>Sure, a random mixed-breed may have problems, but remember that the 'breed-specific' problems are frequently the result of inbreeding and recessive genes. If breed A frequently has a recessive genetic trait, and breed B does not, mixing the two can't result in the problem.
Actually this isn't quite true in dogs as far as the inbreeding thing goes. In fact the healthiest bloodlines usually are inbred as you are only dealing with so many different kinds of genes for different issues. If you have one bloodline with no hip dysplasia for example and you continue to not breed outside of that dogs direct bloodline it won't ever appear in any of the pups since genetically, if it ain't there it can't magically appear (inbreeding in dogs isn't as dangerous as inbreeding in humans). Every time you outcross with your breeding stock you add new genes and that includes adding new defaults as well. If you already have a certain problem with your line as a recessive inbreeding only alows it to show it's face since you have doubled up on that trait. When you cross two breeds that is doing the same as a major outcross and so same things happens as a outcross amoungst purebreds, you introduce new genes some of which can be for health problems the other bloodline didn't even have. Some breeders outcross only and boy not only is there a much larger range of health issues that can arise but every puppy can look completely different. You have to know what your are doing when both inbreeding (try not to double up on certain faults) and outcrossing (try not to add more faults to your bloodline). Line breeding is the safest route for newbies. When mix breeds are bred nobody is ever there checking the pedigrees of the parents and the health genetics of the parents either to prevent serious problems. Just because mom doesn't have a problem doesn't mean her ancestors don't that can come through when she has pups if bred to a dog with similar health issues in the family tree. My favorite story regarding inbreeding being "evil" is when a buddy of mine (who has beed breeding dogs for over 30 years and has 10 generations of his own line) had somebody come over to buy a puppy and the potential puppy owner says "now I don't want any inbred dogs because they are ugly and have health problems". My friend shows him the kennel and says "ok, pick out the inbred dog". So the guy goes over to the ugliest dog in the whole kennel and points "that one there" and my friend smiles and says "actaully that is the only outcross in the whole kennel":) Also interesting how he has better health in his dogs than most other breeders and the times he has gotten health issues in the line have all come when he outcrossed his dogs to another line. BTW you may find this interesting to know but if you look up in the Guiness Book Of World Records the longest living dog for every year is always a purebred NOT a mix breed. One was a Australian Shepherd and the other was a Lab. Now don't get me wrong, mix breeds are not "evil" nor does it mean all have health problems, or temperment problems. But when you want to find a dog for a specific purpose amd have specific behavior traits and want to guarantee health get a purebred. BTW as far as health goes, a good breeder is willing to take back any puppy you buy that has health problems this kind of agreement isn't with the pound or the litter of mix breed puppies the neighbor has. If you don't care what your dog will be like when he grows up and are willing to take a gamble than a mix breed is just fine.
>Labs have a great combination of intelligence, aggressiveness, protectiveness, size, and gentleness. They look tough and have a big bark but they generally don't fly off the handle. An intruder will quickly get barreled over by a Lab but if the master is around and he okays the person then the Lab will generally chill out.
Yup. That's the difference between a guard dog and a um.. Attack dog:)
>Labs are awesome with kids and are amazing at social interaction with people. My black Lab pretty much knows EXACTLY what is going on. If I'm going for a swim in the pool she is at the door before I leave my room. If I'm going to take a walk she is already by my side WITH the leash in her mouth. If I want her out of my way I just ask her to back up and she backs up, if I say move she moves out of the way.
Too true! Of course this is not un-common with Labs and is likely a reason they have been the AKC's most popular breed for a few years now.
>The worst thing is the first three years. Up until age 2 or 3 they can be unholy terrors.
True
They are such mouthy, energetic dogs that they are constantly carrying your shoes, socks, paper, etc around the house and chewing on them.
I had a chocolate Lab as a kid. She never actually chewed on the items, just carried them around:)
Be prepared to run them to death every day to try to tire them out. A swimming pool is perfect for this, get 2 toys, throw one in and send in the dog, when it gets back wave the second toy and throw it, then you can pick up the first one. Repeat until you have a very tired dog.
Yup! Or get a tennis racket and some tennis balls and practice like your going to the Olympics! Or get a tennis ball launcher. Manual or battery operated.
BTW, my black Lab opens doors and you literally have to lock the door with a key if you want him to stay outside:)
>Couldn't agree with you more (see my.sig). They can be crazy and they can be high energy but they can also be chill and sweet.
Very true! Most can tell who they can be sweet with and who they can be more rowdy with:)
>The only problem with Chessies is that they are not suited to everybody.
This is true. Just like someone mentioned Border Collies being the best. They're great but not for everyone. Most breeds are not for everyone as every person is different:)
As I'm sure you know, they can also be food-protective and their wariness of strangers can lead to problems.
You know how to get rid of the food aggression don't you? All baby Chessies try to guard the food bowl at 8 weeks old. You knock them "ass over tea-kettle" as my friend calls, it and they never try it again! (A Chessie is very sensative and never forgets you know!)
A dog that attacks burglars is good but I've also had mine charge at neighbors who are walking down the sidewalk. You have to assert your dominance if you're going to own a chessie.
This is true. Most Chessies think "guarding" is a game and are mainly putting on a show.. Till a real Bad Guy happens. it's a quirky breed but still the best Guard Dog there ever is if not for everyone. Labs are a very tamed down version (except my black Lab, he is so Chessie-like even at the dog shows the Chessie people fall in love!) if you don't want the full "Chessie Experience" as they are better suited to the novice owner than Chessies are.
>Not to mention the fact that there are tons of people out there breeding dogs who don't have a clue, and are only doing it for the money. It's very easy to get AKC paperwork for dogs, and therefore sell AKC registered puppies.
You are quite correct and you have to be careful. Though yes you can register a litter very easily, however you cannot register a litter with AKC unless both parents are.. Not that this guarantees quality. You have to make sure the person breeding the dogs has health clearances, knowes about good bone structure and confirmation and has had a lot of experience with their breed.
>Too many people think this is some kind of guarantee that the puppy will be healthy and free from problems.
A good breeder screens their animals for breed-specific problems. A good breeder also won't be selling their dogs in a parking lot or sending them to a pet store.
You are absolutely correct! However, at least if you find a good breeder you have a snow-ball's chance in Hell that the puppy will be healthy and good tempered where as a mix breed it's a complete gamble (what makes the mix breed's quality any better than the poorly bred purebred in the newspaper? It isn't. It's one and the same)
Mix breeds can have just as many health problems as purebreds can. In fact, go to the vets on any given day and majority are mixed breeds. You have to remember a mix breed is two purebreds that have not necessarily been from good bloodlines. If mix breed's mom has hip dyslpasia and mix breed's dad has a autoimmune disorder, mix breed himself may have BOTH! With purebreds from responsible breeders you have several generations breeding *against* health problems where as with mix breeds nobody does *any* health clearances for genetic disorders let alone are they bred by people who know the given bloodline. (mix breeds usually are two dog's randomly getting it on)
>here is no such thing as a bad dog, only bad owners. Actually you are wrong. Speaking as a proffesional dog trainer and having worked for and with proffesional breeders their are *both*. Bad dogs and bad owners. A dog's temperment is *inherited*. This is why a whippet and a corgi do not act the same even if treated the same and living in the same household. Not all rottweilers are mean dogs either, and it has to do with that dog's bloodlines. How a dog is raised and trained only enhances a dog's natural temperment but it doesn't *change* it. You can do things to not encourage aggression in any dog but there ARE such things as actual aggressive dogs. Rottweilers were oringally Roman cart dogs NOT guard dogs. However, people noticed they look big and tough and so started breeding them for aggression and eventually it stuck in certain lines. Now honestly I have met many nice rotties.. So long as they are on neutral territory. You do not have to teach a aggessive dog to be mean, In fact, you could outright discourage it. A perfect example is a good friend of mine has a Border Collie. This is NOT typically a aggressive breed however, this one despite being a normal puppy treated with the most loving care at about 12 months old started growling and snapping when ever he saw men or children. My friend first tried having people give him treats, to condition the "children and men equals food" response. However it didn't get anywhere,. She eventually tried another method which was rougher but got the message acrossed that this was unacceptable behavior. Was he cured? No. He was under reasonable control though and didn't make a scene when they took walks.. However, till this day she would never leave the dog loose in the front yard unattended if anyone was comming over. Also, dogs that slink around all the time are not *always* abused. There are dogs actually *born* this way. There owners can be and often are the nicest people but can't figure out why Rover is scared of strangers or children and in fact a dog that has been abused when put in a normal environment, if he has a "normal" temperment will be a normal acting dog in a month. Dogs don't "traumatize for life" all that easily and I have seen litters of puppies where most of the puppies are friendly and act just like regular puppies where as one of them as early as 6 weeks and sometime as early as a few WEEKS growls at people. They don't even have to have teeth or eyes open yet. Other dogs get a form of psycosis that is not seen till puberty (such as my friend's Border Collie) BTW said friend has another dog, a cocker spaniel who is friendly as can be so it was definately NOT a man-made issue. I have also noticed the breeds bred for guarding and aggression actually start "guarding" as early as 5-6 months old instead of 1 year or older for dogs not bred for guarding or aggression.
>Been in the army. Enjoyed shooting, but if me giving up my right to own a weapon reduces the chances of people being shot in my country, I'd gladly give up that right.
Actually the problem with "outlawing" guns is the same as England faces (they have that law): Only the bad guys have guns! Just like anything illegal, there are people who will find away to get a hold of it. Just like drugs. SURE they are illegal, doesn't mean there aren't anyone dealing and buying them. So the gang and the murder and rapists end up with guns and the upstanding citizen has fewer options of self-defense when the murder or rapist attacks.. In parts of the mid-west and North Carolina it is common practice that most people have guns. You go to a bar and nobody dares try and hold the place up because you draw your weapon and about 50 other people around you draw there weapons and aim it at you. The crime rate is overall much lower than other parts of the country as most people are armed and willing to protect themselves or even stop another's crim with it.
Also, if kids are taught to respect fire-arms and not play with them and the gun is not treated like a big deal kids won't play with them. My father had two hunting rifles in the closet for years and neither me nor my sister ever even tried to play with them. If we asked questions dad would show it to us but we never tried to shoot anyone with it and it was never any kind of big deal. Just another article in the closet (the gun didn't have locks either). Friend of mine, similar thing, grew up with guns, was taught respect and even how they work but never went crazy shooting his siblings or school.
I wasn't saying that "it's cool to be raped" I said it was cool that she had a mom with "guts". Per the article I oringally read this (don't have the link at the momment) the mom did not kill any of the men and she turned herself in afterwards. She wasn't some out of control maniac.
You are absolutely correct. Call me a troll, but speaking as a dog trainer I have found people have *more* problems with "shelter" and "rescue" dogs. Most dogs end up there because they have issues that most normal families can't deal with. Wether that is epilepsy (and while one may feel sorry for dogs with epilepsy why would you purposely adopt one when you can get a dog with no health problems at all?) or a strange/weird temperment. Yes, there are some Good Dogs that are left because owners are moving or whatever but many, many have issues that go beyond that... Which is why they are given up in the first place. I also recommend getting a purebred as you have a much greater chance of knowing how big, and what kind of temperment your dog will end up with and energy level, trainability etc. Mix breeds are purley a gamble and some turn out good, others poor with far more variation than the purebreds. Also better if you can see/meet the parents of your new puppy and see health cerificates clearing from genetic diseases like hip dysplasia and cataracts -info you will never have with a dog on unknowen ancestery and orgin. Also, the shelter environment seldom shows a dog's true temperment. Takes about a month of living with a dog in a home environment till you can see what he is like (as opposed to a shelter which the dog is only there abour 14 days).. Also, for the record, last time I was at the animal shelter it was all mix breeds. No purebreds except 2 Dalamations and a couple of pit bulls.
Also with regards to Parvo as someone mentioned, you don't know if the dog has it in a couple days as it takes weeks to show up. Also it can last in an area for months. Shelters are constantly exposed to it as they pick up all kinds of animals. After being around an animal that has been exposed or in an exposed area you should always change your clothes, step your shoes in bleach and shower before spending time with your own pet. If you don't want a puppy many responsible breeders have adults available occasionally that are retired from breeding or showing and usually have extensive handling, even training, some are even housebroken and most are crate trained and good with kids. And yes, when I look for a new working dog, first place I head off to is a responsible breeder of proven working stock that has good temperment, easy to train and very healthy.
>A dog like a labrador has a more 'friendly' bark that might not worry a hardened criminal. But that rottweiler sound, that will make anyone think twice.
That's not true about Labradors at all. I live in the middle of nowhere 20 miles from town. I have 2 Labs, a black and a yellow and 2 Goldens. When I go into town (which has a high gang ratio) and bring my Black Lab *everyone* clears the way. He is big and has presence and doesn't do the "I love everyone to death!" attitude my Goldens do. I once was lost at night somewhere and had the same black Lab with me and locked him in the car while I ate dinner at the Denneys. When I came back and opened the door I couldn't see him anywhere. Then I looked down and saw he was coiled up front under the steering wheel just daring anyone to try and get in the car. I also have never had anyone dare enter the yard when he is around and when I lived in town in a little duplex even my landlady didn't dare come through till I locked him up. Also, he has the meanest bark I have ever heard, along with flashing white teeth. My yellow Lab may look less scarey but he A: Has a big bark and B: He has has a higher intelligence about people than most Rottweilers. Most Rotts think everyone is the Bad Guy. Not This dog. When I had a new washer delivered to my house and was home he never even barked, just watched. Everytime somebody comes around with no business being here he acts like he is going to eat them. The Goldens bark but then try and "love" you:) BTW, speaking as a dog trainer and having worked in kennels for many years the very BEST guard dog in the world is a Chesapeak Bay Retriever. They are gentle and loyal with the elderly and children but make the best, most intelligent guard dogs there is. A Chessie is NOT afraid to knock a perp over and stand on them snarling in there face and only bite if necessarly till help arrives without any training in protection work. Also, they love to "be tough" without actually being mean. A friend who had one let his loose in his yard when some car pulled up in his driveway at 1 AM and the two people started necking. His dog Eric, quietly approached the car, slipped into the open window and then roared like a bear, scaring the crap out of the couple who drove off in a hurry.
I agree. Besides wouldn't it be cool to have a kick-ass mom like that woman in Australia who got raped and then her 80 year old mom hunted down the the men and shot their balls off and then turned herself in? That old momma kicks butt!:)
>he clerk at the counter doesn't give a hoot about your speeding fine or gain any satisfaction from it. Not that I would have any personal knowledge about revenge or stuff like that.
No, he doesn't. But the clerk at the counter probably gets a hoot over the fine the guy that robbed his store gets. And admit it, it's pretty funny when some guy in back of you cuts you off (when you're going the speed limit) and goes speeding ahead in traffic being a asshole and by the time you get a couple blocks up find he has been pulled over by a cop for a ticket.
>I disagree. Laws and government are based on a social contract and are about retribution and compensation
This is true in *modern* society but at it's most primitive form it likely started as people's individual revenge that finally formed laws and having impartial individuals deal with other people's crimes (to keep the "revenge" from going overboard as society started forming structure).. After all, why should Joe-Six Pack even *care* that you were robbed? He doesn't, but you would care, and you would want whoever tried to rob you to pay for it. With Police, you don't even have to get revenge yourself, they do it for you. This doesn't work when someone has simply said something nasty but lets says the neighbor's dog gets loose every morning and shits in your front yard. Neighbor refuses to do anything about it. Now you could do your own revenge and shoot the dog next time you catch him (and then, BTW if the owner reports this to police YOU get charged with Animal Cruelty, at least in the state of California you would) or YOU can call Animal Control and or the Police and report his animal and laugh as he is fined and has to go to court for breaking the leash law (which in CA is a misdemeanor BTW).. Basically laws are "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, tit-for-tat" which is all "wrong me (or anyone else) and you *will* be sorry".
That actually is a good point and in fact if you think about it, the laws the government makes is *based* off revenge. You speed in your car, you get a ticket and pay a fine. You murder someone, you get the death penalty or life in prison. While this is meant to control the masses and such it is basically the governments "revenge" on that person's wrong doing.
I work in a little box too, only I am also "chained" by the head to the desk (phone head-set)..I work in a call center (and have to use an ancient mainframe system that freezes all the time) and I had a client that asks "so can you just call me back?" Me: "I'm sorry, my phone only recieves calls. I can't call out from this phone."
Client: "Can you email me then?"
Me: "I'm sorry, I am only allowed to email my supervisor and our intranet system can only email around the company"
Client (getting frustrated) "what are you, in prison??! Do you at least have a window?!"
Me: "Yes I actually do have a window, but the blinds are closed so I can't see out"
Scarey thing is, I wasn't exagerating, I actually am not allowed to do any of those things and the blinds ARE closed to keep glare off the computer screens since I sit near the window:)
Seattle doesn't get sun. However, the people in Seattle hope that with enough sundials maybe the sun will be attracted to the state.
BTW, almost impossible to buy sun screen there (like there really is any kind of need) but it's packed full of "fake tan" products and tanning booths and coffee shops likely support the whole state.:)
I used to live there, I should know..Notice I don't live there anymore? [g]
You think that's twisted? I got my best buddy a DVD set I knew he really wanted and had it all wrapped up..When I give him the box, he picks it up and starts to shake it before unwrapping it (like lots of people do) but then asks "is it chocolate or is it underwear?":)
Oh dear...[g]
Yah? Well being short isn't so nice either..Average is best, but at 4 foot 8 inches tall I get people asking the same thing "how tall ARE you?" in the same way you described and "are you a midget?", "why are you so short?"..Not to mention all the people that think I am a 12 year old kid because of my height. I am 21, but I wouldn't dare buy liquor for fear of being carted. The other month, I went to buy some glue for my rearview mirror that fell off in my van and because it is a toxic glue they checked my ID and I could just see the Wal-Mart lady's suspicious "is this a fake ID?" glare.. Chairs and seats are often uncomfortable as I can't sit and lean back or my feet don't touch the ground, took forever to find a vehicle that had the cargo room I need and yet still be able to reach the pedals and see over the steering wheel. In fact some cars that look small have these low bucket seats that I couldn't see over the dash-board in. Using chairs and step-ladders all the time in every-day life gets very annoying..Just to reach dishes out of the cupboard, or file stuff in the top cabinet at work..Not to mention not being able to reach things in the store on the top-shelf..Finding and getting clothes is a real PITA -try finding something in the kids isle that doesn't have SpongeBob Squarepants on it? That isn't cutesy and childish? Or a business suit? Or shoes without Poke'mon? There are even counters at businesses that I can't even see over (as the case with a ToGos restraunt I was in some weeks back)..While I wouldn't think being overly tall is much better and definately has it's disadvantages being truly short sucks big time.. Oh, and as for how other people treat you? You are either ignored by customer-service personnel in the store(likely not even seen next to a tall person), or talked down to like a small child, if you are with a normal size person you are *ALWAYS* mistaken for being their child, and well, er you have this problem with women treating you like some sort of cute "squeak toy" or "child substitute"..Er don't mistake it, they don't want to have sex with you any more than their pomeranian dog..It's more like "can I tie a big pink bow around your neck and stick you in my shopping cart?" Your risk of being mugged, or generally robbed is higher since you automatically are an "easy looking" target..Growing up is worse, it's insanely fun to pick on little people. Anyway, I am babbling at this point, but my point is being short ain't cool.
I think it's really happened. Two people with really thick heads have just collided.;)
>For the most part, it's obvious we'll just have >to agree to disagree:)
Yah I had come to the same conclusion:) (hence my opening statement:)
>First, heavy weightlifting will lower one's >resistance to drugs. In women, it can actually >cause more serious problems, >such as delaying the onset of puberty in female >gymnasts.
Yup. Course it really doesn't help the female gymnasts in that they start heavy physical training while really young and before their growth plates close up..It's really not good for them to say the least. Kids really aren't supposed to be overworked like that, because of the health issues involved. I've heard before so called health experts actually say kids should not lift weights at all till their growth plates are closed...Which is sometime after puberty. It's a presonal decision though and personally, I wouldn't let any kid of mine over exert themselves like that since it just doesn't seem like a very good idea, but that's just me.
>Excess protein or creatine may help to build >muscle, but will >cause kidney damage. It's just a matter of >degree, it's not AS bad as steroids, and anyway >it would be impossible to >detect (and who would draw the line at where one >is consuming too much protein?).
Well that's just it..Too much of anything is bad and it's hard to know how much or even if they are doing excess protien -and in fact I doubt the athlete knows either till health problems arise and the doctors tells them.
>Second, I think you are very wrong about hard >work being unable to compensate for natural >talent. Genetics don't count >for jack if you're not willing to work hard. My >family actaually has pretty good genes for >running, my father used to run >marathons, and when I'm in shape, I can sprint >really goddamn fast. But none of us have ever >competed, because we're >not that serious about running. We may very well >have the natural potential to be great, or maybe >not, we've never >tested it. But the one thing I can say for >certain is that whether or not we've got good >genes for running, ANYONE who >runs daily could probably outrun me because they >work harder. This is true to a lesser degree in >the Olympics too. If >someone is naturally the most talented, but >doesn't train as hard (or trains incorrectly), he >still will probably lose
Yes, you're right. If someone doesn't train hard but still has natural talent they may not be at competing levels. However the fact that the gene is *there* means, if you make the most of it, you likely could be very competitive. If someone *doesn't* have the gene for say, running, they can train hard and likely do fairly good, but they probably are only going to be as good as you are when you AREN'T physically in shape. In other words, if you don't have the genes for it, no matter how hard you train, you are never, ever, going to be as competitive as someone who has the genes for it and also trains hard. My main point is, having the natural talent for something is leverage.
>One last little "food for thought" bit: what if >the genetic manipulation occurs before birth. >First consider the case of >outright engineering, using retroviruses or >whatever to insert new genes at conception. Next >consider the case of >Gattaca, where a large number of eggs are >fertilized by a large number of sperm, and only >those fertilized eggs with the >best combinations of genes are put into the >uterus. Would you exclude case 1, both cases, or >allow both?
Very interesting point. I think I would classify them as the same, being that it's the same thing: gene therapy, and also the children involved had no choice in the matter. I don't think such peop
>Steroids don't mess with your genes either. Where >do you draw the line between "nutrition" and >"drugs?"
Nutrition improves one's health and drugs don't (though you could argue perscription drugs do when someone is sick)..Drugs are chemicals and not usually food like oranges or whatever. Steriods messes with the body chemistry in ways foods usually don't.. Eating food won't make your penis smaller and and biceps bigger. Eating good food at the very most makes you *healthier* and more disease resistant, and that's it...Working your muscles with weight training is only pushing your body to it's individual all-ready there best potential. There isn't anything wrong with that.
Gene therapy is changing the genes, period. I think it's a Good Idea to use with treating illnesses but not to make super athletes.
>You talk a lot >about "the best" athletes. What is the best, >though?
Top athletes. Olympic Gold Medalists. That sort of thing.
>Clearly we're not just looking for people with >the best natural ability, >or else we would forbid them to exercise or >practice for fear of allowing hard work to >compensate for genetics. So
Not true at all. Hardwork doesn't compensate for genetics, it brings out your genetics full potential..You don't see ones true natural ability without hard work and good eating.
>willingness to work hard and make sacrifices is >apparently something we factor into the decision >of what makes >someone the best.
Yes. But gene therapy isn't going to make someon work harder..In fact they may not have to work nearly as hard to compete with the competition..At least until gene therapy became mainstream in athletics.
>So how does that make chemical or genetic >manipulations wrong?
Because you aren't enhancing what you already have. You are downright *changing* what you have.. In fact, I would personally be less against steroids than gene-therapy in athletics.
>Unlike the dog training mentioned >before, the dogs cannot decide that they want >their coats ironed, or whatever you were saying. No, but those kind of competitions are actually more about the people than the animals these days. They're using their animals as an extension of themselves and their ego. Not supposed to be that way, but it's gotten there.
>People engage in all >activities of their own volition, and therefore >whatever they do to gain an edge is a choice they >have made, not something >imposed upon them from the outside.
Very true. But I think their should be limits in athletic competition when it comes to artificailly altering the body (i.e. not enhancing what you were born with but downright changin it). That's just my opionion. You do have good arguements though. If I had mod points I'd mod you up as "insightful":)
Natural as in your born in ability..The above you mention like lifting weights and protien powder don't mess with your genes. They simply enhance what you already were born with. You could sensably argue that gene therapy also is only enhancing what you already got, but the main difference is, it messes with your genetics and making an actual change, not just enhancement. No, we aren't trying to breed better athletes, but there is the chance it would "select for" less than the best. Which would be sad for the sport. I don't know, maybe this wouldn't affect the majority of sports fans, but personally, I think if one thinks they need to so far as to have gene therapy to be the best they are a poor-sport and winning in the ONLY thing in their mind..The enjoyment of the actual game is lost and they are simply out for blood... Part of playing a sport, means following the rules. And in order for it to be a sport, there has to be some rules.
Slashdot Mirror
>Sure, a random mixed-breed may have problems, but remember that the 'breed-specific' problems are frequently the result of inbreeding and recessive genes. If breed A frequently has a recessive genetic trait, and breed B does not, mixing the two can't result in the problem.
:) Also interesting how he has better health in his dogs than most other breeders and the times he has gotten health issues in the line have all come when he outcrossed his dogs to another line. BTW you may find this interesting to know but if you look up in the Guiness Book Of World Records the longest living dog for every year is always a purebred NOT a mix breed. One was a Australian Shepherd and the other was a Lab. Now don't get me wrong, mix breeds are not "evil" nor does it mean all have health problems, or temperment problems. But when you want to find a dog for a specific purpose amd have specific behavior traits and want to guarantee health get a purebred. BTW as far as health goes, a good breeder is willing to take back any puppy you buy that has health problems this kind of agreement isn't with the pound or the litter of mix breed puppies the neighbor has. If you don't care what your dog will be like when he grows up and are willing to take a gamble than a mix breed is just fine.
Actually this isn't quite true in dogs as far as the inbreeding thing goes. In fact the healthiest bloodlines usually are inbred as you are only dealing with so many different kinds of genes for different issues. If you have one bloodline with no hip dysplasia for example and you continue to not breed outside of that dogs direct bloodline it won't ever appear in any of the pups since genetically, if it ain't there it can't magically appear (inbreeding in dogs isn't as dangerous as inbreeding in humans). Every time you outcross with your breeding stock you add new genes and that includes adding new defaults as well. If you already have a certain problem with your line as a recessive inbreeding only alows it to show it's face since you have doubled up on that trait. When you cross two breeds that is doing the same as a major outcross and so same things happens as a outcross amoungst purebreds, you introduce new genes some of which can be for health problems the other bloodline didn't even have. Some breeders outcross only and boy not only is there a much larger range of health issues that can arise but every puppy can look completely different. You have to know what your are doing when both inbreeding (try not to double up on certain faults) and outcrossing (try not to add more faults to your bloodline). Line breeding is the safest route for newbies. When mix breeds are bred nobody is ever there checking the pedigrees of the parents and the health genetics of the parents either to prevent serious problems. Just because mom doesn't have a problem doesn't mean her ancestors don't that can come through when she has pups if bred to a dog with similar health issues in the family tree.
My favorite story regarding inbreeding being "evil" is when a buddy of mine (who has beed breeding dogs for over 30 years and has 10 generations of his own line) had somebody come over to buy a puppy and the potential puppy owner says "now I don't want any inbred dogs because they are ugly and have health problems". My friend shows him the kennel and says "ok, pick out the inbred dog". So the guy goes over to the ugliest dog in the whole kennel and points "that one there" and my friend smiles and says "actaully that is the only outcross in the whole kennel"
Eric jumped back out of the car in time :)
>Labs have a great combination of intelligence, aggressiveness, protectiveness, size, and gentleness. They look tough and have a big bark but they generally don't fly off the handle. An intruder will quickly get barreled over by a Lab but if the master is around and he okays the person then the Lab will generally chill out.
:)
:)
:)
Yup. That's the difference between a guard dog and a um.. Attack dog
>Labs are awesome with kids and are amazing at social interaction with people. My black Lab pretty much knows EXACTLY what is going on. If I'm going for a swim in the pool she is at the door before I leave my room. If I'm going to take a walk she is already by my side WITH the leash in her mouth. If I want her out of my way I just ask her to back up and she backs up, if I say move she moves out of the way.
Too true! Of course this is not un-common with Labs and is likely a reason they have been the AKC's most popular breed for a few years now.
>The worst thing is the first three years. Up until age 2 or 3 they can be unholy terrors.
True
They are such mouthy, energetic dogs that they are constantly carrying your shoes, socks, paper, etc around the house and chewing on them.
I had a chocolate Lab as a kid. She never actually chewed on the items, just carried them around
Be prepared to run them to death every day to try to tire them out. A swimming pool is perfect for this, get 2 toys, throw one in and send in the dog, when it gets back wave the second toy and throw it, then you can pick up the first one. Repeat until you have a very tired dog.
Yup!
Or get a tennis racket and some tennis balls and practice like your going to the Olympics! Or get a tennis ball launcher. Manual or battery operated.
BTW, my black Lab opens doors and you literally have to lock the door with a key if you want him to stay outside
>Couldn't agree with you more (see my .sig). They can be crazy
:)
:)
and they can be high energy but they can also be chill and sweet.
Very true! Most can tell who they can be sweet with and who they can be more rowdy with
>The only problem with Chessies is that they are not suited to everybody.
This is true. Just like someone mentioned Border Collies being the best. They're great but not for everyone. Most breeds are not for everyone as every person is different
As I'm sure you know, they can also be food-protective and their wariness of strangers can lead to problems.
You know how to get rid of the food aggression don't you? All baby Chessies try to guard the food bowl at 8 weeks old. You knock them "ass over tea-kettle" as my friend calls, it and they never try it again! (A Chessie is very sensative and never forgets you know!)
A dog that attacks burglars is good but I've also had mine charge at neighbors who are walking down the sidewalk. You have to assert your dominance if you're going to own a chessie.
This is true. Most Chessies think "guarding" is a game and are mainly putting on a show.. Till a real Bad Guy happens. it's a quirky breed but still the best Guard Dog there ever is if not for everyone. Labs are a very tamed down version (except my black Lab, he is so Chessie-like even at the dog shows the Chessie people fall in love!) if you don't want the full "Chessie Experience" as they are better suited to the novice owner than Chessies are.
>Not to mention the fact that there are tons of people out there breeding dogs who don't have a clue, and are only doing it for the money. It's very easy to get AKC paperwork for dogs, and therefore sell AKC registered puppies.
You are quite correct and you have to be careful. Though yes you can register a litter very easily, however you cannot register a litter with AKC unless both parents are.. Not that this guarantees quality. You have to make sure the person breeding the dogs has health clearances, knowes about good bone structure and confirmation and has had a lot of experience with their breed.
>Too many people think this is some kind of guarantee that the puppy will be healthy and free from problems.
A good breeder screens their animals for breed-specific problems. A good breeder also won't be selling their dogs in a parking lot or sending them to a pet store.
You are absolutely correct! However, at least if you find a good breeder you have a snow-ball's chance in Hell that the puppy will be healthy and good tempered where as a mix breed it's a complete gamble (what makes the mix breed's quality any better than the poorly bred purebred in the newspaper? It isn't. It's one and the same)
Mix breeds can have just as many health problems as purebreds can. In fact, go to the vets on any given day and majority are mixed breeds. You have to remember a mix breed is two purebreds that have not necessarily been from good bloodlines. If mix breed's mom has hip dyslpasia and mix breed's dad has a autoimmune disorder, mix breed himself may have BOTH!
With purebreds from responsible breeders you have several generations breeding *against* health problems where as with mix breeds nobody does *any* health clearances for genetic disorders let alone are they bred by people who know the given bloodline. (mix breeds usually are two dog's randomly getting it on)
>here is no such thing as a bad dog, only bad owners.
Actually you are wrong. Speaking as a proffesional dog trainer and having worked for and with proffesional breeders their are *both*. Bad dogs and bad owners. A dog's temperment is *inherited*. This is why a whippet and a corgi do not act the same even if treated the same and living in the same household. Not all rottweilers are mean dogs either, and it has to do with that dog's bloodlines. How a dog is raised and trained only enhances a dog's natural temperment but it doesn't *change* it. You can do things to not encourage aggression in any dog but there ARE such things as actual aggressive dogs. Rottweilers were oringally Roman cart dogs NOT guard dogs. However, people noticed they look big and tough and so started breeding them for aggression and eventually it stuck in certain lines. Now honestly I have met many nice rotties.. So long as they are on neutral territory. You do not have to teach a aggessive dog to be mean, In fact, you could outright discourage it. A perfect example is a good friend of mine has a Border Collie. This is NOT typically a aggressive breed however, this one despite being a normal puppy treated with the most loving care at about 12 months old started growling and snapping when ever he saw men or children. My friend first tried having people give him treats, to condition the "children and men equals food" response. However it didn't get anywhere,. She eventually tried another method which was rougher but got the message acrossed that this was unacceptable behavior. Was he cured? No. He was under reasonable control though and didn't make a scene when they took walks.. However, till this day she would never leave the dog loose in the front yard unattended if anyone was comming over. Also, dogs that slink around all the time are not *always* abused. There are dogs actually *born* this way. There owners can be and often are the nicest people but can't figure out why Rover is scared of strangers or children and in fact a dog that has been abused when put in a normal environment, if he has a "normal" temperment will be a normal acting dog in a month. Dogs don't "traumatize for life" all that easily and I have seen litters of puppies where most of the puppies are friendly and act just like regular puppies where as one of them as early as 6 weeks and sometime as early as a few WEEKS growls at people. They don't even have to have teeth or eyes open yet. Other dogs get a form of psycosis that is not seen till puberty (such as my friend's Border Collie) BTW said friend has another dog, a cocker spaniel who is friendly as can be so it was definately NOT a man-made issue. I have also noticed the breeds bred for guarding and aggression actually start "guarding" as early as 5-6 months old instead of 1 year or older for dogs not bred for guarding or aggression.
>Been in the army. Enjoyed shooting, but if me giving up my right to own a weapon reduces the chances of people being shot in my country, I'd gladly give up that right.
Actually the problem with "outlawing" guns is the same as England faces (they have that law): Only the bad guys have guns! Just like anything illegal, there are people who will find away to get a hold of it. Just like drugs. SURE they are illegal, doesn't mean there aren't anyone dealing and buying them. So the gang and the murder and rapists end up with guns and the upstanding citizen has fewer options of self-defense when the murder or rapist attacks..
In parts of the mid-west and North Carolina it is common practice that most people have guns. You go to a bar and nobody dares try and hold the place up because you draw your weapon and about 50 other people around you draw there weapons and aim it at you. The crime rate is overall much lower than other parts of the country as most people are armed and willing to protect themselves or even stop another's crim with it.
Also, if kids are taught to respect fire-arms and not play with them and the gun is not treated like a big deal kids won't play with them. My father had two hunting rifles in the closet for years and neither me nor my sister ever even tried to play with them. If we asked questions dad would show it to us but we never tried to shoot anyone with it and it was never any kind of big deal. Just another article in the closet (the gun didn't have locks either). Friend of mine, similar thing, grew up with guns, was taught respect and even how they work but never went crazy shooting his siblings or school.
I wasn't saying that "it's cool to be raped" I said it was cool that she had a mom with "guts". Per the article I oringally read this (don't have the link at the momment) the mom did not kill any of the men and she turned herself in afterwards. She wasn't some out of control maniac.
You are absolutely correct. Call me a troll, but speaking as a dog trainer I have found people have *more* problems with "shelter" and "rescue" dogs. Most dogs end up there because they have issues that most normal families can't deal with. Wether that is epilepsy (and while one may feel sorry for dogs with epilepsy why would you purposely adopt one when you can get a dog with no health problems at all?) or a strange/weird temperment. Yes, there are some Good Dogs that are left because owners are moving or whatever but many, many have issues that go beyond that... Which is why they are given up in the first place. I also recommend getting a purebred as you have a much greater chance of knowing how big, and what kind of temperment your dog will end up with and energy level, trainability etc. Mix breeds are purley a gamble and some turn out good, others poor with far more variation than the purebreds. Also better if you can see/meet the parents of your new puppy and see health cerificates clearing from genetic diseases like hip dysplasia and cataracts -info you will never have with a dog on unknowen ancestery and orgin. Also, the shelter environment seldom shows a dog's true temperment. Takes about a month of living with a dog in a home environment till you can see what he is like (as opposed to a shelter which the dog is only there abour 14 days).. Also, for the record, last time I was at the animal shelter it was all mix breeds. No purebreds except 2 Dalamations and a couple of pit bulls.
Also with regards to Parvo as someone mentioned, you don't know if the dog has it in a couple days as it takes weeks to show up. Also it can last in an area for months. Shelters are constantly exposed to it as they pick up all kinds of animals. After being around an animal that has been exposed or in an exposed area you should always change your clothes, step your shoes in bleach and shower before spending time with your own pet.
If you don't want a puppy many responsible breeders have adults available occasionally that are retired from breeding or showing and usually have extensive handling, even training, some are even housebroken and most are crate trained and good with kids.
And yes, when I look for a new working dog, first place I head off to is a responsible breeder of proven working stock that has good temperment, easy to train and very healthy.
LOL!! That's sick :P
>A dog like a labrador has a more 'friendly' bark that might not worry a hardened criminal. But that rottweiler sound, that will make anyone think twice.
:)
That's not true about Labradors at all. I live in the middle of nowhere 20 miles from town. I have 2 Labs, a black and a yellow and 2 Goldens. When I go into town (which has a high gang ratio) and bring my Black Lab *everyone* clears the way. He is big and has presence and doesn't do the "I love everyone to death!" attitude my Goldens do. I once was lost at night somewhere and had the same black Lab with me and locked him in the car while I ate dinner at the Denneys. When I came back and opened the door I couldn't see him anywhere. Then I looked down and saw he was coiled up front under the steering wheel just daring anyone to try and get in the car. I also have never had anyone dare enter the yard when he is around and when I lived in town in a little duplex even my landlady didn't dare come through till I locked him up. Also, he has the meanest bark I have ever heard, along with flashing white teeth. My yellow Lab may look less scarey but he A: Has a big bark and B: He has has a higher intelligence about people than most Rottweilers. Most Rotts think everyone is the Bad Guy. Not This dog. When I had a new washer delivered to my house and was home he never even barked, just watched. Everytime somebody comes around with no business being here he acts like he is going to eat them.
The Goldens bark but then try and "love" you
BTW, speaking as a dog trainer and having worked in kennels for many years the very BEST guard dog in the world is a Chesapeak Bay Retriever. They are gentle and loyal with the elderly and children but make the best, most intelligent guard dogs there is. A Chessie is NOT afraid to knock a perp over and stand on them snarling in there face and only bite if necessarly till help arrives without any training in protection work.
Also, they love to "be tough" without actually being mean. A friend who had one let his loose in his yard when some car pulled up in his driveway at 1 AM and the two people started necking. His dog Eric, quietly approached the car, slipped into the open window and then roared like a bear, scaring the crap out of the couple who drove off in a hurry.
I agree. Besides wouldn't it be cool to have a kick-ass mom like that woman in Australia who got raped and then her 80 year old mom hunted down the the men and shot their balls off and then turned herself in? That old momma kicks butt! :)
I line my house with slashdot trolls and a few penguins! Keeps even the most dangerous perps at bay!
That's nothing, I catch myself typing completely backwards! :)
>he clerk at the counter doesn't give a hoot about your speeding fine or gain any satisfaction from it. Not that I would have any personal knowledge about revenge or stuff like that.
No, he doesn't. But the clerk at the counter probably gets a hoot over the fine the guy that robbed his store gets. And admit it, it's pretty funny when some guy in back of you cuts you off (when you're going the speed limit) and goes speeding ahead in traffic being a asshole and by the time you get a couple blocks up find he has been pulled over by a cop for a ticket.
>I disagree. Laws and government are based on a social contract and are about retribution and compensation
This is true in *modern* society but at it's most primitive form it likely started as people's individual revenge that finally formed laws and having impartial individuals deal with other people's crimes (to keep the "revenge" from going overboard as society started forming structure).. After all, why should Joe-Six Pack even *care* that you were robbed? He doesn't, but you would care, and you would want whoever tried to rob you to pay for it. With Police, you don't even have to get revenge yourself, they do it for you. This doesn't work when someone has simply said something nasty but lets says the neighbor's dog gets loose every morning and shits in your front yard. Neighbor refuses to do anything about it. Now you could do your own revenge and shoot the dog next time you catch him (and then, BTW if the owner reports this to police YOU get charged with Animal Cruelty, at least in the state of California you would) or YOU can call Animal Control and or the Police and report his animal and laugh as he is fined and has to go to court for breaking the leash law (which in CA is a misdemeanor BTW).. Basically laws are "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, tit-for-tat" which is all "wrong me (or anyone else) and you *will* be sorry".
That actually is a good point and in fact if you think about it, the laws the government makes is *based* off revenge. You speed in your car, you get a ticket and pay a fine. You murder someone, you get the death penalty or life in prison. While this is meant to control the masses and such it is basically the governments "revenge" on that person's wrong doing.
I work in a little box too, only I am also "chained" by the head to the desk (phone head-set)..I work in a call center (and have to use an ancient mainframe system that freezes all the time) and I had a client that asks "so can you just call me back?"
:)
Me: "I'm sorry, my phone only recieves calls. I can't call out from this phone."
Client: "Can you email me then?"
Me: "I'm sorry, I am only allowed to email my supervisor and our intranet system can only email around the company"
Client (getting frustrated) "what are you, in prison??! Do you at least have a window?!"
Me: "Yes I actually do have a window, but the blinds are closed so I can't see out"
Scarey thing is, I wasn't exagerating, I actually am not allowed to do any of those things and the blinds ARE closed to keep glare off the computer screens since I sit near the window
Seattle doesn't get sun. However, the people in Seattle hope that with enough sundials maybe the sun will be attracted to the state. BTW, almost impossible to buy sun screen there (like there really is any kind of need) but it's packed full of "fake tan" products and tanning booths and coffee shops likely support the whole state. :)
I used to live there, I should know..Notice I don't live there anymore? [g]
You think that's twisted? I got my best buddy a DVD set I knew he really wanted and had it all wrapped up..When I give him the box, he picks it up and starts to shake it before unwrapping it (like lots of people do) but then asks "is it chocolate or is it underwear?" :)
Oh dear...[g]
Yah? Well being short isn't so nice either..Average is best, but at 4 foot 8 inches tall I get people asking the same thing "how tall ARE you?" in the same way you described and "are you a midget?", "why are you so short?"..Not to mention all the people that think I am a 12 year old kid because of my height. I am 21, but I wouldn't dare buy liquor for fear of being carted. The other month, I went to buy some glue for my rearview mirror that fell off in my van and because it is a toxic glue they checked my ID and I could just see the Wal-Mart lady's suspicious "is this a fake ID?" glare.. Chairs and seats are often uncomfortable as I can't sit and lean back or my feet don't touch the ground, took forever to find a vehicle that had the cargo room I need and yet still be able to reach the pedals and see over the steering wheel. In fact some cars that look small have these low bucket seats that I couldn't see over the dash-board in. Using chairs and step-ladders all the time in every-day life gets very annoying..Just to reach dishes out of the cupboard, or file stuff in the top cabinet at work..Not to mention not being able to reach things in the store on the top-shelf..Finding and getting clothes is a real PITA -try finding something in the kids isle that doesn't have SpongeBob Squarepants on it? That isn't cutesy and childish? Or a business suit? Or shoes without Poke'mon? There are even counters at businesses that I can't even see over (as the case with a ToGos restraunt I was in some weeks back)..While I wouldn't think being overly tall is much better and definately has it's disadvantages being truly short sucks big time..
Oh, and as for how other people treat you? You are either ignored by customer-service personnel in the store(likely not even seen next to a tall person), or talked down to like a small child, if you are with a normal size person you are *ALWAYS* mistaken for being their child, and well, er you have this problem with women treating you like some sort of cute "squeak toy" or "child substitute"..Er don't mistake it, they don't want to have sex with you any more than their pomeranian dog..It's more like "can I tie a big pink bow around your neck and stick you in my shopping cart?" Your risk of being mugged, or generally robbed is higher since you automatically are an "easy looking" target..Growing up is worse, it's insanely fun to pick on little people.
Anyway, I am babbling at this point, but my point is being short ain't cool.
Hey I am 4 foot 8inches tall -no wonder I am poor! :)
:)
;)
So nice to see someone is at least *close* to my height
And I agree, we should get a big fat check to even things out.
I think it's really happened. Two people with really thick heads have just collided. ;)
:)
:) :)
>For the most part, it's obvious we'll just have >to agree to disagree
Yah I had come to the same conclusion
(hence my opening statement
>First, heavy weightlifting will lower one's >resistance to drugs. In women, it can actually >cause more serious problems,
>such as delaying the onset of puberty in female >gymnasts.
Yup. Course it really doesn't help the female gymnasts in that they start heavy physical training while really young and before their growth plates close up..It's really not good for them to say the least. Kids really aren't supposed to be overworked like that, because of the health issues involved. I've heard before so called health experts actually say kids should not lift weights at all till their growth plates are closed...Which is sometime after puberty.
It's a presonal decision though and personally, I wouldn't let any kid of mine over exert themselves like that since it just doesn't seem like a very good idea, but that's just me.
>Excess protein or creatine may help to build >muscle, but will
>cause kidney damage. It's just a matter of >degree, it's not AS bad as steroids, and anyway >it would be impossible to
>detect (and who would draw the line at where one >is consuming too much protein?).
Well that's just it..Too much of anything is bad and it's hard to know how much or even if they are doing excess protien -and in fact I doubt the athlete knows either till health problems arise and the doctors tells them.
>Second, I think you are very wrong about hard >work being unable to compensate for natural >talent. Genetics don't count
>for jack if you're not willing to work hard. My >family actaually has pretty good genes for >running, my father used to run
>marathons, and when I'm in shape, I can sprint >really goddamn fast. But none of us have ever >competed, because we're
>not that serious about running. We may very well >have the natural potential to be great, or maybe >not, we've never
>tested it. But the one thing I can say for >certain is that whether or not we've got good >genes for running, ANYONE who
>runs daily could probably outrun me because they >work harder. This is true to a lesser degree in >the Olympics too. If
>someone is naturally the most talented, but >doesn't train as hard (or trains incorrectly), he >still will probably lose
Yes, you're right. If someone doesn't train hard but still has natural talent they may not be at competing levels. However the fact that the gene is *there* means, if you make the most of it, you likely could be very competitive. If someone *doesn't* have the gene for say, running, they can train hard and likely do fairly good, but they probably are only going to be as good as you are when you AREN'T physically in shape. In other words, if you don't have the genes for it, no matter how hard you train, you are never, ever, going to be as competitive as someone who has the genes for it and also trains hard.
My main point is, having the natural talent for something is leverage.
>One last little "food for thought" bit: what if >the genetic manipulation occurs before birth. >First consider the case of
>outright engineering, using retroviruses or >whatever to insert new genes at conception. Next >consider the case of
>Gattaca, where a large number of eggs are >fertilized by a large number of sperm, and only >those fertilized eggs with the
>best combinations of genes are put into the >uterus. Would you exclude case 1, both cases, or >allow both?
Very interesting point. I think I would classify them as the same, being that it's the same thing: gene therapy, and also the children involved had no choice in the matter.
I don't think such peop
>Steroids don't mess with your genes either. Where >do you draw the line between "nutrition" and >"drugs?"
:)
Nutrition improves one's health and drugs don't (though you could argue perscription drugs do when someone is sick)..Drugs are chemicals and not usually food like oranges or whatever.
Steriods messes with the body chemistry in ways foods usually don't.. Eating food won't make your penis smaller and and biceps bigger. Eating good food at the very most makes you *healthier* and more disease resistant, and that's it...Working your muscles with weight training is only pushing your body to it's individual all-ready there best potential. There isn't anything wrong with that.
Gene therapy is changing the genes, period.
I think it's a Good Idea to use with treating illnesses but not to make super athletes.
>You talk a lot
>about "the best" athletes. What is the best, >though?
Top athletes. Olympic Gold Medalists. That sort of thing.
>Clearly we're not just looking for people with >the best natural ability,
>or else we would forbid them to exercise or >practice for fear of allowing hard work to >compensate for genetics. So
Not true at all. Hardwork doesn't compensate for genetics, it brings out your genetics full potential..You don't see ones true natural ability without hard work and good eating.
>willingness to work hard and make sacrifices is >apparently something we factor into the decision >of what makes
>someone the best.
Yes. But gene therapy isn't going to make someon work harder..In fact they may not have to work nearly as hard to compete with the competition..At least until gene therapy became mainstream in athletics.
>So how does that make chemical or genetic >manipulations wrong?
Because you aren't enhancing what you already have. You are downright *changing* what you have.. In fact, I would personally be less against steroids than gene-therapy in athletics.
>Unlike the dog training mentioned
>before, the dogs cannot decide that they want >their coats ironed, or whatever you were saying.
No, but those kind of competitions are actually more about the people than the animals these days. They're using their animals as an extension of themselves and their ego. Not supposed to be that way, but it's gotten there.
>People engage in all
>activities of their own volition, and therefore >whatever they do to gain an edge is a choice they >have made, not something
>imposed upon them from the outside.
Very true. But I think their should be limits in athletic competition when it comes to artificailly altering the body (i.e. not enhancing what you were born with but downright changin it).
That's just my opionion.
You do have good arguements though. If I had mod points I'd mod you up as "insightful"
Natural as in your born in ability..The above you mention like lifting weights and protien powder don't mess with your genes. They simply enhance what you already were born with.
You could sensably argue that gene therapy also is only enhancing what you already got, but the main difference is, it messes with your genetics and making an actual change, not just enhancement.
No, we aren't trying to breed better athletes, but there is the chance it would "select for" less than the best. Which would be sad for the sport.
I don't know, maybe this wouldn't affect the majority of sports fans, but personally, I think if one thinks they need to so far as to have gene therapy to be the best they are a poor-sport and winning in the ONLY thing in their mind..The enjoyment of the actual game is lost and they are simply out for blood...
Part of playing a sport, means following the rules. And in order for it to be a sport, there has to be some rules.