Re: [pyrnet] Hi protein

["Tracy Bassett" <espinay@bigpond.com>]

<<Yes, and which we, in our "wisdom" have chosen to circumvent.  My question
was why is it ok to point out that MN knows more about the "right" way to
eat and not point out that MN also knows more about the right way to live.
which clearly involves some form of survival of the fittest. >>Linda

Mother nature certainly does know about the right way to live.  IMO it is
thinking we 'know better' which has caused many of the problems in dogs
today.

Many of the principles of 'Natural Rearing' include selecting breeding stock
which can reproduce effectively without (or with minimal) intervention,
avoiding those lines with a history of problems in this area.  Also
selecting to minimise health concerns. When we play at 'mother nature' our
choices in this regard are important.  Modern life has meant that dogs do
not always do the work they were bred to do.  The 'performance pressure' of
this work in itself would result in an amount of selection - a dog that cant
do the work effectively is removed from the job and the the breeding
program.  We need to be just as vigilant in removing dogs that would not
make it even if they are no longer performing their chosen task.  We WANT to
breed the strongest and the fittest.  Naturally, we also want the benefits
of modern health care and I am not downplaying that, but it is a careful
balance that needs to be maintained.  We only do the breed (whatever breed)
a disservice if we 'prop them up' with modern medicine and then breed with
them.

<< That also, btw  includes reproduction that more often than not avoids
close family breeding.>>

I am not sure whether that is exactly or always true.  David Mech states in
his book, "The Wolf" (p53) that "...litermate matings as discussed in
Chapter IV might be the rule in most packs, especially where wolves are
heavily exploited.  If so, the newly matured individuals would not need to
mate with strange wolves, and the integrity of the pack could continue.  In
fact, this would be the most likely explanation for R A Raush's 1967a repart
of four sexually mature females in one pack and two pregnant females in each
of three packs."

N Lehman, P Clarkson, LD Mech, TJ Meier, RK Wayne's "A Study of the
Genetic-Relationships Within and Among Wolf Packs using DNA Fingerprinting
and Mitochondrial-DNA" published in "Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology"
(30: (2) 83-94 Mar 1992) also concluded that:

" Our results show that: (1) wolf packs consist primarily of individuals
that are closely related genetically, but some packs contain unrelated
non-reproducing individuals; (2) dispersal among packs within the same area
is common; and (3) short-range dispersal appears more common for female than
male wolves. The first two of these genetically-based observations are
consistent with behavioral data on pack structure and dispersal in wolves,
while the apparent sex bias in dispersal was not expected."

L. E. Carmichael, J. A. Nagy, N. C. Larter and C. Strobeck's "Prey
specialization may influence patterns of gene flow in wolves of the Canadian
Northwest" in Molecular Ecology (Volume 10 Issue 12 Page 2787 Dec 2001 )
also notes the effects of physical barriers in maintaining  genetic distance
between populations in different regions and concludes that
"isolation-by-distance is one major determinant of population structure
among mainland wolves in northwestern Canada"  and "there remain significant
genetic differences among wolves in different regions."

Tracy Bassett
 www.smartgroups.com/groups/BARFPyrs
Breeders doing it naturally:   www.smartgroups.com/groups/BARFBreeder
Murrumbateman, Australia
espinay@bigpond.com