OSS and veterinarians that preform it

[Misomie]

I decided that I'm definitely getting a OSS (ovary sparing spay/partial hysterectomy) for my female pup. I was leaning towards it before but bouncing between this and a total one. This option is definitely the healthiest (though x2+ the price of a normal) so I'm going to start saving for it and seeing if a local vet will do it (if not I'll travel for it).

I'm bringing in my pups for heartworm stuff tomorrow so I'll ask when there. Really hoping as I think the closest (confirmed) is in Oakland.

For those of you interested, this explains it better than I could:

https://www.parsemusfoundation.org/projects/ovary-sparing-spray/

 

 

[Kinare]

Wow, had no idea such an option existed. Thanks for sharing that. Even though it says it's mostly large breed dogs that might be at risk, clearly they're still studying it and overall it seems to be the best bet, so if it's something that is affordable whenever I have female pets again I'd definitely go that route. Got 2 boy kitties right now tho, hoping they don't die on me any time soon so I won't have to worry about this for a while.

[Misomie]

I think there are vets that do it for cats but cats have more benefits for altering than dogs and I can't recall any research against it atm (But it is definitely there for the dogs and probably other species).

I really like how they are offering more options though and researching more into it. The whole spay/neuter push in the us is so ingrained it is barely questioned.

[Fantasma]

I think this line of thought is a great deal healtier for the animal in question. Hormones are very important emotionally and physically

Edited April 2, 2016 by Johanna Waya

[Gamedog]

I wish more people would go this route for their pets. This neutering/spaying while juvenile shit has to stop, and I personally believe it's the cause of the most common diseases in dog breeds especially. This is the reason why I personally won't speuter my dogs, and I waited until my cats were at least 1 year to spay them. Had I known this was an option for cats, I'd have opted to get this surgery done on her instead of the full spay.

The SPCA needs to start pushing for this over speutering while young, because most people are too irresponsible to be left with unaltered dogs for 1-2 years (the minimum age for most dogs to be speutered), it's a far better option than speutering or having these people wait and relying on them not to breed their dogs.

 

"The whole spay/neuter push in the us is so ingrained it is barely questioned."
Based on what I've seen here in North amerca, you're either pushed to speuter as soon as the fucking thing comes out of the womb, or you're met with one of those idiots who think you're taking away their dog's "manhood" or that "it's healthy for females to have one litter before being spayed".

I mean, this is a postcard that someone I know got from their vet regarding their dog:

 

Edited April 3, 2016 by Gamedog

[Saxon]

I'd rather just not own animals at all. The notion of owning a surgically distorted animal for your amusement is revolting. 

[Mikazuki Marazhu]

2 minutes ago, Saxon said:

I'd rather just not own animals at all. The notion of owning a surgically distorted animal for your amusement is revolting. 

Even owning a purebred dogs are revolting

[Saxon]

Just now, Mikazuki Marazhu said:

Even owning a purebred dogs are revolting

Inbreeding.  

[Gamedog]

9 hours ago, Saxon said:

Inbreeding.  

What's wrong with inbreeding?

or are you one of those people who still believes in "hybrid vigour", lol

[I Did It For The Cat Girls]

2 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

What's wrong with inbreeding?

or are you one of those people who still believes in "hybrid vigour", lol

Inbreeding as in breeding two dogs of like breeds together or inbreeding as in breeding two genetically related dogs together?

[Saxon]

20 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

What's wrong with inbreeding?

or are you one of those people who still believes in "hybrid vigour", lol

Lots of pure bred dogs are demonstrably deformed. Something like 66% of golden retrievers die of cancers, and king Charles spaniels suffer from an unfortunate and bizarre condition in which their skull is prone to be too small to accommodate the brain, causing an agonising death. 

http://cavalierhealth.org/syringomyelia.htm

These congenital deformities are the result of generations of inbreeding and selective breeding of individuals who are more likely to carry genetic flaws. 

 

Inbreeding as in breeding two dogs of like breeds together or inbreeding as in breeding two genetically related dogs together?

 

Unfortunately many dog breeds were derived from only a very small pool of individuals. This makes them susceptible to rare and strange genetic diseases. 

This is known as the 'founder effect' and it is the reason why Amish people often have 6 fingers, or die of maple-urine disease, or why some Polynesian communities are entirely colour blind or the Afrikaans people of south Africa are so likely to develop Huntington's disease.

All these people are descended from very small original populations, so they are inbred. :\

 

You can understand the founder effect with a mathematical argument, but it is too involved to post here. 

Edited April 4, 2016 by Saxon

[Gamedog]

53 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Lots of pure bred dogs are demonstrably deformed. Something like 66% of golden retrievers die of cancers, and king Charles spaniels suffer from an unfortunate and bizarre condition in which their skull is prone to be too small to accommodate the brain, causing an agonising death. 

http://cavalierhealth.org/syringomyelia.htm

These congenital deformities are the result of generations of inbreeding and selective breeding of individuals who are more likely to carry genetic flaws. 

Your knowledge on purebred dogs (and therefore "hybrid vigor") seems to be based entirely on Pedigree Dogs Exposed. The issue with dog breeds such as Cavalier King Charles Spaniels is due entirely to the fact that their breeders are dead-set on breeding dogs with absolutely no purpose in mind. Breeders who are dedicated to breeding deformed dogs will wind up with deformed dogs, no matter if they're inbred or not. If you breed Pugs (who are undoubtedly inbred, but this isn't the cause of their respiratory, spinal, hip, or dental issues), you are absolutely going to be breeding to dogs with squashed faces, corkscrewed tails, and whatever other dogs have the perfect colouring, ears, nose, etc. Inbred or not, that Pug is going to wind up with a collapsed trachea later on in life, he's going to need surgery to be able to breathe, and chances are he's going to have fucked up hips and legs, because the people who breed these useless dogs do so for appearance only.
Show-breeding is a problem; breeding any animal specifically for appearance is a problem, and this problem is not exclusive to inbred animals, nor is it exclusive to dogs. (Quarterhorses are fucking destroyed because they're bred for appearance, I dare you to Google those abominations).

Taking a CKC and breeding him to any other breed won't automatically make his offspring inherently healthier than him. You seem to believe that purebred dogs are no doubt going to have issues no matter what, so why would breeding a purebred dog with another purebred dog of another breed result in healthier pups? If you breed a GSD and a Lab, do you not believe that the pups have the chance of getting inheritable diseases that BOTH of these breeds are susceptible to? (Hip and Elbow Dysplasia, torsion)

Purebred dogs are not automatically unhealthy or less-healthy than mutts because they're purebred, because breeders have a wealth of information readily available to them, and even for you if you so choose to look it up yourself. Breeders can test for disorders and diseases that could be passed on to their pups. Many breeders require proof of clean tests before breeding ever occurs, to make sure their pups won't wind up with diseases that could be avoided. You can look down a pedigree and find out if a line has a history of HD or ED and avoid breeding to that line - you CANNOT DO THIS with mix-breed dogs. You have NO WAY of knowing whether or not your mutt has inherited some sort of illness from his parents that will crop up later in life.

Funny enough, given the topic of this thread (OSS and alternatives to traditional speutering), Golden Retrievers in particular have been shown to have their rates of cancer drastically dropped when speutered once physically matured, or not at all: http://www.sunbeamgoldens.com/EarlySN.html
http://www.aaha.org/blog/NewStat/post/2014/07/17/785809/UC-Davis-study-neutering-golden-retrievers-Labradors.aspx

The same goes for other breeds like Rottweilers and Labradors. (I've also heard similar things about Dobermans)

Hybrid vigor has been debunked time and time again:
http://www.vetstreet.com/our-pet-experts/mixed-mutts-and-designer-crosses-healthier-than-purebred-pets

[PastryOfApathy]

1 minute ago, Gamedog said:

Quarterhorses are fucking destroyed because they're bred for appearance, I dare you to Google those abominations.

idk, looks like a normal horse to me.

[Gamedog]

11 minutes ago, PastryOfApathy said:

idk, looks like a normal horse to me.

If you're not familiar with what to look for, it's easy to see that. Quarterhorses have been bred for show, bred to whatever horse wins the most ribbons. This is why most of them have gigantic asses, horrible legs, downhill backs, horrible hips, bad pasterns, and generally look like they've been bred for meat. It's hard to find a QH who doesn't have HYPP or doesn't have a family history of HYPP.
https://www.vgl.ucdavis.edu/services/hypp.php

^Oh yeah, and this guy isn't even inbred^
http://www.allbreedpedigree.com/kids+classic+style

Edited April 4, 2016 by Gamedog

[Misomie]

I feel so sorry for anmals that have been bred for looks. I'll never get a dog or cat or whatever that was bred to have a deformity (this even extends to fish such as the balloon molly and pop-eye goldfish). 

 

For male dogs, it is safe to keep them fully intact and the neuter trade off isn't worth it. For females though, they are screwed either way. Keep intact and high chance of uterine problems. Spay, now there are incontinence and growth issues. Removing the uterus and cervix though keeps your dog healthy without the risk of uterine problems. So I'm really just looking out for her best interest. I probably wouldn't spay at all if her sex didn't have such nasty issues. 

But yeah, I used to buy into that speuter thing so hard when I was younger and didn't know any better. The whole thing has pretty much turned me away from adopting puppies from rescues (unless I can get the puppy intact).

[Saxon]

9 hours ago, Gamedog said:

Your knowledge on purebred dogs (and therefore "hybrid vigor") seems to be based entirely on Pedigree Dogs Exposed. The issue with dog breeds such as Cavalier King Charles Spaniels is due entirely to the fact that their breeders are dead-set on breeding dogs with absolutely no purpose in mind. Breeders who are dedicated to breeding deformed dogs will wind up with deformed dogs, no matter if they're inbred or not. If you breed Pugs (who are undoubtedly inbred, but this isn't the cause of their respiratory, spinal, hip, or dental issues), you are absolutely going to be breeding to dogs with squashed faces, corkscrewed tails, and whatever other dogs have the perfect colouring, ears, nose, etc. Inbred or not, that Pug is going to wind up with a collapsed trachea later on in life, he's going to need surgery to be able to breathe, and chances are he's going to have fucked up hips and legs, because the people who breed these useless dogs do so for appearance only.
Show-breeding is a problem; breeding any animal specifically for appearance is a problem, and this problem is not exclusive to inbred animals, nor is it exclusive to dogs. (Quarterhorses are fucking destroyed because they're bred for appearance, I dare you to Google those abominations).

Taking a CKC and breeding him to any other breed won't automatically make his offspring inherently healthier than him. You seem to believe that purebred dogs are no doubt going to have issues no matter what, so why would breeding a purebred dog with another purebred dog of another breed result in healthier pups? If you breed a GSD and a Lab, do you not believe that the pups have the chance of getting inheritable diseases that BOTH of these breeds are susceptible to? (Hip and Elbow Dysplasia, torsion)

Purebred dogs are not automatically unhealthy or less-healthy than mutts because they're purebred, because breeders have a wealth of information readily available to them, and even for you if you so choose to look it up yourself. Breeders can test for disorders and diseases that could be passed on to their pups. Many breeders require proof of clean tests before breeding ever occurs, to make sure their pups won't wind up with diseases that could be avoided. You can look down a pedigree and find out if a line has a history of HD or ED and avoid breeding to that line - you CANNOT DO THIS with mix-breed dogs. You have NO WAY of knowing whether or not your mutt has inherited some sort of illness from his parents that will crop up later in life.

Funny enough, given the topic of this thread (OSS and alternatives to traditional speutering), Golden Retrievers in particular have been shown to have their rates of cancer drastically dropped when speutered once physically matured, or not at all: http://www.sunbeamgoldens.com/EarlySN.html
http://www.aaha.org/blog/NewStat/post/2014/07/17/785809/UC-Davis-study-neutering-golden-retrievers-Labradors.aspx

The same goes for other breeds like Rottweilers and Labradors. (I've also heard similar things about Dobermans)

Hybrid vigor has been debunked time and time again:
http://www.vetstreet.com/our-pet-experts/mixed-mutts-and-designer-crosses-healthier-than-purebred-pets

I'm not arguing that hybrids of different inbred purebreds are going to be healthy; they might not be. 

I'm arguing that purebred dogs descended from small initial populations are inbred and that the selective criteria which have been chosen exacerbate the problem, resulting in lots of ill animals, in accordance with some essential biology. 

We're kind of getting aside the point though; I said that I don't like the idea of owning animals because many of them suffer due to inbreeding. Your response has been 'no, many of them suffer due to selective breeding'.This misses the main point, which is the disgusting glut of really ill gross animals. 

[Gamedog]

8 hours ago, Saxon said:

I'm not arguing that hybrids of different inbred purebreds are going to be healthy; they might not be. 

I'm arguing that purebred dogs descended from small initial populations are inbred and that the selective criteria which have been chosen exacerbate the problem, resulting in lots of ill animals, in accordance with some essential biology. 

We're kind of getting aside the point though; I said that I don't like the idea of owning animals because many of them suffer due to inbreeding. Your response has been 'no, many of them suffer due to selective breeding'.This misses the main point, which is the disgusting glut of really ill gross animals. 

My point is that inbreeding isn't the problem, specifically because you brought up CKCS as an example of unhealthy purebred dogs. Inbreeding can enhance or HELP a line of dogs, given it is done with a plan or method in mind.

[Saxon]

25 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

My point is that inbreeding isn't the problem, specifically because you brought up CKCS as an example of unhealthy purebred dogs. Inbreeding can enhance or HELP a line of dogs, given it is done with a plan or method in mind.

Inbreeding definitely is a problem, because it increases the chance of the confluence of recessive deleterious genes (Arguing against this is pretty much equivalent to arguing that mathematics doesn't work) There are countless examples of this*. Selection for deleterious traits is a problem too. 

Both of these are reasons that I wouldn't like to own pets. 

 

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pingelap#Color-blindness

[Gamedog]

13 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Inbreeding definitely is a problem, because it increases the chance of the confluence of recessive deleterious genes (Arguing against this is pretty much equivalent to arguing that mathematics doesn't work) There are countless examples of this*. Selection for deleterious traits is a problem too. 

Both of these are reasons that I wouldn't like to own pets. 

 

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pingelap#Color-blindness

Do you believe that inbreeding, no matter what, no matter how frequent or infrequent, no matter how close or far apart the relations are, is harmful without exception?

[Endless/Nameless]

12 minutes ago, Saxon said:

Inbreeding definitely is a problem, because it increases the chance of the confluence of recessive deleterious genes (Arguing against this is pretty much equivalent to arguing that mathematics doesn't work)

I learned that much in like, 10th grade. 

Just now, Gamedog said:

Do you believe that inbreeding, no matter what, no matter how frequent or infrequent, no matter how close or far apart the relations are, is harmful without exception?

Getting shot doesn't always equal death.

[Gamedog]

Also, what do you think is a result of inbreeding? What do you consider to be a trait inherited from inbreeding? Is it a physical one you can see?

 

inhope you can see where I'm going with this and that you know I'm prepared to dump a shitload of inbred dog pedigrees on you

1 minute ago, Endless/Nameless said:

I learned that much in like, 10th grade. 

Getting shot doesn't always equal death.

What the hell are you on about?

Edited April 4, 2016 by Gamedog

[Endless/Nameless]

9 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

What the hell are you on about?

i'm on a chair about the house howboutchu

[Gamedog]

1 minute ago, Endless/Nameless said:

i'm on a chair about the house howboutchu

Can you answer the questions I asked about inbreeding?

[Endless/Nameless]

Just now, Gamedog said:

Can you answer the questions I asked about inbreeding?

Inbreeding is usually bad.

13 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

what do you think is a result of inbreeding?

Genetic errors.

13 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

What do you consider to be a trait inherited from inbreeding?

In extreme cases, deformities and disease.

14 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

Is it a physical one you can see?

Sometimes. Not always.

16 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

Do you believe that inbreeding, no matter what, no matter how frequent or infrequent, no matter how close or far apart the relations are, is harmful without exception?

Of course not. Just not a good idea, generally.

16 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

no matter how close or far apart the relations are

The farther apart, the smaller the chance of problems, obsly.

I lernddit. In shcool

[Gamedog]

3 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

Inbreeding is usually bad.

Genetic errors.

In extreme cases, deformities and disease.

Sometimes. Not always.

Of course not. Just not a good idea, generally.

The farther apart, the smaller the chance of problems, obsly.

I lernddit. In shcool

So do you believe a heavily inbred dog (and I mean heavily) will be deformed or unhealthy?

"loss of vigor" as the mutt breeders like to say?

[Endless/Nameless]

Just now, Gamedog said:

So do you believe a heavily inbred dog (and I mean heavily) will be deformed or unhealthy?

"loss of vigor" as the mutt breeders like to say?

Not necessarily. It depends on the circumstances. But it isn't a good practice, generally. 

[Gamedog]

2 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

Not necessarily. It depends on the circumstances. But it isn't a good practice, generally. 

"It depends on the circumstances"

like what?

[Endless/Nameless]

Just now, Gamedog said:

"It depends on the circumstances"

like what?

Inbreeding works like this, to my understanding: Every living thing has some bad genes. When individuals from different bloodlines mate, chances are they don't both have the same bad genes, so those errors are hopefully canceled out. If individuals from the same bloodline mate, there is a drastically higher chance of them both having the same bad genes and therefore theres a higher chance of errors in the offspring.

SOOOOOOOOOOOO

It depends on the quality of the aforementioned dog's parent's genetic code. Unless you're a scientist, heavily inbreeding an animal is going to be a roll of the dice. 

[Gamedog]

8 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

Inbreeding works like this, to my understanding: Every living thing has some bad genes. When individuals from different bloodlines mate, chances are they don't both have the same bad genes, so those errors are hopefully canceled out. If individuals from the same bloodline mate, there is a drastically higher chance of them both having the same bad genes and therefore theres a higher chance of errors in the offspring.

SOOOOOOOOOOOO

It depends on the quality of the aforementioned dog's parent's genetic code. Unless you're a scientist, heavily inbreeding an animal is going to be a roll of the dice. 

Do you believe the opposite is true, that you can enhance a positive trait in a line by inbreeding to dogs who share that trait? 

[Endless/Nameless]

Just now, Gamedog said:

Do you believe the opposite is true, that you can enhance a positive trait in a line by inbreeding to dogs who share that trait? 

It is undeniably true. It has been done before.

However, many of these specially bred animals obtained problems along with said better trait. Take the St. Bernard dog for example: If i recall correctly from my childhood reading, they were bred to be really resistant to cold 'n' stuff. The breeding succeeded and gave them that warm, hairy trait; but now on account of it, St. Bernards have a very high susceptibility to heart issues.  

It's a potentially nasty tradeoff that seems rather inhumane to put animals through.

[Gamedog]

4 minutes ago, Endless/Nameless said:

It is undeniably true. It has been done before.

However, many of these specially bred animals obtained problems along with said better trait. Take the St. Bernard dog for example: If i recall correctly from my childhood reading, they were bred to be really resistant to cold 'n' stuff. The breeding succeeded and gave them that warm, hairy trait; but now on account of it, St. Bernards have a very high susceptibility to heart issues.  

It's a potentially nasty tradeoff that seems rather inhumane to put animals through.

How can you credit heart issues in St Bernard's to inbreeding?

St Bernard's, like most other large breeds, have health problems credited to their size and body shape, most commonly hip and elbow dysphasia as well as torsion

this is why they have short lifespans, not due to inbreeding. 

[Endless/Nameless]

Just now, Gamedog said:

How can you credit heart issues in St Bernard's to inbreeding?

St Bernard's, like most other large breeds, have health problems credited to their size and body shape, most commonly hip and elbow dysphasia as well as torsion

this is why they have short lifespans, not due to inbreeding. 

Well ok then. Bad example. I read about that a LOOOOOOOOOONG time ago.

[Saxon]

2 hours ago, Gamedog said:

Do you believe that inbreeding, no matter what, no matter how frequent or infrequent, no matter how close or far apart the relations are, is harmful without exception?

'No matter how infrequent' includes zero, and 'no matter how far apart the relations are' includes every member of the gene pool, so this suggestion is dumb. 

This is a probabilistic matter; inbreeding is not guaranteed to unify two recessive deleterious genes, it merely makes this union more likely. The more generations of inbreeding there are, the greater and greater the likelihood becomes. 

We're talking about dice. 

 

2 hours ago, Gamedog said:

Also, what do you think is a result of inbreeding? What do you consider to be a trait inherited from inbreeding? Is it a physical one you can see?

 

inhope you can see where I'm going with this and that you know I'm prepared to dump a shitload of inbred dog pedigrees on you

What the hell are you on about?

I gave you an example of inbreeding causing colour blindness in a small set of pacific islanders. Exactly which deleterious genes come to prevail in an inbreeding experiment is stochastic.

This means that you can't be sure what sort of effects will happen; maybe it will be polydactyly, maybe it will be Huntington's, maybe you won't detect any problem and then suddenly several generations later the entire population will die of some weird meiotic disease nobody has ever heard of. 

We're talking about dice. 

 

Inbreeding works like this, to my understanding: Every living thing has some bad genes. When individuals from different bloodlines mate, chances are they don't both have the same bad genes, so those errors are hopefully canceled out. If individuals from the same bloodline mate, there is a drastically higher chance of them both having the same bad genes and therefore theres a higher chance of errors in the offspring.

SOOOOOOOOOOOO

It depends on the quality of the aforementioned dog's parent's genetic code. Unless you're a scientist, heavily inbreeding an animal is going to be a roll of the dice. 

Your understanding of the genetics involved is very good. C: It is also very clear and simple, which is even better.

I'm going to expand on the idea of genetic 'quality'; I think it is more useful to consider the disparity of the parents' genomes. If both parents have lots of the same recessive genes, which is increasingly likely the more closely related they are, then the chance of deleterious combination is increased, just like you said. 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2016 by Saxon

[Gamedog]

7 minutes ago, Saxon said:

'No matter how infrequent' includes zero, and 'no matter how far apart the relations are' includes every member of the gene pool, so this suggestion is dumb. 

This is a probabilistic matter; inbreeding is not guaranteed to unify two recessive deleterious genes, it merely makes this union more likely. The more generations of inbreeding there are, the greater and greater the likelihood becomes. 

We're talking about dice. 

 

I gave you an example of inbreeding causing colour blindness in a small set of pacific islanders. Exactly which deleterious genes come to prevail in an inbreeding experiment is stochastic.

This means that you can't be sure what sort of effects will happen; maybe it will be polydactyly, maybe it will be Huntington's, maybe you won't detect any problem and then suddenly several generations later the entire population will die of some weird meiotic disease nobody has ever heard of. 

We're talking about dice. 

Saxon

ive previously stated that inbreeding in humans is more dangerous than inbreeding in dogs. It is NOT risky in dogs like it is in humans 

[Saxon]

1 minute ago, Gamedog said:

Saxon

ive previously stated that inbreeding in humans is more dangerous than inbreeding in dogs. It is NOT risky in dogs like it is in humans 

It is risky in any animal that reproduces sexually, Gamedog, for the aforementioned reasons. 

Genetics isn't going to change for you. 

 

Do you believe the opposite is true, that you can enhance a positive trait in a line by inbreeding to dogs who share that trait? 

You are correct that selective breeding of closely related organisms is more likely to conserve the desired trait. This was observed in pigeon breeding by Charles Darwin and is part of his supporting argument in the Origin of Species. 

You can 'accelerate' the evolution of a lineage with inbreeding. Change would proceed more slowly with a large population that is not so closely related. 

This formed part of Darwin's hypothesis on how new species are likely to form; by the isolation of a small founder population. 

Edited April 4, 2016 by Saxon

[Gamedog]

2 hours ago, Saxon said:

It is risky in any animal that reproduces sexually, Gamedog, for the aforementioned reasons. 

Genetics isn't going to change for you. 

 

You are correct that selective breeding of closely related organisms is more likely to conserve the desired trait. This was observed in pigeon breeding by Charles Darwin and is part of his supporting argument in the Origin of Species. 

You can 'accelerate' the evolution of a lineage with inbreeding. Change would proceed more slowly with a large population that is not so closely related. 

This formed part of Darwin's hypothesis on how new species are likely to form; by the isolation of a small founder population. 

It's dangerous when done haphazardly with animals, but still not anywhere near as dangerous as humans.
You can breed brother-and-sister and wind up with a deformed human baby, but if you bred brother-and-sister you can wind up with perfectly healthy pups.

^^^

 

 

[Saxon]

@Gamedog 

I don't think you understand that this is a probability based problem. 

Children whose parents are brother and sister are not guaranteed to be disabled, but the risk is much higher than if the parents were less closely related. 

This is true of any animal species that reproduces sexually, because of the essential genetics that Nameless explained. 

Many generations of inbreeding make the problem even worse. This is part of the reason why lots of dog breeds, descended from small populations in which brother and sister were repeatedly bred together, suffer from strange hereditary predispositions to disease.

People who breed domestic animals have an incentive to defend inbreeding because, as we've established, animals' genomes are much more malleable if the population size is small and closely related, so it makes their job easier, even if they end up producing lots of deformed dogs as a by-product. Vets who perform dog health checks have come under scrutiny for requiring such poor standards for health that no German shepherd dog in the whole of England has ever been assessed as deformed, which is patently absurd. 

This German shepherd dog, with a deformed spine and foot problems, won Crufts, England's most prestigious dog show: 

Vets have complained that dogs with missing joints were approved by the regulatory bodies who are meant to check their health. 

This discussion about inbreeding is beside the point though; it is evident (no matter whether you except Mendelian genetics) that domestic animal breeders have bred lots of very weak domestic strains which are predisposed to nasty health problems, and that's one reason that puts me off of owning pets.

[Gamedog]

6 hours ago, Saxon said:

@Gamedog 

I don't think you understand that this is a probability based problem. 

Children whose parents are brother and sister are not guaranteed to be disabled, but the risk is much higher than if the parents were less closely related. 

This is true of any animal species that reproduces sexually, because of the essential genetics that Nameless explained. 

Many generations of inbreeding make the problem even worse. This is part of the reason why lots of dog breeds, descended from small populations in which brother and sister were repeatedly bred together, suffer from strange hereditary predispositions to disease.

People who breed domestic animals have an incentive to defend inbreeding because, as we've established, animals' genomes are much more malleable if the population size is small and closely related, so it makes their job easier, even if they end up producing lots of deformed dogs as a by-product. Vets who perform dog health checks have come under scrutiny for requiring such poor standards for health that no German shepherd dog in the whole of England has ever been assessed as deformed, which is patently absurd. 

This German shepherd dog, with a deformed spine and foot problems, won Crufts, England's most prestigious dog show: 

Vets have complained that dogs with missing joints were approved by the regulatory bodies who are meant to check their health. 

This discussion about inbreeding is beside the point though; it is evident (no matter whether you except Mendelian genetics) that domestic animal breeders have bred lots of very weak domestic strains which are predisposed to nasty health problems, and that's one reason that puts me off of owning pets.

I'm aware that this is a probability based problem, I'm telling you that inbreeding in dogs has a lower probability of causing issues, as is the case with most non-human animals.
Inbreeding in humans is going to fuck up the offspring, but animals are different and they can withstand more inbreeding.
The cheetah, for example, is SO INBRED that each individual is near-identical, genetically. Why aren't we seeing crippled cheetahs? What do you think the main cause of cheetahs dying is?
Poaching, habitat destruction, competition with other predators.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5863666/why-inbreeding-really-isnt-as-bad-as-you-think-it-is

That GSD's poor hocks and back are not due to inbreeding, this is due to the purebred dog standards and lack of concern for health testing for HD. The reason GSDs have fucked up legs is because they're bred for sloped hips. Sloped hips causes the pelvis to tilt, and the legs to be carried further underneath them. It would be wise for you to gain your information from sources outside of propaganda films.

Here are some inbred dogs that are perfectly healthy. I assume you posted the GSD with the implication that his issues are due to inbreeding, so I'm posting dogs that are probably MORE inbred, to contrast this.

WHERE ARE ALL THE HOCK-WALKERS????

 

[Saxon]

5 minutes ago, Gamedog said:

I'm aware that this is a probability based problem, I'm telling you that inbreeding in dogs has a lower probability of causing issues, as is the case with most non-human animals.
Inbreeding in humans is going to fuck up the offspring, but animals are different and they can withstand more inbreeding.
The cheetah, for example, is SO INBRED that each individual is near-identical, genetically. Why aren't we seeing crippled cheetahs? What do you think the main cause of cheetahs dying is?
Poaching, habitat destruction, competition with other predators.

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5863666/why-inbreeding-really-isnt-as-bad-as-you-think-it-is

That GSD's poor hocks and back are not due to inbreeding, this is due to the purebred dog standards and lack of concern for health testing for HD. The reason GSDs have fucked up legs is because they're bred for sloped hips. Sloped hips causes the pelvis to tilt, and the legs to be carried further underneath them. It would be wise for you to gain your information from sources outside of propaganda films.

Here are some inbred dogs that are perfectly healthy. I assume you posted the GSD with the implication that his issues are due to inbreeding, so I'm posting dogs that are probably MORE inbred, to contrast this.

WHERE ARE ALL THE HOCK-WALKERS????

 

 

If you know that this is a probability based issue, then you know that postign a small number of examples of healthy inbred animals doesn't justify your claim that inbreeding is less likely to cause harm in non human animals. 
I could believe this claim, because humans are a very genetically homogeneous group and may therefore be more vulnerable to inbreeding, but a citation is needed to prove it. 

Inbreeding is, never the less, risky in any sexually reproducing animal and hence breeding brothers and sisters together does increase the instance of hereditary genetic diseases. 

 

It is interesting that you bring up cheetahs, because they are an example of a species that is severely damaged by inbreeding. They are all vulnerable to the same diseases; their immune systems are near-identical and they are observed to frequently have low sperm counts or deformed sperm:

http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/biology/VHAYSSEN/msi/pdf/i1545-1410-771-1-1.pdf (ontogeny and reproduction section)

Cheetah populations are frequently decimated when a single disease rips through a population, killing them all:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/making-a-difference/rare-breed-20811232/?no-ist=

This is not normal for species that are not inbred. 

 

[Gamedog]

Some examples of this desired tilted-pelvis in GSDs. These are show breed standards.

 

Compare the above shepherd desired gait to that of a breed that doesn't have sloped hips, the Doberman:

 

[Saxon]

@Gamedog I believe you that unhealthy selective criteria in selective breeding are a problem which results in unhealthy animals. I think that inbreeding also increases the instance of hereditary disease. Both are a problem. 

Overall, what matters to me is that lots of domestic breeds of animal aren't very healthy, so I wouldn't feel good about owning them. I would not feel good owning a buff coloured puppy if I knew that the buff colour was produced by generations of breeding siblings together at the expense of those animals' well being. Even if my puppy is healthy, there are doubtlessly lots which weren't so lucky; the by-product of the selective breeding process. 

 

 

I'd like to know what you think about the cheetah research I referred to. 

Edited April 5, 2016 by Saxon

[Gamedog]

1 minute ago, Saxon said:

 

If you know that this is a probability based issue, then you know that postign a small number of examples of healthy inbred animals doesn't justify your claim that inbreeding is less likely to cause harm in non human animals. 
I could believe this claim, because humans are a very genetically homogeneous group and may therefore be more vulnerable to inbreeding, but a citation is needed to prove it. 

Inbreeding is, never the less, risky in any sexually reproducing animal and hence breeding brothers and sisters together does increase the instance of hereditary genetic diseases. 

 

It is interesting that you bring up cheetahs, because they are an example of a species that is severely damaged by inbreeding. They are all vulnerable to the same diseases; their immune systems are near-identical and they are observed to frequently have low sperm counts or deformed sperm:

http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/biology/VHAYSSEN/msi/pdf/i1545-1410-771-1-1.pdf (ontogeny and reproduction section)

Cheetah populations are frequently decimated when a single disease rips through a population, killing them all:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/making-a-difference/rare-breed-20811232/?no-ist=

This is not normal for species that are not inbred. 

 

I've got more, if you'd like to see them.

 

Cheetahs are very inbred, but my point is that we aren't seeing cheetahs die off from inbreeding, their main cause of death is not caused by inbreeding, we aren't seeing hock-walking cheetahs or cheetahs who can't walk at all.

 

and his son:

 

and these are all single dogs, this isn't counting their offspring. If you'd like, I can find images of each of their inbred offspring.
 

 

Again

WHERE

ARE

THE CRIPPLED HOCK-WALKERS

[Saxon]

@Gamedog Why don't you understad that individual pictures of healthy inbred animals doesn't prove they are less likely to develop hereditary diseases from inbreeding than humans? You could post pictures of healthy inbred humans; they do exist. It doesn't prove anything. 

 

The Cheetah, if you had read the research I referred to, very well could die out due to inbreeding. Peritonitis has previously wiped out 60% of cheetahs in wildlife safaris, so biologists are concerned that an outbrake in the wild could effectively kill the entire species off.

Furthermore, lots of cheetahs with bent limbs and cramped teeth are born as a direct result of their inbreeding. Did you actually read the research I quoted? :\

 

You would know all of these things if you just took the time to read the wikipedia article on Inbreeding, which shows that it is deleterious for non human animals too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding

[Misomie]

Didn't end up going to the vets back then but just got back today. Just renewed Laika's heartworm, dewormed and tested Fenrir, along with starting him on heartworm prevention (finally). Plus my vet does offer OSS, so sweet~