Im curious. How can a talk about the akitas health happen if the japanese breeders do not test or talk about the problems affecting the breed? @*jackburton* Or have the japanese breeders becoming more open about the dogs people are importing?
A scientist has a scientific method that they follow. For example Linda, you have contributed immensely into Mr. Perdersen's work. You yourself told me that those samples did not separate into JA and AA. So I cannot determine if these findings are effecting AA or JA. I just don't know what population is in dire straits.
A scientist also takes their findings and presents their work to governing bodies to effect policy change. WUAC has yet to get a report from FKC regarding their findings .
So my gripe isn't that Tensai wants to crossbreed - DO IT!!! But you don't get papers for them and Linda if your goal is health dogs Ch pedigrees don't really matter .
To answer your other question I have not had a dog die of an AI disease.
@tensai wrote the following (bolding is added by me):
Nice to hear that you have complains about my dog. If you had asked straight from me about the registration I could have told you that all is done with the Finnish Kennel Club and by their rules. I could have saved you much efforts. The thing is that the Finnish Kennel Club is open for crossbreeding and actually they were very supportive for my import. The registration rule for Akita is that if the dog is registered as Akita in the country of origin you can register it as Akita or American Akita in Finland. The owner decides this.
And yes, my boy have also been genome tested and he have much more diversity than pure JAs and we hope to get some lost genes back to the akita genepool. I have NEVER been hiding my boy's pedigree. And I wonder how this offends you?
Crossing AA to JA is not the best solution for the health problems and that's why we are working also with the Akita crossbreeding project where the crossed breed will most likely be shiba (just because it have the same origin and we have most health data). But this is still ongoing process.
I know you must be all shocked and feeling judgemental but be assured that all is done openly and the thing behind all of this is the health of the dogs. Reason we imported Lemmy is to get some of the lost genes back to Akita genepool. As you might know the genetic diversity is the only help against autoimmune diseases and with Akitas the diversity is really poor. Lemmy have been genome tested by MyDogDNA -test and he shows much higher heterosis than other Akitas. So we are happy about that. I know that there is similar health risks with both Akitas but the key word is genetic diversity and there is a chance that eventually we get the Akita genepool wide enough that we don't get so many sick Akitas.
This thing is really simple. The Finnish Kennel Club allows the registration of blends and the owner can choose the breed for registration . It can also be changed by the owner after on with show judge approval. The Finnish Kennel Club is very open for crossbreeding for health and genetic reasons and it is one of the most progressive Kennel Clubs in the world in health issues. My boy's registration is done with the advices from the Finnish Kennel Club and they surely know that his mother's side is American type.
This is also really simple in other ways. If this offends you, stay away from our lines and our work because we are trying to widen the Akita genepool in the small ways we can and make the health situation better . You might not see this now, but maybe in time you will see the bigger picture. For now I wish all the best in your way of doing things and I hope you can honor our tries. Though I am rather flattered that some people tracks my doings with such enthusiasm.
If you have more questions about my dogs or my doings, pleace contact me with email or make a new topic for this, so we don't make this totally off topic. Thank you.
Just speaking as an outsider to akita politics, but there are a few points of clarification that would be nice.
1) You speak about lost genes, but how many akitas have had their genetic profile registered? How many have been tested? Is this speaking strictly about Finland or are you speaking about JA the world over? While the assertion makes sense generally, I'm finding that taking it at face value without the actual data (and with the statistics calculated properly) a bit difficult.
2) the FKC allows the registration of blends? I'm a bit confused as to how this isn't a violation of FCI rules.
3) why use the AA? If you are outcrossing with another breed (and according to FCI the AA is a wholly separate breed) for the purposes of health concerns, why choose the AA? You said yourself that it is not the best choice if health is the primary concern. Why not gather the data and the materials and register to do an outcross with a breed that does not share similar health issues? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that make the most sense if health is the priority? If this is the step being taken because it doesn't violate FKC rules (even though it does violate FCI) I just really don't think that's a compelling reason.
4) have any of the loci for AI and SA diseases been located? Or is it still at the stage of fumbling in the dark, but figuring that widening the gene pool will always be helpful? I'd be interested in hearing about the other approaches that have been taken in addition to this one in approaching these health issues.
I congratulate Saija on her knowledge of canine genetics and population genetics, That is something necessary to see clearly. I wish that more unhealthy breeds would cross, for a generation or more. In Chinooks in the UKC, they started a cross breeding program as there were 11 founders in the reconstituted breed. From friends that breed JA's and AA's I don't think either are healthy breeds. I think the Akita Breed is the walking dead if people stick to their religious views of their dogs. I am a supporter of the FKC.
At first, I saw this, and thought you were open to an actual logical argument.
This is an argument between science and religion.
Then I saw this bs and realized, no, you're just back on the forum to support your friend's dubious breeding practice, and are not, actually, trying to participate in an actual discussion.
Actually, pretty much Violet_in_Seville has addressed many of my issues above, but the fact is, if you (the people who support this cross breeding) are so concerned about the health of the breed, then WHY are you breeding JAs to AAs, which, given the dire state of the breed(s) according to you, would not in fact help the health of the breed? And then why Shibas? Do you people actually know anything about Shibas? Do you have any idea how unhealthy they are becoming as a breed? Do you know that Shibas suffer from many of the same things that Akitas do? Or are you focused only on one particular disease? Crossing Akitas with Shibas to improve the health (of either breed) is not a sound idea at all.
Of course I want healthier dogs, but if outcrossing is necessary, it should be done in a way that makes sense.
As for people living with dogs with health problems, I'm not sure it's relevent to this discussion in this way: whether you live with a dog with a health issue or not is not going to predict how you'll weigh in on this issue. I live with an Akita with several serious health issues, of course (as well as having had one Shiba with horrible health issues, and one now with moderate health issues). I'm still not in favor of this because I don't believe it is done in a way that makes sense, but more to the point, what I find problematic in the breeding world is dishonesty and underhandedness, and registering a dog as something it is not is dishonest. That, to me, is another huge problem with this--the underhandedness of this in the first place.
eta: and part of the reason I feel so strongly about this is because I DO have dog with orthopedic issues, and with autoimmune problems, and because I also had to deal with less than forthcoming and honest breeders.
I'd also go back to what Tara said....it seems to me that this ill-considered and not entirely above board plan must be terrible for the parent club, and then the FKC in general.
@hotarujishin (Britain Hill since you have removed your signature) @lwroth I don't think that you are getting the major point here. Finland is a split country. This dog is an American Akita registered as a Japanese Akita. Fine do your little tests. Hopefully the pups are healthy. I would never wish any dog ill will, but don't register the pups as being purebred when they are not.
@lwroth You state that someone else deleted this dog's pedigree. It sounds like you know who. Could you please enlighten us? I'd like to know who else would mess with someone else's dog's pedigree. What would be their motive to clearly only delete the American Akita ancestors?
Also @lwroth since you probably are our forum expert. Are you finding that the tweenies here in the US are healthier than other Akitas? Is the blending improving the breed? I'm being sincere in my question.
Simple logic can tell you that blending doesn't improve the health of the breed. There are only two options:
(a) If both populations are unhealthy, then blending has no benefit or
(b) If one population is healthier than the other, then the unhealthy population benefits to the detriment of the healthy population. In other words, you may raise the average of the unhealthy population, but in so doing lower the average of the healthy one. (This only applies as long as the resulting offspring are registered as the same breed.)
*Jack Burton,* your comment that this is just an attempt to introduce tweenies into FCI is shameful. How many Akitas with incurable AI or orthopedic problems have you lived with?
I live with an American bred 4 1/2 year old Kai who has major orthopedic issues. I've spent $15k just to make him walk again. I had to coax him out of bed this morning because his arthritis is painful when the mornings get cold. I have to lift him onto the bed and into the car. This is a breed that should be able to jump, spin, and run and sadly Koda can not do any of that. In his 4 years of life, he has had to spend over 9 months living in expens and on 20 pills a day after his surgeries. He has had to live for a year of his life restricted to the home or just on a leash to potty and go back in.
I am an advocate for breed health, and I encourage any Kai owner/breeder to purchase Kais that have now been mixed back in with Japanese Kai Ken. I support any breeder who is working on bringing back the breed to where it should be. I know many American Kais bred from Koda's lines who have the same issues. Their owners privately message me all the time.
What I am not a proponent of here is creating tweenies and registering them as Japanese Akitas in a country where the breeds have been split. Let's get over the fact that I really don't think that Dr. Pedersen's study even touched on the subject of breeding tweenies would bring back Akita health. Oh by the way, he assisted me in finding Koda's UC Davis ortho surgeon.
But really can you say that it is proper to register mixed dogs as Japanese Akitas? You never seem to answer that question. No one does. Britain @hotarujishin how about you? Do you think it's right to register this dog as a JA when he is clearly not? You may support her @Tensai's efforts. Ok we can accept that. But do you think that it's right to pedigree a mixed lineage dog as a purebred JA? That would be very shocking to me if you did. But I would love to hear the answer from the both of you.
Then I saw this bs and realized, no, you're just back on the forum to support your friend's dubious breeding practice, and are not, actually, trying to participate in an actual discussion.
For me, I hear accusation and righteous indignation from the JA humans. I feel differently than you. Is that okay? You can breed as you please. I'm not accusing you of damaging a breed. I am retired from this conversation. Heard it too many times and now I feel the thread is contaminated. I'm sorry.
@hotarujishin So you do. I'm glad you came out and said it. That was very authentic. But just because you live in a country that hasn't split the breeds- an AKC decision, which baffles me because you said earlier that you don't support the AKC....I digress- doesn't mean that you should support a lie. I mean your friend is knowingly lying and you think that's ok for the sake of what a breeding experiment?
I was always taught that if you see an injustice and you say nothing, then you are a part of it. If you see your friend lying, then you should say hey listen don't lie tell the truth. If you don't then you are a part of that lie.
I'm really surprised at this. I mean you question your other friend's breeding practices *cough Shikoku* on other forums. Why wouldn't you question this one? You seem to present yourself as having higher ethics than that.
Think what you'd like about me. Declare your accusations. Regarding Shikokus, I will not publicly condemned my friends' practices, but the beauty part is that I can think whatever I want! I've learned one thing that the longer one is part of a breed, trying to learn more about a breed the more I learn. I would prefer not to publicly accuse my friends whatever they do and however much I may disagree. And I would prefer not to be accused of the heinous crimes you have accused me of. Over and out.
@hotarujishin I don't think you get my point. I'm not accusing you of "heinous crimes". I said that you were supporting a lie. Having this AA registered as a JA is a lie. I would hope that you would see that and tell your friend "hey don't lie".
I'm not really trying to get into the politics, but... as far as breeding for a healthier Akita, I do have to ask why a complete cross to a similar, unrelated breed wouldn't be the first choice.
For Akita (JA or AA), I automatically think "use a Malamute" (I'm not as well versed in genetics, maybe, but it seems like the Malamute population is fairly healthy - or different health issues - in the grand scheme, has many individuals to choose from, and has a similar appearance/size), if the idea is to breed a healthier dog... unless the breeding program has an ulterior motive. In this case, it seems like crossbreeding to produce "healthier" dogs AND trying to register dogs as purebred/pedigreed AND produce dogs that can be shown/titled.
I am all for a healthier dog. I don't think anyone here is against them... but if your plan is, truly, to breed a healthier Akita, why not introduce a completely unrelated dog instead?
I'm not trying to be judgmental - I'm genuinely interested in this issue from both sides.
I'm not really trying to get into the politics, but... as far as breeding for a healthier Akita, I do have to ask why a complete cross to a similar, unrelated breed wouldn't be the first choice.
For Akita (JA or AA), I automatically think "use a Malamute" (I'm not as well versed in genetics, maybe, but it seems like the Malamute population is fairly healthy - or different health issues - in the grand scheme, has many individuals to choose from, and has a similar appearance/size), if the idea is to breed a healthier dog... unless the breeding program has an ulterior motive. In this case, it seems like crossbreeding to produce "healthier" dogs AND trying to register dogs as purebred/pedigreed AND produce dogs that can be shown/titled.
LoL @Crispy, I was thinking similar except using Sibes since I know little of the general health in Mals. Using a spitz breed that has been well established in a country that utilizes health tests and has had most of the 'kinks' worked out would be a better benefit than a breed that still needs some work to it.
And for the record, I don't even have a JA. I have an AA, a Shiba, and a Kai Ken. So I'm certainly not some disgruntled "JA human."
And I don't actually see any attempt to have a discussion here: instead of saying I disagree and here's why (which might be useful) or answering questions (this is why we're trying JA/AA crosses, or Shibas), instead we see evasion and defensiveness and even some offensiveness (the science and religion comment).
An actual discussion is still possible I think. This started badly because of what some of us perceive as deception, but an explanation of what the purpose of this outcrossing is could still happen. The more people refuse to discuss, the more it seems like this is not, in fact, all above board.
And yeah, I'd still like to know why not another spitz?
@ayk - do you know much about the answer to my question number four? I'm curious to know how many of the genes or gene factors (not sure which is correct her, maybe plain haploids?) have been identified and located.
It seems like you have a strong background in genetics based on past posts so I'm also curious if a project to diversify a gene pool would require some background in both genetics and population genetics. As someone not in the akita world I'm more interested in the actual data on genetics and the impact on health. It seems like a lot of data, a pretty extensive background in genetics and population genetics (collectively) would all be very important components of successful implementation. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
Just found the thread I was looking for about diversifying genetic pool. Does anyone have a similar background to EdK who sadly no longer seems to frequent the board?
4) have any of the loci for AI and SA diseases been located? Or is it still at the stage of fumbling in the dark, but figuring that widening the gene pool will always be helpful? I'd be interested in hearing about the other approaches that have been taken in addition to this one in approaching these health issues.
Sebaceous Adenitis has not been located according to the AKC Canine Health Foundation. They've tried to find it with poodles with no luck. Now they're trying Havanese.
The Uveodermatologic syndrome (VKH-like syndrome) has not been located according to this pdf. They were examining DLA class II haploids and they only found risk factors (ie. not predictive enough).
I was reading up on several links earlier today and I can't find the one that said DLA class I haploids were not researched because it was too expensive to do. Instead, there is an inference that DLA class I and DLA class II are usually bundled together and so the results of the DLA class II would match the results of the DLA class I.
Myself, as a layman who haven't taken an immunology class in over a decade, I would ask why not examine the DLA class I? What if DLA class I becomes disassociated with DLA class II, and that the DLA class I is where the disease haploid lies? In other words, the DLA class II acts as a poor marker for the disease?
violet_in_seville also asked,
I'm also curious if a project to diversify a gene pool would require some background in both genetics and population genetics. As someone not in the akita world I'm more interested in the actual data on genetics and the impact on health. It seems like a lot of data, a pretty extensive background in genetics and population genetics (collectively) would all be very important components of successful implementation. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
I don't think it necessarily requires a high level of expertise so that it's out of the reach of the folks on the forum. Given enough review articles and websites that explains things in normal English, a layman can get the big concepts that are important.
I don't think a person really needs to know what DNA primers are used or memorize a haploid name. And with modern software programs, there's no need to tear down the raw data oneself.
Myself, my eyes glaze when I come across too many capital letters and jargon in articles. ;-p I read the intro, gloss through the experimental (not getting discourage when not understanding every nugget), and concentrate on the conclusion.
*Jack Burton,* your comment that this is just an attempt to introduce tweenies into FCI is shameful. How many Akitas with incurable AI or orthopedic problems have you lived with?
Linda, I was going to let this die off but I just can't. Funny thing, I had an email chat talking about registration. The person is pro-one Akita and at one point flat out said "well I know people working away those registration rules." That conversation was in mid-2012. So that is what I mean about introducing tweenies and I stand by it.
As far as having an akita with incurable AI, I haven't gone through it.
I just want to say that I don't think any member of this community wants there to be serious health issues in any of the breeds. People may have different ideas of how best to approach the problem but everyone supports the idea of having a healthy breed population (whatever the breed). Suggesting otherwise is a straw man at best, and disingenuous at worst.
I also don't think that having lived or worked with with a dog with debilitating health issues means that any particular person is more qualified to discuss the issue. Not having a sick dog does not preclude someone from having a coherent discussion. We're adults. We should all be capable of empathy.
I'll quote from @crispy because she articulated my primary question beautifully.
I'm not really trying to get into the politics, but... as far as breeding for a healthier Akita, I do have to ask why a complete cross to a similar, unrelated breed wouldn't be the first choice.
[snip] I am all for a healthier dog. I don't think anyone here is against them... but if your plan is, truly, to breed a healthier Akita, why not introduce a completely unrelated dog instead?
I'm not trying to be judgmental - I'm genuinely interested in this issue from both sides.
I am not involved in Akitas at all (I have no horse in this race), however, if people are claiming to use science, then I would like to see this science. All I've seen is reference to a scant amount of raw data and some anecdotal evidence.
A common mistake made by laypeople is thinking that data is science. For instance, getting a handful of dogs genetically tested is not science - it's collecting data. Reading on genetics and supposing that mixing two populations will improve the genetic health of both populations is not science, or a conclusion at all. It's an untested hypothesis. It doesn't even necessarily correlate to the (insufficient) amount of data. There's no way to know, the data hasn't been processed. No one has even determined if there's a difference in genetic health between tweenies, JAs, and AAs. Even if there was, has it been determined that the difference is statistically significant (falling outside the margin of error and rejecting the null hypothesis)? Suppose a correlation were found, one must then prove a causative relationship. See, there are several missing steps between the facts we have and the conclusion that's been jumped to.
That is science - careful, methodical, tedious analysing of loads and loads of data. No "science" has been done here. Given that fact, I see no moral imperative that JAs and AAs be mixed and can only conclude that people who do so are doing it because they want to, plain and simple.
I am all for a healthier dog. I don't think anyone here is against them... but if your plan is, truly, to breed a healthier Akita, why not introduce a completely unrelated dog instead?
I would say two things. 1) There's no evidence to suggest that it would help (the best you can say is that it might help, but then again, it might make things worse; without evidence, there's no saying). 2) Even if it did help, there's no reason to think that the same result couldn't be reached by staying within the established breed.
Lots of things might work, but that's not a reason to do them. I might win the lottery if I buy a ticket, but I still don't buy them. I will definitely lose the money I spent on the ticket. In this analogy, the price of a lottery ticket is breed purity and the reward is a minute chance of improving the breed's health slightly more efficiently than if there were no outcrossing.
And forget the fact that science hasn't been used determined this cross will help, science hasn't even been used to determine that there is an endemic problem!
Besides, if people want to mix dogs because they think its healthier, fine, I have no problem with that (whether they're right or wrong). The issue is the false registration as one breed or another. Its not only blends that are being registered incorrectly, but purebred JA or AA imports registered as the opposite breed.
Comments
A scientist also takes their findings and presents their work to governing bodies to effect policy change. WUAC has yet to get a report from FKC regarding their findings .
So my gripe isn't that Tensai wants to crossbreed - DO IT!!! But you don't get papers for them and Linda if your goal is health dogs Ch pedigrees don't really matter .
To answer your other question I have not had a dog die of an AI disease.
Just speaking as an outsider to akita politics, but there are a few points of clarification that would be nice.
1) You speak about lost genes, but how many akitas have had their genetic profile registered? How many have been tested? Is this speaking strictly about Finland or are you speaking about JA the world over? While the assertion makes sense generally, I'm finding that taking it at face value without the actual data (and with the statistics calculated properly) a bit difficult.
2) the FKC allows the registration of blends? I'm a bit confused as to how this isn't a violation of FCI rules.
3) why use the AA? If you are outcrossing with another breed (and according to FCI the AA is a wholly separate breed) for the purposes of health concerns, why choose the AA? You said yourself that it is not the best choice if health is the primary concern. Why not gather the data and the materials and register to do an outcross with a breed that does not share similar health issues? Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't that make the most sense if health is the priority? If this is the step being taken because it doesn't violate FKC rules (even though it does violate FCI) I just really don't think that's a compelling reason.
4) have any of the loci for AI and SA diseases been located? Or is it still at the stage of fumbling in the dark, but figuring that widening the gene pool will always be helpful? I'd be interested in hearing about the other approaches that have been taken in addition to this one in approaching these health issues.
Actually, pretty much Violet_in_Seville has addressed many of my issues above, but the fact is, if you (the people who support this cross breeding) are so concerned about the health of the breed, then WHY are you breeding JAs to AAs, which, given the dire state of the breed(s) according to you, would not in fact help the health of the breed? And then why Shibas? Do you people actually know anything about Shibas? Do you have any idea how unhealthy they are becoming as a breed? Do you know that Shibas suffer from many of the same things that Akitas do? Or are you focused only on one particular disease? Crossing Akitas with Shibas to improve the health (of either breed) is not a sound idea at all.
Of course I want healthier dogs, but if outcrossing is necessary, it should be done in a way that makes sense.
As for people living with dogs with health problems, I'm not sure it's relevent to this discussion in this way: whether you live with a dog with a health issue or not is not going to predict how you'll weigh in on this issue. I live with an Akita with several serious health issues, of course (as well as having had one Shiba with horrible health issues, and one now with moderate health issues). I'm still not in favor of this because I don't believe it is done in a way that makes sense, but more to the point, what I find problematic in the breeding world is dishonesty and underhandedness, and registering a dog as something it is not is dishonest. That, to me, is another huge problem with this--the underhandedness of this in the first place.
eta: and part of the reason I feel so strongly about this is because I DO have dog with orthopedic issues, and with autoimmune problems, and because I also had to deal with less than forthcoming and honest breeders.
I'd also go back to what Tara said....it seems to me that this ill-considered and not entirely above board plan must be terrible for the parent club, and then the FKC in general.
@lwroth You state that someone else deleted this dog's pedigree. It sounds like you know who. Could you please enlighten us? I'd like to know who else would mess with someone else's dog's pedigree. What would be their motive to clearly only delete the American Akita ancestors?
Also @lwroth since you probably are our forum expert. Are you finding that the tweenies here in the US are healthier than other Akitas? Is the blending improving the breed? I'm being sincere in my question.
(a) If both populations are unhealthy, then blending has no benefit or
(b) If one population is healthier than the other, then the unhealthy population benefits to the detriment of the healthy population. In other words, you may raise the average of the unhealthy population, but in so doing lower the average of the healthy one. (This only applies as long as the resulting offspring are registered as the same breed.)
I am an advocate for breed health, and I encourage any Kai owner/breeder to purchase Kais that have now been mixed back in with Japanese Kai Ken. I support any breeder who is working on bringing back the breed to where it should be. I know many American Kais bred from Koda's lines who have the same issues. Their owners privately message me all the time.
What I am not a proponent of here is creating tweenies and registering them as Japanese Akitas in a country where the breeds have been split. Let's get over the fact that I really don't think that Dr. Pedersen's study even touched on the subject of breeding tweenies would bring back Akita health. Oh by the way, he assisted me in finding Koda's UC Davis ortho surgeon.
But really can you say that it is proper to register mixed dogs as Japanese Akitas? You never seem to answer that question. No one does. Britain @hotarujishin how about you? Do you think it's right to register this dog as a JA when he is clearly not? You may support her @Tensai's efforts. Ok we can accept that. But do you think that it's right to pedigree a mixed lineage dog as a purebred JA? That would be very shocking to me if you did. But I would love to hear the answer from the both of you.
I feel differently than you. Is that okay? You can breed as you please. I'm not accusing you of damaging a breed.
I am retired from this conversation. Heard it too many times and now I feel the thread is contaminated. I'm sorry.
I was always taught that if you see an injustice and you say nothing, then you are a part of it. If you see your friend lying, then you should say hey listen don't lie tell the truth. If you don't then you are a part of that lie.
I'm really surprised at this. I mean you question your other friend's breeding practices *cough Shikoku* on other forums. Why wouldn't you question this one? You seem to present yourself as having higher ethics than that.
For Akita (JA or AA), I automatically think "use a Malamute" (I'm not as well versed in genetics, maybe, but it seems like the Malamute population is fairly healthy - or different health issues - in the grand scheme, has many individuals to choose from, and has a similar appearance/size), if the idea is to breed a healthier dog... unless the breeding program has an ulterior motive. In this case, it seems like crossbreeding to produce "healthier" dogs AND trying to register dogs as purebred/pedigreed AND produce dogs that can be shown/titled.
I am all for a healthier dog. I don't think anyone here is against them... but if your plan is, truly, to breed a healthier Akita, why not introduce a completely unrelated dog instead?
I'm not trying to be judgmental - I'm genuinely interested in this issue from both sides.
http://www.akitaclub.org/health/pdf-files/uvangles.pdf
I'm wondering, why not breed away from the DLA haploid (DLA-DQA1*00201) that has a high risk factor for one of the autoimmune diseases, UV?
There are such a thing as a bad DLA haploid ...
And I don't actually see any attempt to have a discussion here: instead of saying I disagree and here's why (which might be useful) or answering questions (this is why we're trying JA/AA crosses, or Shibas), instead we see evasion and defensiveness and even some offensiveness (the science and religion comment).
An actual discussion is still possible I think. This started badly because of what some of us perceive as deception, but an explanation of what the purpose of this outcrossing is could still happen. The more people refuse to discuss, the more it seems like this is not, in fact, all above board.
And yeah, I'd still like to know why not another spitz?
It seems like you have a strong background in genetics based on past posts so I'm also curious if a project to diversify a gene pool would require some background in both genetics and population genetics. As someone not in the akita world I'm more interested in the actual data on genetics and the impact on health. It seems like a lot of data, a pretty extensive background in genetics and population genetics (collectively) would all be very important components of successful implementation. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts.
Just found the thread I was looking for about diversifying genetic pool. Does anyone have a similar background to EdK who sadly no longer seems to frequent the board?
http://www.nihonken.org/forum/index.php?p=/discussion/7059/a-thought-on-the-shikoku039s-decline-in-japan-#Item_74
http://www.akcchf.org/research/funded-research/1586.html
The Uveodermatologic syndrome (VKH-like syndrome) has not been located according to this pdf. They were examining DLA class II haploids and they only found risk factors (ie. not predictive enough).
http://www.akitaclub.org/health/pdf-files/uvangles.pdf
I was reading up on several links earlier today and I can't find the one that said DLA class I haploids were not researched because it was too expensive to do. Instead, there is an inference that DLA class I and DLA class II are usually bundled together and so the results of the DLA class II would match the results of the DLA class I.
Myself, as a layman who haven't taken an immunology class in over a decade, I would ask why not examine the DLA class I? What if DLA class I becomes disassociated with DLA class II, and that the DLA class I is where the disease haploid lies? In other words, the DLA class II acts as a poor marker for the disease?
violet_in_seville also asked, I don't think it necessarily requires a high level of expertise so that it's out of the reach of the folks on the forum. Given enough review articles and websites that explains things in normal English, a layman can get the big concepts that are important.
I don't think a person really needs to know what DNA primers are used or memorize a haploid name. And with modern software programs, there's no need to tear down the raw data oneself.
Myself, my eyes glaze when I come across too many capital letters and jargon in articles. ;-p I read the intro, gloss through the experimental (not getting discourage when not understanding every nugget), and concentrate on the conclusion.
As far as having an akita with incurable AI, I haven't gone through it.
I also don't think that having lived or worked with with a dog with debilitating health issues means that any particular person is more qualified to discuss the issue. Not having a sick dog does not preclude someone from having a coherent discussion. We're adults. We should all be capable of empathy.
I'll quote from @crispy because she articulated my primary question beautifully. [edited for grammar and syntax]
A common mistake made by laypeople is thinking that data is science. For instance, getting a handful of dogs genetically tested is not science - it's collecting data. Reading on genetics and supposing that mixing two populations will improve the genetic health of both populations is not science, or a conclusion at all. It's an untested hypothesis. It doesn't even necessarily correlate to the (insufficient) amount of data. There's no way to know, the data hasn't been processed. No one has even determined if there's a difference in genetic health between tweenies, JAs, and AAs. Even if there was, has it been determined that the difference is statistically significant (falling outside the margin of error and rejecting the null hypothesis)? Suppose a correlation were found, one must then prove a causative relationship. See, there are several missing steps between the facts we have and the conclusion that's been jumped to.
That is science - careful, methodical, tedious analysing of loads and loads of data. No "science" has been done here. Given that fact, I see no moral imperative that JAs and AAs be mixed and can only conclude that people who do so are doing it because they want to, plain and simple.
Lots of things might work, but that's not a reason to do them. I might win the lottery if I buy a ticket, but I still don't buy them. I will definitely lose the money I spent on the ticket. In this analogy, the price of a lottery ticket is breed purity and the reward is a minute chance of improving the breed's health slightly more efficiently than if there were no outcrossing.
My skeptic is a little more pleased.
Here's one short slide that introduces the differences between MHC class I and MHC class II.
http://www.slideshare.net/hknodle/mhc-general-information
And forget the fact that science hasn't been used determined this cross will help, science hasn't even been used to determine that there is an endemic problem!
Besides, if people want to mix dogs because they think its healthier, fine, I have no problem with that (whether they're right or wrong). The issue is the false registration as one breed or another. Its not only blends that are being registered incorrectly, but purebred JA or AA imports registered as the opposite breed.