Re: [PyrNet-L] gene pool size (was size)

[JGentzel@aol.com]

In a message dated 6/15/99 1:05:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Kshoffman@AOL.COM writes:

<< Also, how genetically diverse was the original founding population in the 
US 
 really? (In terms of relatedness versus genetic distance within that pool of 
 original foundation stock.)  My recollection from readings is that Mrs. 
Crane 
 took great care to import a very diverse group of specimens from as many 
 representative lines as possible and this included both "dogs of the 
 mountains" (primarily working dogs of peasant farmers) and dogs of the 
 original early "show" lines, but if all these dogs go back to a very small 
 number of common founding dogs, were these specimens that Mrs. Crane 
imported 
 indeed a genetically diverse group of distantly related dogs, or were they 
 all more or less rather closely related? >>


Some were close, but many were very diverse.  

<The more I read about 
recent scientific studies and research that is the result of advancements in 
molecular biology and genetics in the past few years, the more inclined I am 
to believe that heterosis and genetic distance between mates (as opposed to 
homozygosity and relatedness - the end result of generations of 
"linebreeding") will generally yield healthier longer-lived dogs with a lower 
incidence of genetic health defects.  Because of this, I'm very seriously 
leaning towards a BIG change in the way I breed dogs.>

Hold on Kelly.  There are gene pools to line breed on and there are gene 
pools that are disasters to breed from, especially linebreeding.  Line 
breeding and inbreeding will magnify all GOOD and BAD things.  So don't blame 
linebreeding on what is bad.  Linebreeding just showed you what was there.  
Loss of size and genetic vigor may be exceptions, but that is what outclasses 
are for anyway.  

No breeding program in the history of dogs has been successful for more than 
just a few generations that did not use linebreeding wisely.

Joe