Northern Inuit Dog
Discussion in 'Northern Inuit Dog' started by Louise13, Dec 30, 2010.
forget the wolf whats the rest too :? pmsl are people really that stoopid :?
Registered users won't see this advert. Sign up for free!
Lol! They even quoted the whole Eddie Harrison rhubarb history too!
"Willing" is not a word I would ever use to describe a Utonagan!!
Taken from the DEFRA Site--- (The end of the section is referring to adverts like this)
(Sorry about the way this has pasted!)
Attempts are made by breeders and owners of wolfdogs to classify the wolf content of their
animals. Often an animal is defined as being a certain percentage wolf to give an indication
of the amount of wolf genes that animal has inherited. This percentage figure is usually
determined by adding the wolf content of both parents, then dividing by two. Thus, a pup
bred from a pure wolf (100%) crossed with a pure dog (0%) is deemed to be a 50% wolfdog.
This system becomes more complicated when two hybrid parents are mated. Breeding a 75%
wolfdog with a 50% wolfdog yields 62.5% offspring (rounded up to 63%), and so on. The
accuracy of the system relies on a sound knowledge of the founding animals’ ancestry, and
the maintenance of an accurate pedigree.
The percentage content system gives some estimation of the extent that an animal will inherit
wolf characteristics; however it does not take into account the number of generations removed
from a pure wolf that the animals may be. An animal that has a pure wolf as a parent is far
more likely to inherit wolf characteristics than an animal born to two hybrid parents, even if
the percentage wolf content expressed is the same. For example, if a pup is born to a 25%
wolfdog mother and a 100% pure wolf father, that pup will be a 63% wolfdog, although this
animal is almost certain to be much more wolf-like than the 63% wolfdog born to the two
wolfdog parents as described above.
The generation of an animal is expressed as a progeny number, whereby an F1 hybrid has a
parent who is a pure wolf. The F1 animal’s offspring are termed F2 animals, and so on. F1
animals are much more likely to be wolf-like than, for example, F4 animals.
A combination of an animal’s progeny number and percentage content gives the best
representation of an animal’s wolf inheritance, and is really the only way to identify what an
animal is in the absence of genetic tests. It is often the case that genuine pedigrees are not
available for animals and, in this situation, it is more appropriate to identify them as high,
medium or low content animals, based on their appearance and behaviour.
It seems that high content animals demand higher prices than those of a lower content.
Unfortunately this has resulted in many animals’ content being falsified by breeders in order
that they may charge maximum prices. In the U.S. it is very common that people purchase
what they believe to be a high content animal, only to realise as the animal matures that this
was not the case (Dunn, 1999 personal communication).
In the U.K. it seems that many
people are advertising animals as high content animals “75% or 78% wolf”, when in it is
unlikely that they have much or any recent wolf ancestry.
Its probably polite for "randy git"
Maybe its on holiday?
I hope that was a retorical question.
It may just be the way it read, but it did sound to me like a regular thing, or at least something he did on a good few occassions, which if it was then it doesnt sound like a good idea to have him on a lead anywhere near the pony if you couldnt stop him.
i do realise that when writing things people can take them the wrong way, especially if things arent explained fully or are shorten (i know we dont want to give a full blown account of everything or the history etc, and i have had people assuming wrongly things from past posts of mine coz i didnt explaining everything, or people took things the wrong way etc.). thats one of the problems with things like the internet and texting etc. anyway i am rambling, and going off topic...
I guess all the OP had to do is add the words "once" and "horrified" in appropriate places and it would have been a much clearer account, leaving nobody in doubt.
I stand corrected, I should have made myself clearer - at the risk of boring everyone senseless
It just needed a couple of words in the right place, which you as an editor/proof reader could surely have managed? Sometimes I read back through things I've posted and can see ambiguity; if I can, I try to amend it before people get the wrong end of the stick.... Is all.
O Lord please save me from pompous priggish people and may I never ever err so seriously again
Pompous priggish!??? See you take the time to put in all that but miss out information that this only happened once!
Even reading it now it sounds like a regular occurrence!! How would you know or see how he grabbed the pony if they were galloping off in front of you?
And you can't honestly believe you can write that on this forum and not be asked/commented on!!
Of course not! But in the past, when I have gone into lengthy explanations, something which I have a tendency to do by nature, I have been pulled up either by Mods or forum users - which I have always taken on board as being fair comment. I do waffle on, I know I do, so I am trying to keep my posts shorter.
Obviously I need to go back to long boring waffly posts so that I please all of the people all of the time
Sorry I am such an imperfect human being
I think it must be interesting breed