Jeffrey, I have definite opinions on the rearing of pups and intervention. To me they are pretty much open and closed subjects largely due to the catastrophic results they have on inbreeding. Selection is a whole different ball game and is much more open to a broader course of thought. My experience with inbreeding will probably be reflected in many of the comments as there is no middle ground for any rationalization....it is simple good or bad.
Jeffrey said:
I awoke this morning thinking of a further aspect of this question. Like most folks, I am chicken about letting Nature take its course, leaving litter whelping and rearing entirely to the bitch. The evolving breed with which I work is still very small, low in population, tender, bloodlines too easily lost as it is -- and with loss of bloodlines comes potentially disastrous loss of diversity. So I intervene, although I know it might be better in the long run for the dogs if I did not, and I wish that I felt myself in a secure enough position to be able to desist.
I have no experience with the Seppalas, their origin, ancestry or anything. I also am not familiar with how or where you have your pups when they are whelped nor where you raise them. In view of this, I must still ask, Is the resulting generation going to be stronger or weaker because of your intervention? I have seen many breeds, as I believe you have also mentioned, that are no longer capable of breeding nor whelping without our intervention. If a dog is incapable of breeding, whelping, and rearing theirm own young for the first 4 weeks, is it a viable breed? All acts mentioned should be rooted in their basic natural behavior. Your dogs may surprise you.
What I would like to ask you, Don, is the following. First a bit of background. As far back as the 1970s, I was discussing with my kennel partner, mostly as a fantasy, what might happen if one were able to tightly enclose a large compound of several thousand acres of Canadian wild land, keep it stocked just sufficiently but not over-abundantly with prey, and introduce a foundation group of Seppalas. Then leave them entirely to their own devices for twenty or thirty years, to live as semi-feral dogs. I wondered how they would change and to what extent; whether they would remain (once reclaimed and human-socialised as pups, or else with minimal socialisation kept up throughout the experiment) as biddable and bondable as they are; what would happen to their working sleddog abilities. Et cetera, et cetera. Of course, it remained a fantasy; but it has always nagged at my mind, ever since those days, and I still wonder about the results.
Interesting concept Jeff. More so because all,of my dogs are raised in 5 large yards. There is one family group per yard. Pups are whelped in the yard which has the dominate male, his harem, and normally, a number of their offspring. At the time the bitch is whelping it is obvious because the sire and most of the others in the yard keep a close eye on what is happening in that whelping box. Everyone takes it pretty much in stride. It took me a while experimenting before I settled on this arrangement. All of my males are what is called social aggressive in the dog world. They are all "the" top dog and will accept no lower status. Thus the arrangement was partly out of necessity but worked out perfectly. I count the pups at the time of whelping and once again when they are old enough to come out of the box. At that time, about 4 weeks is when I decide what each pups "basic" nature is. Big yards has its drawbacks. The less confident are easily pack bonded since they are not conditioned when younger. I had a big problem with that years ago and once pack bonded, they are as good as feral and may as well be put down because it almost takes an act of god to bring them around. I had to retrieve all pups every evening and lock them up without mom and dad before they had a chance to pack bond. While I had them alone in the lock down pen, I would sit with them and chum them. This only seemed to be a problem with the less confident. The confident did not have the tendency to become feral. Tenth generation litters were totally confident and they do not need to be put up at night but I still do it.
What I would like your opinion about is this: letting Nature take its course in whelping and rearing puppies is the first step on the road to re-feralisation (to coin a phrase) of the dog. If this would represent a large step forward in hardiness and viability, then what about allowing the dogs to choose their own mates? Would that almost certainly not provide another large step forward? Over and over I have heard it contended that the natural choice of mates is governed by pheromones and that animals display a natural preference for least-kinship mates. I do not know whether there is really much proof for that contention. Of course, in order to establish natural choice of mates, one would be pretty much obliged to establish a free-running colony population so that a normal lupine sort of social hierarchy could exist. There would be fighting. There would be a lot of attrition at first.
Now there is an example of opening Pandora's box Jeff. Letting the dog's pick their own mates. I have ranted and raved about this for years. Today, mates or chosen because they are convenient, and because they have titles achieved through training. People have patted themselves on the back because they hold their dogs, muzzle the bitch and much more. A title does not make a dog breed worthy, title the trainer and breed him but a titled dog means nothing other than the dogs parents were capable of throwing a trainable dog. If the bitch accepts a middle of the road male, she isn't that hot herself. A dominate bitch will not accept a lesser dog unless she is muzzled or, the breeds are already so screwed up the bitch does not care. I don't believe they are that screwed up because some bitches still need muzzling and a handler there to control her. This is where poor breeding begins. I have had numerous people come to me because they cannot find a male that can breed their bitch. Everyone of those bitches to date came from here. Other males were afraid of them. I figure the loosest cross and when they arrive, I put the pitch in the pen with the male and suggest we go in the house and have coffee while we watch. The people are appalled I would leave them to their own devices. They tell me their girl will hurt my male. I tell them it isn't going to happen. The first time their girl goes after the male he drops them in the dirt and shows her some teeth bigger than hers. When the bitch gets up, she is a totally different dog, licking the male in the mouth as fast as she can.....then she pusher her hind end at him because he is her superior. While I know what is going to happen with my dogs, I suppose it would be safer to supervise a new encounter closely. If any dogs have to be held, don't breed them. Of course a lesser bitch will breed a lesser dog and that isn't the best choice in my book, but, they can't all be chiefs, still need some Indians.
I can't say as I buy the new science concerning the that in wild populations the dogs avoid inbreeding. Appears to me that this may be a stretch since the dominate female controls the breeding of the others, not the male deciding this one is not related so it is good. I have never seen a dog be too picky and I think he would breed them all if the female didn't have the control.....but I have never watched wild packs so I may be off base. All we can do Jeff, is to try to make the most natural selections when there is a choice. No easy task since everyone with a dog or that has had a litter is an expert.
