If you could clone a dog from the past. What dog would it be?
https://youtu.be/DmHYUvmiXQI
Printable View
If you could clone a dog from the past. What dog would it be?
https://youtu.be/DmHYUvmiXQI
Kemmer's Macho.
I wouldn't clone a dog from the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chase1
That is pretty fascinating.
If I could get one dog back and clone, it would probably be Hollingsworth's Miss Trinx.
She came to me dying, had only 1 pup in her first breeding (Ch Barbarian), and only 3 pups when I got her before she died (Poncho, Missy, Ruby).
Her legacy has carried pretty far, from only 4 pups ever born, the last one in 1992, and I am pretty sure that if I could get her back as a pup, feed her raw her whole life, so she could have lots of pups, and if I make consistent selective breedings with her, I am positive she would have been an incredible producer.
Jack
Just because you clone michael jordan or lebron james doesnt mean youll get the best basketball player in history. The thought is very fascinating but the chance youd get the exact same outcome seems not very likely. But.....if it was the case id bring back my ch elwood. Only got one litter off him. Id like to hear from folks who may have tried cloning. Seems like some folks in china or japan or maybe korea may have tried this.
Environmental factors will determine the outcome of your clone sure. But it is a clone, genetically identical... So the producing ability is more important and less likely to be affected in such a way by environmental factors(how it has been raised, trauma, etc)Quote:
Originally Posted by ChinCheckKennels
I would want the egg doner and surrogate mother to be provided by myself.
It would be very interesting to clone a superb bulldog like Gr Ch Titere and see what you get.
From my understanding, you have to use tissue from a living dog. I should watch the video but my computer is not currently set up to see videos.
I get that black hand and trust me if i knew i would get exactly what i have from cloning it may e id look into a bit more. But what im saying is even if you make an exact replica of dog A it doesnt mean dog Ax is gonna do what dog A did. Back to my original example of the black cat michael jordan. Say he wanted to use his elite athletic ability to play baseball right out the gate instead of balling. Environmental or not, each individual has its own mind body and soul and that you cannot clone. You clone for the genetics not said dog or whatever. Its an interesting debate. i just think if you cloned say...tietre. I think itd be hard pressed that hound accomplishes a fraction of tietre.
True.Quote:
Originally Posted by ChinCheckKennels
Maybe knowing what you know now of the make up of that dog helps you take it further than the original... Just as it can take a turn for the worst, you also have the upper hand to make a turn for the better as you are much more knowledgable about what you have.
-
Sitting in a baby Michael Jordan and knowing it could make all the difference.
It's being done in the performance horse industry. They have been more than a few cutting horses cloned in hopes of replicating an outstanding individual. As it would be with the dogs, all of the genetic make up would be the same, but ability is the question. Just because you are a clone does not guarantee the ability possessed will be carried along. Interesting none the least, but is it really worth the trouble? If it's a male, you can damn near have him live forever if you were to store enough semen for your future plans.
If we aren't expecting a clone to have the same abilities...
Why are we expecting a linebred dog to have the same abilities?
You will never come as close as a clone.
While nothing in life is guaranteed; I don't think it's one person on here who hasn't looked at a ped like THESE SHOULD BE GOOD! And that's without even knowing what the dogs genetic make up is in reality. With a clone, you are certain.
The only cloned dog I saw, previous to this video, came out a different color from the original dog.
The woman sold her home to pay for the "resurrection" of her beloved pet, and it didn't even look like the original :confused:
Either there is a lot of work that still has to be done in cloning science or that woman was defrauded.
They cashed her $40,000 check and went to the pound to get her replacement :lol:
I'm no scientist, but I wouldn't think that you are getting the complete reincarnation of an animal. True the genetic make up is the same, but the measurement of this animals heart and desire can not be reborn. Even as a clone, the dog would be an individual. Know any identical twins that are not as good as one another? One a little faster, and the other a little more athletic? Look at litters of dogs, rebreedings, and inbreedings. You are locking in a certain set of characteristics, but you don't get every littermate being exactly the same. I could be dead wrong, but I just don't believe you will have the same ability in a clone as the original. Could be better, or it could be worse. One thing I do know is the clone would have the best of everything because of its predecessor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Hand
In a post I made earlier one particular individual told me I shouldn't assume anything about these dogs, and breedings. If one is not to assume, and or hope to create something particular, what is the point of breeding?
Litter mates are not the same as clones, not even remotely as they are coming from different sperm cells and different eggs. In the clones case, all the genetic material is being placed there and will be identical. The twins is a good argument, but they differ for the same reason a clone will. And it is because of genetic mutation after the egg splits into two. The clone can also experience some small genetic mutation. My biggest fear with the clone would be traces of mitochondrial DNA from the donor and environmental impact the surrogate mother might have on them. That's why would I prefer to have my own bitches egg and own surrogate who was very closely related to the dog being cloned. It wouldn't sit well with me knowing a labradoodle egg was used for the process and a cockspaniel was the surrogate mother. He might come out a little quirky after that lolQuote:
Originally Posted by HAMMER49
Seems like cheating to me. :-? I mean why clone what was instead of creating what will be?
A big part of a dog's worth in our fraternity hinges a lot on who, what, when, why and where....sure the dog's genetics play a role, but if not in the right hands things may not get realized. So unless you clone Ken Allen and Tornado don't expect the same results.
S_B
Ken Allen and tornado are actually great example of why cloning could be beneficial. A lot of focus is on the performance side, but I really don't know too many people who would spend that kind of money to clone an already great dog only to risk losing it. Tornado was not bred much, most of her career revolved around performance. We also really don't know the prolonged effect anabolics had on her either. Hence, there is not much tornado blood around. Had she been cloned, tornado dogs may have a very different place in today's world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by S_B
Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Hand
I have to agree with S_B.
I would think that a better program could be created by line-/inbreeding on Tornado than by cloning.
And certainly cheaper :lol:
What would you rather do?
Spend $40,000 on cloning "one" IMPERFECT Tornado ...
Or ...
Breed Tornado back to her daddy one heat (and get 6-8 pups) ... back to her half-brother the next heat (and get 6-8 pups) ... and then to her baddest, most-close SONS after that? :-?
I would say any dogman would be WAY further along "preserving Tornado" that way, by making key family breedings with her, than by getting "one" (alleged) clone of her.
FACT: Ultimately, you have to do BREEDINGS to preserve traits :idea:
Even in a best case scenario, spending $40,000 for "one" pup (that might die of parvo, get bit by a snake, etc.) will NEVER be as effective as quality breeding management :idea:
You get MORE pups (options, etc.) by making BREEDINGS than you do by spending a small fortune to clone "a" dog.
Jack
PS: Tornado's traits were lost because Ken Allen wasn't a breeder, he was a dog fighter.
Let me add something:
Would Fletcher Chavis and David Tant have done a better job creating their bloodlines "cloning" Yellow John and Yellow ... or did they do just fine by LINE- and INBREEDING on them? ;)
Jack
I do not think it has to be one VS the other. You can use both simultaneously. I would prefer to use on a female since you can breed the balls off a male and freeze his semen if need be. But a female, much more limited.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
I personally think the biggest and only downfall would be that maybe certain people would find themselves stuck instead of advancing their program and moving forward, getting better and better. Breeding from the same source of genes for quarter century, not really getting better or worse.
True.Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Hand
I think cloning is unnecessary, and could even be looked at as stagnating.
Which is the definition of stagnating :-?Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Hand
I say, you can breed for traits ... forever ... and you will always enjoy different, unique animals ... with those same basic traits, but with their own twist.
But "clone and clone" and you are going nowhere.
Boring & unimaginative, IMO>
Yes, stagnating is a great way to describe it.
What fun would it really be to have the same dogs over and over? It reminds me of the movie Butterfly Effect in the sense that one would be continuously trying to make better decisions with the dog each time they cloned it.
I can respect someone else's passions, but mine is what's next not what was.
S_B
Jack if you could have your dog's over, would you do things different?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BULLDOG ANONYMOUS
If I could take my experience now, and go back in time, I would have done almost everything different.
First of all, I would have bought Miss Trinx a year previous to when I did. I would have also bought Molly, the sister to Dolly. Those would have been my two foundation (¾-Lady In Red) bitches.
And finally, I would have bought the double-Lady In Red male Dr. Savage, instead of Truman, and utilized this trio to build my foundation.
If I would have got those 3 dogs from North Carolina, I could have interbred the best, most competitive "pure Hollingsworth" dogs possible.
Then, here, in CA, I would have bred to these 2 males, exclusively: Ch Hammer and Rambo for my Eli + Carver "crosses."
And finally, I also would have also bought Bolio Jr. and Mars, when I had the chance, to keep the same basic Hollingsworth blood "pure" ... but through different, exceptional, local resources.
Jack
PS: It's kinda similar to what happened, historically, ... but I think it would have been better, and more concentrated.
I get the emotional attachment side but I just don't see the logic in it unless you've lost almost everything from that family of dogs and they were the best that you've ever touched. I've always felt that if a dog didn't produce something worthy of breeding to and moving forward with, it wasn't worth the effort to begin with and deserves to fade away. The torch should be passed on to the future not the past, or in this case, the ever present now(stagnation).
I don't even get the emotional side.
When your dog is dead, your dog is dead, and not even a so-called "clone" is going to be your dog.
Your dog is gone, period.
Further, as someone who's bred his own family, if I only had "one" dog left of my line, I would rather watch it die-off than be put in the position of spending $40,000 to make another one every 10 years or so.
The simple fact is, it's not practical (or even fulfilling).
Breeding decisions create excitement for what the next litter might hold. You get 6-8 new pups, each with its own personality, each with a different "genetic deck" that's been shuffled via the breeding decision.
I can't imagine being SO afraid of losing some dog that I would abandon breeding dogs to "keep cloning the same thing."
Maybe I should have done that with Stormbringer, but I've enjoyed plenty of other dogs since him (although none has been at his level).
In truth, what I REALLY should have done was fed him better. (He was born when I didn't know anything about nutrition, etc., and lived most of his life being fed corn-based kibble.)
He went sterile very early in life, right when I was about to breed everything on God's earth to him.
I think the very element of chance + luck + acquired skill is what creates the INTEREST in breeding dogs.
I think the very fact that you CAN lose everything is what gives dogs their VALUE.
Even if I were able to genetically re-create Stormbringer, over and over again, that it would quickly grow old and boring.
And what "value" would any particular dog have, as an individual, if you could clone duplicates of it all the time?
Jack
So if you were going to out cross your VG line with a Eli dog.You would prefer breeding to a dog line bred on Bullyson,Eli jr.or Art than a cloned dog with identical genetics.Limited cloning could add all kinds of variation in the solid families of today but I do agree line breeding is were its at.
Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
In fact, I think certain highly-inbred sons/daughters of dogs are better producers than the original dogs themselves.
For example, dog-for-dog produced, I think the inbred Long's Werdo was a better producer than Jeep.
Dog-for-dog produced, I think the inbred Ch Yellow John was a better dog and producer than Redboy.
Dog for dog produced, I think my Miss Trinx and Dolly were better producers than Lady In Red.
On and on it goes ...
I am a firm believer that THE WHOLE PURPOSE of line-/inbreeding is to ISOLATE AND HARNESS the key genetic traits of any given animal, even better than the original animal itself.
The original animal (typically) does not have isolated and purified genetics, which is WHY we start a line- and inbreeding program :idea:
Sometimes, when you first start to in-/linebreed on a great dog, all the SHIT in that dog comes out, in one malformed, worthless individual.
However, by the same token, sometimes when you in-/linebreed on that key animal, then all the GOLD comes out in one particular offspring, making him *more* valuable than even the original (let alone any "clone") could possibly be :idea:
Therefore, I would take the ¾-Redboy Chavis' Ch Yellow John over the original Redboy any day ... I would take my ¾-LIR Miss Trinx over the original Lady In Red any day ... and I would take the ¾-Jeep Long's Werdo over the original Jeep any day.
This is JMO, of course, but it's based on seeing the PURE dogs throw higher-percentages than the originals did themselves ...
Etc., etc.
Thus, in the end, BREEDING MANAGEMENT is more valuable to a dogman than cloning ...
I am sure it "could," but I don't think a clone will ever be as effective as the original dog ... whereas I truly do believe THE RIGHT inbred dog can be even MORE effective than the original.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bingo
Jack
Good points.
The best you could ever hope to do with a clone is "keep your position" ...Quote:
Originally Posted by Black Hand
While it is true that you can lose what you have by making the wrong breeding decision, the flipside to that is, in order to advance, you need to make a the right breeding decision :mrgreen:
And this is exactly where my mind set is on this topic. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
S_B