#16
|
|||
|
|||
Our most recent dog was feral, picked up as a puppy by a rescue in Georgia. He was bothering construction workers for food, which is a behavior that continues. He would probably be mad if he knew I make fun of him for being a chihuahua/Australian cattle dog mix. I resolved long ago that we would never have anything but a rescue. It's unfortunate that there are plenty of those.
My wife got connected with a beagle rescue. I help walk dogs on occasion. The number of dogs coming and going is amazing. And the reasons they are there can be pretty sad or infuriating. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The most inbred populations of humans in the world do not even approach the amount of inbreeding of a deliberate mixed-breed dog. The mixed breed dog is still biologically considered dangerously inbred. Given that there is no way you can possible respsonsibly breed a "pre-bred" dog that is already at a 0.25 or worse coefficient of inbreeding because there is no other dog of that breed that can realistically be considered a safe mate! That is the whole basis of the scientific argument. LOL.. great quote, this is the equivalent of a human saying, "So what I got my sister pregnant, we know it's safe cause neither one of us has gotten thyroid cancer." Last edited by benb; 05-10-2024 at 10:35 AM. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Wait until you guys find out what happens to livestock.
|
#19
|
||||
|
||||
Quote:
I had to look it up, but what's happened over the last 15 years wrt frequentism? |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
There is absolutely no shortage of people screaming about how dangerous this is with both livestock and agricultural (food) plants.
Heck we are also doing a really great job of breeding antibiotic resistant bacteria! |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
The Bayesian critique of frequentism has gained steam over the last while. Perhaps it’s been more than 15 years in some fields. In social sciences, where my knowledge lies, it’s probably been about that long. The notion of a confidence interval — say a 95% CI — implies that, over repeated tests of the same hypothesis, 5% of the tests will yield estimates that do not capture the population parameter (ie, the true value). In this context, p-hacking — testing multiple models with small changes until you obtain the desired result — can lead to incorrect results. There are ways to mitigate this vulnerability, such as pre-registering hypotheses and statistical model specifications for the proposed tests. Even that is imperfect. I think the bottom line is that nothing in science is determinative. The hope is that vigorous debate among competing researchers can arc toward truth. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
I think we need a 'post pics of your dog thread', so cute!
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
We are selecting soeme dogs for traits that are negatives - snub nosed dogs that can’t breath well and overheat easy, dogs that can’t reliably give birth without C-section or other intervention, show dogs that are less “useful” than their ancestors (GSD with short rear legs and a sloping back). We tolerate livestock breeding like this because they’re food. And we largely don’t see the sausage being made. It’s kind of wild we encourage some pretty obvious “defects” in household companions in the name of aesthetics. My current best buddy is a poodle-jack Russell mix. Or something like that, we don’t know for sure. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
I have owned/trained/bred high level bird dogs for half my life. When you breed for performance, you are generally bettering the breed. When you solely breed for looks, "you" and I are going to have problems. When you no longer care about the animal's ability to ambulate (Bassett, etc) you are doing harm, in my opinion. All that said, there are still two things that kill dogs, cancer and heart failure. Some bloodlines have more cancer than others and I have avoided those for that reason. The AKC is like most large organizations these days, they have become a large business and they no longer appear to care about the well-being of the dogs in their registry.
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
|
#27
|
||||
|
||||
And now this: NYT--'The Unwanted Shelter Dog Who Found His Way to Westminster'
'An animal whisperer and her feisty mutt Miles are among the hopefuls at the dog show’s agility competition.'
Gift Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/10/s...smid=url-share |
#28
|
||||
|
||||
It's shocking, but also not surprising when you think about it. If you consider that most modern dog breeds stem from the late 1800s with chokepoints at the World Wars, it's not inconceivable that the initial stock of some dogs only amounted to a couple dozen dogs and that almost all subsequent dogs of that breed are bred from descendants of those ancestors. For instance, Felix Dobermann began breeding Dobermanns in 1880 and died in 1894, when Otto Goeller became the pre-eminent breeder. I think it's safe to assume the total number of Dobermanns in 1900 was fewer than 500, and nearly all had parentage from those two breeders. At that point, it doesn't really matter how you interbreed the subsequent generations... without outcrosses, you're going to have this result.
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Quote:
My first and current dog rescued from Mexico (her mother was brought here pregnant) ended up looking like a border collie that a breeder even insisted it was after we told her she isn’t. Dna tests say she is a mutt. Last edited by Likes2ridefar; 05-10-2024 at 02:07 PM. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
It would be really interesting if some of the breeders actually started and tried to make a new breed that minimized that coefficient of inbreeding and tried to get it down below 0.03-0.05 while still trying to have some semblance of still being the same breed.
|
|
|