Re: [pyrnet] Pyrs without Dwarf producing ancestors

[JGentzel@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/24/00 10:10:54 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
lmweisser@olywa.net writes:


> Ah yes, I forgot, it's all hearsay, isn't it :-((


Not with compuped unless the titleholders and/or the AKC was mistaken.  

I was hoping someone could give me a specific dogs name that they believed 
did not have a dwarf carrier behind them.  No one wonders about the resolve 
of most ethical breeders and making hard choices is what it will take.  I 
know and respect greatly the good folks you mentioned, but know their lines 
are like the rest of ours, we all have dwarf carriers behind out stock 
somewhere in the 8 to 10 generations you say is applicable.  We are talking 
here about the 50/50 figure you insist we all use.  If we presume that any 
ancestor, almost ever, from a dwarf has a 50/50 chance, even the 96%+ test 
bred free dog must be treated the same.    When you get out 7 generations the 
percentage of probability is less than 2% that any specific dog will be a 
carrier.  As good or better than some of the test breeding results that is 
being relied upon.  

<<However, you do not
know all the dogs of these lines and how they have been bred and what the
results have been.>>

Very true, but that's not what you said.   I do believe in looking at each 
dog and evaluating each from the results of each after making my best 
calculation of the likelihood or better yet, not have some of these genetic 
problems we are all dealing with.  Calculating the probability of each either 
formally or informally which is what we all do even in our mind when we do 
breeding and especially breeding with problems behind them.  I am on the same 
page as this approach, completely. 

I am only interested in testing your hypothesis and the reasonableness of the 
50/50 proposition you have insisted that we must use. We are looking for dogs 
without any ancestors who were carriers of the Dwarf autosomal recessive 
gene.  You felt we had some out there and it would great for us all to know 
where they are.  

Aren't we all on the same page here i.e. none of us wants these problems?  
Our opinions about the circumstances surrounding same differs greatly which I 
believe will impact the success we will eventually achieve.  I have no doubt 
you feel the same about me and my ideas.  If it bothers anyone that someone 
will insist on objective verifiable information, they will, in my opinion, 
have difficulty with the objective nature we will all require in working our 
way through this problem.  I for one am concerned, no, very concerned.  I do 
not doubt that there are many others who are the same.  My questioning 
anything is no way personal.  If it is taken that way, then the person 
offended must toughen up to objective questions and passionate differing of 
opinions.  What is important?  The improvement in the present state of 
affairs and hopefully the functional elimination of the problems.

Joe