and which are often the cull animals that some backyard "breeder" hasn't been able to foist onto a pet shop).
Some people might make the argument that there are too many dogs in the world, and we should only be adopting the rescue ones. Well, the same thing could be said about babies - there are a hell of a lot of those, and perhaps we should only be adopting the abandoned ones? Actually, I think many people would agree that there are too many babies and pets being born without the appropriate consideration and care. I'd rather have a carefully bred pedigree dog or cat that has been nurtured every second of its life, and which was bred to highlight and maintain the qualities of a particular breed, than any neglected and ill-bred mutt that happens to end up in a pet shop. It's not "rescuing" one to buy from those places - people get paid, and so they produce more to exploit the market. And what do you think happens to those cute puppies that don't sell?
