Am I the only one disappointed by the bias in the make up of the founding members ? - of the nine  possible places no fewer than six  are from a Veterinary background ( seven if we include Chairperson Sheila Crispin) and two have have links with the RSPCA - where are the experienced dog breeders ?-

There is absoloutely NO point in 'advising' breeders if you don't have at least one person who understands the practical difficulties of maintaining specific breed charcateristics within a small gene pool.

yvonne

Did any dog breeders actually apply for a place? As far as I'm aware applications were invited for members.

Yes, I too was very dissapointed with the bias all very intelligent people but considering initially that Prof Crispin said she wished to tackle puppy farming, I wonder who from the selected members will have adequate back ground knowledge or information on this very clandestine issue.  One of the members selected and maybe applied through the dogs owners application has a personal business background that is as far fetched from dogs, as one could possibly get.  The selection of individuals is too narrow in their expertise, too many with the same knowledge and background and as Trevor has said where are those with practical knowledge such as a dog breeder?        

I believe that breeders DID apply but were not chosen  - the viewpoint of genetic scientists ( of which there seem to be a majority of this council ) could well be very different to that of the average show breeder  who are unlikely to sacrifice a significant drop in the quality of  'breed type' for a lower COI ....after all think about why they want to breed in the first place !

..all the advice in the world will not be heeded if it is not backed up with REAL experience of what it is like to breed pedigree dogs within a small gene pool without losing breed type - and at least one breeder should have been 'on board' if only to give  some kind of reality check to those who would have us 'breed by numbers'

Yvonne

There is also an expert advisory panel on which there may well be breeders

There are some genetic scientists that are dog breeders...
We are lucky to have one in my breed, and shown successfully & bred Champions too :)

He even did some research in our breed re champions and found that you
didn't need to lose breed type and have to line/inbreed to produce a Champion.
http://www.steynmere.com/ARTICLES8.html
It might be of interest.

Thing is today we may have to adjust thinking if we want our breeds to maintain health.
By inbreeding throughout breeds if health problems do occur you are stuffed if you don't
have the genetc diversity to be able to breed out/breed away from health problems.

Today my breed is not as genetically diverse as it was when I first came into it over 20 years ago.
It worries me greatly as the breed is fairly well bottle-necked with just a few studs and their progeny
getting the majority of studs in the show fraternity. When trying to look for studs to use and also trying
to steer away from lines that you are aware carry health troubles for eg in my breed cardiomyopathy
there aren't many lines left available to consider. When you are also trying to correct/improve upon certain 'faults' and hang on to the positive attributes that your bitch/dog has.
Until all health problems have a gene/dna test in all breeds it's going to be a nightmare in breed gene pools that
are narrow.

Thats EXACTLY my point - - the problem is that it is over simplistic to say 'dont line breed' for many breeds it's unavoidable expecially these days when every new  health test reduces gene pools still further - I'm concerned that the geneticists on the council will see this issue in this simplified way - how are breeds such as Hovavarts or Bolognese or Laekeneois or Griffons going to realistically be bred if they are expected not to be line bred or to have COi's that are unrealistically low for their breed ?

thats why we really needed an experienced breeder on there - theories are fine - it's putting them into practice that's the hard part !

Yvonne

To some extent that's where dedication comes in, for those that are in each of the rare breeds
to import new bloodlines to be able to widen the gene pools.
All breeders of each breed should be breed guardians for each generation and future generations
in the years to come.

Alot of breeders aren't thinking beyond the first mating for the future generations etc.
There are also breeders that aren't knowledgeable in genetics and perhaps that's where
things needs to be improved? So that they can be armed with the knowledge to be able
to breed away/out of health problems but that won't be detrimental to the breed and it's future.

My breed is in the top ten for registrations at the KC but it's probably now one of the most inbred
with high COI's in most of the show dogs today. So what chance do we have when health problems
come up especially the health problems which mean that you do have to discount alot of the dogs
in the gene pool, which reduces down the options. Some breeders do have the foresight and have imported
dogs to try and keep the gene pool diverse but it does take a lot of money and dedication.
It also takes patience as you may not get want you want or need in the first generation of the outcross.
But on the 2nd or 3rd generation you then reap the benefit.
Too many today want to win & quickly the ribbons without giving much thought to other issues.
It's the 'I want it now mentality' that can cause many problems in the future for breeds.
Hopefully each breed will have a band of breeders that although they breed to their individual
breed standards they are not influenced by the 'fashion' of the moment thus not bottle neck their
breeds and give others valuable options in future generations.

Some of the health problems that I've seen in my breed have been in pedigrees which are heavily in-bred.
It doesn't take a scientist to work with common sense & logic to determine that perhaps inbreeding
isn't a sensible option for the long term viability of breeds with regards to health issues.
Although in the dogs who are heavily inbred it allows you to identify which dogs are passing on these health problems.
With DNA testing it means with certain health problems you don't have to discount large portions of the breeding population, by being able to identify dogs which are clear and carriers you can breed the two (clear and carrier together) to eventually breed clear progeny and thus keep the breeding population as wide as possible.

So perhaps the greatest legacy the KC & breed clubs could give breeders and their respective breeds is seminars on genetics and arm them with the knowledge to be able to keep their breeds as healthy as possible.
That said the breeders have to be willing students to take as much possible from these seminars.

Who'd be a responsible dog breeder? Certainly not an easy task these days even for those in the 'popular' more numerous breeds!

Who'd be a responsible dog breeder? Certainly not an easy task these days even for those in the 'popular' more numerous breeds!

Amen to that - it certainly feels like pushing jelly up a hill at times !! - I breed Groenendaels - we almost exclusively have continental dogs in our pedigres and import etc etc and yet we still face a very restricted gene pool - it just wories me that with an Advisory council made up of genetic academics, their focus will be on genetic diversity and breeders will be faced with the impossible task of 'squaring the circle' - ( i.e only using dogs with good health tests AND widening the gene pool )

Someone with a foot in both camps (scientific and breeding) like Malcolm Willis, or Steve Dan (I don't mean them personally).

There must be other dog breeders with scientific/legal backgrounds?