To be honest, if you're going to write something which is a) less than the size of a telephone directory and yet b) details the nature and causes of the current crisis in dog breeding, I don't think you can get any less dense than this paper. I doubt very much if this author was trying to impress anyone, what he was doing, in my opinion, was bringing together in one place - in a way that accessible to professional and amateur breeders - the current (at the time of writing) science of population genetics. It was concise, thorough and yet covered all the major bases.
and yes, most dogs are not bred by 'professional kennels' but almost everyone I've ever spoken to who breeds has got their ideas of what's 'A Good Plan' from speaking to the professional breeders in their chosen breed - and almost all have been encouraged to line breed.
A recent letter in 'Dogs Today' - which is about as generic as you can get - was from a woman who wanted to breed her Cavalier King Charles Spaniel (we could ask why, when the world is hardly short of Cavaliers, but that's a separate thread, and not for here). I think she could safely be characterised as a conscientious backyard breeder because she went back to the professional who had bred her bitch and asked for advice on which dog to use. She was advised to use the bitch's own grandfather.
In reply to her query of whether his was wise (sane woman
) - Malcolm Willis, the KC's geneticist said that it wasn't wise at all and that in choosing a stud, she should make sure she didn't have an in-breeding co-efficient of greater than 10%. He went on to say that most KC breeds kept their coefficients under 10 which is wild wishful thinking, but interesting that he wants people to believe it.
I have looked at a number of breeds now, and trying to find a coefficient under 10 is challenging in the extreme. There are some working cockers, but not a huge number, and it does rather depend on how far back you go in your calculations - the original gene pool was small. (but there are some, which is why I'm here. If I find another breed as diverse, that has minimal inherited defects, I'll let you all know.)
So someone, somewhere has to convince the professionals who are certain that their Victorian breeding methods (which were fine then, truly) are no longer applicable in the 21st century - and these people have to start educating down the line or 20/30 years from now, the next generation of breeders are going to be very unhappy people, with even more unhappy dogs.
that was the gist of his paper. I think it bears reading and understanding - only with solid science have we any chance at all of convincing the vested interest that it's in their greater interests to learn and change.
every breeder practices genetic science at each mating. I'd say there's a moral and professional obligation to understand the latest science, or if not, to listen to those who do.
what we need also, is to achieve this without creating the backlash of people who feel as if they're being personally insulated and assaulted. What he's saying, clearly, is that the 19th Century techniques were right at the time and were the peak of understanding. It's just that understanding has moved on, and dog breeding has moved on and we're in a different situation now, which we need to approach with different ideas.
It's not that hard, I think?
e
