I read with interest all of the comments on the thread from 2005 relating to the breeding of Northern Inuit Dogs. i was dismayed but sadly not surprised by the lack of knowledge and sheer arrogance displayed by many who were involved within the discussion.

I offer this information simply to provide some facts with regards to domestic breeds.

All domestic dogs have the exact same genetic code as wolves, they are indistinguishable. This being the case, we can only conclude that ALL domestic dogs can trace their progeny back to the wolf - SCIENTIFIC FACT! What we do not know is whether the wolf 'chose' to be domesticated, or whether it was 'forced' upon them. But considering the fact that humans are still trying to domesticate the wolf and hybridize them it would be a fair assumption to suggest that the latter was the case.

Bearing the above in mind, it becomes obvious that this being the case, all domestic dogs are hybrids, be they Dobermans, GSD's great Danes, Yorkies, etc. ALL are x-breeds, or 'mongrels' - choose which name as you will. if they weren't so they would still look like, and behave like a wolf.

We know this as fact, simply because the wolf has remained unchanged for thousands of years, whereas the domesticated dog has seen many changes is a very short space of time - something that does NOT occur naturally within an animals evolution. Thus we can only come to the conclusion that these KC reg. breeds have obviously been 'tampered' with over many generations. This of course is well - documented.

This brings us then to the ethics of breeding new hybrids -i.e. The Northern Inuit Dog amongst others.

Whilst there are obviously many pitfalls to be avoided - i think it would be a fair assumption to say that most, if not all of these pitfalls have been identified as a result of many generations breeding experience of such breeds as those recognized by the K.C.(I.e. humans tend to learn by their mistakes - eventually!!)

Many of you questioned the ethics of breeding N.I's amongst others, which of course is your right. However, how ethical is it to doc the tails off many K.C. breeds? how ethical is it to breed KC registered breeds that always need C-sections in order to give birth? How ethical is it to breed dogs that have shorter legs, shorter muzzles, so that breathing problems occur?

Several of you commented that it is wrong to breed a dog for appearances only. (As N.I's are bred to look like wolves) At least if N.I. breeders succeed they will have a breed that at least looks like the original progenitor of the D.D. Further, there can be little doubt that many of the so-called recognized breeds were bred for appearances first, and 'function' second.

As discussed above, we know these traits have been bred in by humans intentionally over the generations, or have otherwise been introduced by humans (Such as removing the tail).

Bearing all of this in mind are you really in a position to comment upon others efforts? perhaps you should all examine the history and ethics of your own breeds before you challenge those of any 'new-comers?'

it would be a fair assumption to state that probably all breeds of D. D. started out in a similar way to the Northern Inuit Dog. Furthermore, it would also be a fair assumption to state that in the early days of breeding there were little 'ground-rules', and most probably none, and certainly few real ethics.

The Kennel Club are there to promote sensible breeding and keeping of animals - which is a really positive step, and organizations such as these have a good 'stabilizing' effect, but to cast aspersions towards a group of breeders that are doing just as those of the recognized breeds have done seems hypocritical at best. After-all, everyone has to start somewhere, as does every breed of dog.

If you wish to question ethics perhaps you could start by considering how ethical it is to almost wipe out one of natures perfect dogs (the Wolf) and then to replace it with a wide variety of K.C. registered 'mongrels' that are in many cases, devoid of many of the natural 'traits' that make the 'dog' a 'wolf'.

In short, once again we as a race have taken one of natures most impressive natural predators, manipulated it, changed it, even 're-designed' it and have persecuted and 'dis-owned' the original progenitor - the wolf.

We have redefined that which was naturally occurring, as we always do. This is the arrogance of the human race!

Those within the K.C. strive to breed the perfect animal, show them, groom them, doc them,when it was already there within nature. You want the perfect dog then look no further than the wolf. Anything else is merely a 'shadow' of the the naturally occurring and much persecuted progenitor.

We are all entitled to our opinions, and this is mine - I feel qualified to comment as a pro-conservationist photographer/practicioner who understands the practice and consequences of domesticating dogs only too well.

Further, of late i have become well-acquainted with N.I. dogs/breeders, and the history of the breed/goals of the breeders seem no different than those practices of the K.C. breeds/breeders - albeit at a much earlier stage. They are now hip-scoring, eye-testing and recent results are encouraging.

It takes many generations to achieve the 'perfect' breed as all of your wonderful breeds (Or aberrations) can attest!

Perhaps you should consider the history and practices of your own breeds, before you begin casting aspersions at others attempting similar? You would then perhaps spare a thought for all of your breeds original progenitor - the wolf, which continues to be killed by the thousand every year, despite the fact that it has international protection as an endangered species.

How small we have all become!

 

>How small we have all become!<

Pot and kettle come to mind. You joined the board to insult the members and tell everyone off over a post that's 3 years old? :(

Well said Lori :-)

So "vampyresbyte" what breed do you keep? Or do you just have wolves roaming in your garden as they are the "original" breed. Or, judging by your name do you keep bats?
So as a pro-conservationist photographer/practicioner how does that actually qualify you to judge peoples opinions and experiances??? And raking up a post that came and went several years ago - what a waste of time.

Yikes, some people sure have a lot of free time on their hands!

Through selective breeding humans have created most of the recognized breeds, I don't think anyone on this board would disagree.  Neither do I think anyone on this board believes that its "wrong" for people to do the same again - through selective breeding develop a breed that fits a 21st century need.  After all, that's why breeds were developed in the first place - to fit some need (real or perceived) by people.  Most people on this board are anti breeding (old or new breeds or mixes)  purely for the sake of fashion and greed. 

So why get so angry about something someone posted in 2005?

Well that's a post and a half!

My opinion is that what people did to create my breeds is in the past and gone.  It's not a recent thing - especially in the case of my main breed, the Pharaoh Hound.  One thing I will say is that most breeds were created with a specific purpose and job in mind.  They were changed over generations til they became the best dog for the job allocated to them.  'New' breeds, however have no such purpose - other than to look pretty.  I think you will find that this is what animates people on this subject.

In the case of the NI : there is so much secrecy behind the breed and one has to wonder why.  Were they bred from three distinct breeds? The Siberian Husky, the Malamute and the GSD? Or are they descended from 3 or 4 non specific strays brought into the country?  Were wolves used and then this fact denied due to current laws?  Why do the people that know the real facts not come clean?  Why has health testing only just started when NIs were (according to who you listen to) derived from breeds with established health problems?  Why, in such a young venture, are there so many factions within it - with so many different breed names and only a couple of generations separating them? 

I think NIs can look beautiful - but maybe, just maybe, people could realise that there are more than enough established breeds to go round without creating new ones.  We cannot change what happened in the past when creating the breeds that are now established but we can learn from the mistakes made and not repeat them.  This doesn't seem to be the case here though...

No-one is denying that all breeds are man made.  What people question is the need of yet another breed with no real purpose.

Debs

i do not wish to get into a debate here, and i certainly didn't 'attack' anyone, as i stated, i am merely stating scientific fact.
I would have thought all of you would welcome the opportunity to discuss such a relevant topic. Far from this being an old debate it is one that continues to this date. As several of you have pointed out 'designer dogs' are potentially a serious problem - but so is domesticating any animal.

As for keeping wolves in my garden, no i certainly don't - the problems with doing this are all too familiar. Wolves are wild animals, they should stay that way. Neither do i keep bats for the same reason.

i would also suggest that if you wish to comment you stick to thew issues at hand and not resort to what are frankly childish comments.

Personal attacks and aspersions made towards someone you don't know are hardly constructive are they?

As i said, perhaps some time spent researching the subject, as i have spent many years doing would be beneficial.

In truth, unless you see a wolf in the wild you will NEVER experience the thrill and majesty of a 'real' dog.

When i stated that all D.D. breeds are 'mongrels' i was merely stating genetic scientific fact, not casting aspersions. As for discussing some of the practises surrounding some of these breeds, how would you feel if you were bred for a specific purpose? If you had a finger or two removed? Or if your breathing was laboured?

Definitely dubious!!

We know this as fact, simply because the wolf has remained unchanged for thousands of years,

Surely you are aware that there are huge differences in the species of wolves in size and colours and even temperaments depending on where they live in the world. The wolf has changed too and adapted to whatever environment they live in!

You want the perfect dog then look no further than the wolf.
...how ethical it is to almost wipe out one of natures perfect dogs (the Wolf)

The wolf is FAR from being the perfect dog! People that deal with wolves and many owners that have wolf-hybrids know that they are very difficult to impossible to keep as pets. Their temperament is not suitable to be kept as pets, less even as working dogs - even if all care is taken when bringing them up and training them. They are wild at heart and once fully mature are certainly not "perfect dogs". There is a good reason why most wolf-hybrids in the US bred for the pet market end up in rescue!

Anything else is merely a 'shadow' of the the naturally occurring and much persecuted progenitor.

This is quite an insult to the dog! Yes, I agree that many breeds are not anymore as they should be, but most are just fine and are still more than capable of doing the jobs they were bred for. The different breeds have been bred for various reasons over the last years and centuries, some for looks, some for particular skills... and many of these skills are so strong in particular breeds now that the wolf wouldn't have a chance in hell to keep up with them, however well trained (if they were as trainable as you seem to think - which they are not).

You also don't seem to be aware how easily the wolf (or many other species of animals) are changed in appearance and temperament. Just look at the fox breeding experiment that Dmitri Konstantinovich Belyaev set up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tame_Silver_Fox Silver farm foxes were selected for "least fear of humans"; this was the ONLY criteria for selection. After very few generations (10), the foxes showed considerable changes in temperament (being tame), physical appearance (black and white, spotted, curly tales, floppy ears) and behaviour (wagging tails, licking hands etc.).

That's how easy it is to change foxes, and I am sure that's how easy it is to change wolves too.

Though I fully agree with you that there is no difference in creating new breeds now to what's happened in the evolution of the dog in general, you should make sure that you get your fact right before having a go at people! Wolves are not "better dogs", they are different and would never survive long as pets! That's why they changed from wolves to dogs as this is the only way that a cooperation and cohabitation that is useful for both humans and dogs was/is possible!

Vera

I can't comment on docking or dew claw removal, nor breathing problems or whelping problems, as none of this applies to the three breeds I have :-)

And yet again, as with all people who are owners/breeders/involved with NIs and their counterparts, still no answer to any of the questions I posed.

Debs

>You want the perfect dog then look no further than the wolf.

Even wolves have been found to have HD. They're no more physically 'perfect' than any other species.

Wolves are not the perfect dog - if they were, we would all own wolves, not dogs.

Wolves are perfect wolves.

Im strugging to find any scientific fact in your post - what leads you to the conclusion that wolves became domestic dogs by being forced into it? All the evidence we have points to probability that it was those animals who chose to live near us, had less fear of us, and then found benefits in being close to us who became the ancestors of the domestic dog. Even now people struggle very hard to keep captive wolves happy and safe and it is a rare wolf indeed that lives a long and happy and uneventful life in the exact same situations our dogs will tolerate and even welcome. Even wolf/dog hybrids are notoriously difficult to handle and a great many end up dead when they turn on their owners.

Most of the breeds we have today were shaped by the job they were selected to do - couldnt do the job, didnt live long, didnt reproduce, end of the line. So we shaped a breed remarkably quickly (especially given dogs would not live anywhere near as long as they do now, and we as early humans would have little difficulty in knocking any dog on the head that wasnt temperamentally suitable for life with us, or capable of the job we wanted it to do.

Then there were the (few and far between) people who took it upon themselves to create a 'new breed' from what they had available, and evidence we have suggests they did that by ruthless and hard culling of anything even remotely unsuitable - their aim was to have their dog resemble their ideal and breed true, and as far as I can tell those people achieved that in their own lifetimes. We may have taken those ideals and changed them slowly over the last hundred years or so, but that is nothing in comparison to the steps made by the founders of those breeds.

The northern Inuit and its many offshoot breeds appear to be making little to no progress as far as i, the lay person can see, certainly not towards breeding true and sticking to one set standard.

Surely if they are so wonderful and ideal, the health tests would have been the very FIRST consideration, not an afterthought.

So far every NI i have seen looks very little like the next (and the same applies to the other names this 'breed' goes under), some breeders seem to be health testing, others not, and all the while mass infighting between the various camps.

Honestly - its not selling the creation of new breeds to me in the slightest, and by picking up on an old, long dead post, you are doing presumably 'your breed' no favours either.

Maybe as their clubs can't get on they want to make their dispute even bigger on the WWW?

Before calling everyone else why don't the NI people or whatever they want to call the breed try and get together and stop arguing as they are not doing their "breed" any favours.

I think you have just popped in here to start up the next round of Bitchiness and fighting  that surrounds the NI, I  wonder which camp you sit in.

Whenever  this discussion comes up, starts WW3 and that is from the two main camps of the NI dog,  to be honest no one else needs to join in..... their is so much nastiness/ Backbiting /  secrecy,  surrounding these dogs,  how do they (breed clubs)   ever hope to have this  type of dog established as a breed??????? . 

I have yet to see two NI dogs that look the same,  yet everyone says theirs is "type".

To the original poster,   you put a lot of effort into  your post,  maybe if you are a NI enthusiast , you would be better channeling that effort into bringing the two "fighting" groups together, and working as  a team, to gain what you are all after a "recognized breed"

I opened this topic thinking it would interest me and must be worth a look as it had garnered interest from a few good folks but then I read your opening paragraph and decided it wasn't going to be interesting, informative, or thought provoking at all - so, whatever the message eventually to be conveyed in your lengthy, rambling tome was totally lost on this member by your lack of respect.

Your comments are well noted. And there are some valid arguments here. Lurchergirl - your comments certainly are relevant, however, with regards to wolves being not being a perfect dog, you seem to be missing the point. Firstly, only wild animals seem to exhibit anything close to perfection - see the shark - a perfect predator. When i said perfection i did not mean 'perfect for a pet', wolves are far from this. This illustrates my point completely. Several of you have commented on this making this assumption - again a great example of human arrogance. Wolves are perfect dogs out in the wild, when exhibiting natural behaviour. (Why else would they have evolved so little?) if you want to understand the behaviour of your pet dog, then in many cases examining the natural behaviour and history of the wolf would explain this.

Regarding wolves and foxes as not being perfect - perhaps not -but more likely so. The reason there are 'phenotypes' (I.e. naturally occurring physical traits) is that all animals adapt to their environment accordingly. This is why there is much variety in wild wolf populations, and why there are over 4,000 species of lizards. If perfection does exist, surely it is the ability to adapt to become ideally suited for its environment.

The 'phenotypes' of the domestic dog are 'enforced', they did not occur naturally. They did not evolve over thousands of years naturally, they were the subject of enforced Eugenic decisions.

With regards to behavioural experiments on animals - any animal species can develop trust of humans over time, hence the fact that many species are no endangered. Any observation involving animals and humans means little when discussing evolution, natural history, etc, as even the layman knows that if one wishes to truly observe natural behaviour, the wild is the only place to do so.

The bigger picture is this - do we have the right to manipulate a species, to domesticate them, to change their appearance?

Although the issue at hand relates to dogs the issue is a philosophical one, and relates to much wider issues. i.e. Were governments - (Including the British) right to enforce Eugenics on the human population? I.e. forcibly sterilizing the mentally handicapped in the 80's? Were the Nazi's right to enforce Eugenics in the 40's? Of course not!

So why don't we treat animals with the same degree of respect? Because after all, all we do when we breed in or out 'traits' is practice Eugenics.

Once again i state that this is not an old and irrelevant debate. It is a current issue as so-called 'designer dogs' are more popular than ever.

As for not increasing the numbers of breeds - The tastes of an ever expanding human race are bound to change and to expand as the human population increases. So it is thus understandable but perhaps not desireble that new species and 'traits' are wanted by many. This is the nature of the human race - we learn, we adopt, we manipulate, we build, we pro-create, we destroy.

Who then has the right to tell those who came after them that they perhaps cannot do as those that came before them?

Humans learn by doing, we learn by our mistakes, this is the nature of the beast. We learn - it takes a long time, but generally we learn. i think it would be safe to assume that any mistakes made by breeders of new 'hybrids' are making the same mistakes as those that came before them - or perhaps they have learnt - we should at least give them a chance to demonstrate this surely? 

As for the comments relating to my 'breed', i never stated that i owned a dog. And with regards to the issues for this particular discussion, what dog i do/do not own is largely irrelevant.

No-one should see this as an attack on them or their breeds, as i stated at the beginning, i was merely opening up a stimulating debate, and on the whole, so far, this has certainly been that. Is that not the point of having such message boards?

>Who then has the right to tell those who came after them that they perhaps cannot do as those that came before them?
>i think it would be safe to assume that any mistakes made by breeders of new 'hybrids' are making the same mistakes as those that came before them

Thus bearing out the belief that fools learn by their own mistakes - wise people learn from other people's.

If we have no right to tell those who come after us not to repeat our mistakes, then, ergo, we have no right to tell people not to build another Auschwitz ...

Forgive me if I am wrong - but I thought it had been proved that the domestic dog did NOT descend from the wolf?

In Response to vampyresbyte

Dogs cannot be hybrids, as they were domesticated and evolved by artificial selection by man from the wolf.  You cannot have a hybrid when the animal is of the same species.  You can have a cross, so even the term wolf hybrid is incorrect.

As you say those seeking to make new breeds will have to breed an awful lot of dogs to get the few with the desired characteristics to then go on and become a breed and breed true.

In a climate of canine over population and decreasing use of dogs for the purpose they were bred for there is no ethical justification in trying to create new breeds.  It is appropriate to preserve existing breeds as part of our history and culture, but there are more than enough breeds already in existence to satisfy any need or whim.

There are already two recognised breeds of Wolf dog the Czech and Sarloose, as well as other Spitz breeds with primitive traits and looks.

There are also lots of curly and non shedding breeds, and many of these have characteristics trying to be produced by mating two well known breeds.  Sadly some of these breeds have very few enthusiasts so those looking for a non moulting gun-dog type already have at least four off the top of my head to choose from all needing support.

Why re-invent the wheel?

Vampyresbyte,

It's beginning to seem to me like that in a rather long-winded and convoluted way to make some sort of a point - which reading between the lines appears to be that humans should neither selectively breed, domesticate nor keep dogs.  If so - why the heck have you popped into a forum about dogs?  Some sort of a conversion mission - or just for your own amusement?   Any reason why you cannot say clearly and concisely what you believe - rather than dragging in Nazis and a host of irrelevant nonsense into it?

>which reading between the lines appears to be that humans should neither selectively breed, domesticate nor keep dogs. 

That's the impression the posts give me too. The thoughts are all negative - there's no balance within the posts.

They are now hip-scoring, eye-testing and recent results are encouraging.


You think a BMS of 17 and a range of 4 to 89 is ENCOURAGING??? Speechless.
http://www.bva.co.uk/public/chs/Breed_Mean_Scores_-2008.pdf

Vampyresbyte,
So far you have said alot about nothing and nothing about anything.
In your 1st post you stated facts - without backing those up
In your 2nd post you said you did not want to start a debate, but then in your 3rd post you say you are opening up a stimulating debate, what are you expecting to learn.
You can expect reasoned debate, but you must have a point of view and be able to contribute, you dont appear to have either.
You say 'I feel qualified to comment as a pro-conservationist photographer/practicioner who understands the practice and consequences of domesticating dogs only too well', what is your opinion?
Anybody can google NI and trawl over the links, but you have missed the point of this forum.

Wow and people worry about our breed.  Our worst score is less than half of the NI's and we've had many more scored!  They are not encouraging results are they??  You would think that if they had wolf in them and all the rubbish that is spouted that wolves don't have HD that their hipscores would be rather more encouraging than this wouldn't you????

You talk in contradictions. "Wolves are the perfect dogs"  "wolves are wild and should be left there"
I may be being childish, but dogs have been around for thousands of years; dont think you're going to get rid of them now!!!

In Response to vampyresbyte

> Wolves are perfect dogs out in the wild

Wolves are not perfect dogs they are perfect wolves, and even here we can argue about the perfection.  A perfect wild animal adapts to it's environment, and unfortunately the wolf has not, as due to coming into conflict with our species, it has not been able to adapt sufficiently to survive in our overcrowded world, and without human intervention as with other species would die out, so even the Wildlife is no longer free from being effected only by nature itself..

since the start of the domestication of the dog the wolf has not remained unchanged, for example wolves have lost hind dew claws, which early wolves once had and many domestic dogs still do.  Due to conflict with humans the ones most likely to survive are the shyest and those bold enough to prey on domestic livestock will be exterminated.

Natural selection is based on what works in a given environment, and nature is far more harsh than we humans are.  Nature likes to experiment and all living creatures are subject to spontaneous mutation, what works in a given time or environment survives, what organism can't adapt sufficiently does not.

Whole classes of animals over millennia have evolved, and become extinct or evolved into a more efficient organism.  Look at the Horse.

Are you against domestication of animals?  All the wild animals for  which we have domesticated forms have had the genetic potential to become what we now know as Cows, Domestic Sheep, Horses, Dogs etc, we have practised an alternative selection to that in nature (which is survival and environment based), based on our needs/tastes and the environment we choose for them.

We have not yet generally reached a stage where we can breed in traits that did not already exist un a species, and most people are not happy with GM in food and certainly not in animals, but man is now transfering genes between species.

Out of interest which wild ancestor do domestic cattle come from?

Interesting to this discussion:

Quote from here:http://asci.uvm.edu/course/asci001/domestic.html

While the wild ancestors of sheep, goat and pigs still survive the ancestor of domestic cattle is extinct. The common ancestor of domestic cattle was Bos primigenius, the auroch.....  ...

er...calm down love.

> I offer this information simply to provide some facts with regards to domestic breeds.

well, no, it appears you offer a deeply held (might we say biased?) opinion which seems to be attempting to create friction where there was none. you also seem to be a tiny bit confused about your argument...if you'll permit me to comment on some aspects?

> all domestic dogs are hybrids

duh, we know.

> domesticated dog has seen many changes is a very short space of time - something that does NOT occur naturally within an animals evolution
>

actually there are various, naturally evolving, species of canidae across the planet, not just the wolf. however i would not disagree that the vast range of aliel (sp? sorry, not done genetics in a while) presentation is down to the development for certain tasks by humans. as an aside, can i ask, do cows bother you this much? or horses? anything domesticated really...

> how ethical is it to doc the tails off many K.C. breeds?

we don't anymore.

> In short, once again we as a race have taken one of natures most impressive natural predators, manipulated it, changed it, even 're-designed' it and have persecuted and 'dis-owned' the original progenitor - the wolf.

i don't believe anyone on here has...

> devoid of many of the natural 'traits' that make the 'dog' a 'wolf'.

canis familiaris is to canis lupus as homo sapian is to pan trogladytes. my suggestion-read some Darwin. its called evolution. and by the way the wolf has not stayed the same for thousands of years, various sub species have evolved.

You seem a bit confused about whether you approve of breeding or not...you spout the virtues of the natural wolf but encourage the breeding of the N.I...can you clarify?

you also question many on the sites ethics, might i ask how often you read the site? there are some of the most considerate breeders/exhibitors in dogs on this site who's ethics are thoughtful and kind and you choose to attack them for comments made three years ago? can you quote what makes you question their ethics? i was not present for the original discussion (can we even see it now?) but i found your post to be biased, aggressive and bordering offensive to the posters from back then. Much valuable advise has been given by the dedicated people on this site who only aim to improve the understanding of dogs. I am sorry if my reply appears harsh but i was rather insulted on their behalf.

sorry all, i wrote my (i realise quite grumpy) reply before reading all of yours (heat of the moment, wheres the rollyeyes??) please forgive any overlaps

Interesting. Are we sort of talking about the relationship of a wolf and a dog are along the lines of Darwin's Theory Of Evolution. If so the special word is theory or guess, just like the theory of the universe and it's starting point. That went kind of the universe started as a small mass of matter then exploded in simple terms. But hold on where did that mass of matter (baryonic matter maybe) come from.
Darwins thoughts are not fact and yet we believe it to be true. Lots of so called facts change over time and so many theory's will continue to be a guess at best.
Me, well the universe, life and all things has only one real answer to me. 42 :)

> Me, well the universe, life and all things has only one real answer to me. 42 :-)

I'd second that Minipeace!

Karen ;-)

Gosh that is a post and a half. 

i was dismayed but sadly not surprised by the lack of knowledge and sheer arrogance displayed by many who were involved within the discussion.


I've never known any new or old poster dig out a thread from years ago to have a pop at the posters opions from years ago. Your intentions are very puzzling???

I take it that you are a NI supporter? Perhaps this thread would be much more interesting if you had started in a none judgmental way and plain and simply just asked what those on the forum in 2008 thought of them and put your case forward for the NI and then allowed a natural light hearted disscussion whether you have meant to or not your post has come across in a very chastisle and attacking way.

Unfortunately you have approx 3 or 4 seperate topics all in the same post which instead of a natural conversational progression which may have branched out into including them all, is now a post with too much going on to have a decent debate with everyones opinion. :-(

To be honest I don't know which of your question, remarks or statements to answer first I've got a headache.

Not getting drawn into this!!! but what chance has this "breed " got when they can't even decide on a name......Northern Innuit or is it Utonagans? Whats wrong with plain old crossbreed ? thats what they are after all.

Never mind not being able to decide on a name, they don't even seem to know what dogs were used to found the breed.  Or, if they do know, they're not forthcoming with the information which of course leads to suspicion about what they are perhaps trying to hide.

Afmad, I think the OP is stating just that - all our 'pedigree' dogs are mongrels, with which I would agree, we have manipulated and cross bred to arrive at where they are today (for good or bad).  I believe the Northern Inuit and the Utonagan are entirely separate entities. FWIW I have met a Northern Inuit dog (I think he's called Jerry Lee) at Discover Dogs two years in a row, and he is the most stunning and friendly dog you could wish to meet.
K

I think actually the development of pedigree dogs in the main was not cross breeding to produce a middle road, but the exact opposite.

From ancient times basic broad types of dogs developed. the primitive template, wolf like generally with curly tails, the sight hound type lean and racey built and used for speed, dogs with short legs, molloser types etc.

From these basic types based on what was available in specific locations and the use the dog were put to more specific types evolved.

About 150 years ago you had Spaniels, retrievers etc, and gradually they were different enough from each other to be distinct breeds.  Yes occasionally dogs have been crossed to go back a stage or to recombine the traits for a purpose, or as in the Wolfhound re-create one that had been lost.

I believe my own breed where ancient remains have been found of their type the Norwegian Elkhound and the Taller rangier with white/cream patches on face Swedish Elkhound or Jamthund were considered the same breed until the 30's I believe.

I would say by crossing the breeds that are believed to be int eh Utonogan/Northern Inuit,a nd a third version I can't remember the name of, they are actually trying to de-evolve to an earlier stage before the breeds emerged.

Now all the long established breeds came from a large gene pool before they split offf into individual breeds.  We know that this narrowing of gene pools by going the breed route allowed for soem of the health problems withn breeds to become established and reputable concientious breeders (hampered by the irresponsible and commercial ones) are working really ahrd to eliminate/limit them one by one.

Here I come to my objections to the creation of new breeds.  Fro a start ewith all teh breeds available there is not one use or taste not already catered for, so lets get right what we already ahve, adn in many cases why try re-inventing the wheel, as breeds with the desired characteristics often already exist, adn are usually rare.

Secondly to establish a viable breed from two breeds you will after the first cross be combining the health issues from both breeds in a new restricted gene pool.

In order to have enough founders for this new breed constant crossing backbreeding etc will have to take place and the vast majority of offspring are not going to meet the requirements, which means they need to find homes, and of course the potential owners will be taking pot luck on what they get just as they would in rescue.

With too many dogs already wanting new homes, there simply isn't a moral justification for breeding other than to maintain and improve existing breeds for their historical and cultural worth,a nd for the ever decreasing number of working dogs required.

has anyone noticed the vampire has disappeared? pity, they were quite funny really :)

Funny thing was OP waited 5 years to pick up the last thread, maybe in another 5 years OP may come back.

Just read this post!

I have never heard such rubbish in a loooooooong time!
Shame I cant post what I really thought he was :)

Diggin up a post from that long ago......maybe he took part in the discussion and he was miffed, and has only now had the courage back and tell you guys what for after spending years researching wolves! lololol!!