Talk:Show cat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cats Portal This article is supported by WikiProject Cats. This project provides a central approach to Cat-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

I added {{NPOV}} to the article until we can find an agreeable wording for the disputed section of the article.

I left notes on the talk pages of most of the other editors of this article since there are not that many. I think I got everyone who had made either significant edits or a large number of edits. Hopefully we can get input from a few more people to help resolve this. Dalf | Talk 23:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Contents 1 Health problems as a result of inbreeding 1.1 Specific examples of health problems 2 Just because it is on the internet doesn't mean it is right 3 Article Topic 4 Catbar weighs in 5 Progress to resolution 6 Rewritten paragraphs 7 Show cat / pedigreed cat

[edit] Health problems as a result of inbreeding

I have changed the paragraph that discusses this issue from the previous version which stated categorically that this is a misconception. I integrated some but not all of a previous version which stated categorically that it was a problem. I decided to go with a wording which indicated that inbreeding related problems are a concern. The paragraph still does feel quite right so anyone wanted to re-word it would be appreciated. In any event dismissing the issue as a "misconception" is clearly POV and incorrect when preventing this sort of problem is one of the major activities of breeders. This is bore out by the previous version's mention of ethical breeders. Even assuming that this is not a problem at all for so called ethical breeders the existence of unethical ones would still make this a problem so it does merit inclusion as a consideration beyond dismissing it as a misconception. I also linked to the article selective breeding which has a more in depth discussion of the problem and what is done about it (again more evidence that it is not simply a misconception.

Yes it is a misconception and my version was written on the advice of several veterinarians, one of whom has been a cat only vet for 20+ years. Please prove your asertations before changing something like this so dramatically. Also, please check out Robinson's Genetics for Cat Breeder's and Veterinarians, the other source I've used.Pschemp 17:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok I will not change it back with out a more detailed list. But I do not think you will like the results. Reading through the articles on the various breeds you will see that a number of them are (the breeds themselves) more likely to get a lot of different things ranging from deafness to weak immune systems to a variety of conditions that prevent them form being able to take care of themselves. Even if for example any of the hairless breeds were selected for hairlessness it still causes them health problems. Or on the other end of the scale ca breeds with so much hair that they cannot clean it themselves.

That said your statements cannot be factual as you claim because the way you have written the article it is internally inconsistent, unless you are implying that all breeders are ethical then the implication is that some are not and so it is still a problem. Also the breeding standards established by the various organizations that do the shows are largely designed to offset this problem while maintaining the "ideal". Referring to these things (which are to be found in most of the articles on pedigreed animals on wikipedia) as a misconception implies that there is no truth to them or that the problem is so easily dealt with as to have been totally eliminated. In any event I will include some specific examples here before changing the article again. Dalf | Talk 18:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Specific examples of health problems

Note that even if defects are detected and removed, the article as I had it (and as it originally was) simply stated that the defects happened at a higher frequency then the normal cat population. The occurrence of the defects is relevant to breeders and vets and many others and they read encyclopedias too.

• Manx cats born with stubby tails are prone to a type of painful arthritis.
• Manx cat’s shorter tails can cause damage to their spinal cords resulting in problems with spina bifida, bowels, bladder, and digestion as well as bathroom hygiene.
• From the article on Siamese: Many Siamese are cross-eyed to compensate for the abnormal uncrossed wiring of the optic chiasm. While this may not cause immediate health problems it is a genetic defect.
• All of the hairless breeds including Don Sphynx, Cornish Rex, Devon Rex and Sphynx (cat) have trouble regulating body temperature, as well as exposure to sun. They also have problems grooming themselves as their skins produce the same oils as if they had all their fur layers meaning that they cannot take care of themselves. Crossbreeding the Sphynx with the Devon Rex had to be disallowed by breeding rules because it caused serious dental or nervous-system problems. This at least indicates that the breeds are likely to see these sorts of problems more frequently then the normal population.
• The breeding standard for Tonkinese listed at [1] lists Rapid oscillation as a disqualifying trait. Why would they need to specifically eliminate this indication of neurological problems if it did not happen at a higher frequency in this breed?
• This article [2] indicates that larger gene pools are in fact a contributing factor to increased health. British Shorthairs are strong cats with few health problems. The large gene pool available in establishing this breed and careful, informed breeding practices have helped insure this.
• The Turkish Angora is documented as having a higher rate than "normal" to other cats of hormonal and allergic skin complaints. This is from "Medical, Genetic, & Behavioral Aspects of Purebred Cats", edited by Ross D. Clark, copyright 1992, Forum Publications, Inc., St. Simons Island, Georgia., and is mentioned in [3] which also discusses the health dangers of inbreeding in the more rare breeds.
• Further evidence if you look on Google for guides about getting a pet cat. The guides that refer to purebred cats are always more pointed about asking about the cats’ health and any problems that might be encountered. This does not seem to be as large a concern for general population cats.
• According to [4] ...cats such as the Persian, Himalayan and Siamese may have genetic problems that can affect their health. Get an idea about breed specific health problems. Implying that there are breed specific problems.
• I am currently looking for a good source on statistics for deafness which also seems to be more common in pedigreed animals though I do not have the exact numbers yet.
• From [5]
  • However, like most purebred breeds, genetic weaknesses exist in some lines. Notably, some Balinese have problems with gingivitis and the heart disease cardiomyopathy. Tooth care and annual checkups are a must. According to Traditional Cat Association (TCA), the traditional Balinese lacks some of the health concerns of the extreme. Either way, buy from a breeder who offers a health guarantee and registration papers.
  • However, because they are so closely related to the Burmese, the Bombay can have some of the same health issues. These can include runny eyes, asymmetrical jaws, and sinus and breathing problems. Reportedly, traditional Bombays have fewer of these problems because their faces are not as extremely flattened. Getting a written health guarantee is a wise practice when purchasing any pedigreed cat.
  • Today’s Brit, like its alley cat ancestors, is a healthy, hardy breed. The only significant problem is fading kitten syndrome caused by blood type incompatibility. In the random-bred domestic cat population this is not often a problem, since type B is so rare (less than 10 percent of American domestic cats have type B blood). However, some pedigreed breeds like the British shorthair have higher percentages of B blood type. Nearly 50 percent of American Brits have type B. Type B blood queens bred to type A blood toms can produce both type B and type A kittens. The kittens with type A blood are born apparently healthy but then fade rapidly and die 24 to 72 hours after birth. Breeders have their cats typed to prevent mating cats of differing blood types. Don’t worry, by the time you pick up your kitten all danger of this syndrome has passed.
  • Burmese can be prone to gingivitis, so they should get yearly dental checkups and cleanings as needed. Feeding a high quality hard food will help keep their teeth clean, but extra dental care is often needed to keep this breed’s smile bright. Although uncommon, other reported problems that affect contemporary Burmese include cranial deformities in newborn kittens and excessive tearing and breathing problems due to the foreshortened nose.
  • The Chartreux is generally a healthy and hardy breed, but some lines are known to possess the gene for patellar luxation (displacement of the kneecap). When severe, this condition can cause pain and lameness. Since the condition is hereditary, many breeders screen their breeding stock for it and exclude questionable cats from their programs. Ask prospective breeders about the condition before you agree to buy. Some Chartreux also tend to get gingivitis if their teeth are not regularly cleaned
  • Cymric kittens that inherit two copies of the Manx gene, one from each parent, die before birth and are reabsorbed in the womb. Since these kittens make up about 25 percent of all kittens conceived from Cymric to Cymric matings (and Manx to Manx matings) litters are usually small, usually averaging two, three or four. The Manx gene can also cause severe defects of the spine such as spina bifida, gaps in the vertebrae, fused vertebrae and defects of the colon. These problems usually occur within the first month, but since they can occur within the first four months of age, most breeders keep their kittens for at least 16 weeks. Some of this is repeat of what I listed above.
  • The Havana brown had to be reopened for breeding with other breeds in 1998 because of the lack of genetic diversity and the health problems that represented.
  • Himalayan health concerns include breathing difficulties, eye tearing, malocclusions and birthing difficulties due to the head size and the flat face of the extreme Himalayan. Reportedly, traditional Himalayans tend to have fewer of these health problems. Polycystic kidney disease (PKD), which can cause kidney failure, is also known to exist in some Persian and Himalayan lines.
  • Maine coons are generally very healthy because of their working cat origins. However, some are prone to hip dysplasia and a very serious heart disease called hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.
  • Nebelung and Russian blues are often crossed to increas the gene pool.
  • The Persian Reported health concerns include breathing difficulties, eye tearing, malocclusions, and birthing difficulties due to the head size and the foreshortened face. Polycystic kidney disease (PKD), a disease that can cause kidney failure, is also known to exist in some Persian lines.
  • Scottish Fold Breeding two folds together increases the number of fold kittens in the resulting litters, but also greatly increases the chances of serious skeletal deformities. Homozygous folds (folds that inherit the folded ear gene from both parents) are much more likely to develop a genetic condition that causes crippling distortion and enlargement of the bones
  • Siamese are generally healthy but, like most purebred breeds, genetic weaknesses exist in some lines. Notably, some Siamese have problems with gingivitis, a liver-destroying disease called amyloidosis and the heart disease cardiomyopathy.
  • Like the Abyssinian, some Somalis have trouble with gingivitis and tooth decay, and require regular check ups, cleanings and tooth brushing to keep their smiles bright. Some Somali lines also have a higher incidence of renal amyloidosis -- a hereditary disease found in Aby bloodlines as well.
  • Like the Siamese, Tonks can be prone to gingivitis. Tooth care and annual checkups are a must.
  • Deafness is not uncommon in pure white, blue-eyed Turkish Angoras. However, the Angora is no more predisposed to this than any other breed or any random-bred blue-eyed white cat. White cats can be born partially or totally deaf due to a defect in the dominant gene that is responsible for the white coat and blue eye color. This gene has been linked to a form of hereditary deafness that causes degeneration of the organ of Corti in the cochlea.
  • Abyssinians are generally healthy but are prone to gingivitis. If not treated, the more serious periodontitis can develop, causing tissue, bone and tooth loss .... Amyloidosis, a disease thought to be hereditary that affects the kidneys, and PK deficiency, which causes anemia, have been found in some Aby lines.
  • Generally, the American shorthair is a hardy breed with few health problems, not surprising since the breed developed from strong domestic stock. A relatively large gene pool helps keep the breed healthy. However, a few genetic weaknesses are known to exist in some lines, including a serious heart disease called hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.
  • The exotic is essentially a shorthaired Persian, so it’s no surprise that the extreme exotic has some of the same health problems as the extreme Persian.
    • Running eyes due to shortened tear ducts
    • Sinus and breathing problems caused by the snub nose
    • Abridged sinus cavities
    • Bite and dental problems caused by asymmetrical jaws
    • Polycystic kidney disease (PKD) which can cause renal failure and is known to be present in some Persian lines.
  • Orientals are generally healthy but since they are closely related to Siamese they share some of the same diseases, notably gingivitis, a liver-destroying disease called amyloidosis, and the heart disease cardiomyopathy.

Dalf | Talk 20:41, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just because it is on the internet doesn't mean it is right

Dalf, Many of your listed facts up there are just plain wrong according to veterinary science. I know this, I'm studying it and consulting with vets about the facts. Many of the articles on Wikipedia are stubs written by people with little to no background on a particular breed and contain factual errors. A group exists that is working on fixing this but quoting them doesn't prove anything.

Again, many of the things about cats already on Wikipedia are wrong. We are working to correct this. Many things on the internet are even more un-factual. Cats as a rule are misunderstood and pedigreed cats, being only 2% of the total population are even more obscure when it comes to facts. Many times, cat facts are extrapolated from dogs and dog breeding and this can't be done, their physiology is very different as well as the history of the different breeds. For this reason I think that the show cat article is just fine for neutral point of view.

I don't deny that issues exist, however, many of the same problems occur in humans and that isn't from inbreeding. It is from the fact that medical things come up...not because of inbreeding. The vast majority of the public does not even remotely understand the facts of cat medical science, in fact many vets don't because cats are often not even thought worthy of being brought in for medical care. I have personally seen all of the health problems you list in RANDOM bred cats at the vet's office. They weren't inbred and yet they have the same issues. How many feline veterinary exams have you sat through? I'm on 200 and counting.

I didn't misunderstand the original intent of the article, and furthermore, the intent of this article is to explain what a show cat is. Nothing more. There are various pedigreed cat, dog, horse etc articles if you want to delve into the larger set of information but I don't think this is the place.

I feel that as I have worked for vets, am in school to be one, show cats, breed cats and look at their medical problems all the time I have not only the proper background but in fact a mission to make sure that facts are correct. What are your qualification and/or background with cats?

The misconception is that inbreeding makes unhealthy animals. This is absolutely not true. Inbreeding, when used correctly, makes BETTER animals, and this has been verified with studies. Inbreeding done incorrectly increases the chance that a random mutation will become more common. There is bad inbreeding and good inbreeding, so making a blanket statement about the health affects of it is not acceptable.

The whole concept of inbreeding is volatile and often used as an argument by animal rights people as to why pedigreed animals are unethical. Well guess what? The lines of the royals of Europe are just as much and or more inbred than some lines of cats and no one calls that unethical. Nor does anyone write articles about the health problems of the British Royal family.

Good breeders are aware of the genetic limitation of their cats and breed for HEALTH FIRST. I will not let Wikipedia be yet another vehicle for misinformation on this topic. Just because the facts are not widely known does not mean that they aren't true.Pschemp 22:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok point by point

• Are you contending that these health problems do not happen at a higher frequency in specific breeds than in the general cat population? That is what the article is saying!
• Your opinion of inbreeding is not shared by many geneticists. The fact is that smaller gene pools are likely to cause problems. It is true that this is not always 100% of the time the case. The cheetah for example has almost no genetic diversity with little problem as a result. But this is the exception and furthermore the point of breeding historically is not for health it is for specific ascetic characteristics, that is why the breed standards have disqualifications for poor health but no qualifications for exceptional health. I have cited sources (in fact the book you reference above has a whole chapter (chapter 11 starting on page 185) dedicated to genetic anomalies and details steps taken to remove them form some breeds. If they were near there then how could they be removed? Breeding for physical traits as we have done also removes a lot of genetic material form the gene pool that is totally unrelated to the selected trait and frequently needed for general health. This is basic genetics.
• Are you contending that Manx cats do not have a higher than normal % of spinal problems than other cats?
• I cited some sources and the only sources you cite are "I am an expert and I say so" and I am sorry but that just does not cut it especially coming from such an enthusiast.
• Also you are simply wrong about no one writing articles about the problems with human inbreeding. The article on inbreeding (that YOU link too) includes the following line The House of Habsburg was famously weakened by intermarriage, leading to a number of birth defects.
• Some of the cases where the genetics are known specifically above are absolutely correct and as a matter of mathematics makes the cats more likely to have kittens with specific disorders. Population genetics is a statistical science, and just because there are healthy members of a population (which no one contests) does not mean that on the whole a population does not have a higher rate of some bad combination of genes.
• Your comment about dogs and horses confuses me .... Are you claiming that inbreeding does not hurt cats the way it does other animals?
• Your statement The misconception is that inbreeding makes unhealthy animals. is the misunderstanding that I was saying you had. The contention is not that it makes unhealthy animals. As you just said there are unhealthy individuals in any population, the contention is that inbreeding spastically makes more of them. Are you honestly clamming that breeds with only 50-300 individuals are not at higher risk if keep inbreeding than the rest of the population? If this is so why do the breeding standards form time to time allow for the introduction of new genetic material?

Dalf | Talk 23:20, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Article Topic

The article is about SHOW CATS. Meaning cats that show. Meaning let’s talk about them in the context of SHOWING. It is not about pedigreed cats in general and not about the minutiae of feline health issues. All show cats are NOT pedigreed cats. All pedigreed cats are NOT inbred. All inbreeding does not cause health issues. Random bred cats can be show cats too. The point is, this is not the place (i.e. article) for your assertations.

You mean that the breeding standards are not used to determine entry in and the winner of Cat shows? As the cat shows are divided based on breed and breeders do specifically breed cats for the purposes of showing them (among other reasons) I think it is clear that it is relevant here. In fact your version of the article not only mentions breeds but also inbreeding and related health concerns (only you dismiss them as untrue) Dalf | Talk 03:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I did that because the previous version mentioned it. While a mention is relevant, a full out discussion is not. Also, ALL SHOW CATS ARE NOT THERE TO BE EVALUATED AGAINST BREED STANDARDS. It is true. There is a class for regular old cats and it is evaluated by personality. Pschemp 04:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Additionally as my sources are Texas A&M Vet School, Robinson's Genetics for Cat Breeders and Veterinarians, Cyndi Rigoni DVM (Houston TX), and Winter Trussell DVM (Grapevine, TX) how is that me just saying I'm an expert? I study genetics. I know how they work. Again I say, what are YOUR qualifications to facts in this area other than quoting web sites?

As I stated before at least in the case of Robinson's Genetics for Cat Breeders and Veterinarians, your assertions are not supported. Your narrow interpretation of these sources is what I was referring too. Can you point to a published location that says that specific breeds of cats pedigree or not do not have a higher frequency of genetic illness? Can you point to an authoritative source that says that Manx cats do not have lower litter size because of a fatal genetic abnormality that is common to them? Death in utero is a defect. Your appeal to authority is a logical fallacy unless you can back it up with 'specific sources. Dalf | Talk 03:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I never said that Manx cats that are improperly bred don't have issues because of thier mutant gene. However that doesn't mean you can make general statements about all cats from that, which is what you did. I'd love to point to a published location if your sentence (Can you point to a published location that says that specific breeds of cats pedigree or not do not have a higher frequency of genetic illness?) made enough sense to be understood. What are you trying to say there?Pschemp 04:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Your wording changed the meaning of the article to something that is not entirely correct.

Well we obviously disagree and an logical analysis of even your own statements here lends credence to my version. My version simply said that the laws of genetics applies to cats, and as such breeders have to take extra precautions to protect the health of the breed and gene pool. Your statements about ethics supports my statement, otherwise what do you mean by unethical breeders? The science is on my side here. Dalf | Talk 03:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

No, that is not what your rewording said. it said "A common problem with ANY selectively breed population of animals is the susceptibility to a number of health problems..." that is different from what you say above.Pschemp 04:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Your rewording - "A common problem with ANY selectively bred population of animals is the susceptibility to a number of health problems..." is too general. You cannot say ANY selectively bred population in such a sweeping generalization. That statement is neither factual nor provable.

It is defensible in its generality. You note that I said 'susceptibility' this is not a certin thing it means over time it can be a danger. Ask any geneticist if it is factual or any wildlife conservationist. In fact I took that sentence from the article on selective breeding which I did not write. But, how would you rather it be worded? My version might be too sweeping with a generality but yours categorically stats a untrue thing. As to the provability, in what way is it not provable? You could easily take the breeding records of cats and count the number of defects, calculate the percentages and see if the population of Manx cats has more spinal problems in their kittens than any other population (including other pure breeds). Dalf | Talk 03:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Agian, Manx cats, bred CORRECTLY (which is the goal of good breeders) do NOT have more problems. You are not getting that there is correct and incorrect inbreeding. Just the existence of two types makes your generalizations illogicalPschemp 04:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

What you can say is that any selectively bred population of animals is more homogeneous than a random one. However, homogeneity does not automatically mean health problems.

It is automatically assumed that inbreeding is a bad thing. When done carefully it is not, nor does it make a population more susceptible to anything. NOTE: I said WHEN DONE PROPERLY. There is a right way and a wrong way to do it. And there is a difference in the result. As such you can't make the blanket statements that you are trying to make.

Your statement is true about the homogeneousness, and the second statement is also true in VERY rare cases. But the fact is it is not the case here. We do not have the technology to excrcise total control over what stays and what goes in a gene pool as we shrink it. Even if we had this technology we do not know know the function of most of the genes in many species, and we do not know that dangerous interactions different version of those genes might have. Cat breeds are breed to re-enforce a very very small set of genes each on the way to doing that we reinforce a lot of other genes that might be bad or eliminate good ones. Our science is just not that good yet. Also we actively do things that are against the goal of good health, selecting for defective genes that would not survive in the wild. Part of the reason that the cheetah does so well with virtually no genetic diversity is because natural selection was in action picking what was left in the gene pool as it shrunk. You are giving us technology that is at least decades away when with your statements about "doing it right". But again its a moot point unless you are clamming that EVERYONE is doing it right (and I disagree that even the best and most skilled breeder will never have a problems with genetic defects the Manx again it breeding specifically for a gene that is defective so there is no way to breed them and avoid small liter size, short of genetic manipulation of every embryo there is no way to eliminate the spinal problems again this is math draw the heredity chart). Dalf | Talk 03:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I never claimed breeders were perfect, again since you seem to be obsessed with the Manx I will say that their particular genetic mutation produces effects which are OBVIOUS enough that an educated person can select for minimal problems. And that's what we get. MINIMAL problems. Nothing is perfect, agreed, but A LOT can be done to further that end. And a lot has been done, so for you to imply that ALL pedigreed cats have these issues is too general. Are there idots out there that make bad breeding decisions? Yes. But they are neither common nor the majority.Pschemp 04:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Your choice of words implies that "susceptibility to a number of health problems" is common with inbreeding and occurs in ALL inbred populations. This is simply not true for all populations, nor is it true for many cat populations, nor is it true for the current pedigreed cat populations. IN THE PAST, when breeders did not have the knowledge of genetics we do know, poor choices were made. That is not the CURRENT situation and lines with issues, like PKD in Persians were completely eliminated from breeding programs in favor of healthy ones. You can't characterize the pedigreed cats of today by what past cats were like. Breeders have worked very very hard with leading geneticists and vets to fix these issues and have succeeded. Thus today's cats DO NOT have the health problems of older ones. So you can't claim that they are more susceptible to health problems because of inbreeding, they are not. Their ancestors WERE. Were. Not Now. If you want to write an article about the history of inbreeding before modern genetics go ahead. But that is a different article from this one.

Your faith in modern science is commendable, and I admit that a lot of progress has been made. But we have far from conquered any genome. Not even that of bacteria. The chemical equilibriums are at times even beyond our ability to model or understand. I want to know and this is not a rhetorical question "Do you honestly believe as you imply in this paragraph that modern vets and geneticists have crafted perfect(or at least better than baseline) gene pools for purebred cats?" Dalf | Talk 03:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Um no, but they do have the technology to select for the healthiest cats and that is being done and it has made a huge difference and has resulted in the MAJORITY of pedigreed cats without health issues. A minority have issues. A minority in dang near everything has issues, but your wording implies that it is the majority of pedigreed cats and that is not ture.Pschemp 04:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Let's look at the definition of "inbreeding" I am using so we can be on the same page. This comes from Robinson's (referenced above) and I feel it is appropriate because it is phrased in terms specifically related to cats. "Inbreeding is...the act of mating individuals of varying degrees of kinship." (pg. 75) The genetic effect of inbreeding is that it increases the homogeneity of the offspring. An increase in homogeneity does not automatically or always increase health problems. It makes that cat share more genes in common, but if the genes used at the beginning made healthy cats, the result will still be healthy cats.

This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of genetics (which I have studied somewhat). Genetics or rather DNA have built in safeguards, when the DNA of an animal is damaged in some way there are lots processes built into the DNA that protect the animal. This is why male's of every species are more susscptable to problems that happen in genes on the X chromosome, females have a second copy so one damaged version is not a disaster in many cases. This is just one of the built in mechanisms that we have. Genes interact with each other a genes that impacts hair color or eye color might interact with other genes that regulate color blindness or deafness. There are literally millions of such relationships and equilibriums.

Ok after that basis of genetics lets look at your statement if the genes used at the beginning made healthy cats, the result will still be healthy cats. The problem is that as I described above a perfectly healthy animal (or human) can have all sorts of land mines in their genetics. These land mines accumulate over time as the result of mutations that get passed on. Just because you started with healthy cats does not mean that after removing half of the gene pool (or more) you will still have healthy cats. That is just not how genetics works. Dalf | Talk 03:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, mutations happen, science isn't perfect, so? Cats selected to breed are not selected randomly or in a vacuum and an accelerated form of natural selection happens when the breeders picks the healthiest ones to use. That selects for continuing health and yes things happen but that doesn't mean that all pedigreed cats have these issues as you implied.Pschemp 04:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

AND, If the people who know the most about things don't write about them, then what is the point of Wikipedia? Sharing misinformation? I don't think so. Pschemp 02:43, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Well its obvious that we both think the other is mistaken. We will I think have to work on a few different versions of the article and get some outside opinions to vote on it. Dalf | Talk 03:35, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I don' think we need to go that far. Most of my objection is to that one sentence. Pschemp 04:13, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Catbar weighs in

Ooh boy. Another cat fight - really sorry for the bad pun :-). I love staying out of these, but I've been asked to weigh in, and so I will. I'm a purebred owner - four Egyptian Maus, considered a pretty robust breed, but with a fairly small gene pool. My wife and I have not bred Maus, but have showed our cats extensively. Please consider what I have to say as experienced opinion. Four data points for this breed and general observations about purebreds in general from show experience isn't world-class expertise, but perhaps it gives me a bit of credibility. Or perhaps not.

Of the four - one died at age 7 from the combined effects of feline asthma and an inherited heart defect. This was no surprise - he was actually not expected to survive to adulthood. He was meant to be a stud cat. If not for the defect he would have been a fine one. He was a beautiful smoke and has been pictured in books and magazines for the breed in years' past. The defect was caught in his presale physical exam and we became his adoptive family. He was, of course, required to be neutered immediately, as he was NEVER to be allowed to breed with this defect. He actually did quite well and we and our vet expected he would live a full life after a year. At about age 5, he started to exhibit feline asthma, and the combination, to our surprise and that of our vet, was too much for him. His half-sibling started to exhibit feline asthma about age 7, and showed moderate, but treatable skin allergies at about age 5. A distant relative of these two, from one Mau generation earlier, shows the anxiousness that was considered common in the early Maus. I've seen worse in many mixed breeds, and apart from this, she has been impeccably healthy. She's now in her mid-teens and still quite a Mau. The fourth cat came from a different breeder and from somewhat different stock. He may have a light case of asthma, and had a bout with a nasty bacterial infection at the beginning of the year, but with treatment he bounced back and I would say he is also a very healthy cat, as well as an impressive one (and profoundly intelligent and pretty, too, but that's not especially relevant :-)).

What does the above mean? I'd say "not much". Let's add in a bit more data. I have asthma, too, acquired in the last few years - the same period as the cats. It might be in all of our genetics, but the local newspaper has written articles about the explosion of asthma cases in our area. Factor the asthma out and our purebreds, with the exception of the first, might be considered quite healthy specimens. Our vet thinks so, and he's a heavyweight in the vet world (not a cat specialist though - birds and zoo animals).

Let's go back to the concept of ethical, as well as skilled breeders. If the breeder of our first cat wasn't ethical, she might have tried a "fast one". With that particular defect, it isn't likely that a breeder could manage it, but with something more subtle, or which manifests later in life, it's certainly possible. I live in the US; many people in this culture will do ANYTHING for money. We see the puppy mills in the dog world. In a way, we are fortunate that most people aren't too familiar with purebred cats, as demand has a way of attracting Mammon worshipers, to the great detriment of purebred animals. If you have much of this careless breeding going on, the genetics of purebreds will definitely suffer. I think the great majority of cat breeders are highly ethical. Ethics don't protect against the genetics of the situation, however. Early development of a breed requires significant cross-breeding of related animals and even given the strongest ethics and wisest of breeding choices, there will be defective animals. We don't know enough about genetics to insure perfection, but breeders try, and they learn. Some things are easy to eliminate, some are hard. Early specimens of a breed might be more prone to some defects, and breeders work to eliminate them. Breeds with small gene pools are at a big disadvantage, but breeders do their best. I'm not up-to-date with the status of cat genetic research, but based on my knowledge of the state-of-the-art from 5-7 years ago, I felt more could be done. It would require quite a bit of cash to do the research and we don't have a Bill Gates stepping up to drop a few tens of millions of dollars to do what I have in mind. It will get done eventually; perhaps some it has been and I just don't know about it.

One more issue I'd like to touch on: specific breeds. Some cat fanciers like their cats close to the wild. Breeds like the Mau, among many, aren't too far from the wild. They are very close to what nature meant cats to be and they tend to have fewer health problems. When we get to other breeds - let's not beat around the bush - like the Munchkin or the Sphynx, well, we've deviated from the plan quite a bit. They might be expected to have more problems. My limited experience with the Sphynx breed has been quite pleasant by the way; I think the world is a better place for the breed. Breeders and owners of these cats must be extra vigilant to care for these breeds, and for individuals, respectively. I really have a problem with breeds that have been bred to brainlessness - I think cats should be smart, perhaps above any other trait. If someone wants a pretty doorstop, they should buy a doorstop. Anyway, to sum it all up, breeders make ethical choices too when they choose to develop new breeds, and there is a lot of controversy there. I'll state directly that I think there are a few breeds that should not be, but that is very much a personal opinion. If I state that the Munchkin should never have been pursued, that opens the door for someone who opposes all purebreds. It's just a different point on the continuum. Sometimes things happen at the envelope that people push that aren't so nice, but with time we learn.

I don't know that I've added much to what has already been said, other than some personal observations. It looks to me like you aren't too far apart now. I think it would be a mistake to say that defects in purebred cats are in general a serious problem. I don't believe they are. I think it would be a mistake to say defects in purebred cats don't exist above the mixed breed population. In the most highly developed breeds, close to nature and with large gene pools, say the Maine Coon(?), the breed defect level might be very close to zero. A breed that's on the border, either because it's new, or its "strange", or it has a small gene pool may well have a rather high defect level. Breeders will either fix the problem with time, or if not, will hopefully will have the wisdom to let the breed die out if it can't be fixed. That's all we can hope for.

Again, I don't claim great expertise. I'm not trying to fan any flames - I'd like to douse them if I can. We get excited about topics because we care about them. It happens everywhere in the Wikipedia. It takes some practice, but we can pull the heat out of our discussions and just improve the articles. That's what we all want to do. Keep cool all! Catbar (Brian Rock) 01:42, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, I think your statement that to take either extreme stance (not a problem at all vs. a very serious problem) is wrong. The truth is somewhere in the middle. Hopefully we can work out an acceptable wording. I am relatively new to wikipedia (at least in terms of editing), is it a standard practice to play around with the wording on the talk page and reach consensus, doing it in the article seems like an invitation to revert wars. As too the comments about ethics in breeding, I think this is my main point. If lack of genetic diversity is not an issue as the current version of the article implies then why are we even talking about ethics? If its not a danger then it does not matter what your breeding practices are. Dalf | Talk 01:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

This is the logic of most people - All inbreeding causes health problems. All pedigreed cats are inbred. Therefore, all pedigreed cats have health problems. For the myriad of reasons above I have explained why this line of logic is not true. The wording Dalf changed makes the article conform to the faulty logic above, thus my objection. Pschemp 03:08, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Progress to resolution

Going back and forth is not helping us. It is clear that we disagree on a number of issues some of them semantic and some of them factual. I propose that we put two or three versions of the paragraph up here (perhaps the three that have been in the article at different times) and see if we cant work out a neutral wording. Dalf | Talk 03:44, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rewritten paragraphs

If I wrote it all over this is what I would put. Pschemp 04:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

A common misconception is that all pedigreed cats are less healthy than random bred cats due to inbreeding. Not all pedigreed cats are excessively inbred, however, in the past, this was the case with some breeds, before the modern understanding of genetics was widely circulated. Currently, breeders take great care to select for the healthiest animals, which has greatly reduced the incidence of health issues. Many of the worst, like PKD in Persians and HCM in Maine Coons, have been nearly eliminated due to preventive screening, long term tracking and study by geneticists. Pschemp 04:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I like this compromise, we coudl ahve probbly saved ourselves a lot of typing (and my suffering bad spelling)if we had gone right to the wording rather than debate the issue. Dalf | Talk 04:39, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Plus it does not use the term moggy which is unknown to most americans and someone on Talk: Cat takes issue with how we were using it here anyway. Dalf | Talk 04:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Yeah the moggy term was in there from the original author who I suspect was British. (Not that there's anything wrong with that) I didn't like it either, but I didn't want to offend too many people when i did the original editing. Oh well, there's nothing like a good hashing out to make one feel alive. Pschemp 05:02, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Whee Ha! I'll let you do the honors.Pschemp 05:09, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I was about to ask if you were going to and suggest removing the NPOV tag ... but i'll do it now. Dalf | Talk 05:38, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Show cat / pedigreed cat

Not to start up any kind of issue again, but the observation was made up above that the article was about show cats and not pedigreed cats or purebred cats. Somewhere along the line, not recently, articles on those topics were set up to redirect to 'Show cat'. Where we might want to move some of these issues is 'Cat breed' and redirect 'Pedigreed cats' and 'Purebred cats' to that article. I may eventually take this on myself, but I'm leaving town for awhile, and probably won't be available into the middle of next week. If anyone else tackles this, good luck! Catbar (Brian Rock) 10:37, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I think we might be able to expand the scope of this article to include the terms more fully as well. Though I am not saying that is the best solution, I am asking if we think it might be. Dalf | Talk 18:03, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I changed the redirects as suggested. Pschemp | Talk 06:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC)