>However, I have a harder time understanding the essential difference in
>breeding strategies for ferrets compared to, for example, dogs or cats
>or rabbits or cattle or gerbils or horses or sheep or mice or chickens
>or snakes or goats or pigs or rats--none of whom are expected to be
>re-introduced into the wild as a self-sustaining population. The
>purposes of domesticated breeding programs range from the purely
>cosmetic (e.g., cats) to temperament and "use" (e.g., dogs) to direct
>human nutrition (e.g., cattle).
I think What Bob C was trying to say ( and not to put words in his mouth)
BUT,
The differences between breeding (rebreeding) wild animals to be
re-released in the wild, and domesticated animals, is that the wild
animals need to retain their original genetic diversity, however,
domesticated animals are so obviously "bred" by humans for certain trait,
that they will almost definitely undergo changes in the skeletal
structure ( at the very least)....
That said, domesticated animals such as horses/sheep/cattle are
deliberately bred for health/robustness/and future generations ( yes,
the amount of meat/wool/income generating aspects, are part of it)...
but, in order to get the most benefit, the animals need to be healthy!
whereas, animals bred for "pets" only have to be "cute" to be commercial.
The author mentions pet dogs, and those breeds such as poodles ( no
offence to poodle owners, and I know poodles were bred for hunting) ,
but, when you consider the amount of health problems that working/hunting
dogs have, as opposed to those breeds simply bred for "looks", or to be
lapdogs, fancy breeds, miniatures, etc, then you may consider, that
modifying the skull and/or skeletal structure of a domesticated animal,
just for "looks" or domesticity, may be unwise.
The ferret has been bred for domesticity for thousands of years, and it's
skeletal structure, and skull shape, has already been modified by that
process, but, they were bred as "working animals", so health was a high
priority..
Breeding now, today, for colors, fluffy fur, "bug eyes" or many of the
other sometimes bizarre traits that dogs were bred for, can and most
probably will result in changes to their most basic of genetic
structures, and their skull shapes and skeletal structure, (among many
other aspect) and it will (quite possibly) result in many similar
problems that "fancy" dog breeds now have..such as hip dysplasia,
respiratory problems, (eyes that pop out when they sneeze) etc etc etc.
The thing to remember about breeding strategies, is..
How long a life to those "fancy" chickens have ? How many health
problems will your "PUG" dog have ? Why are there so many "animal shows"
around the country ? is it for the betterment of the animals ? or for
the "breeder" of weird screwed up "show pieces"
OH ! look at my show piece.., it has extra long feathers , and a really
red beak... mmm.. shame it is a dog..
so, yes while I agree with some of the arguments, mm.. yes a person in a
apartment may prefer a poodle over a saint Bernard.. But please remember
that many of the dog breeds today have been bred for "looks" not health,
and as such have many health issues that should never have been
introduced in the first place...
I am hoping that we in the 21st century are above our less educated
forefathers, and will not breed for "looks", and not end up with
something called a "miniature, long tailed, snub-nosed, popeyed, (very
short-lived, with enormous vet bills) ferret.
Darrin
[Posted in FML issue 4678]
|
