Login

Join for Free!
112426 members


ex-situ conservation

Discussion of the distribution and abundance of living organisms and how these properties are affected by interactions between the organisms and their environment

Moderator: BioTeam

Postby blcr11 » Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:21 pm

I don’t quite understand. Most of these “strains” (sub-species, whatever) were artificially created by human intervention. It makes no sense to me to argue that we are doing dogs great favors by keeping them alive longer compared to their ancestors when I suspect (though no one could ever prove it) that these strains would never have existed in the first place if we hadn’t made them. I guess if you’re going to create animals that would seem to have a disadvantage (though, that too, is suposition) were these dogs to suddenly find themselves in the wild, then it behoves us to take care of them. But why was it necessary to create them in the first place? (Answer: it wasn’t; we did it because we could and because we wanted to. I find that pretty smug and self-satisfying on the part of humans.)

All of our ancestors are exticnt and we were not deliberately in-bred—at least, not on any large scale. Is this an argument for eugenics? Could we make ourselves better homo sapiens by in-breeding? I doubt it. In the cases where there is some level of in-breeding, we usually recognize this as a “problem.” For example, the high incidence of diabetes among some indian populations is, in part, attributable to the high degree of consanguinity of the individuals. So, no, I don’t buy your argument as a justification for dog breeding. The strains we have are here now, but I wouldn’t be concerned with “preserving” them—especially by continuing to in-breed for cosmetic traits—as much as simply to care for them.
blcr11
Viper
Viper
 
Posts: 672
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:23 am

Postby blcr11 » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:20 pm

I realize we have points of agreement, too. I am solidly against in-breeding to create or maintain an artificially contrived “breed.” I don’t see you as arguing in favor of in-breeding so much as preserving the breeds, but so much of that involves in-breeding—yea, by AKA standards would appear to require it. I think the impulse to care for the animals is commendable, and on that issue I believe we are in agreement.
blcr11
Viper
Viper
 
Posts: 672
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2007 4:23 am

Postby kikkid » Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:38 am

The problem is that the majority of dog breeders are uneducated (please don't take offense....I mean in the areas of reproduction and genetics) and are out for profit, it is after all a business. As far as breeders "choosing traits" that they consider to be favorable, unless you are a veterinarian or another schooled individual who specializes in reproduction, you truly do not know what the product of your breeding session is going to produce. Problems we see today may be from "artificial selection," but it is important to recognize the fact that inbreeding was a means to artificially select desired traits. In an attempt to conserve a bloodline, it was once a very common practice for dogs to be inbred. It is still seen today, mainly with pit bulls. Before that it was the Rottweiler and even before them the German Shepard was the victim. I do not want this to sound like all dogs are inbred, etc, that is not my intention. I just feel that it is important for any potential readers to know that it still happens. An even bigger issue with dog breeding is that many heritable conditions that are not necessarily terminal (ie: Demodex canis, elbow or hip dysplasia) are overlooked for the sake of profit, when the carrier SHOULD NOT be bred. It is even more unfortunate that many breeders overlook terminal diseases such as cancer to turn a buck. We need licenses to own a dog.....where are the licenses to breed them???? In closing, if anyone out there who happens to read this is thinking of breeding their dog, if you truly love them, and care for animals, have them spayed/neutered! Our shelters are overflowing with animals that need good homes, and many of them are the direct result of amateur breeding!!
kikkid
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 6:49 pm


Postby js_daquilanea » Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:01 am

yes, i think all of us here dont want harm to our dogs. but breeding does not only mean inbreeding noe hybridization. in our place here we do not tolerate inbreeding but we also choose what line or breed to mate. of course, mates which are close relatives are prohibited.i agree that many maybe not most breeders are for profit only, ethics and professionalism is part of this field too though i am not really a breeder.
If energy cannot be created nor destroyed then HE could only be the creator and the destroyer, The alpha and omega, the brahma and shiva. If HE neither create nor destroy then HE preserves,The Vishnu.
js_daquilanea
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2007 12:13 pm
Location: Philippines

Postby kikkid » Fri Sep 28, 2007 4:46 am

I totally don't want anyone to think that I am implying that breeders are bad. Just as with anything there is good and bad. This is just a subject that I hold close to my heart having personally rescued 2 "shunned" breeds from absolute horror, one directly from the hands of a breeder!! I also work in the veterinay industry so the negative images have scarred me.
kikkid
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2007 6:49 pm

Postby Cristgonz » Thu Nov 15, 2007 10:05 pm

i could say that it is not an ex-citu conservation.
on my ecology course at the university, i red about in and ex situ conservation, in situ is easy to understand but i remember an example for ex-situ and it was about to concerve living things in other different places.
so Dogs?.. mmh.. they live among us :)
~~Agronomist Engineer, Dekalb Seeds
Anasac, Chile
User avatar
Cristgonz
Garter
Garter
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 8:59 pm

Previous

Return to Ecology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron