WOLF CONTENT

Everything about Tamaskan Dogs that does not fit within the other topics in this section.
User avatar
Katlin
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 2739
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 12:48 am
Location: Calgary, AB
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Katlin » Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:53 pm

arianwenarie wrote:
Katlin wrote:
Kylievr wrote:No i don't have to prove he is not a wolf dog. I've posted in the shipping section about this when Margaret and I were getting threatening pms and emails.
My dog is not out of those lines.
Umm actually in light of recent events, isn't your dog out of Jodie?
Balto is Blufawn Glen Campbell, who is out of Gerri (Blufawn Ginger) and Shogun (Alba O'Shean). Rook, the other pup bound for Australia is out of Jodie at Blustag and Jackal at Blustag.

Balto is Kylievr's pup.

EDIT:
Blufawn Dolly Parton is Balto's littermate. Her database record is here: http://www.tamaskan-dog.org/database/dog?id=168
:lol: :oops: :? oops... I saw this quote from the shipping info page and I guess I read it wrong:
They are both Jodie boys. Blue leash is rook who is goin to Melbourne, the other is linx who lynn is keeping.
I thought Kylie meant she was getting a Jodie boy too. Oh wow haha SORRY!
Polarose Tamaskan
Polardog Outfitters
Owner of Sierra Kaweah RN RI TDI TRN TTDN CRN-MCL @ Polarose

User avatar
arianwenarie
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 5:07 pm
Location: USA

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by arianwenarie » Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:56 pm

lol.

Apparently, Linx (Blustag Pluto), the other Jodie boy is out of Dingo. I think I remember Lynn saying she had originally wanted to use Dingo on Jodie, but Jodie didn't want Dingo near her.

The rest of the litter is sired by Jackal....?

User avatar
Katlin
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 2739
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 12:48 am
Location: Calgary, AB
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Katlin » Fri Jun 29, 2012 5:57 pm

arianwenarie wrote:lol.

Apparently, Linx (Blustag Pluto), the other Jodie boy is out of Dingo. I think I remember Lynn saying she had originally wanted to use Dingo on Jodie, but Jodie didn't want Dingo near her.

The rest of the litter is sired by Jackal....?
Yeah. I guess she mated Jodie to Jackal, and then left her and Dingo to see what happened. She took to Dingo and then 1 puppy has his genetics while all the others are out of Jackal.
Polarose Tamaskan
Polardog Outfitters
Owner of Sierra Kaweah RN RI TDI TRN TTDN CRN-MCL @ Polarose

Karen
Tamific (Novice)
Tamific (Novice)
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 12:23 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Karen » Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:17 pm

Katlin wrote:
arianwenarie wrote:lol.

Apparently, Linx (Blustag Pluto), the other Jodie boy is out of Dingo. I think I remember Lynn saying she had originally wanted to use Dingo on Jodie, but Jodie didn't want Dingo near her.

The rest of the litter is sired by Jackal....?
Yeah. I guess she mated Jodie to Jackal, and then left her and Dingo to see what happened. She took to Dingo and then 1 puppy has his genetics while all the others are out of Jackal.
That's thoughtful and responsible breeding... :lol:

User avatar
arianwenarie
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 5:07 pm
Location: USA

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by arianwenarie » Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:20 pm

Katlin wrote:Yeah. I guess she mated Jodie to Jackal, and then left her and Dingo to see what happened. She took to Dingo and then 1 puppy has his genetics while all the others are out of Jackal.
:shock: I don't have any experience (or any knowledge at that) about breeding, but just knowing a bit about dog behavior, I'd be extreeeeeeeemely hesitant to do such a thing (assuming that's true). D: I mean, anything could have happened? :?

Rahne

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Rahne » Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:30 pm

Lynn & Jennie do a lot of double matings, probably to 'ensure' pregnancy.. Best part is that they believed (or maybe still do) that if you leave 48 hours between the matings only one of the males can be the sire of the whole litter. If they had doubts then they would only DNA profile one puppy to see who the sire was. There are several litters now that have more then one sire and probably several dogs that have the wrong sire on the paperwork because of these practices :roll:

In one of their latest litters there is also a puppy that I think might have a different sire then the rest of the litter...

User avatar
Tiantai
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 2557
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2011 10:16 pm
Location: Canada (North York, Ontario)

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Tiantai » Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:40 pm

Rahne wrote:Lynn & Jennie do a lot of double matings, probably to 'ensure' pregnancy.. Best part is that they believed (or maybe still do) that if you leave 48 hours between the matings only one of the males can be the sire of the whole litter. If they had doubts then they would only DNA profile one puppy to see who the sire was. There are several litters now that have more then one sire and probably several dogs that have the wrong sire on the paperwork because of these practices :roll:

In one of their latest litters there is also a puppy that I think might have a different sire then the rest of the litter...
That's very disturbing :shock:
Image

User avatar
arianwenarie
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 5:07 pm
Location: USA

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by arianwenarie » Fri Jun 29, 2012 6:40 pm

Rahne wrote:Lynn & Jennie do a lot of double matings, probably to 'ensure' pregnancy.. Best part is that they believed (or maybe still do) that if you leave 48 hours between the matings only one of the males can be the sire of the whole litter. If they had doubts then they would only DNA profile one puppy to see who the sire was. There are several litters now that have more then one sire and probably several dogs that have the wrong sire on the paperwork because of these practices :roll:

In one of their latest litters there is also a puppy that I think might have a different sire then the rest of the litter...
So would it be a good idea to have all Blufawn/Blustag dogs that will be entered into the database to go through a DNA parentage test? I'd imagine that'd be mighty expensive, but would ensure the correct parents are on the pedigree, and thus, the system.

User avatar
TerriHolt
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 3274
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:56 am
Location: UK, East Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by TerriHolt » Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:22 pm

arianwenarie wrote:
Rahne wrote:Lynn & Jennie do a lot of double matings, probably to 'ensure' pregnancy.. Best part is that they believed (or maybe still do) that if you leave 48 hours between the matings only one of the males can be the sire of the whole litter. If they had doubts then they would only DNA profile one puppy to see who the sire was. There are several litters now that have more then one sire and probably several dogs that have the wrong sire on the paperwork because of these practices :roll:

In one of their latest litters there is also a puppy that I think might have a different sire then the rest of the litter...
So would it be a good idea to have all Blufawn/Blustag dogs that will be entered into the database to go through a DNA parentage test? I'd imagine that'd be mighty expensive, but would ensure the correct parents are on the pedigree, and thus, the system.
It's only be worth doing for those who intend to breed...

I've been wondering... you know that 'foxy' was mislabeled as the pig litter dam... What are the chances of other pups with double mating's having the right sire listed?

I mean, if they got a whole litter wrong and made a "mistake" when it's the mum, it would be easier to make mistakes hen it comes to the dad would it not?
Rahne wrote:Lynn & Jennie do a lot of double matings, probably to 'ensure' pregnancy.. Best part is that they believed (or maybe still do) that if you leave 48 hours between the matings only one of the males can be the sire of the whole litter. If they had doubts then they would only DNA profile one puppy to see who the sire was. There are several litters now that have more then one sire and probably several dogs that have the wrong sire on the paperwork because of these practices :roll:

In one of their latest litters there is also a puppy that I think might have a different sire then the rest of the litter...
You know, it's kinda disturbing that nothing surprises me anymore :lol:
Image

There’s a battle between two wolves inside us all.
One is Evil. It’s anger, jealousy, greed, resentment, inferiority, lies and ego.
The other is Good. It’s joy, peace, love, hope, humility, kindness and truth.

The wolf that wins? The one you feed!

~ Cherokee Proverb

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity... I'm not sure about the former.

~ Albert Einstein

Karen
Tamific (Novice)
Tamific (Novice)
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 12:23 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Karen » Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:25 pm

arianwenarie wrote:
Rahne wrote:Lynn & Jennie do a lot of double matings, probably to 'ensure' pregnancy.. Best part is that they believed (or maybe still do) that if you leave 48 hours between the matings only one of the males can be the sire of the whole litter. If they had doubts then they would only DNA profile one puppy to see who the sire was. There are several litters now that have more then one sire and probably several dogs that have the wrong sire on the paperwork because of these practices :roll:

In one of their latest litters there is also a puppy that I think might have a different sire then the rest of the litter...
So would it be a good idea to have all Blufawn/Blustag dogs that will be entered into the database to go through a DNA parentage test? I'd imagine that'd be mighty expensive, but would ensure the correct parents are on the pedigree, and thus, the system.
But you would need parental dna of all those dogs. think that will be a problem.

User avatar
Ciaobella
Tamtastic (Apprentice)
Tamtastic (Apprentice)
Posts: 558
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:51 am
Location: South Carolina, USA

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Ciaobella » Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:47 pm

arianwenarie wrote:
Rahne wrote:Lynn & Jennie do a lot of double matings, probably to 'ensure' pregnancy.. Best part is that they believed (or maybe still do) that if you leave 48 hours between the matings only one of the males can be the sire of the whole litter. If they had doubts then they would only DNA profile one puppy to see who the sire was. There are several litters now that have more then one sire and probably several dogs that have the wrong sire on the paperwork because of these practices :roll:

In one of their latest litters there is also a puppy that I think might have a different sire then the rest of the litter...
So would it be a good idea to have all Blufawn/Blustag dogs that will be entered into the database to go through a DNA parentage test? I'd imagine that'd be mighty expensive, but would ensure the correct parents are on the pedigree, and thus, the system.
I agree with Terri the fact that it would probably only be worth it on breeding dogs. After the wolfdog fiasco and everyone trying to test for that I doubt anyone wants to hear of another expense.

The double mating thing is a shocker! I just can't believe they do that.... I just can't support anything like that. Not only do they apparent make up dogs, also could potentially be putting wrong sires (and dams) on pedigrees, lying about wolf content, among the other ridiculous things. I just can't believe the breed's creator is acting this way...
Katurah

User avatar
TerriHolt
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 3274
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:56 am
Location: UK, East Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by TerriHolt » Fri Jun 29, 2012 7:53 pm

Ciaobella wrote:The double mating thing is a shocker! I just can't believe they do that.... I just can't support anything like that. Not only do they apparent make up dogs, also could potentially be putting wrong sires (and dams) on pedigrees, lying about wolf content, among the other ridiculous things. I just can't believe the breed's creator is acting this way...
I knew they said they sometimes "accidently" had 2 sire's on 1 litter and i wondered how much of it was an accident and how accurate some pedigrees were... i wonder that even more so now :?
Image

There’s a battle between two wolves inside us all.
One is Evil. It’s anger, jealousy, greed, resentment, inferiority, lies and ego.
The other is Good. It’s joy, peace, love, hope, humility, kindness and truth.

The wolf that wins? The one you feed!

~ Cherokee Proverb

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity... I'm not sure about the former.

~ Albert Einstein

Karen
Tamific (Novice)
Tamific (Novice)
Posts: 267
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 12:23 pm
Location: Netherlands

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Karen » Fri Jun 29, 2012 8:04 pm

Rahne wrote:Lynn & Jennie do a lot of double matings, probably to 'ensure' pregnancy..
I m trying really hard to understand this reasoning.
Not the idea of multiple matings, but why different dogs. It is pretty normal to have a sire mate a dam multiple times to ensure pregnancy.
But why a 2nd dog?

I'm really trying here... Just don't seem to get anywhere.

User avatar
arianwenarie
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 1244
Joined: Wed May 19, 2010 5:07 pm
Location: USA

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by arianwenarie » Fri Jun 29, 2012 8:49 pm

Karen wrote:
Rahne wrote:Lynn & Jennie do a lot of double matings, probably to 'ensure' pregnancy..
I m trying really hard to understand this reasoning.
Not the idea of multiple matings, but why different dogs. It is pretty normal to have a sire mate a dam multiple times to ensure pregnancy.
But why a 2nd dog?

I'm really trying here... Just don't seem to get anywhere.
I can only assume it's faster to cover with another sire if they go by that 48 hour rule rather than wait for the male to recuperate? o_O

And I'm sure all the foundation dogs are DNA profiled and the trend seems to be that Lynn usually covers with Jackal?

User avatar
Booma
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:59 am
Location: Perth, Australia
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Booma » Fri Jun 29, 2012 9:02 pm

Katlin wrote:
They are both Jodie boys. Blue leash is rook who is goin to Melbourne, the other is linx who lynn is keeping.
I thought Kylie meant she was getting a Jodie boy too. Oh wow haha SORRY!
I'm from Perth. Otherside of the country from melbourne. Margaret is getting rook.
Image Image

User avatar
Nino
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 3106
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Aalborg - Denmark

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Nino » Fri Jun 29, 2012 10:43 pm

I have to say there were far too many "accidents" for my taste in that end..
I have not ever heard of another "experienced" breeder with that many mistakes made.. how hard can it be when you know what you are doing?
>> Nino <<
Image

User avatar
Katlin
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 2739
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2011 12:48 am
Location: Calgary, AB
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Katlin » Sat Jun 30, 2012 4:35 am

Kylievr wrote:
Katlin wrote:
They are both Jodie boys. Blue leash is rook who is goin to Melbourne, the other is linx who lynn is keeping.
I thought Kylie meant she was getting a Jodie boy too. Oh wow haha SORRY!
I'm from Perth. Otherside of the country from melbourne. Margaret is getting rook.
I know! Argg nevermind :roll:
Polarose Tamaskan
Polardog Outfitters
Owner of Sierra Kaweah RN RI TDI TRN TTDN CRN-MCL @ Polarose

weylyn

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by weylyn » Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:40 am

Nino wrote:I have to say there were far too many "accidents" for my taste in that end..
I have not ever heard of another "experienced" breeder with that many mistakes made.. how hard can it be when you know what you are doing?
Not hard so I think it gives you the answer on the question if Lynn really knows so muchh if she wants people to believe......NOT

Karen wrote:
Rahne wrote:Lynn & Jennie do a lot of double matings, probably to 'ensure' pregnancy..
I m trying really hard to understand this reasoning.
Not the idea of multiple matings, but why different dogs. It is pretty normal to have a sire mate a dam multiple times to ensure pregnancy.
But why a 2nd dog?

I'm really trying here... Just don't seem to get anywhere.
Most breeders that do double mating with different dogs are mostly the breeders that are just in it for the money.
Different dogs mean less time between the coverings( in meaning of time is money)
And the use of different dogs give breeders like Lynn the escape in their eyes out. If it not turned out to be how they expected or hope they can always tell that story.....Look at Winni, she started out as a registered Tamaskan and then the whole story changed and now she isn't even a registered tamaskan anymore.........

User avatar
Nino
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 3106
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Aalborg - Denmark

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Nino » Sat Jun 30, 2012 11:20 am

weylyn wrote:
Nino wrote:I have to say there were far too many "accidents" for my taste in that end..
I have not ever heard of another "experienced" breeder with that many mistakes made.. how hard can it be when you know what you are doing?
Not hard so I think it gives you the answer on the question if Lynn really knows so muchh if she wants people to believe......NOT
I am also wondering if it is indeed because they know too little after all these years or if it is that they know exactly what they do every time..


The only reason which I could agree with a double mating was if the bitch was getting too old and could only have one last litter and either the male was not 100% sure or the mating between both males and the female would be one that the gene pool would need...
>> Nino <<
Image

User avatar
Gabriele58
Tamific (Novice)
Tamific (Novice)
Posts: 258
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 5:31 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Gabriele58 » Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:18 pm

Kylievr wrote: Ok so If what you say is correct, and Jodie is an f4, that would make the golden litter f6, which is legally a Dog. but at least one of these pups has tested positive for wolf content. So then the test picks up content to at least an f6.
Kylie, I've been away for a few days and just saw this post. Do you happen to know which Golden litter pup tested positive? This is the first I've heard of this.
~Gabriele~

Image

User avatar
AZDehlin
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 3039
Joined: Wed Jan 26, 2011 4:52 am
Location: Upper Peninsula of Michigan, USA (for now)
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by AZDehlin » Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:25 pm

Gabriele58 wrote:
Kylievr wrote: Ok so If what you say is correct, and Jodie is an f4, that would make the golden litter f6, which is legally a Dog. but at least one of these pups has tested positive for wolf content. So then the test picks up content to at least an f6.
Kylie, I've been away for a few days and just saw this post. Do you happen to know which Golden litter pup tested positive? This is the first I've heard of this.
I was wondering too... I didn't think any of golden litter had been tested yet.

User avatar
Nino
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 3106
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Aalborg - Denmark

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Nino » Mon Jul 02, 2012 8:31 pm

I don't know which Golden have been tested?

But when you breed wolfdog - wolfdog and breeding them high content (Boogie) then of course their F gen would be lower down but their content would be higher than if bred to a dog, and even though there are no recent wolf added - if ex Boogie was an F3 97% (I don't know the high ones but that number i've seen quite a few times so lets just say ;) ) then the pups with a dog would still be just under 50% and the pups of those would be just over 25% (using the simplest of math not calculating the big variations there CAN be) breeding back to another 25% would make the possibility of the percentage of wolf rising again.. being more than both parents..

the test would be able to pick up content as long as those markers were present, was it F1 or F100 - that is at least my guestimate ;)
>> Nino <<
Image

User avatar
nivenj
Tamtastic (Apprentice)
Tamtastic (Apprentice)
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:33 pm
Location: UK

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by nivenj » Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:20 pm

Nino wrote:I don't know which Golden have been tested?

But when you breed wolfdog - wolfdog and breeding them high content (Boogie) then of course their F gen would be lower down but their content would be higher than if bred to a dog, and even though there are no recent wolf added - if ex Boogie was an F3 97% (I don't know the high ones but that number i've seen quite a few times so lets just say ;) ) then the pups with a dog would still be just under 50% and the pups of those would be just over 25% (using the simplest of math not calculating the big variations there CAN be) breeding back to another 25% would make the possibility of the percentage of wolf rising again.. being more than both parents..

the test would be able to pick up content as long as those markers were present, was it F1 or F100 - that is at least my guestimate ;)
:?

Image

So...

Wolf x (Wolf , F1, F2) = Wolf
Wolf x (F3+) = F1
F1 x (F1+) = F2
F2 x (F2+) = F3

Based on this I dont see how you can have a High Content F3?
Image
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.” --Aristotle *

User avatar
Nino
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 3106
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Aalborg - Denmark

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Nino » Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:38 pm

That is only the British Law and how it calculates it..

if you keep breeding wolfdog to wolfdog, you can increase the amount of wolf again in the offspring, if you breed a 50% to a 50% the offspring would normally end everywhere between 100% and 0% where 75% and 25% would be more reasonable to assume.. I will make you a picture to illustrate.. will edit it in when I have done it ;)
>> Nino <<
Image

weylyn

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by weylyn » Mon Jul 02, 2012 9:45 pm

nivenj wrote: Image

So...

Wolf x (Wolf , F1, F2) = Wolf
Wolf x (F3+) = F1
F1 x (F1+) = F2
F2 x (F2+) = F3

Based on this I dont see how you can have a High Content F3?
Because you can not count by that! It is a nice diagram but it doesn't work like that. In this diagram an F1 from an dog X wolf is a wolf and that is not true . Wolf x dog is always a mid content
Let say you have a wolfx dog= F1 50%
That 50% you mate with for example an mid to high content of about 68% you can get an F2 that is already a high content( I say can because it just depends on witch genes they inherit) But let say we have an F2 of 70% and you mate that with the same percentage than you can get again a high content , let say a 87% and that is a F3

Mhhhhh don't know if you understand it correctly because it is way easier to explain this in my own language hahahaha

User avatar
nivenj
Tamtastic (Apprentice)
Tamtastic (Apprentice)
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:33 pm
Location: UK

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by nivenj » Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:18 pm

weylyn wrote:Because you can not count by that! It is a nice diagram but it doesn't work like that.
:D Someone better tell DEFRA then, its their diagram :D

I must have completely misunderstood the following then ("Again from DEFRA")
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 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.
So I do understand if you take a pure wolf and pure dog, that is classed as a mid content F1 wolfdog (50%). However If you take that F1 wolfdog and mate it to a wolf, thats (150/2) 75% wolf content, but in the UK it doesnt look like that mating would produce offspring that would be classified as F1, although still wolfdogs (75%). The only way to produce an F2 would be to take the 50% F1 wolfdog and mate it with (worst case) another F1 (50%), which would make the F2 offspring maximum (100/2) 50%, and then to get F3 take the 50% F2 and mate with (worse case) another F2, which again using a maximum F2 case of 50% gives an F3 of (100/2)..... :?

I guess the point though is...and this is probably the crux of what I think your saying...the whole % calculation is misleading, and you can still get an F1 that behaves like a %100 wolf, and an F1 that behaves like a %100 dog?
Image
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.” --Aristotle *

User avatar
Nino
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 3106
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Aalborg - Denmark

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Nino » Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:52 pm

wolfdog-explanation.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
>> Nino <<
Image

tigerstedt
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:32 am
Location: Norway

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by tigerstedt » Mon Jul 02, 2012 10:57 pm

Nino wrote:That is only the British Law and how it calculates it..
What she said :)

Never confuse politics with common sense :lol:

Most importaint here is that Terri is safe :)
A home without a dog
- is just a house

User avatar
nivenj
Tamtastic (Apprentice)
Tamtastic (Apprentice)
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 8:33 pm
Location: UK

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by nivenj » Mon Jul 02, 2012 11:00 pm

Thanks Nino, yeah I think your right. The law is outdated in this respect, but I suppose its one of those cases, where they need "something" as the basis for the law, and as behaviour can be subjective, they had to go with something that was more black and white.
Image
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.” --Aristotle *

User avatar
Nino
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 3106
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Aalborg - Denmark

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Nino » Mon Jul 02, 2012 11:03 pm

nivenj wrote:Thanks Nino, yeah I think your right. The law is outdated in this respect, but I suppose its one of those cases, where they need "something" as the basis for the law, and as behaviour can be subjective, they had to go with something that was more black and white.
No problem, and I do totally understand what you mean, they need SOMETHING to take at least some statement.
at least we know that only very "lucky" or experienced (this is the wrong word.. hmm the word I want to use is dygtige in Danish :lol:) people that can actually breed wolfdogs without breeding the wolf out of there..
>> Nino <<
Image

User avatar
Booma
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 8:59 am
Location: Perth, Australia
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Booma » Mon Jul 02, 2012 11:52 pm

Gabriele58 wrote:
Kylievr wrote: Ok so If what you say is correct, and Jodie is an f4, that would make the golden litter f6, which is legally a Dog. but at least one of these pups has tested positive for wolf content. So then the test picks up content to at least an f6.
Kylie, I've been away for a few days and just saw this post. Do you happen to know which Golden litter pup tested positive? This is the first I've heard of this.

Oops sorry, my memory is gone. Just went and read the very first post again and the golden litter isn't mentioned.
Image Image

User avatar
martinbernstein
Tamific (Novice)
Tamific (Novice)
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:14 am
Location: Catskill Mountains

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by martinbernstein » Tue Jul 03, 2012 12:18 am

Rahne, how do you know that they often did double matings? And why do you think that there is a pup from a certain litter that has a different site than his litter mates?

User avatar
AngieH
Tamific (Novice)
Tamific (Novice)
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:29 pm
Location: Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by AngieH » Tue Jul 03, 2012 12:31 am

Just a thought, but I'm wondering if we're missing the whole point here. It's not about what's legal or about what the police can do to your dog based on the generation of wolf offspring your dog can be proven to be. That's just a side issue.

It's a public relations concern not a legal one. I'm not worried about animal control taking my dog away. I'm worried about what to tell my sister when she doesn't want my niece playing with my "wolf-dog." I'm worried about how to respond in social situations when someone I respect from my training club "advises" me that she read that my "dog" actually "has some wolf in her" after all. (And before anyone starts advising me how I should manage my relationships with people they don't even know, let me stop you right now and tell you that's not the kind of "help" I want from a breed organization.)

Instead of all this rationalizing and justifying how "it's really not that bad, their behavior is pure dog and they're not illegal or anything as long as you have a dog license etc." I would be relieved to see a more remedial conversation. Something like, "Wow, we've all been tricked into owning a breed with modern wolf influence. How awful! That's not what we wanted at all. Thank goodness we know about it now so we can be careful not to compound the wolf content in subsequent generations! And thank heaven the affected lines are far enough removed from wolves to not attract legal trouble. Let's include UC Davis test results in the breed database wherever we can to get a handle on this. Let's see if we can trace the lines of known and suspected wolf content dogs to see where we stand. Let's consult a geneticist for breeding advice. etc. etc."

Any medical office manager will tell you that you can difuse a great deal of angst by being *more* concerned than your client and proactive instead of reactive to their concerns. If you minimize or dismiss your clients concern, even an irrational one, you risk them escalating it to convince you to take them more seriously.

Now I certianly don't intend for anyone to wear a hair shirt or scourge themselves over all this. But discussing plans for remedial strategies might go a long way in salvaging the TDR reputation... if that is of interest, of course. It may not be if we're all "ok" with modern wolf gene markers in our pet dogs (as long as there are no legal reproductions.)

Thoughts?
One's horizon shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.
~Nin

Rahne

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Rahne » Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:16 am

martinbernstein wrote:Rahne, how do you know that they often did double matings? And why do you think that there is a pup from a certain litter that has a different site than his litter mates?
I was told by Lynn & Jennie and DNA proved this to be true in some litters. Some examples... the Blufawn X-men litter has 2 sires (Jackal & Dingo), the recent Disney litter has 2 sires (Jackal & Dingo), just before Skye died he AND Rann had mated Zuul but she didn't get pregnant in the end. There are more.
AngieH wrote: Instead of all this rationalizing and justifying how "it's really not that bad, their behavior is pure dog and they're not illegal or anything as long as you have a dog license etc." I would be relieved to see a more remedial conversation. Something like, "Wow, we've all been tricked into owning a breed with modern wolf influence. How awful! That's not what we wanted at all. Thank goodness we know about it now so we can be careful not to compound the wolf content in subsequent generations! And thank heaven the affected lines are far enough removed from wolves to not attract legal trouble. Let's include UC Davis test results in the breed database wherever we can to get a handle on this. Let's see if we can trace the lines of known and suspected wolf content dogs to see where we stand. Let's consult a geneticist for breeding advice. etc. etc."
Who says the TDR isn't doing this? It doesn't happen overnight though, these things take time...

User avatar
AngieH
Tamific (Novice)
Tamific (Novice)
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:29 pm
Location: Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by AngieH » Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:24 am

Rahne wrote:
AngieH wrote: Instead of all this rationalizing and justifying how "it's really not that bad, their behavior is pure dog and they're not illegal or anything as long as you have a dog license etc." I would be relieved to see a more remedial conversation. Something like, "Wow, we've all been tricked into owning a breed with modern wolf influence. How awful! That's not what we wanted at all. Thank goodness we know about it now so we can be careful not to compound the wolf content in subsequent generations! And thank heaven the affected lines are far enough removed from wolves to not attract legal trouble. Let's include UC Davis test results in the breed database wherever we can to get a handle on this. Let's see if we can trace the lines of known and suspected wolf content dogs to see where we stand. Let's consult a geneticist for breeding advice. etc. etc."
Who says the TDR isn't doing this? It doesn't happen overnight though, these things take time...
No one said it isn't. (and it's logically impossible to prove a negative any way.) I just said I would be relieved to to see this conversation instead of the exasperated minimalizing one. That's all.
One's horizon shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.
~Nin

wen
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 1431
Joined: Sat May 08, 2010 10:48 pm
Location: France

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by wen » Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:47 am

I would have a doubt about Willie nelson as he's so different from other pups from the same litter
"Mieux vivre avec votre chien"
Aide à l'éducation canine et réflexion sur les chiens dits "dangereux"

User avatar
TerriHolt
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 3274
Joined: Sun Mar 13, 2011 11:56 am
Location: UK, East Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by TerriHolt » Tue Jul 03, 2012 10:04 am

tigerstedt wrote:
Nino wrote:That is only the British Law and how it calculates it..
What she said :)

Never confuse politics with common sense :lol:

Most importaint here is that Terri is safe :)

I know... i just don't trust the narrow minded "authorities" :oops:
martinbernstein wrote:Rahne, how do you know that they often did double matings? And why do you think that there is a pup from a certain litter that has a different site than his litter mates?
I know the Disney litter has 2 sires... She found out Lynx had dingo as a sire and not jackal and she called me to say that was the mating she originally wanted but jodie wouldn't let no male near her but jackal but on something like the last day of her been in heat she tried dingo again and jodie allowed it (or something like that), so she would only let lynx go on a breeding contract since it was the sire she wanted for the litter and he was the only jodie/dingo pup... But as it happened, she changed her mind anyhow...
Image

There’s a battle between two wolves inside us all.
One is Evil. It’s anger, jealousy, greed, resentment, inferiority, lies and ego.
The other is Good. It’s joy, peace, love, hope, humility, kindness and truth.

The wolf that wins? The one you feed!

~ Cherokee Proverb

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity... I'm not sure about the former.

~ Albert Einstein

User avatar
Nino
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 3106
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Aalborg - Denmark

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Nino » Tue Jul 03, 2012 1:54 pm

I know I for one just have ordered (recently) the UC Davis test, but I actually don't think we can make it a requirement, since it unlike ex. the DM test isn't 100% sure .. we can however plead the breeders and owners to do the test themselves for the Tamaskan as a whole sake and give in the results to the TDR.
>> Nino <<
Image

User avatar
AngieH
Tamific (Novice)
Tamific (Novice)
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:29 pm
Location: Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by AngieH » Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:14 pm

Nino wrote:I know I for one just have ordered (recently) the UC Davis test, but I actually don't think we can make it a requirement, since it unlike ex. the DM test isn't 100% sure .. we can however plead the breeders and owners to do the test themselves for the Tamaskan as a whole sake and give in the results to the TDR.
At the NTCA meeting after the show, it was shared with us that the Davis, the test will not identify a dog as having recent wolf content if it doesn't. There are no false positives. A positive result *is* 100% accurate in that the dog does have some level of modern wolf content. (the definitions of "modern" and debate of F-level intensity asside, that's pretty clear.)

The concern is that there can be a false negative allowing an occasional wolf ancestors to "fly under the radar" of the test.
So we can prove the positive, not the negative. But since the burden of proof lies on the accuser, I'm fine with that for my own purposes. How valuable that mightbe to the TDR in its public relations with pet owners and prospective pet owners is a question worthy of further exploration.
One's horizon shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.
~Nin

User avatar
Nino
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 3106
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Aalborg - Denmark

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Nino » Tue Jul 03, 2012 2:19 pm

The problem is not false positives but "false" negatives imho..
that a dog tests negative does not prove that the dog doesn't have recent wolf ancestry, it only proves that the dog did not inherit any of those genes with the markers they check for..


Here unfortunately.. the proof does not lie with the accuser in regard of illegal dogs - it lies with the accused..
>> Nino <<
Image

User avatar
AngieH
Tamific (Novice)
Tamific (Novice)
Posts: 390
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2011 8:29 pm
Location: Ohio, USA
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by AngieH » Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:07 pm

Nino wrote:The problem is not false positives but "false" negatives imho..
that a dog tests negative does not prove that the dog doesn't have recent wolf ancestry, it only proves that the dog did not inherit any of those genes with the markers they check for..


Here unfortunately.. the proof does not lie with the accuser in regard of illegal dogs - it lies with the accused..
My condolences. That puts pet owners in Denmark in an impossible position!
Is there any hope the test could be used as "evedence" (if not "proof") and combined with behavioral observation, vet testimonials, etc? Any chance something like that could rise to a level of relative certainty for Denmark officials? Or are you held exclusively to pedigree data (which, itself, can be suspect?)

It sounds like a real "no-win" scenario. :(
One's horizon shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage.
~Nin

weylyn

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by weylyn » Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:26 pm

nivenj wrote: I guess the point though is...and this is probably the crux of what I think your saying...the whole % calculation is misleading, and you can still get an F1 that behaves like a %100 wolf, and an F1 that behaves like a %100 dog?
The % calculation is indeed misleading. The diagram that Nino gave is more accurate but also not having to be. But the main thing is in there and that is that you can get all kinds of contents out of two F1's
And F1 or F2 and so on just tell something about generation , nothing about content because if you start again with bringing in a dog or wolf from 1 side you start again with F1.


Also behavior say nothing about content. I know high contents that behave much like dogs and I know low contents that have much wolf behaviorism.......

User avatar
Nino
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 3106
Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Aalborg - Denmark

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Nino » Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:05 pm

AngieH wrote:
Nino wrote: Here unfortunately.. the proof does not lie with the accuser in regard of illegal dogs - it lies with the accused..
My condolences. That puts pet owners in Denmark in an impossible position!
Is there any hope the test could be used as "evedence" (if not "proof") and combined with behavioral observation, vet testimonials, etc? Any chance something like that could rise to a level of relative certainty for Denmark officials? Or are you held exclusively to pedigree data (which, itself, can be suspect?)

It sounds like a real "no-win" scenario. :(
It really is a no win situation.
I am looking into the precise legal issues regarding this - I was pretty sure that I already knew how the law sounded BUT some new information (to me) brought me out of this so now I am looking into it again.
Our problem is that a lot of "fight dog breeds" have been banned within the last 2 years and because of these and all the mixes it have been too hard for the police to proof if they were illegal or not the "innocent till proved otherwise" with dog breeds/types have been changed "first innocent when proved".

The only thing that I am happy about is that the focus are on muscle dogs not wolfdog breeds - both Saarloos and Czech are fully legal here too.
And that the police mostly doesn't want to get involved with dogs if they can avoid it.

vet testimonials are not enough if a dog is first caught/taken since they will write what ever you tell them the dog is in the papers, you might be able to get a behavioural expert to comment on if the dog would be dangerous and if not you MIGHT JUST be acquired to always keep the dog on a 2 meter leash and always wear a muzzle when the dog when in public places or not fenced in areas.
The pedigree along with DNA sampling from parents and grand parents might be enough though, I hope not (and really doubt) if we are careful that we will have any problems.
>> Nino <<
Image

User avatar
martinbernstein
Tamific (Novice)
Tamific (Novice)
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:14 am
Location: Catskill Mountains

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by martinbernstein » Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:00 am

K. Thanks Rahne.

User avatar
DTucker
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 11:42 pm
Location: Albany, NY

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by DTucker » Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:42 am

Hi All. This is my first post here. Since my fiance and me have owned our tamaskan (Kumho, aka J&J Moon River from Jethro and Ruby), she's been the one to keep up with the forums and the online stuff, but since this is up my alley I thought I would chime in. :) Some background: I work for a company that sells custom lab mice all around the world, and my job is genotyping and background characterization. I run a bunch of different kinds of tests on our animals, and we have assays that are probably pretty similar to what UC Davis might be using. We run things that are precise enough to tell the difference between a mouse from one lab and a mouse from a different lab--it's pretty cool, and pretty powerful, once it's established right. Anyways, here are my late-to-the-party thoughts:
WhiteElkStag wrote:That's the problem Kylievr, there doesn't seem to be ANY information out there about the accuracy or veracity of the tests. This test could theoretically come out positive on a 100th generation Pug while testing negative on a F1 wolfdog, it all seems to be based on random genetic drift and there is no published information about which gene they're looking for or any statistical analysis of their results. Way too much potential to ruin dog's and owner's lives without the proper review.
I can't agree with this statement more. I've been thinking the same thing since I heard about it.. Maybe I've missed something (I did read the whole thread though!), but almost everyone seems to be regarding the UC Davis test as proven, infallible and final when what I think we should be first discussing is whether or not it is truly accurate before we begin making plans, worrying and throwing our money at them. The only things I know about what they're doing with my sample that divines them a result of "dog" or "not-dog" is what's posted at the beginning of this thread and what's on the UC Davis site. Being from a science background and working in this field, that ain't good enough for me and it shouldn't be for anyone else either! This right here is a big red flag:
Based on unpublished research by the Forensics unit of The Veterinary Genetics Laboratory
I can't get behind it if it hasn't been published yet. The process of publishing requires peer review and allows the scientific community (which is vastly educated and equipped) to poke holes and make sure that every base is covered before a test/protocol/finding/procedure becomes "official," and until it's published I can't give it the benefit of the doubt that there isn't a reason it's not in a journal somewhere yet. I don't even know how you can sell a service that hasn't been publicly proven yet.
Presence of wolf-specific alleles (variants). The DNA markers tested have some variants that are seen only in wolves, not dogs....
What variants? How do they know? Prove it to me, UC Davis! The last time I checked (~ a month ago), the common gray wolf hadn't even been sequenced yet, so where is the marker information coming from? It's DNA after all, and you need to know where to look to establish a marker, plus it needs to be shown that at your marker there is a distinct difference between dogs and wolves, not just a correlation, at least as far as I'm concerned.
However absence of these variants does not indicate that the subject animal is a dog; due to the close genetic relationship between dogs and wolves many variants are in common between wolves and dogs.
This is what leads to their disclaimer, that there are no false positives only false negatives, but it in itself is contradictory. Because they are so close, there may be false negatives, but we are to believe that despite them being that close that there will never be a false positive? I don't think I can buy that. I believe the disclaimer is more a cover-your-tail statement which prevents them from being pursued legally in the event that they were wrong, an animal they said was negative was actually from a recent wolf cross, and the animal hurts someone.
The population analysis uses 38 DNA markers for the subject which are compared against populations of known wolves and dogs.
For comparison sake, when telling one of our clients the difference between different strains of mice, we use a panel of 96 markers (plus a few as controls). When telling our clients how much their mouse resembles a certain strain of mice, we use either a panel with >377 markers, or >1447 markers for the best accuracy. It's only at that point that we can give a confident result. Can it really be done with 38? Their response from the first post mentions that they use 3 or 4 different methods so I'm sure this isn't all of it, but they don't describe the mitochondrial or Y-chromosome aspects in depth.

Let me get back to what I quoted before from what WhiteElkStag (Kira I think? Bad with names, sorry!). Without further proof or some questions answered, I don't know if we should take any of these results without some skepticism. For all we know, an F100 pug really could show up as a wolf if the test isn't designed correctly or sufficiently. I've seen it happen plenty of times in my lab for a hundred different reasons. DNA doesn't lie, but humans make mistakes: project design, sample preparation, testing, analysis, scoring, communication of results, if a human has a hand in it there can be error anywhere along the line that can be compounded upon like a butterfly effect. Even robotics, which a lot of labs use now, can make mistakes. I think we really ought to wait and make sure that the test has been validated before we take any drastic measures (based on the tests alone. It sounds like there are some heritage issues that the test may not really help with anyways).

A few things I'd like to know, if anyone is in communication with UC Davis (I think at the NTCA meeting this was mentioned?):
1. Can we have a more in depth explanation as to the testing and specifically the technology involved with each of the different analysis portions? Is it Golden Gate or something similar?
2. If available, can we see a protocol or report for the testing?
3. When and where will the method be published?
4. Was the wolf genome sequenced as part of the establishment of this test?

One last thing to keep in mind is that some of the things the tests of theirs looks for might just be related to things that we are selecting for in our dogs. We're practically reverse engineering wolves anyways, aren't we? After all, genetics goes a long way to establishing a lot of the aesthetic characteristics we're looking for.

Sorry for the long post, but thanks for the read. If I think of anything else I'll post another. I should have kept notes about this as I thought about it the whole drive back from WI. :cry: And if anyone has a question about any of this, just let me know.


--Denver

User avatar
Rhokk
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Posts: 116
Joined: Fri Mar 30, 2012 5:40 pm
Location: United States

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Rhokk » Wed Jul 04, 2012 4:26 am

Wouldn't reverse engineering entail capturing both behavior and aesthetics? If so, that would mean breeding out 'dog-like' qualities and breeding in 'wolf-like' qualities. Then again, I know next to nothing about breeding or genetics. Just wondering! :)

Whispyr
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Posts: 32
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:11 am
Location: North America

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Whispyr » Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:16 am

Hey guys,

I am not sure how relevant it is, but the Edmonton Humane Society had been running a promotion of "Guess the Breed" Which involved a DNA test of an unidentifiable breed. They post pictures then every tuesday reveal the paper ("certificate") that comes with it. However right now I seem unable to find the page with the actual certificates to see who they were getting the kit's from. Only that they sell them through their pet shop "Bingo's Pet Store", and do list it on the website in the items section.

The point of this was though if someone could dig it up, it is (or was?) a publicly available DNA test, though I do not know if they test for wolves, I do recall seeing I believe four generations on the paper.

Also I am not sure on the accuracy of it, or how it compares to the UC Davis one, or all of the technical thing's associated with it, but maybe someone with more experience looking at DNA would be able to take a look and give a better comparison or outlook on it.

tigerstedt
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:32 am
Location: Norway

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by tigerstedt » Wed Jul 04, 2012 6:48 am

To wolf or not to wolf, thats...

I guess the question dor me is do we want wolf in at all? My answere is no. Wolf in the Tam goes against everything the Tam should be.

The discussion seems to be regarding the F-content. When looking back on the so called fighting breeds it's not a great leap to see a future where any wolf in a dog may be illegal (in Norway, the Czech is illegal due to "resent wolf content". The Saarloos has gotten a pass... so far. It may change). So, if a DNA can give a positive result on an F100, that's good enough for me.
A home without a dog
- is just a house

User avatar
Sylvaen
Tamificent (Guru)
Tamificent (Guru)
Posts: 5202
Joined: Fri May 07, 2010 3:53 pm
Location: Zagreb, Croatia
Contact:

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by Sylvaen » Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:10 pm

DTucker wrote:Hi All. This is my first post here. Since my fiance and me have owned our tamaskan (Kumho, aka J&J Moon River from Jethro and Ruby), she's been the one to keep up with the forums and the online stuff, but since this is up my alley I thought I would chime in. :) Some background: I work for a company that sells custom lab mice all around the world, and my job is genotyping and background characterization. I run a bunch of different kinds of tests on our animals, and we have assays that are probably pretty similar to what UC Davis might be using. We run things that are precise enough to tell the difference between a mouse from one lab and a mouse from a different lab--it's pretty cool, and pretty powerful, once it's established right. Anyways, here are my late-to-the-party thoughts
GREAT post, Denver! Welcome to the forum and thanks for sharing this info - it certainly does provide plenty of food for thought! :D
Image
The future lies before you, like a path of pure white snow...
Be careful how you tread it, for every step will show.

tigerstedt
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Tamthusiastic (Newbie)
Posts: 94
Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2010 11:32 am
Location: Norway

Re: WOLF CONTENT

Post by tigerstedt » Wed Jul 04, 2012 1:00 pm

Sylvaen wrote:GREAT post, Denver! Welcome to the forum and thanks for sharing this info - it certainly does provide plenty of food for thought! :D
Second that!
A home without a dog
- is just a house

Post Reply