natural selection vs technology

I was thinking that since technology has come so far that dogs that really should have died for not being strong enough,or aggressive enough over the tit when they were puppies but still have good bloodlines are being breed. If natural selection had its way a few puppies from each litter would die so that the stronger ones would live, but we never want to see a dog die so we keep it alive. But maybe that dog was supposed to die and by us keeping it alive we actually produce a subpar dog. that makes all the hard work people were breeding for get thrown out the window. So would it be better to have those few pups die and have the cream of the crop and your reputation for producing good dogs passed on and better dogs to come for many more generations. Or still produce those good dogs and the weaker ones,(hypothetical situation right here) that have papers that new breeders will look at and want one in there program,but they get one that should have died. So by accident you give them a dog you wouldn't own and have people question the quality and consistency of your breeding program forever.

I am just a kid trying to figure things out. Don't get angry at me just teach me.I was just thinking farmers long ago had pups all the time and usually 3 or 4 would die but you also hear about all the great dogs back then, so i thought there might have been a correlation between survival of the fittest and better dogs.

 

To be honest, i am not sure what you mean but i think to understand the general sense of it.

Technology IS being used to make sure good dogs are still producing now, tomorrow, and in 20 years. The method of doing that is FREEZING SPERM...well, that is not the technical term for it but you understand me..right? lol The working worth of an animal is not assessed while they are pups. The assessment of quality begins only once matured and given time to assimilate their work. Once you know which dogs are "good", then, you freeze X number of litters (sperm). In 20-30 years, you can bring back that blood to a successful decendent of it.

In addition, some are already keeping genetic makeup in the way of skin/muscle tissue for future cloning.:eek::cool: How is THAT for using technology? lol I am sure some H$U$ nutties are crying after reading this.

 

I think you are absolutely correct..kid, lol. I always try to live by the "let nature takes it course" with these dogs. If we were in the wild and a pup got sick, it would probably die. That's why we have the saying, "only the strong survive!"

We, as humans, like to intervene sometimes too much and by doing this we happen to alter the outcome of things. Unfortunately, many humaniacs today might think we're cruel and inhumane if we don't step in and alter things just to save an animals life.

In order to preserve these dogs to the best of our ability it is important that we only keep and use the best of the best!

 

I know of a few breeders that leave the birthing, and raising pups 100% to the mother.... I agree with this, and i also try to leave it to nature to keep the strongest pups alive. Also what some do is in order to thin out sub par pups is just feed enough to the litter when the pups get to eating solid food, sounds harsh but the pups that end up being thiner and weaker get culled. i have even herd some say they cull pups that just get car sick... it's just part of the culling process.... and as breeders... it must be done to keep a high standard.... but not all of the culling can happen while the dog is a pup.... it still must pass the test of being a good working dog.... before being bred to pass on his/her genes...... And IMO FEMALES should be put thru the most strict of standards fore they are the backbone of any line and breeding program... If you don't have top quality females then what do you really have? Just my .2c

 

there is a difference between letting nature take its course, and neglect.
i could see 1 or 2 pups not making it every litter (on average) from completely natural causes, suffocation/crushing being the greatest danger in the first couple weeks of life.
hand feeding a "runt"? been there,done that ,and it turned out to be the best dog of the litter ( and this is from a quality breeding-not junk to junk)
i think the bigger picture is the folks who breed rampantly. breed what you need, keep what you need-spay/neuter the rest. i see "kennels" talking of breeding 6+ litters for 2009-honestly there is no need for that, imho. we have a pretty big surplus as it stands, and if people would think more of the dogs and less of the $ we would be better off...perfect world, i know.

 

In dealing with domesticated animals, there is NO SUCH THING as natural selection. Anyone who does not do their 110% to make sure all the pups are and remain healthy is neglectful and needs a reality check. Nothing about our dogs is "natural"....nothing. They depend on us 100% of the time.

Natural selection only happens in the wild AND away from human interference. Anyone hiding under the "survival of the fittest" is full of horse feces....lol

 

Hey Rocky, can I borrow your shovel, i've got some horse matter on me, lmao!

 

The one thing about our breed that seperates us from the rest of course, is gameness. Those that choose to cull at a young age do take the risk in culling gamness as well.

There are many factors to consider when taking on the responsibility of preserving/breeding these dogs.

 

how isn't there natural selection it is how we choose which dog to keep and which dog to cull,so there natural traits are being exploited for are own personal needs that is how we differentiate from every other breed . But i see what you are all saying.

 

:rolleyes: I am all for contributing to threads and adding opinion and facts to them. that said, I do get a little impetient and annoyed when OP does not due basic research. I will say it very clearly...YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT NATURAL SELECTION MEANS.

There is NOTHING natural about humans choosing who and what to breed for.

here are some definitions for you:

Natural Selection:

The process in nature by which, according to Darwin's theory of evolution, only the organisms best adapted to their environment tend to survive and transmit their genetic characteristics in increasing numbers to succeeding generations while those less adapted tend to be eliminated.
​

And another:

Process that results in adaptation of an organism to its environment by means of selectively reproducing changes in its genotype. Variations that increase an organism's chances of survival and procreation are preserved and multiplied from generation to generation at the expense of less advantageous variations. As proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution occurs. It may arise from differences in survival, fertility, rate of development, mating success, or any other aspect of the life cycle. Mutation, gene flow, and genetic drift, all of which are random processes, also alter gene abundance. Natural selection moderates the effects of these processes because it multiplies the incidence of beneficial mutations over generations and eliminates harmful ones, since the organisms that carry them leave few or no descendants. See also selection.
​

When humans control reproduction it is called ARTIFICIAL SELECTION. Here is its definition:

Human intervention in animal or plant reproduction to ensure that certain desirable traits are represented in successive generations.
​

and another:

The breeding of plants and animals to produce desirable traits. Organisms with the desired traits, such as size or taste, are artificially mated or cross-pollinated with organisms with similar desired traits.
​

Next time, please get a sense of what you ask before posting AND do research after you receive feedback.:cool:

 

Working as a vet tech for many years we would see breeders come in and try to save every pup even from debilitating congenital defects. I think as a breeders you need to understand when to do something and when to let the puppy die.

By your theory of "only the strong survive" or "let nature take it's course" your saying if your bitch is needs a c-section or has a problem you would just let her and the litter die. That is leaving the birthing 100% to the dog. That seems like a waste of a good bitch to me.

I have to agree with Rocky on this, nothing is natural about breeding dogs. As a GOOD breeder you need to know when to step in and when not to.

 

I have had to help out 90% of every litter I have ever bred and you can bet I dont care what any ony thinks Every litter I have ever bred was VERY planed and I would do any thing I needed to keep them healthy.
One of the best litters I ever seen were Bottle raised, we have a bitch now that has healty pups BUT she is so rough with them you have to help out, Why would I do this Becouse she is one of a kind and She throws Bone game dogs. That is something you have to ask you self Do I want these pups witch may have a once in a life time dog in it ,OR do I just want this CRULE world(Nature) to raise them, And we all know how this world is, Some good producing Bitches are crapy mothers. YIS J

 

It's the High Price of Playing God is all. Some breeders cull heavily, others spay/neuter the weaker pups and home them with good folks. One way or the other, sub-par dogs don't get bred. The sentimental guy in me thinks "Just spay/neuter the weaker dogs and home them with folks who want a pet dog; remove him from the breeding pool" the only thing is, if a pup shows a few noticeable genetic flaws early on, who know what else is happening that you don't notice right away, like a pre-disposition for chataracts or dysplastic hips (that is, if displastic hips is something that is progressive. I've never had a dog that had it, and Remmy's hips tested out okay, so I don't know too much about hip dysplacia). I think a lot of breeders cull so heavily because they only want the best and the brightest out there representing the breed, and obviously, they only want the best bred together. In that respect, I can understand it. But for most people, including myself, these things constitute tough choices.

Nature of course, isn't so forgiving. Remember that the next time a dirty hippie chastizes you for eating meat

Oh, and please remember though, I am new to this, and I've only been reading about genetics and breeding, so I could be wrong.

 

Why should a healthy bitch need a c-section?

Rocky is absolutely correct. We as humans intervene, select, and manipulate the course of action we want our dogs to take. Everyone of us do it, some more than others.

Now if you would have read my post a little more accurately, you would have seen the word "try" before the "let nature take its course." I try to let nature take its course as much as I can. However, I do selectively intervene with my animals, therefore if there happened to be a problem I would then take the next course of action that is necessary.

Again, Rocky has made a very good point about natural selection. My intervention is trying my best to keep as close to a natural selection as possible. That doesn't make it natural, but more of a mimic!

 

Ok so here's my two cents. The best dog I ever saw was a runt, so much smaller and weaker at birth that it just couldn't compete for food, but that didn't stop the little bugger from working ten times harder than the rest for half the payoff. Seemed like the little pup never stopped trying to get the milk even when the others were sleeping. Problem was, the momma only had so many boobs and would only feed for so long and then would get up...it was first come first serve and the little pup was left out. Had we let nature take it's course, the hard clawing little runt would have slowly weakened and starved. Thankfully we didn't. That little dog ended up having more drive than any pup in the litter and actually ended up being the biggest too. One of my current dogs Nola was also the runt and also showed the same drive to no avail as a pup and had to be helped as well. She's two now and just like her great grandfather has more fire than any of her siblings. Funny how that works out. There are alot of factors that go into determining what dogs will or won't make it as puppies if left to mother nature. Gameness and ability as an adult are not neccessarily in that list, but that is what we breed for. As such, just letting a pup starve seems like a waste of what could turn out to be a great dog.

 

I think there are factors that affect the health of a young pup that have nothing to do w/the pup's genetic potential. Say a pup's stuck in the birth canal extra long, maybe one of the last pup's to be born, when the contractions are weaker. Or a pup gets a little chilled because it moves away from the dam, and she overlooks it. Both those pups, especially if they're in a big litter, may be slowed enough to weaken and die w/in the first couple days. No way of knowing if those were the best 2 pups in the litter, or the worst. Yet helping to make sure they get warm and nurse well during the first 24-48 hours may be all it takes to help them get back on track.
I swear, some females seem to choose the best pup in the litter to smother and flatten, too. I've certainly saved a few of those by monitoring litters closely the first week.

 

I think many here agree and understand that none of our dogs are created through natural selection, but rather selective breeding and human intervention. But through that human selection we should strive for and maintain only the strongest, gamest, healthiest, and overall best specimens possible!

 

Back to a c-section I have seen a perfectly healthy bitches have to have c-sections. She can get tired and stop pushing if it's a large litter, or maybe it's a small litter of two and the puppies are too big....... Just because you have a health bitch doesn't mean you can't have a problem

not trying to argue, this subject is all based on opinion and I don't have an issue culling pups if it's warranted.

 

I know, I can appreciate your response. You made a very valid argument and I understand what you meant. I was just f*cking around, lol.

 

my bad on the definitions i just thought there traits were natural were selecting what to exploit so i thought natural selection not artificial selection, or selective breeding didn't, mean to get you all riled up. Like i said i am just a stupid kid don't let me get you disgruntled or even frustrated, though my teachers write emails to my parents explaining how that is one of my greatest attributes lol.