naitche

After looking into if and how this works using the K.Cs as the study, I'm very  sure the opposite is true, that the K.Cs have, over time, shaped the expectations and values of their environment in a process that  gains momentum. Conditions increasingly come to support the end result of taking Dogs out of their environment.

Designer dogs, conditions of dogs rather than dogs for a real purpose an obvious example. A process of making the environment over to reflect their own values. Removing  and suppressing others.

Reaction to whats 'out there' - The K.Cs themselves may bring in new rules or protocols in response to environmental pressure for change. Its almost invariably to impose further limitations on membership or environment.

There are a few recent exceptions. How effectively the membership will  make use of those changes, or censure those who try, is yet to be seen. And for how long. 

The instruction given by the organisation is still to refuse recognition of those. Just as the origin of breed club has just done with the Dalmation.

The 'favour' to be found in the K.C environment still belongs to those who follow that instruction. And they block and censure any who try an opposing direction.

With greater affluence and development those land race dogs will  dwindle, intermix or be absorbed into the Pedigree system as well.

Australias Dingo is as much as 90% diluted, Pure breed Dingo being very rare. And those are dogs that are not often hanging around us humans. The K.Cs are tasked with their preservation as a pure breed in captivity.

The elimination of Domestic Dogs may  matter least from an eccological view, compared with other wild species, but I think Humanity would be affected badly by their loss in ways that are vastly underestimated to our social and cultural development. That the effects on our societies are notable now, If you go back to to historical writings and quotes. The social benefits alone have been historically enormous. I think they have also been essential to keeping our increasingly urban and cosmopolitan cultures more grounded in the realities of the natural world. 

On a more personal level, Dogs are a valued part of my life. Not only for the companionship but the making my work load vastly lighter, and much safer. My children and grand children have grown up with expectation that is a dependable and reliable  resource that allows them much greater confidence in their own purpose. 

But as the person responsible for procuring that, I see we are nearly at the end of the line as far as that usefulness goes. Too much has been lost, and most people have no idea of what has already been lost. Its been  a gradual loss that only older dog enthusiasts note, but certainly do. In a nut shell, its responsibility. From Dogs and humans.

Its hard to find dogs any more that are responding to the demands of their environments and not just reacting to stimulus in predictable ways according to fixed traits. Less and less effectively for any real world purpose as those traits become ever more fixed. Trainers and educators today are being taught to rely on those predictable responses and reject as poor breeding dogs that deviate for training purposes. Most notable in security dogs, least in service dogs.

Last time I had to search, It took me 7 years to find a single bitch that lived up to what I had learned to expect. Another 4 to find a male even close. Not pedigree.

I had always known Pedigrees were going to be limited because of the inbreeding. As long as I could get the dogs that fit my purpose though, I thought it was for pedigree people to deal with. I bred my dogs, because I couldn't afford another 7 or 10 year search to find what I needed. I advertised pups based on the purpose for their breeding and traits of the parents for responsibility to job and environment. I found the demand to be incredible- but also the back lash from Pedigree breeders. 

So what is happening in the K.Cs does affect me and all enthusiasts of Domestic Dogs who would like to see their purpose in our communities validated.

Service dog trainers and breeders ( like guide dogs) are among the few who will admit to the traits of responsibility to purpose, though herding and most guardian breeds have traditionally demonstrated that in spades. 

Regardless of all that, I think what is happening with Domestic Dogs as a result of the K.Cs  refusal to recognise the species as a whole, should be of immense interest to evolutionary biologists and science in general because of the implications for cultural evolution in general .

Looking at this problem from a cultural perspective using  the organisation as organism hypothesis I've found it not only works but ties in social science and biology very effectively as well as many other disciplines. Not with any "New" science, just a different perspective on what is known.

I think the relevance of this to politics today and the increasing polarisation of  cultures is immense. Unless some one can show me where I am wrong, this shows that the  politics of identity are much worse than counter productive to human culture and diversity. They can only divide,  reduce and discredit.

In the past, Identity politics has been effective to gain recognition for minorities. Today its used mostly to deny or refuse recognition of cultures seen to be in opposition. There is a huge difference. That denies responsibility for the environment we have and our role in shaping it. Simply opposing it is not the same, that reduces the environment and its diversity.

The Kennel Clubs are a near perfect demonstration of the organisation as organism hypothesis and Identity as the environment/space for all it contains. If Humanity is the identity we claim then humane conditions are what we are responsible for. No other.

The  content in the space of an identity is defined by  common purpose or direction.

An identity is the environment for all it contains.

To then define that purpose by the conditions.   Its recognised to contain.   At a given point in time. 

Must limit that space ( or identity ) to that condition. Unable to respond to the demands of its environment, Meet them, or take response ability for its condition.

 To recognise  a single space or environment based on  conditions judged valid  to it by 'faith', not reality,  can only set up a process of elimination, and the equal and opposite reactions of opposing forces in that space.

Thank you John,

Yes. You are right there. The purpose of Pedigree dogs is to verify the standards as recognised, in the show ring.

Thats the only environment recognised to govern selection of Domestic dogs,  by the bodies that have most influenced direction and expectation of the species since their inception over 150 years ago. Pedigrees and Domestic Dogs are a single species. A Pedigree bestowed after birth can't change that.

 Pedigree Breeders, under a statement that Dogs not bred to those protocols is not recognised, may be individuals who all bring their own values and interpretation of those standards to their purpose, But the K.Cs are  the governing body they have signed up to support and acts as an identity in its own right with a direction that over time,  over-rides those where they are in conflict with the messages guiding its own.

There is an expectation of support for that environment which is enforced. The only values recognised in that environment are to  the 'standard' conditions and limitations of its 'self'. 

Its own space. Any other purpose and values brought to that environment are discredited. The value of that space is seen to be in its limitation, rather than what is brought to it. 

The expectation is that entities  conditions provide any  value to be had. Independent of its environment. The product is a reflection of that expectation.

But this expectation doesn't just affect pedigree dogs. It affects Domestic dogs.  They are inseparable. They rely on support from the same   environment. The expectations of the same environment guide any direction the species will take.

The statement that what lies outside the K.Cs own space and conditions is not recognised,  includes that space in its direction. Its just been directed in how to respond to it.

The K.Cs will discredit it.  What lies beyond its 'self', is its environment.

There is no value in Domestic Dogs or their breeders, only in the conditions and limitations we put on their diverse environments. Response ability to environment is lost because its not about response, or value brought to the space or environment, and letting that form our expectations. its about upholding conditions. 

If an entity that does not recognise its environment is said to loose responsibility to that , or attack it, what better example than discrediting Back Yard Breeders? 

 Regardless of any value brought to the species worth emulating by individuals, We have been taught to expect that the conditions of that environment are not to be trusted. Or its produce. Regardless of any value demonstrated. The value and any response taken to that environment are suppressed. We're taught to  mistrust that environment based on its condition, rather than living up to the potential of value demonstrated. Environmental expectation is denied because its value is discredited.

What is the origin of Domestic Dogs?  Humanity is the environment selecting  based on what is demonstrated to work most effectively for an individuals purpose, in their own backyard. Or environment.

 When the value is put into the conditions and limitations, or 'standards' of a space and not the values brought to it and demonstrated by it,  its conditions can only be affected by what it can eliminate. Nothing can be brought that isn't already there. Like the story of the pentagram that draws  a demons inside it , redrawn on its navel.

The K.Cs and their Pedigrees will shrink till theres nothing left of any  value but the paper they are printed on, but they will take Domestic Dogs with them if purpose and value demonstrated are not recognised because their fates are tied together by decree of the K.Cs.

With out that statement of non recognition, The K.Cs  are one of the diverse aspects of the environment of Domestic Dogs that can be chosen or not, depending on if an individuals purpose  finds favour there, or not. It still influences the species as a whole, but only in so far as the value it contributes TO the whole. Change to that environment and its conditions is then possible. Because K.C conditions are then recognised as some thing put in place to support the purpose of Domestic Dogs and their breeders.. Instead of Breeders and Domestic Dogs supporting  conditions.

Its the cart before the horse.

The problems come down to recognition of environment.

Breeding for 'standards' rather than purpose.

Purpose gives direction. Organic response is to over come conditions and limitation to achieve that.

What are "standards" if not conditions and limitations? An ideology that sees  'set' condition and limitation as the end goal can't do anything other than oversee a species unfit for its environment, and refuse or discredit an  ability to respond other wise.

It 'recognises' conditions and limitations. Not response ability, not possibility.

On 11/10/2018 at 4:45 AM, CharonY said:

 

 

Probably something like adaptivity.  

Maybe. 

Response ability seems a better fit for tying in different aspects of evolution,  cultural for example.

Some humans grow a third set of teeth, according to a dentist who noticed same in my adult son. He commented that he had seen that a few times and speculated that it was an evolving trait due to our lengthening life spans.

"Survival of the fittest'" is a term that is inadequate and I think misleading.

I would say evolution is more Response-Ability.  The ability to respond to conditions in ways that make those more favourable to the identified subject.

Genetic diversity giving a greater chance the response that does that can be demonstrated and utilised.

8 hours ago, mistermack said:

As far as humans go, fascism could be looked on as an evolutionary trait, in a similar way to religion. 

After all, fascism attempted to make Jews extinct, as well as a huge number of Russians and Slavs. If you aim your genocide at a racial group, then you are affecting the remaining genome. 

Religious wars  will have a similar effect. You're not exterminating people at random, you are augmenting natural selection, with your own choices. Europeans massacring Arabs in crusades will have altered the remaining world genome in a specific direction.

European immigrants to America tried to exterminate the resident "Indians", with no feelings of guilt whatsoever. They wouldn't have done that to Christians. Being of a different religion allows people to view people of other religions as less than human.

These effects on human evolution were not huge, but they were significant, considering how slowly evolution normally happens.

As far as humanity goes as an Identity, fascism would be like an over active immune system where the body of humanity attacks its self. Does not recognise its own diversity and reduces its genome, or environment. And its ability to respond to changing conditions.

If  Identity is a space, then its measure should be direction (  purpose?) Not condition or position which if 'fixed' as fascism seems to attempt,  limit direction. 

Organic conditions are created as a response to aid direction, they don't give it.

Fascism puts faith in a singular condition that opposes any other direction.

An Identity whos condition is  complete.

Desertification as well as but distinct from deforestation. 

Recently watched an excellent Ted X talk on the subject that turned a lot of current thinking on its head, using examples of migratory herds effect in sustaining grasslands as opposed to reducing stock loads.

3 hours ago, zapatos said:

I'm pretty sure you explained how faith limits evolution but I didn't understand it. Are you claiming that faith literally limits Evolution (with a big 'E')?

Only if faith is allowed to become positional perspective.  it blocks direction.

Faith in scientific methodology means you support those conditions. Their conditions  are what ever is supported by adherents to science at a given time.They exist because of they are supported, and evolve according to what is supported.

 Hopefully, We support whats  demonstrated to bring  value to science. What can increase its scope, or area. To define 'The scientific method' though, would be to limit what can be brought to it by an arbitrary measure of its scope. Give it a positional or conditional perspective.

Its not faith itself that limits evolution. Its a conditional or positional perspective of what that faith allows. What those conditions must be, to be right, valid or correct. To define those conditions in time and space

Not based on  value contributed or potential, but on meeting conditions as they are recognised to exist now. At a single point in time and space.

Supporting  conditions that benefit yourself your cause or purpose is natural. Common faith  does give cohesion.

But how can you evolve beyond your current definition once its conditional?

I don't see a problem with supporting conditions that are seen as favourable or beneficial.  Or promoting  benefits and potentials of a condition. Be it scientific methodology, Religion, gender or Nationality. But it seems to me that defining those conditions by  means other than benefits and  potential can only limit those.

Nationalism can give common direction and cohesion. It can be positive if its focus is the potential and benefits, of and to its environment to those who would lend it support.

It can only be what it will through support. The values  brought to its condition

Its  harmful when its defined by its conditions and limitations and not the values brought to overcome them.

On 13/09/2018 at 4:09 AM, Itoero said:

Several studies show religious thought strengthens social cohesion.http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/03/religious-cohes.htmlhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4958132/http://science.sciencemag.org/content/322/5898/58

This imo means religion is an evolutionary trait. Strengthening of social cohesion is important for many animals like african wild dogs, lions, wolves, whales, dolphins, chickens, penguins, crows, monkeys, apes...It leads to evolutionary succes.

Our complex language enabled the origin of real religion, many other animals have religious thought/behavior  but lack our complex communicationsystem which prevents the origin of real religion.

What do you think of this?

 

It seems to me that faith  is a cultural trait. It doesn't favour evolution. It limits evolution. Religion a singled out more obvious manifestation of faith.

 It binds cultures, setting a  singular perspective.  Causes a cultural perspective to become a fixed and limiting identifier.

Of what belongs.

Individual ability of response is limited to what re-enforces the perspective of the whole. Response conflicting with that  perspective  is not favoured in that cultural environment.

A culture is a condition of its environment. Faith defines and limits its space. Limits the range of conditions that will be accepted by it, and that it can/will respond to.

Faith limits  diversity of the the cultural  condition, and the area or space  that can be integrated by its condition. 

Happy to have this moved to speculation if it might bring more discussion or comment.

 I thought this was be the place to find if this is  supported, or evidence to show why it is not. 

Quote

If this can be shown to be false, great!  So far I can only find evidence that backs it up. It compliments and seems to expand on the views of many including Dawson.

It seems this needs to be either disproved, or recognised, for effective ability to correct and improve the conditions of humanity

 

Just a correction, Meant to say Dawkins.

Jordan Petersons emphasis on personal  responsibility is also supported with this .

It would illustrate the dangers of Identity politics,  being anti-diversity. The dangers  not  in celebrating the benefits of a culture (or not in its 'nationalism'), but when its in  opposition to the space given alternative 'identities'.

Humanity can be seen as an environment, with everything beyond your own personal self, as conditions of that. 

Exclusive ideologies can only exclude.

Formation of the Kennel Clubs  created a space,  where certain practices are supported.

The purpose was supposed to be Dogs and their Breeders

By stating that Dogs without  a Pedigree standard are not recognised, that purpose was changed to one of support for Pedigrees. Not dogs, and not breeders.

Pedigrees are issued to verify a standard. A standard is a condition, is a limitation. The K.Cs abiding by that statement support conditions and limitations for Dogs and their Breeders.

A space is defined by the  conditions identified within.

Its scope, or the area available to those conditions, depends on what those conditions offer or can contribute to its environment. The space it will be given. How well it can integrate other space.

Surely its a physical impossibility to measure that space against conditions beyond its own, without limiting the potential  area or scope of those conditions. Its perspective is limited to those it has at a given time, and can only be improved by elimination of what doesn't work. By reduction.

Its no longer just a space. Its an identity defined by  its perspective, or beliefs of self, and what its space can encompass. Limited in what it can accept, and limited in its potential.

Fewer breeders has driven the price upwards, and continues to do.

Some Cross breeds fetch higher prices than pure breeds, so a pedigree wouldn't be required.

The costs of breeding can out weigh  profits, what with vet fees, testing for genetic defects, stud fees, possible medical emergencies etc. 

Fewer Breeders,  fewer intact dogs, Less people familiar with their own abilities  to respond to the processes of breeding, or familiar with how to do that responsibly.

One of the biggest obstacles to breeding has become other breeders, and what is deemed 'ethical' practice. Ostracism is pretty normal. A thick hide and an ability to justify every choice or decision is needed  if you would try it a second time.

That, or a disregard of  expectations, Not worried by a label of irresponsibility and having buyers turned away by that.

As a Pedigree breeder, that generally means you would need to show your bitch to confirm she is a suitable representation of her breed. Another cost.

On the other hand, If you breed for specific, sought after purpose other than 'standard' appearance and  can show you have selected for that in both parents, there is  support from buyers, but major discrimination from Pedigree Register bodies.That is a Back Yard Breeder and increasingly equated to irresponsible, 'unethical' practice.

The environment you would be breeding in is under attack. Regardless of your practices .

There is little promotion of practices that bring value to a breeders or a dogs purpose. Those are assigned to environments, Rather than the values that can be brought to that environment. Demonstrations of value are discredited. Based on the environment.

Value is assigned to environments, not response.

On 19/09/2018 at 10:37 AM, EmilyJUVU said:

I'm writing a paper for philosophy and have been looking into where humanity as a whole is headed and where we might be headed

I've been questioning the credibility of government, and want to know other peoples opinions, on what they think is the ultimate

goal for humanity, or should be the ultimate goal?

Agree with Phi for All,

For Humanity as a whole to share or accept common goals,  they would 1st have to accept  commonality.

Diversity is essential, but focusing on differences won't unite.

Recognition of what we have have in common could.

I thought a science forum would be more useful to either validate or refute this hypothesis.

It has far reaching implications for many fields of science, including A.I.  It appears to work,  and  if so would have a huge range of application.

As far as the K.Cs go, it would indicate that it is a physical impossibility for the organisation in its present form to benefit Domestic Dogs, or their value to Humanity in evolutionary terms.

If affirmed, it should provide grounds for either forcing change to the organisations cultural instruction,  or illustrate the need for a  registry system designed  for biological sustainability, with its  focus on value, purpose and responsibility rather than set or fixed standards.

This is one organisation used  as a test of this hypothesis because it appears a very suitable test subject . With clarity on how it works it seems the K.Cs may be the a tiny portion of the tip of an ice burg.

Its pretty scary  to see how well it seems to work,  the insidious effects on the environment and how far reaching those may be.  

If this can be shown to be false, great!  So far I can only find evidence that backs it up. It compliments and seems to expand on the views of many including Dawson.

It seems this needs to be either disproved, or recognised, for effective ability to correct and improve the conditions of humanity

No one? 

It appears to work and give a degree of predictability to directions  and oppositions of cultural identities.

According to this, the end result for the K.Cs would be take Dogs out their environment. A process that gains momentum as conditions change to better support that result.

Loss of purpose and value.

The single space occupied by Dog Breeders  has been  tied into  opposing  forces ,with equal and opposite reactions.

The constitution acts as the genetic code for the organisation, though its looking like a written constitution is not required for  a culture to close ranks against its environment. Unwritten agreement will do.

The values provided the environment through other sources are discredited.

The environment  held to account for the identities condition. Reduction of environment.

With no  responsibility accepted for the environments condition, or the value  offered to increase it.

An identified subject is a space.

That space is the environment for all it contains.

The space is unresponsive. It has no expectation. 

It can only accept or reject other identified spaces  or environments based on the conditions of its own. 

Environmental conditions and expectation results from the conditions supported within the space, by its collective content. Not the space itself.

The laws of physics apply to the spaces identified- for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. 

So if we identify Dog breeders,  The space they are given will accept or reject dog breeders ( and their product)  according to value brought to the spaces they are able to utillize. The diversity of conditions (or identified spaces) they are able to recognise value in, and respond to. There must be purpose and value offered. 

The giving of space may  be supported, depending on the cost of doing so.

Ability to respond, or responsibility, are key to acquiring space, and greater diversity gives greater response ability.

Out right rejection of a space or identity is not response, but an inability to respond, or recognise value potential . A subjective space may not offer immediate value based on conflicting conditions or expectations. But those are altered over time. Ability to respond can direct that evolution of conditions.

Recognition of potential at an individual level opens small spaces that can increase as value is demonstrated. Marketing Psychology  has shown that demonstration of value is essential to opening of and viability /increase market shares. 

demonstration can teach value of acceptance of other spaces, but can also teach cost of acceptance.

The K.Cs recognise only the value of Pedigree Standards. Standard environments. They do not support Dogs in the diverse community. They support  conditions and limitations. They measure the value of their environmental space in opposition to alternative conditions. And become a force against those.

 They are tied together in opposition by measuring the value of the space they are given,  against the conditions  of alternative spaces. Not the areas they can offer and demonstrate value to.

Measuring the value of a space against the conditions of your own  is to measure the space available according to fixed conditions. It disregards an ability to respond to any other and fixes your own identified condition in time and space. Evolution complete and entropy the end result.

 It may be, IF there such a thing as free will, the choice to use our inherent  response-ability  individually may be its only manifestation.

The idea that organisations are living systems, depending on their wider environment to meet their needs. That they affect and should respond as such to thrive or maintain viability. To integrate. 

  An idea expanded and elaborated on by Hendrik Gommer in 

A Biological Theory of Law, Natural Law Revisited.   

https://www.utrechtlawreview.org/articles/abstract/10.18352/ulr.166/    

Embodied in the ideas  for the writing of a successful successful constitution.

The mission statement sets out what is the purpose / intent of the organisation. 

Rules and regulations set out how that is to be accomplished.

Positive rules, (ie: We will)  give direction. Negative statements and rules ( ie: we will not) should be avoided.  They  can only block direction, most often in unforseen ways .

Statements, rules and regulations should concern only what occurs within the space of the organisation, and negatives avoided if mention must be made because that sets up what is called a double negative.

What lies beyond the scope of the organisation is Its environment. So a negative statement, rule or regulation blocks  intent in unpredictable ways, and  affects integration with the environment, setting up an opositional force.  

This idea when applied to the K.Cs works. It forms  links between social science, biology, law, language, evolutionary science, molecular science physics and more. 

Hendrik Gommer applies his theory to Law, and constitutions. Its applied to organisations. It seems from my observation they can be applied to any cultural identity. Governing  interactions, integration and viability.

45 years now since Dalmations had the pointer outcross to solve the uric acid problem, and their country of origin breed club has just banned from its registry those dogs resulting.

Not pure.

 Not recognised.

Disease is more acceptable because with out it, its not a Dalmation.  Bulgaria may follow.

Can any one tell me if the organisation as organism hypothesis has been generally accepted or rejected by science? 

The rules for a successful constitution I mentioned in an  earlier post?   Or how  to name it  so I know where to look?

My observations  certainly back it up. It appears to me  physics do as well. If so the effects are insidious and would be very relevant to world politics and culture today. 

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

As you've pointed out the mistakes of our past can and do, sometimes come back to haunt us, but if we knew the nature of the problem, who's related to whom and possible recessive genetic problems. Here in the UK we already have a law that requires all dogs be chipped, it wouldn't be much of a step to include lineage, breed etc in the chip's memory.

Yes, I do think thats a good idea. We have the same mandatory chipping here too, to be done before  8 weeks of age or before sale.

I.C.B does extensive genetic testing, including diversity.

Maybe that could be tied in too, with cheaper council registration for those taking part to reward responsibility instead of punishing every one equally. 

I've been trying to convince the K.Cs they need to recognise cross breeds. That with out doing that, we are all locked in to a process of endless elimination and the only other solution is a value and purpose based registry  specifically to bring those back to Dog breeding, Since those are  lost with out environmental recognition.

 They can't understand that recognition is not the same thing as acceptance into the pedigrees, or why they should recognise cross breeds.  My answer was; You wouldn't even need to ask that question if the K.Cs hadn't stated how they should be treated in the 1st place.

The rules and regulations for registration and inclusion in the registry were already clearly set out, and still would be. That statement was unneeded and added nothing. It took away a lot.

But it seems very few get it no matter how often its explained, we go in circles.

39 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

All the farmers I've known with sheepdogs are all recognisably border collies, and pretty much every episode of "one man and his dog" too, and I doubt there's a pedigree certificate for any of them. Which is exactly my point, it would be relatively easy to compose a regulation to both maintain the health of the dog and satisfy the requirements of everyone.

What would you have in mind?

We have had some pretty good legislation here in the past aimed at welfare, cruelty prevention etc. 

it didn't, of course, stop cruelty or welfare breeches from happening. Many of those were very high profile cases and generated a lot of outrage.  So we have ever more being introduced. Its gone beyond asking people to meet the needs of  dogs, to specifying exactly how that must be done.  Its often  not in the best interests of the dogs. Unless you agree that one standard fits all.

Its driving Dog breeding into a purely commercial enterprise because the sheer amount of red tape for approval, inspections, licencing and infrastructure. 

I've thought the Institute of Canine Biology  and my idea of a purpose and value based registry good mutual support. A finance source for the Institute, science for the registry

12 hours ago, beecee said:

While it's obviously true that some do see owning pedigrees as a status symbol, that most certainly does not apply to me. Every dog I have had, has been a "mate" with whom I spent plenty of time with. And while I agree with some of the sentiments reflected in the OP and in other posts, my attraction to pure breeds in general, has probably been more hand-me down from the days when my parents bred miniature Dachsunds. In fact at this moment I am trialing for a few days, with a young [14 months old] cross breed Foxy and Pug with the possibility of looking after it for a month while the owners go on an overseas holiday. How it gets along with my two Dachys will decide on whether I look after it of course.

I don't think its just pedigrees that many see as a status symbol, or that all pedigree owners do. It just  seems to be getting more common these days.

And there are Pedigree breeders who put everything they can into breeding the best all 'round dogs they can, health test for every genetic disorder there is a test for, doing all within their abilities to do it 'right'. But there are new disorders coming in all the time. A new one causing paralysis in Rottweilers just discovered in Australia.

The institute of canine biology says if it keeps up at its current rate, 100% of dobermans will have a heart condition in 20 years. Testing is often not mandatory and isn't enough even if it were. Because all that can do is reduce the potential gene pool further.

For those who see cross breeds as a solution,  they are at risk too more than ever because these genetic defects are now so common that two very different breeds will often carry the same recessive genes for a disorder. Bad hips and elbows are almost universal to larger breeds and locking patellas in the smaller ones.

In Australia at least, there are very few mutts that haven't a pure breed as recent as a grand parent. Entire Dogs are discouraged through higher registration costs - unless you are a registered breeder.