# one word - shocking!!



## temerist (Feb 1, 2009)

can not believe this advert :whip: :censor:



> rottweiler puppies. 8 weeks old and ready for new homes. both parents can be seen and are kc reg unfortunatly the pups are not registered because mum and dad are litter mates. pups have been wormed and flead, good homes only. 100 pound each.


think the advert has now been removed as i reported it but i did also enquire about the pups, awaiting a reply


----------



## rach666 (Dec 12, 2006)

:bash: omg.......


----------



## Myjb23 (Oct 14, 2009)

Litter mates?? Not good!!!

I suppose it is a good thing they are being honest with potential owners about that though.


----------



## temerist (Feb 1, 2009)

the trouble with them stating in the ad that the parents are brother/sister is that they obviously dont see there is anything wrong with it :bash:


----------



## Myjb23 (Oct 14, 2009)

Well, i wouldnt say that is entirely true. It may have been an accident they didnt catch in time to abort and they are being honest with the potential owners rather than decieving them.

Im not condoning it, but once the pups are on the ground they need homes and i'd rather people be honest than lie about it.


----------



## temerist (Feb 1, 2009)

yes thats true, maybe they should state it was an accident then if it was


----------



## Myjb23 (Oct 14, 2009)

Yeah, i'd agree with that.


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

*sibling litter*

If I'd seen the add I would have assumed it was an accident.I don't understand reporting the add,how will the puppies find homes?The sellers don't appear to be trying to deceive anyone.The mating might be less than ideal but the puppies are here and need owners.


----------



## bendigo (Jan 28, 2008)

i dont see the problem here? inbreeding in dogs occurs all the time, and yes if there parents werent health checked which im assuming they werent there is a higher risk of passing on genetic problems but this isnt a sure thing and there is a just a big a risk when people buy from any unhealth checked mating.

doesnt look like they were doing it for the money as they could of easily lied and asked for more.


----------



## Myjb23 (Oct 14, 2009)

bendigo said:


> i dont see the problem here? inbreeding in dogs occurs all the time, and yes if there parents werent health checked which im assuming they werent there is a higher risk of passing on genetic problems but this isnt a sure thing and there is a just a big a risk when people buy from any unhealth checked mating.
> 
> doesnt look like they were doing it for the money as they could of easily lied and asked for more.


Breeding litter mates is very bad and should not be done, the KC will not register litters from brother/sister matings, quite rightly.

Ideally if they caught the mating they should have aborted the litter, but sometimes people dont.


----------



## Rie xx (Nov 20, 2008)

I think peeps are to quick to get involved in others stuff!! I am dead against interbreeding but it happens all the time..
We don't know the full details, i don't think anybody would deliberately let litter mates have a litter together (though there are some).. Also they have been very honest about the pups.. i think they says something!!


----------



## temerist (Feb 1, 2009)

well this is the reply i recieved back about the pups



> we still have all the pups left. both our dogs have really good temps, so we bred this litter because of the temps of the parents. do you want to view them


----------



## *mogwai* (Feb 18, 2008)

so it was done on purpose then. 
less than ideal but at least they've been honest & aren't asking over the odds for the pups.


----------



## jodie86 (Jan 6, 2010)

imo, they should never hav bred the dogs,, rottis are prone to enough problems without someone interbreeding them..


----------



## M022ER (Dec 3, 2009)

Myjb23 said:


> Breeding litter mates is very bad and should not be done, the KC will not register litters from brother/sister matings, quite rightly.
> 
> Ideally if they caught the mating they should have aborted the litter, but sometimes people dont.



although the "KC" WILL cordone things which can genetically effect the dogs wellbeing
such as the ridge on a ridgeback and the pugs squashed face.

the KC arent all great.

ANYWAY
i agree, at least the seller is being honest with potential buyers

although i dont agree with imterbreeding on nay level,
ask them if theyd like have it with there siblings
lul


----------



## temerist (Feb 1, 2009)

jodie86 said:


> imo, they should never hav bred the dogs,, rottis are prone to enough problems without someone interbreeding them..


i agree


----------



## jodie86 (Jan 6, 2010)

temerist said:


> i agree


was this ad posted on here as i cant seem to find it?? i still cant beleive people would do that, i would understand a little more if the breeding was an accident, but not to do it on purpose..


----------



## temerist (Feb 1, 2009)

no it was on gumtree, stoke on trent, suppose its typical of the type of adverts you find on gumtree


----------



## jodie86 (Jan 6, 2010)

temerist said:


> no it was on gumtree, stoke on trent, suppose its typical of the type of adverts you find on gumtree


lol and typical of some of the people who live here. (no offence ment to any1, i live in stoke) im goin have a look now


----------



## jodie86 (Jan 6, 2010)

must of been removed now, or i just cant find it...


----------



## temerist (Feb 1, 2009)

i couldnt find it again last night when i looked, i just emailed as soon as i found it


----------



## Myjb23 (Oct 14, 2009)

M022ER said:


> *although the "KC" WILL cordone things which can genetically effect the dogs wellbeing*
> *such as the ridge on a ridgeback and the pugs squashed face.*
> 
> the KC arent all great.
> ...


 
Someone's been watching PDE repeats :lol2: Im not even gonna bother to respond as im sure it was covered on here at the time.

Its sad that they chose to breed the litter on purpose, that is very bad.


----------



## jodie86 (Jan 6, 2010)

temerist said:


> i couldnt find it again last night when i looked, i just emailed as soon as i found it


i hope it has been removed,, my friend had a rotti that was k.c reg, it had all it injections, it was vet checked, the poor little lady died when she was 6 months old,, some people just dont think before they do things, if people interbreed on purpose, IMO the rspca should take the pups of them. i understand accidents happen. but there are people who just dont care for the dogs health and welfare.. (reading this thread has made me want another rotti lol)


----------



## jodie86 (Jan 6, 2010)

Myjb23 said:


> Someone's been watching PDE repeats :lol2: Im not even gonna bother to respond as im sure it was covered on here at the time.
> 
> Its sad that they chose to breed the litter on purpose, that is very bad.


:notworthy::notworthy::notworthy::notworthy:


----------



## leggy (Jan 18, 2007)

Is it normal for a breeder to sell a male and female pup from the same litter to the same person. No way i would :gasp:


----------



## Myjb23 (Oct 14, 2009)

leggy said:


> Is it normal for a breeder to sell a male and female pup from the same litter to the same person. No way i would :gasp:


Not for a responsible breeder.


----------



## Rie xx (Nov 20, 2008)

With it being done with the owners knowledge of the pups being well brother and sister they should be reported.. What about future problems with the pups/weakened immune systems, tumours and so on..
I know of an interbreed litter locally, 1st pup died 20 weeks, 2nd pup at 24 weeks.. And that was father to daughter interbreeding..

But then some do condone interbreeding for genetic diversity so i hear..


----------



## bendigo (Jan 28, 2008)

Myjb23 said:


> Breeding litter mates is very bad and should not be done, the KC will not register litters from brother/sister matings, quite rightly.
> 
> Ideally if they caught the mating they should have aborted the litter, but sometimes people dont.


 
i know its not ideal, but thats because littermates will have such close genetics that a genetic fault is more likely to become active. personally i dont agree with it but if they had full tests on both the dogs (as it was a deliberate mating maybe they did) and all tests came back negative for health problems then there isnt an issue.


----------



## Myjb23 (Oct 14, 2009)

I think it comes down to ethics and morals. I just see it as morally wrong to breed littermates as you risk serious health problems and deformities.


----------



## bendigo (Jan 28, 2008)

Myjb23 said:


> I think it comes down to ethics and morals. I just see it as morally wrong to breed littermates as you risk serious health problems and deformities.


 

but what im saying is if you have the tests done to make sure both parents dont carry the potential problems it doesnt become such an issue as you have made sure they have no genetic defect to pass on to there puppies.

dont get me wrong i am also morally against inbreeding in animals im just saying as long as both parents are tested for ALL genetic problems then it becomes more acceptable as you have tested to make sure there are no faults to be passed down to the puppies


----------



## Myjb23 (Oct 14, 2009)

bendigo said:


> but what im saying is if you have the tests done to make sure both parents dont carry the potential problems it doesnt become such an issue as you have made sure they have no genetic defect to pass on to there puppies.
> 
> dont get me wrong i am also morally against inbreeding in animals im just saying as long as both parents are tested for ALL genetic problems then it becomes more acceptable as you have tested to make sure there are no faults to be passed down to the puppies


You cant test for the developmental problems inbreeding so close can cause.

Testing parents cant rule out 100% that the hereditary problems arent there somewhere in the lines as it can skip generations which is why you have to research your lines and breed responsibly.


----------



## xxx_phoenix_xxx (Sep 25, 2009)

i can't believe some people :bash:
how stupid you would think that they would of had the common sence to atleast have one of them spayed / neuterd, or even at least separated them while the bitch was in heat.:bash: i have two black labs who are litter mates during the bitch's first season i separated them as i couldn't afford to have the male castrated. as soon as i got the money together i had him done.
some people don't deserve to have animals and these people are one of them they are partly one of the reasons that breeding dogs is going to become difficult for people who are genuine good dog breeders with all these new licenses that are supposed to be braught in. god it makes me so angry :devil:


----------



## Pimperella (Sep 26, 2006)

bendigo said:


> i dont see the problem here? inbreeding in dogs occurs all the time, and yes if there parents werent health checked which im assuming they werent there is a higher risk of passing on genetic problems but this isnt a sure thing and there is a just a big a risk when people buy from any unhealth checked mating.
> 
> doesnt look like they were doing it for the money as they could of easily lied and asked for more.





bendigo said:


> but what im saying is if you have the tests done to make sure both parents dont carry the potential problems it doesnt become such an issue as you have made sure they have no genetic defect to pass on to there puppies.
> 
> dont get me wrong i am also morally against inbreeding in animals im just saying as long as both parents are tested for ALL genetic problems then it becomes more acceptable as you have tested to make sure there are no faults to be passed down to the puppies


 
thats where you are very wrong. Parents could be health tested clear themselves but could be carriers and putting together litter mates increases that risk of all genetic abnormalities appearing in the pups.

Fab temp or not, the so called breeders are bloody idiots in my mind and in my opinion are sick for doing a brother sister mating.


----------



## xxx_phoenix_xxx (Sep 25, 2009)

Pimperella said:


> thats where you are very wrong. Parents could be health tested clear themselves but could be carriers and putting together litter mates increases that risk of all genetic abnormalities appearing in the pups.
> 
> Fab temp or not, the so called breeders are bloody idiots in my mind and in my opinion are sick for doing a brother sister mating.


 
totally agree with you people like this just obviously don't care about their animals and if they did this just would not of happened f:censor:g t:censor:ts:bash:


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

Myjb23 said:


> Someone's been watching PDE repeats :lol2:


Condemning inbreeding proves you have too.

Inbreeding now and again does not cause dogs to come out with 6 legs and 2 heads, but if the BBC say it's bad, well it must be, right? :lol2:


----------



## Myjb23 (Oct 14, 2009)

LisaLQ said:


> Condemning inbreeding proves you have too.
> 
> Inbreeding now and again does not cause dogs to come out with 6 legs and 2 heads, but if the BBC say it's bad, well it must be, right? :lol2:


I am condemning breeding littermates, which can cause serious deformities. Are you condoning such practices? The KC will not register the pups which indicates that their health advisors have said it is not acceptable..

Linebreeding is a different matter and produces some of the best dogs in the country right now. But it is something that should only be undertaken by someone with a LOT of experience who has thoroughly researched their lines.

I did watch PDE, one of my breeds (pug) was featured on it so of course i did. I actually agreed with a lot of it and have been pushing for more health testing within this breed as many breeders still do nothing at all. I think that this programme has raised awareness of the health issues (and i dont mean breathing problems, i mean spinal deformities and hip probs) within the breed and has forced breeders to test their breeding dogs to be able to sell their puppies which can only be a good thing. I do think it was incredibly biased and should have shown examples of GOOD breeders who are tirelessly trying to improve the health of their chosen breed.


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

It only causes serious deformities if done over and over and over again. A one off isn't going to cause problems unless both are carrying the same genetic faults - which is the whole point of linebreeding/inbreeding - to get breed them out into the open so they can be worked away from.

I've done brother sister matings with my rats a few times - I can guarantee you all are healthy!


----------



## cbreakenridge (Apr 27, 2009)

:whistling2:Litter should have been aborted if it wasnt intentional but thats only my opinion..


----------



## Myjb23 (Oct 14, 2009)

LisaLQ said:


> It only causes serious deformities if done over and over and over again. A one off isn't going to cause problems unless both are carrying the same genetic faults - which is the whole point of linebreeding/inbreeding - to get breed them out into the open so they can be worked away from.
> 
> I've done brother sister matings with my rats a few times - I can guarantee you all are healthy!


How many dogs have you bred?

I have never bred rats so i cant comment on that, but i do find intentionally breeding any animals that closely related to be too risky and cannot understand why anyone would do it, grandparent/grandchild and uncle/niece sort of breedings give you the best results in line breeding if thats what you choose to do (for dogs at least), there is a definate limit to what i think people should do with dogs anyway... They may be healthy now but who knows what damage could be caused 1/2/3/5 generations in the future. Thats what i look at when breeding my dogs, what its going to give me for the future


----------



## jodie86 (Jan 6, 2010)

they were bred intentionally..

and imo, inbreeding in animals is very wrong,, you wouldnt condone it with humans, y should it be different 4 animals?? :devil:


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

*inbreeding*



jodie86 said:


> they were bred intentionally..
> 
> and imo, inbreeding in animals is very wrong,, you wouldnt condone it with humans, y should it be different 4 animals?? :devil:


it's religion and victorian morals that squashed inbreeding rather than natural instinct.Plenty of cultures have practiced it.Without inbreeding there would be no budgies other than green,no breeds of cattles,pigs ,fancy mice,rats or for that matter dogs.Everything domestic would still be in its raw state.It is necessary for some endangered species being held in captivity.Done for the right reasons it's not wrong and can be benificial.However in pedigree dogs there is no real need for it as things are and these individuals are apparently thickos adding a litter of rotties for no good reason when there are so many in rescue.There is no reason to think this particular litter will be any worse than any other ill thought out mating.Its pot luck ,just the same.We don't practice inbreeding as western humans and it hasn't stopped inherited diseases.


----------



## jodie86 (Jan 6, 2010)

sarahc said:


> it's religion and victorian morals that squashed inbreeding rather than natural instinct.Plenty of cultures have practiced it.Without inbreeding there would be no budgies other than green,no breeds of cattles,pigs ,fancy mice,rats or for that matter dogs.Everything domestic would still be in its raw state.It is necessary for some endangered species being held in captivity.Done for the right reasons it's not wrong and can be benificial.However in pedigree dogs there is no real need for it as things are and these individuals are apparently thickos adding a litter of rotties for no good reason when there are so many in rescue.There is no reason to think this particular litter will be any worse than any other ill thought out mating.Its pot luck ,just the same.


when my rotti is old enough to breed i am thinking of having 1 litter off her, i will be looking it to it properley, having vigorous tests done, so on and so thorth.. yes she may have a litter where there is something wrong with 1 or 2 of the puppies, she may have a litter where there is something wrong with all the puppies, but i will be fully prepared for this. (although i am hoping that wont be the case, with the money i aill be spending on having the tests done) and if i find out there is any reason not to breed my rotti, i wont. i still think inbreeding is wrong, and to do it purposley to a breed that is already prone to problems is beyond belive.. 
there are alot of other breed of dogs in recues all over the country, not just rottis..


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

*rotties*

I wasn't suggesting that nobody should breed their rotties,I don't think these people sound ideal.Bred brother to sister and flogging the pups for a hundred quid,not the best start in life.I breed my dogs carefully as I am sure you will yours.As for the inbreeding I wouldn't expect anyone to be doing such a thing without a good reason.Merely pointing out that it won't instantly mean freaks.


----------



## Moosey (Jan 7, 2008)

leggy said:


> Is it normal for a breeder to sell a male and female pup from the same litter to the same person. No way i would :gasp:


We got a male and female pup from the same litter, but that was more of a rescue mission from a horrendously irresponsible breeder. Poor little bastards.




I feel so sorry for these pups, its not their fault theyre inbred, or that their parents owners were complete spanners. Its a shame, but they'll most likely end up with pretty clueless owners who go "oooh, a rottweiler pup for only £100!" and thats a damn shame. Poor babies


----------



## jodie86 (Jan 6, 2010)

sarahc said:


> I wasn't suggesting that nobody should breed their rotties,I don't think these people sound ideal.Bred brother to sister and flogging the pups for a hundred quid,not the best start in life.I breed my dogs carefully as I am sure you will yours.As for the inbreeding I wouldn't expect anyone to be doing such a thing without a good reason.Merely pointing out that it won't instantly mean freaks.


oh no, wasnt having ago. sorry, it doesnt help that my wording in that sounds terriable lol.. 
i agree with you, if you breed a dog it should be looked into carfully. some people dont think about breeding as u and i do, they just want to make a few hundred quid and sod everything else.. 
i rescued an inbred puppie about 12 months ago, i found her a new home, where she is very settled and loved, she was a lovely little thing. the place i got her from had about 30 pups that were all inbred, she had kittens that were the same, as well as a whole other bunch of animals..
she would only let me take the 1 pup as i think when i started to ask questions she got a bt wary of me. i reported her 4 it though..


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

Myjb23 said:


> How many dogs have you bred?
> 
> I have never bred rats so i cant comment on that, but i do find intentionally breeding any animals that closely related to be too risky and cannot understand why anyone would do it, grandparent/grandchild and uncle/niece sort of breedings give you the best results in line breeding if thats what you choose to do (for dogs at least), there is a definate limit to what i think people should do with dogs anyway... They may be healthy now but who knows what damage could be caused 1/2/3/5 generations in the future. Thats what i look at when breeding my dogs, what its going to give me for the future


So because I've not bred dogs I cant have an opinion? Inbreeding when done carefully is vital to breeding. Outcrossing at each mating is much more dangerous - as you could end up with a whole line carrying the same genetic issues that will only show up once they're mated back to another carrier - and then your whole line is lost.

Just as I have no experience in dog breeding, you clearly dont have any in rat breeding - so I suggest you follow your own advice.

I've not in any way said that it is the best choice, far from it - but it is necessary sometimes, and the myth that it'll cause serious health issues is giving backyard breeders a good excuse for breeding crap animals, and good breeders a bad name.

Of course in this case it shouldn't have been done - just dont go waving pitchforks when your only source of info is a BBC documentary loosely based on daft vets facts.


----------



## Myjb23 (Oct 14, 2009)

LisaLQ said:


> So because I've not bred dogs I cant have an opinion? Inbreeding when done carefully is vital to breeding. Outcrossing at each mating is much more dangerous - as you could end up with a whole line carrying the same genetic issues that will only show up once they're mated back to another carrier - and then your whole line is lost.
> 
> Just as I have no experience in dog breeding, you clearly dont have any in rat breeding - so I suggest you follow your own advice.
> 
> ...


I am following my own advice and not commenting on rat breeding, but just like you are welcome to an opinion on dog breeding, i am welcome to say i disagree with ANY brother/sister matings in any species.

Dog breeding is much different to rodent breeding (i know a rat breeder who also breeds dogs so i have that on good authority!). It is a scientific FACT that inbreeding this close causes serious genetic problems in the first generation, and in subsequent generations. As i have said, some amount of inbreeding is acceptiable, and a good thing in most cases, but you MUST outcross at some point otherwise you will end up with animals being too closely bred.

I have been breeding dogs for over a decade, my family have been breeding them for many decades so i do know what im talking about here :whistling2:


Taken from Wikipedia:

Inbreeding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> *Inbreeding* may result in a far higher phenotypic expression of deleterious recessive genes within a population than would normally be expected.[1] As a result, first-generation inbred individuals are more likely to show physical and health *defects*, including:
> 
> Reduced fertility both in litter size and sperm viability
> Increased genetic disorders
> ...


 
That is from a scientific journal so should be pretty accurate :lol2: This was the first google result that popped up with thousands of pages relating to inbreeding birth defects.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

Can't comment on dogs as not a dog breeder, but in rodents inbreeding is absolutely imperative for the health of the line. It is generally considered much more risky to continually outcross. :2thumb:

Obviously that has nothing to do with the original advert being wrong. It's not about them being inbred, it's about them being bred irresponsibly by people who didn't care about proper breeding, whether they're related or not. I do think though that it's particularly ignorant to base what is right and wrong for animals on what is morally unacceptable to humans in Western cultures. :lol2:


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

Myjb23 said:


> Taken from Wikipedia:
> 
> Inbreeding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ...


With all due respect, as a student I'm steered away from trusting Wikipedia as anyone can write the articles and they're generally pants lol.

Spoiled Ratten Rattery-Outcrossing, Linebreeding and Inbreeding in Rats, by Elisabeth Brooks

The above is a far more in depth and less biased review.


----------



## jodie86 (Jan 6, 2010)

KathyM said:


> Can't comment on dogs as not a dog breeder, but in rodents inbreeding is absolutely imperative for the health of the line. It is generally considered much more risky to continually outcross. :2thumb:
> 
> Obviously that has nothing to do with the original advert being wrong. It's not about them being inbred, it's about them being bred irresponsibly by people who didn't care about proper breeding, whether they're related or not. I do think though that it's particularly ignorant to base what is right and wrong for animals on what is morally unacceptable to humans in Western cultures. :lol2:


if you mean me, i didnt mean anything by it, it was just an example.. maybe a bad 1, but an example all the same...


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

I didn't mean anyone specific, it's a common argument made by people who base their judgement on their gut feeling as a human - common psychologically, we all do it over something I'm sure.


----------



## jodie86 (Jan 6, 2010)

KathyM said:


> I didn't mean anyone specific, it's a common argument made by people who base their judgement on their gut feeling as a human - common psychologically, we all do it over something I'm sure.


yh i agree we all do it : victory:


----------



## Myjb23 (Oct 14, 2009)

KathyM said:


> With all due respect, as a student I'm steered away from trusting Wikipedia as anyone can write the articles and they're generally pants lol.
> 
> Spoiled Ratten Rattery-Outcrossing, Linebreeding and Inbreeding in Rats, by Elisabeth Brooks
> 
> The above is a far more in depth and less biased review.


 
Like i said in the post, it was from a scientific journal on genetics (there is a footnote with the reference in on the link) so whilst wikipedia may not be 100% trustworthy, the genetic study on dog breeding should be :lol2:

Like i said, i know nothing about rat breeding, but that isn't whats being discussed here anyway :whistling2:


I base my opinion on many years of research into genetics in dog breeding and from speaking to people who know a lot more about these things. In dog breeding brother/sister matings are "banned" by the kc, so that might tell you how detrimental they are to the health of dog breeds.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

Like I said, wasn't commenting on dog breeding - you said all inbreeding in any species was wrong in answer to Lisa's post about inbreeding in rats, and I was just backing up that in rats it is imperative. You can't say now that I'm OT when you took it there. :lol2:

ETA: As a picky student, I would also say that one should always verify who carried out the study, who funded it and whether it was backed by other papers before saying "It's scientific so it must be right". I would fail my degree with that argument :lol:


----------



## Myjb23 (Oct 14, 2009)

KathyM said:


> Like I said, wasn't commenting on dog breeding - you said all inbreeding in any species was wrong in answer to Lisa's post about inbreeding in rats, and I was just backing up that in rats it is imperative. You can't say now that I'm OT when you took it there. :lol2:
> 
> ETA: As a picky student, I would also say that one should always verify who carried out the study, who funded it and whether it was backed by other papers before saying "It's scientific so it must be right". I would fail my degree with that argument :lol:


 
I was a student too once :whistling2: and i managed to get TWO very good degrees! That journal looks legit to me, and like i said theres thousands of articles dedicated to the birth defects related to inbreeding, in particular brother/sister, father/daughter matings.

And i actually said that* i believe* any inbreeding that closely is wrong in any species, and i stand by that. Whatever species i bred i would never breed that closely. If you guys think its good then thats fine, but im welcome to have an opposing opinion


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

Absolutely. *Belief* is a funny thing. You can *believe* what you want to believe, people regularly believe in things with scant evidence or experience and it's their right to, look at scientology lol. :2thumb:

Ps: Loving the "your degree means nothing I have TWO" argument, that is class. Reminds me of my current ponder on why people have to walk further along the station platform than everyone else phenomena. They would piss all over my degree too lol.


----------



## rakpeterson (Oct 10, 2007)

Im not rooting for or against inbreeding just wanted to make a point.

I dont believe there is a single breed out there that has no inbreeding. It is, or at least has been a fairly common practise in establishing the breeds we have today. Its usually refered to as linebreeding.

There is little need for it these days, but there are a few breeds, the comparatively new or reformed ones, where it does still take place.


----------



## Cockys Royals (Jun 28, 2008)

Myjb23 said:


> Well, i wouldnt say that is entirely true. It may have been an accident they didnt catch in time to abort and they are being honest with the potential owners rather than decieving them.
> 
> Im not condoning it, but once the pups are on the ground they need homes and i'd rather people be honest than lie about it.


I agree whole heartedly, yes I was shocked when I read OP's post but when I read further to other peoples replies I then felt better, as I noticed no one had been "Shot down in flames" as this forum tends to do alot.
Maybe now they will get either or both animals sorted at the vets.


----------



## LisaLQ (Jan 29, 2009)

Myjb23 said:


> Like i said, i know nothing about rat breeding, but that isn't whats being discussed here anyway :whistling2:


You said across ALL species brother/sister matings caused deformities in the first generation. I've had two litters here who can prove you wrong, and I'm sure many other rat breeders will have too.

So if you know nothing about rat breeding, stick to talking about dogs before making claims you cant prove.


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

*inbreeding*

the trouble with inbreeding is you have to be scrupulous about removing any in the breeding program that throw up a fault.With rodents this could mean culling and in any case a fault could be put right in a few generations as they breed so fast.With dogs it's not as simple,who would want to cull puppies.If you take it a step further to humans you get Hitler.Breeding for the perfect human and gassing the physically and mentally handicapped along with Jews and gypsies.It is true though that if you breed perfect to perfect you are likely to breed more perfect even if they are brother and sister .It's only when breeding faulty ones together that a problem will arise and as most of us haven't had our dogs screened for every inherited illness we can't be sure of the results.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

Speaking as someone with an inherited illness who wasn't born to brother and sister lol then I think it's more complicated than that. Completely unrelated dogs could still carry the same illnesses, especially if they're the same breed and have the same breed propensities. I don't think inbreeding is the devil's work, the inherited illnesses are the issue. If people inbreed badly, there will be bother. If they outcross badly there could be just as much problems. When it comes to rats there are more risks with the latter than the former. 

I can only comment on rat breeding in depth, but when it comes to dog breeding, surely you can "cull" from a breeding program without killing the dogs - you would just neuter and rehome?


----------



## Pimperella (Sep 26, 2006)

KathyM said:


> Speaking as someone with an inherited illness who wasn't born to brother and sister lol then I think it's more complicated than that. Completely unrelated dogs could still carry the same illnesses, especially if they're the same breed and have the same breed propensities. I don't think inbreeding is the devil's work, the inherited illnesses are the issue. If people inbreed badly, there will be bother. If they outcross badly there could be just as much problems. When it comes to rats there are more risks with the latter than the former.
> 
> I can only comment on rat breeding in depth, but when it comes to dog breeding, *surely you can "cull" from a breeding program without killing the dogs - you would just neuter and rehome*?


 
You offering to take on any of those dogs with issues and take on all further vet bills? 

No, didn't think so, and niether do a lot of other people who are looking for a puppy. A dog that can not be insured for anything to do with that issue, as it is a known issue at time of Insurance. Thus, in taking on a pup like this, people would know that it was going to potentialy cost them a fortune in vet fees.

Rats with genetic abnormalities can so easily be culled and if not culled and not contast vet attention required, kept as a pet. They also don't live very long either compared to a dog which can live upto 15 years on average. So thats potentially 15yrs of vet bills.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

I was only asking! Like I said, dog breeding isn't my area. :notworthy:

ETA: In that case surely inbreeding would at least minimise culling as you'd expose any carried illnesses sooner? Rather than continually outcrossing and having the dogs carry hidden illnesses for generations and generations?


----------



## toyah (Aug 24, 2006)

KathyM said:


> I was only asking! Like I said, dog breeding isn't my area. :notworthy:
> 
> ETA: In that case surely inbreeding would at least minimise culling as you'd expose any carried illnesses sooner? Rather than continually outcrossing and having the dogs carry hidden illnesses for generations and generations?


Remember that in purebred dogs, every mating is an inbreeding - they tend to have very narrow foundations, and bottlenecks through the war. It's not like in rats where we have so many generations and so many sources of input that an outcross really can be two unrelated animals.

In cats (yes, yes, introducing a third species in here but they make the point nicely), with some of the "purer" breeds it is rare to be able to find two cats where the COI calculated over 16 generations is less than about 20% - so two individuals that seem unrelated are actually more related than half siblings theoretically are.

You just don't get two unrelated dogs of the same breed. When you're working on a basis like that, then maintaining genetic diversity within the breed becomes more important than "purifying" lines through inbreeding.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

Thanks Toyah that makes a lot of sense. :notworthy:


----------



## sarahc (Jan 7, 2009)

*inbreeding*



KathyM said:


> Speaking as someone with an inherited illness who wasn't born to brother and sister lol then I think it's more complicated than that.
> 
> I can only comment on rat breeding in depth, but when it comes to dog breeding, surely you can "cull" from a breeding program without killing the dogs - you would just neuter and rehome?


You are right Kathy ,random breeding is more likely to throw up an inherited disease than inbreeding would if all in the program that carried illness were eliminated.Defective dogs on the whole aren't culled.The unfortunate thing is that even when they are sold to be pets only,the unscrupulous breed from these individuals anyway and look where thats got the world of pedigree dogs.I couldn't bring myself to cull a pup,even if I thought it was the right thing to do.Personally if I breed a dog with something wrong that could have a quality of life,I shall keep it and not repeat the mating.You can't trust anyone not to make a quick buck.


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

That is very true. Thanks Sarah! :2thumb:


----------



## Myjb23 (Oct 14, 2009)

KathyM said:


> Absolutely. *Belief* is a funny thing. You can *believe* what you want to believe, people regularly believe in things with scant evidence or experience and it's their right to, look at scientology lol. :2thumb:
> 
> *Ps: Loving the "your degree means nothing I have TWO" argument, that is class. Reminds me of my current ponder on why people have to walk further along the station platform than everyone else phenomena. They would piss all over my degree too lol.*


Well, the person who that was in response to kept going on about how they were a STUDENT as if that made them better than the rest of us, so i thought i'd better mention that not all of us are uneducated fools who couldnt possibly ever have been students :lol2: 


This discussion is boring now though, its just going round in circles. If you guys want to keep breeding your brother and sister rats you go ahead, i will choose to avoid doing that with my dogs :whistling2:


----------



## KathyM (Jan 17, 2009)

Myjb23 said:


> Well, the person who that was in response to kept going on about how they were a STUDENT as if that made them better than the rest of us, so i thought i'd better mention that not all of us are uneducated fools who couldnt possibly ever have been students :lol2:


Actually it was me you were referring to, and believe me as anyone'll tell you, if I meant to suggest something I'd come out and say it outright. I don't think I'm better than anyone, but I did have that experience to share and was shot down for it. I had someone come to me recently saying all agouti rats are vicious and it was proven in scientific study - on viewing the data more thoroughly it was shown to be out of date and erroneous. My advice to anyone handing out scientific papers saying "A study says it therefore it is definitely true" is to delve a bit deeper. :2thumb:



> This discussion is boring now though, its just going round in circles. If you guys want to keep breeding your brother and sister rats you go ahead, i will choose to avoid doing that with my dogs :whistling2:


It's a shame you're finding this discussion "boring" - I enjoy learning more about breeding personally. You do what you think is right for your animals, noone told you not to. I'll continue to inbreed the rats because it's best for mine - I'm sure if I was breeding continually outcrossed and therefore unsound rats, people would have a lot more to say. Instead I get people returning for more well bred, healthy and lovely pets. :2thumb:


----------

