DNA vs Breeder /owner documentation Re: NW Pedigrees was: POSIT we Update SIRE record on NW Nome & Tia; & REOPEN DAM on NW Kodiac

[Karen Hinchy]

I AM curious about this point though- we don't have DNA profiles on all of the 80s dogs.  Probably not on most of them.  

The COA records took a stronger stance on traceability of Northdown dogs, but even all of them are not DNA VIP.  

So...if breeder /owner documentation was fine to set the original pedigrees of many dogs, why would it not be enough to reset those we *know* are wrong?  I would prefer to have DNA evidence, but since we might not, or might not be able to access it, I don't understand why it is ok in one circumstance and not others.

Why do you feel so strongly, Connie?

On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Bob and Connie Jones <rjo...@maine.rr.com> wrote:

Changes should only be made when there is enough DNA scientific evidence to proof the parenthood.    Any other  ‘evidence” may be looked at now or in the future as biased or swayed or left to future interpretation- notes, letters etc from past breeders may lend an eye to what may have happened, but should not be the basis for changing a pedigree. 

DNA proof of parenthood should also only be used from DNA companies that ( UKC or AKC acknowledge) provide certifications of the authenticity of the reading and methods used to determine parent hood. 

No Changes should be made on armchair reading of DNA  profiles. 

Connie Jones

On Mar 30, 2016, at 9:39 AM, Leslie Donais <granitehi...@COMCAST.NET> wrote:

I think we need to be as accurate as possible and lean towards the evidence we have on hand.

On Mar 30, 2016 9:16 AM, Karen Hinchy <kcc...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm just curious to others' thoughts based on the discussion on the NW dogs a few weeks ago. 

We originally agreed to create their CPP Pedigrees to match the AKC ones with all siblings the descendants of Singing Woods Cygnus and Georgianna's Sheena.  I'm fairly sure no one really thinks those are accurate pedigrees, just a good compromise given the debate about the DNA results. 

Not that we've had the change to Riki's birthdate, and information from his owner and breeder that supports the DNA evidence - do you feel we should keep the blanket Cygnus x Sheena pedigrees for all?  Or should we review the DNA evidence now supported with 3rd party documentation and update pedigrees to match?  

******

So, this is interesting.  When we first discussed the NW dogs, we talked about the UKC pedigrees (a real mess), the AKC pedigrees (blanket all dogs as full siblings) and the DNA results.  We elected to go with the AKC pedigrees that note all NW dogs as full siblings, despite (disputed!) DNA evidence that this is clearly not the case.  

I find the information from Rick Strle, whose reputation is solid and who got Riki in a single transfer from Ron to be compelling.  It should be noted that this information on Riki from Rick Strle actually supports the DNA results.  While I'd LOVE to have the UKC do DNA Parent Verification on Tia and Nome to definitively link them to Riki, at this point I think that noting their parents as North Wind Riki x Georgianna's Sheena is certainly not less accurate than the current pedigree we have for them, and likely it is a good deal MORE accurate.  I have actually made this change in my personal databases when evaluating COIs.

Kodiac, of course, is more complicated.  But IF we believe Rick about Riki, that supports the DNA evidence, which says that Kodiac is NOT the son of Georgianna's Sheena.  I can't figure out who Kodiac's parents might be, given the times he was handed off and the mutliple variable involved.  But - I agree that keeping his pedigree open, or at least opening the dam where DNA evidence has excluded Sheena is probably a more accurate version of Kodiac than the one we have now.

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 12:18 PM, Susan E Bragg <ross...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Hi All;
I'm ready now to further discuss/Posit we Update SIRE record on Nome and Tia (to NW Riki or Rikki [of Bear Creek]); As WELL as Update DAM record on NW Kodiac to OPEN; as per Zoogen/UKC/COA documentation(s) prior, etc.

Are others yet ready or no?  Thanks, for I can make no further apologies for noting the sooner we Correct these also NW peds finally, the better off we'll be when MARS OS begins also analyzing breed alleles frequencies too, etc.  And I have no idea if ICB has completed their own Updated Analysis yet, but better they do it with also further corrected NW peds too finally, eh?  Best, Susan

P.S.  I'm also ready to revisit Updating ND Nugget pedigree at least, if and when others are.  To Add Victor's Kobuck as her documented (AND a continued statistically probable) SIRE then, aye.  If others are too, just shout.  I can say more when needed separate Subject that.  seb

--

Karen Hinchy

Bashaba Chinooks
www.bashabachinooks.com

--

Karen Hinchy

Bashaba Chinooks
www.bashabachinooks.com

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chinook Pedigree Project" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chinook-pedigree-p...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chinook Pedigree Project" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chinook-pedigree-p...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Chinook Pedigree Project" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chinook-pedigree-p...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to chinook-pedi...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Karen Hinchy

Bashaba Chinooks
www.bashabachinooks.com

[Bob and Connie Jones]

The assignment of pedigrees back in the early 90’s was done with the best information possible at that time.  When DNA was accepted, people had an opportunity to verify their dog’s background if they so chose to do so., many did not.  DNA eliminated the theories, “discovered” letters, people’s statements. and it allowed the atmosphere of being political about where a dog came from, to be removed.  The fighting, etc over which dog came from which dog, was a painful time for myself and I am sure those that lived thru it.  Our hopes were that the use of DNA would stop this type of “pain and finger pointing.”

So it is with a bit of PSTD,  that I read these current “studies”,  research, who said what about the dogs of the past.  Let the past be.   People did the best they could with the info they had at the time to document the dogs.  If DNA proved something different let that stand rather than the people fighting or theorizing. 

  Going forward those of us in the COA at that time,  strongly encouraged those newly breeding to DNA parent verify each litter as that would be the best building block for future generations. 

You ask why this was Ok in the 80’s and 90’s - it was all the info people had.  Today we have DNA parent verification and that should be the standard each breeder takes when creating new litters.   We have better info today ( DNA) to make decisions and to give knowledge to those in the future, why go back to the past methods that were subjective and not scientific?

[Karen Hinchy]

I completely agree with you Connie that for dogs born /alive today that DNA parent verification is the way to go. I parent verify all of my litters just to ensure that there are no questions decades from now. 

But my question relates to dogs in the 80s /90s. You say that where there is DNA we should let it stand... So I assume you are supportive of the proposal to keep Kiska, Hoonah, and Riki as Cygnus X Sheena, Tia and Nome as Open X Sheena, and Kodiac as Open X Open?  This is what the DNA results indicate. 

The only speculation based upon newly public documentation is whether Riki might be the sire of Tia and Nome. If these dogs were alive and reachable I completely agree they should be DNA tested to prove this. I'm not sure that is possible, so one question is if, using the rules from their time, it is sensible to consider Riki might be their site based on the info from breeder and owner. But this is a bit of a trial balloon - it is certainly possible given Riki was with Rom when Tia and Nome were conceived. Maybe probable, maybe not. 

Sent from my iPhone

[Karen Hinchy]

So it is with a bit of PSTD,  that I read these current “studies”,  research, who said what about the dogs of the past.  Let the past be.   People did the best they could with the info they had at the time to document the dogs.  If DNA proved something different let that stand rather than the people fighting or theorizing. 

I forgot to mention- I'm sorry if this brings up painful memories, Connie.  l can well imagine the emotion attached to such discussions when the actual dogs under review were still alive, and when some would have tried to use it to make some dogs "good" and some dogs "bad".

I don't believe any real pedigree is "good" or "bad", and most of the NW dogs are in my dogs' pedigrees many times over, so I don't in any way mean to de-legitimize them.  I DO want to ensure we keep the best pedigrees for the population analyses and breeding decisions as we can.  This is to build a better future for ALL Chinooks.  North Wind dogs are still in three and four generation pedigrees - and are in most pedigrees many many times further back.  It is quite important that their parentage is as accurate as we know, even if that means it should be Open (like Nugget's or Ford's Mac's sire).  

[Bob and Connie Jones]

Thank you Karen for acknowledging the PSTD comment!  There were some very tough times with people/emotions in those days.  Most of us were all brand new to dogs, brand new to dog climbs, registries etc.  But there were some wonderful relationships made and many good times had in those days too, that is what I try to hold on to most of the time.

From the PSTD position, I read your question of changing the pedigrees with UKC.  And that is what my answer was, let the pedigrees stand with UKC unless you have new DNA information.  Or if you want to work thru the process with UKC to challenge a pedigree and they accept the information that is not DNA related, that is certainly everyone’s right to work with the UKC and their process of what information they will accept or not to change a pedigree.

In terms of the database of information to run COI etc,  these are just my opinions- is that they should reflect the UKC pedigree or AKC pedigree as that is the easiest standard to bear in terms of generations. If people wanted to run variations of the COI changing relatives that are not on the pedigrees that could be an option if the program allowed that, then people would have the pedigree info and the information from another variation.  For instance run the pedigree COI using an open pedigree and then run one with a variation of placing parents in the open pedigree, and then the breeder can make their best decision about what the information may tell them.  

I hope that helps explain how I view this.

Connie Jones

[Karen Hinchy]

In terms of the database of information to run COI etc,  these are just my opinions- is that they should reflect the UKC pedigree or AKC pedigree as that is the easiest standard to bear in terms of generations.

Thanks, Connie. I understand your opinion here.  Of course, in regards to the NW pedigrees, the AKC and UKC don't match each other, and neither match the DNA.  I'm tending to agree with your earlier point that if there is DNA, we should use it.  

I also think you're right and the UKC and AKC pedigrees should be updated to match that known DNA evidence, but that is a very long and arduous process.

[Susan E Bragg]

Studbook challenges and Investigations remain more costly and less democratic in most all ways yet too; Than this real Pedigree Project remains, frankly.  I am one of those which also suffered greatly (and still am, apparently ;) by us not yet assigning pedigrees according to continued DNA from 1996 to 2000, agreed.  It's a very strange holding pattern of long term denials we remain in.  But think we can and will break that old mold too here soon.  For again, just remaining sentimental over still INcorrect UKC and AKC pedigrees in 2016 is a dangerous proposition, more so now than when this was an also debate over who would and would not keep their then 7Gen PR pedigrees within new UKC venue(s).  Thankfully, UKC too has become more real since then.  As it's safe for us to do here too finally, aye.  best, susan

--