Re: [pyrnet] Deliberate Breeding for Dwarfs

[JGentzel@aol.com]

In a message dated 12/23/00 7:11:30 AM Pacific Standard Time, 
bamb@monmouth.com writes:


> The general, reasonably good health of Dwarfs is a fact,


Barb, the Scientific literature refutes this.  Just because you cannot see 
major structural problems and internal problems sometimes does not indicate a 
good state of health.  I referenced an article by Dr. Sande and others in the 
last bulletin from a research project done and reported in the Vet journal.  
Get your vet to get you a copy and read it.  It reports and studies Great 
Pyrenees Dwarfs, so it refutes all the claims that somehow Pyrs are different 
from the other breed Dwarfs at times, but then the same when it suits their 
argument purposes.  There may be some seemingly normal otherwise dogs, but in 
the main there are very serious problems at work here.

We are only debating this point I believe because someone wants to receive 
awards.  My fear is much of this information is not fact, but bias and spin.  
If we get dumbed down and get desensitized to the issue, I have the same fear 
as Terry.

Linda has expressed this fear herself and offered it (albeit from someone 
else) as a reason that we should not develop the marker i.e. those who want 
and intend to breed these dwarfs will use it to facilitate the identification 
of carriers (for their breeding program) since the dwarfs are functionally 
sterile.  Linda will concur that those who she knows and respects have very 
real concerns in this area.  I think it is a misguided concern or a "Red 
Herring".

Joe