Posted by:
Lot's Wife
(
)
Date: June 10, 2019 01:01AM
Wally Prince Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> the result of human interventions is an
> oversimplification.
All dogs are the result of human intervention. That is the definition of "dog."
-------------
> There have been natural
> hybrids that have emerged without any human
> intervention. North American gray wolves are
> known to trace back to a naturally occurring
> coyote-wolf hybrid.
Suggesting that certain wolves and other wild animals are "naturally occurring. . . hybrids" is fine--we all know that--but it has nothing to do with dogs, which are defined as the result of human breeding for characteristics that appeal to humans.
---------------
> And not all breeds are particularly defective
> genetically. Golden retrievers have longer
> lifespans than wolves.
And if you take any form of hare or rabbit from the wild and rear it in captivity, with decent housing and food, its life span increases from 2-3 years to 10-12 years. It is therefore not surprising that many pets live longer than the same species, or breed, in the wild.
-----------------
> There is no strong
> evidence indicating that wild dogs are generally
> healthier across the board than domesticated dog
> breeds. Beagles have average lifespans that are
> double and triple the lifespans of wild canine
> species.
You can't glean meaningful information about genetics from the lifespans of domesticated versus wild animals. The domestic ones almost always live longer by virtue of being reared by humans and protected from the tribulations of life in the wild.
------------
> Dingos in the wild have very short
> lifespans. Kept and protected, they're still
> shorter than beagles.
That might be true. It still doesn't address the question of whether human intervention in in the breeding of DOGS generally increases genetic abnormalities in DOGS.
----------------
>
> I would hate to see beagles disappear...or
> collies, or labs, or german shepherds or
> chihuahuas. Who knows what would happen to such
> breeds if humans left the scene? But for now
> humans have not left the scene.
All of this may be true, but it is irrelevant to the topic we are discussing.
--------------
> Foxes have very short lifespans and are not
> particularly healthier than stable breeds.
I don't know if foxes are less healthy than stable breeds of dogs. But foxes aren't dogs. And they live in the wild, which shortens their lifespans considerably.
-----------
> In
> healthy, stable, populous breeds all you really
> have to do is avoid mating between closely related
> siblings and cousins.
If that were true, you wouldn't have genetic abnormalities that bedevil certain breeds of dogs. And yet the problems are well-known.
https://pets.webmd.com/dogs/ss/slideshow-dog-breed-health-problems-----------------
> Plus, inbreeding is not
> uncommon in the wild. In fact avoidance of
> inbreeding (among cousins (1st, 2nd, 3rd) is often
> a feature of human intervention.
Are you seriously arguing that human breeding has rendered dogs healthier than they would otherwise be? Because that is NOT a well-accepted idea.