# clone your dog for $100,000



## Mary Jane (Mar 3, 2006)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/us/21dog.html?_r=1&ref=science&ore


If it were as simple as genetics-did anybody remember environment/training/socialization, etc?


----------



## Sherush (Jan 12, 2008)

Oh man if my last dog Jed was still alive and if we had money I would jump at it.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

Every dog I've had has been wonderful and every one has been better than the previous one. May it be I'm wiser to choose and raise them every time. No thanks, not even for free.


----------



## Shandril2 (Nov 26, 2003)




----------



## DancingCavy (Feb 19, 2001)

Never. Personally, I believe that unless you can recreate every single event in your pet's life exactly as it played out before, you will never EVER get the same dog again. And, since such things are an impossibility, I'm not for it at all. So what if they're 100% genetically the same as your previous dog, they still won't be that dog. Each dog is an individual and should be experienced as such. It's hard enough to not compare your new dog (after the passing of an old one) to the new one. How 'disappointing' would it be if it were the 'same' dog over again?

No thanks. There are already enough dogs needing homes. I don't need to recreate my rescue when she's gone. She wouldn't be Risa anyway. I'd rather just enjoy her while I'm fortunate enough to have her.


----------



## GunnerJones (Jul 30, 2005)

If I had a million dollar dog I'd consider it purely from a business standpoint. Take race horses for example, if you had a triple crown winner and was making money hand over fist from stud service or at the track yea of course. Also consider, its 100k now but five to ten years from now it will be 10k or less, something for the military or law enforcement to consider.


----------



## k9ma (Nov 15, 2002)

company link: http://bestfriendsagain.com/


----------



## crackem (Mar 29, 2006)

I think mixing the genes can make a species stronger over time. Keeping them the same makes absolutely zero sense when looking at the big picture. Death is a part of life. Deal with it.


----------



## tracyc (Feb 23, 2005)

It'll never be anything more than a very expensive novelty for wealthy people who don't know better. 

As Jamie said, genetic duplication might get you a dog that looked exactly like the first one, but it would still have a different personality based on socialization and training experiences. The new dog won't come with a memory. 

Isn't the value of a relationship with a living thing cherished BECAUSE we realize deep down that it cannot last forever? 

If it were possible to clone one's mother (which I suppose is or would be feasible at some point in time) that new person wouldn't BE your mother. That relationship cannot be duplicated. For me, it's the same with a dog. It's not about that physical dog--it's about the relationship/connection you have with that unique soul.


----------



## Vinnie (Sep 4, 2001)

> Originally Posted By: Luca_stlIsn't the value of a relationship with a living thing cherished BECAUSE we realize deep down that it cannot last forever?


That's an excellent point!

To be honest, no, I wouldn't want to clone my dog. I love him and want him to live a good long life but clone him? To me it still wouldn't be the same. I would know the difference.


----------



## GunnerJones (Jul 30, 2005)

If practiced on a large industrial scale it would be a diaster. the Iris potato famine comes to mind, the potato crops of the time were essentialy clones of the original imported plant from the Americas


----------



## Maedchen (May 3, 2003)

I certainly wouldn't clone my mother







, but if one ever has lost their heart dog, the desire for cloning is totally understandable. It would ease your longing and provide hope for being together again-forever. Sadly, it prob. wouldn't be the same though.


----------



## GSDolch (May 15, 2006)

Im sure some think they will get the excate same dog, and some will probably do it just because they have the money and they can do it.

Im sure though, there are some out there who would do it, just to ease that little pain and still have a little bit of their dog with them still.

Its better than breeding fluffy to have a litter just so you can keep a puppy when she/he dies imo.

I probably wouldnt do it, one, dont have the money, lol, and also cause when my dog passes, my dog passes and I know I would never get him back. So I wouldnt waste money trying to get the same dog, when I can get another dog and fall in love with its own persona and quirks. Its doesnt take away imo, it adds.


----------



## Lauri & The Gang (Jun 28, 2001)

It DOES allow for the chance to avoid any mistakes you made with the dog the first time through.

Tempting ... but only if I won the lottery and had money leftover!


----------



## Brightelf (Sep 5, 2001)

One may be able to clone a body, but not a soul. The dog we love will never be back, even in a duplicate body.. it is the soul we fall in love with, with our dogs.


----------



## GunnersMom (Jan 25, 2008)

> Originally Posted By: BrightelfOne may be able to clone a body, but not a soul. The dog we love will never be back, even in a duplicate body.. it is the soul we fall in love with, with our dogs.


Exactly!
I can certainly understand the desire or the temptation to do this, but I think people are setting themselves up for even more heartache when they realize that it's just not the same. I don't know... I think the disappointment would be like losing them all over again.
I could never bring myself to do it.


----------



## Catu (Sep 6, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: Luca_stl
> 
> If it were possible to clone one's mother (which I suppose is or would be feasible at some point in time) that new person wouldn't BE your mother. That relationship cannot be duplicated. For me, it's the same with a dog. It's not about that physical dog--it's about the relationship/connection you have with that unique soul.


Excellent point. My father does have a twin brother, genetically I could say he is my father, but HE DOESN'T. The relationship (or the lack of it) I have with my dad is unique.

Now I think about... genetically speaking, my cousins, daughters of this uncle are genetically the same than my real half sisters. Scary, even when I barely know them.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

If I had the money, I'd seriously consider cloning Kaiser. To have the chance of having another heart dog like him again, and train him knowing what I know now and not making the mistakes I made then, would be too tempting to resist. Even if just a pipe dream, I'd be tempted to try. 

I would have to seriously consider the soul issue though, and that would make my final decision. I still can't decide if I believe dogs and other animals have a soul or not... part of me does, part of me doesn't. If they don't, and the end product is a result of genetics + environment, than indeed cloning a dog should produce something similar, or even better, than the first one. But if they do, and the existance of a soul impacts who they are, it would be an exercise in futility.


----------



## AndreaG (Mar 3, 2006)

I am not sure but wasn't a serious issue going on with the cloned animals lifespan? And what good would it do to have your best friend/racehorce/whatever for just a few years... And see them succumb much sooner than they normally would have.
This whole cloning thing is not as sorted out and going as they make you believe. It's not a routine procedure. One of those things that sound good but the devil is in the details. Same as with the "what's in your mixed breed", remember? Lots of people were shocked by the results, because frankly, its practically impossible to do it right; but as long as there is someone to pay for it, there will be somenone selling it.


----------



## Kayla's Dad (Jul 2, 2007)

> Originally Posted By: BrightelfOne may be able to clone a body, but not a soul. The dog we love will never be back, even in a duplicate body.. it is the soul we fall in love with, with our dogs.


Patti that was very well said. I think that's the crux of the whole issue.


----------



## Maedchen (May 3, 2003)

_One may be able to clone a body, but not a soul. The dog we love will never be back, even in a duplicate body.. it is the soul we fall in love with, with our dogs. _

That's true, Patti. And it's the soul that's going to return, though likely in a different body--and I'm still waiting...
There's no question in my mind, that dogs have souls- every living being has one.


----------



## ceardach (Apr 11, 2008)

Realistically, cloning is for business, not companionship. Nurture is just too much a part of the end product.

Business wise, it could be a boon. Owners of prize dogs could not only sell stud services and puppies, but also genetics for cloning. Perfecting new breeds/lines would take an entirely new aspect with the idea of cloning the 'perfect' example and essentially doubling those genes in the pedigree.

But I suppose the argument against cloning for business would be similar to the arguments against inbreeding.


----------



## Brightelf (Sep 5, 2001)

All the joys seen in our dogs' eyes.. all the hurts.. the humor.. the trust.. disappointment... the hope.. the love.. all of it. Each one is so different. So unique. How they react to an offered new toy, an invite for a walk, everything we share with them-- is so preciously unique.

Even though one would raise the cloned dog from a puppy and know it well.. I think it would be rather unsettling to a degree to see another soul glowing out through our dog's eyes.


----------



## Shandril2 (Nov 26, 2003)

> Originally Posted By: Brightelf I think it would be rather unsettling to a degree to see another soul glowing out through our dog's eyes.


Absolutely! Imagine the horror with a human ....


----------



## pupresq (Dec 2, 2005)

I think for me the reasonableness of it would depend on what the person was expecting when they did it. If you were expecting your previous dog back, then yes, that wouldn't work and is disrespectful of the memory and identity of the first dog. This new dog, clone though it might be, is still a different dog. However, if you were expecting a dog that was physically the same, a younger twin of your pup, then maybe you would be very happy with it. 

If money weren't an issue, I think I'd be very tempted to do it with Grace. I adore Grace. I love her personality and the new dog would have a different one, but I also like her size, shape, and color. I like her drive and her intelligence, and I'd expect most of those things to show up in a clone. I wish so much that I could have a dog with all the same raw material as Grace but from puppyhood and without the history of abuse that has somewhat limited Grace's potential, making her unsuitable for things like Schutzhund, when I think the raw drives and nerve are actually there. 

On the other hand, her history before I got her is part of what makes her her, so I wouldn't expect the other dog to be a duplicate, more like a daughter achieved through asexual reproduction, if you will!


----------



## Guest (May 25, 2008)

All other aspects aside the problem with cloning is that cells have a life cycle. They can only divide so many times and if you start with the cell of an adult animal the resulting clone is genetically older than a normal newborn would be. Remember Dolly, the sheep that was the first cloned mammal? She died prematurely in 2003 aged beyond her years. To my knowledge this problem has not been solved so I would expect that if you cloned your older dog that clone too would die a premature death. So what's the point? As others said already, what makes your dog the personality he or she is is unique and nothing can ever duplicate it. With the cloned body not being as long lasting as the original either what possible reason could there ever be to do this unless you cloned a very young dog and the genetics alone were what was desired?

About Dolly's death: http://www.futurepundit.com/archives/000964.html


----------

