2-2 Line/In breeding - Page 12

No. That is you taking things ugly.

You have an interest in promoting a different perception based on a motivation that is not evident in someone not connected to buying and selling for profit.

No need to go the ugly route. An honest profit is the American way.

Let's be reminded that longevity with the best health is an important consideration in any breeding goal, or at least I hope that was an OP desire when asking about the line breeding being considered.
 

Jenni78 - You are quite right about Lorett and I stand corrected, thank you, however my misquote is a minor error. The point is she is there and closer to 2:2 than my misquote.

You have to remember that only a few people outside of the USA will know Maddox and, therefore, you should have mentioned Lorett. It is bad for you to claim one thing and omit another because it creates the wrong impression.

I am well aware of the foundation of the breed as you have said. I would point out that, for the benefit of the newbies, it was necessary to have very close inbreeding in the beginning because there were very few dogs at the time. However, the gene pool is much wider these days.

Mackenzie

Beetree, your perception is based on having a small handful of GSDs or GSDs mixes, only 3 that I know of any details about. I don't know what you had before them. From what you have provided about them, none of them were what we would consider "well-bred" or "thoughtfully-planned" or purchased from anyone who truly cared about providing an exemplary specimen of the breed. Maybe in your youth or previous life you had a high number of well-bred GSDs or trained, trialed, or bred them, but since you insist on remaining anonymous and all your perceptions are those of a bitter pet owner who had 1 GSD with health problems, that's how you will be seen when you want to shout from the rooftops that the breed is a disaster when those of us who have a house or kennel full of them know differently. If the breed is as you say, then yes, I have been EXTREMELY lucky. I've had a small handful of problems in a very large sample. I tend to think the larger sample is more representative. I take no offense to your "profit" comments, personally. There is no way I am raking in much of a profit with 1-2 litters and the number of dogs I have, house, feed, and provide care for year round. Pups go home, I buy a lot of dog food!

I think your comment is accurate in large-scale puppy farms like the USDA licenses. I am sure they care not one bit about longevity because they don't even have contact with the owners of their pups and don't even provide care when they are small. Quite simply, they care about nothing but the bottom line and reproduction. But I think those still fall under the worst of the worst and not a true-median on which to judge the breed. I don't have to take it personally to see it how you meant it and disagree vehemently. If anything, those who "profit" off their ownership of animals (you mean like a farmer?) in a legitimate business would have more incentive to ensure good longevity.

 

Mackenzie, I'm not sure if I'm on Candid Camera at this point or if you're serious. I posted Madox's full name and clickable pedigree link for all to see. Remember, that's how you blew the whistle on Lorett (linebred in his sire's pedigree). As I apparently failed to explain earlier, I was talking about what Sitasmom was saying about it being hard to find dogs not closely linebred. Madox's SIRE was linebred. Uno, as part of a long-lived, quite successful breeding program, is heavily linebred on Mr. Grasekamp's own dogs. That ought to be a point in itself, but I won't go there. But, we are not talking about UNO. I was talking about MY DOG MADOX, not his father, not his aunt, cousin, stepmother, or 5th cousin 30x removed. Not sure what America has to do with it, other than he's lived here for 11 months, but again, I LINKED HIS PEDIGREE as an example of a recent dog- because he's not a celebrity and I didn't assume people would know who he was. Like I said before, if we go into the pedigree behind any dog, even a fairly-outcrossed dog, we will find linebred dogs. GUARANTEED. If we didn't, they wouldn't be purebred dogs. This was my point about the foundation of the breed. So, I think you are just messing with me. Is this supposed deceit you refer to like the deceit in going by my anonymous Internet name "Jen" or "Jenni" when in fact my given name is "Jennifer"???   If I were trying to "omit" something intentionally or "claim" something, why would I link to the ped? Surely, you are in the minority if you really think I'm being deceitful! 

 

Allow me to illustratte with another dog and try again, because it's early here and no one is up yet :)  This is another one of my dogs.  http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/dog.html?id=562732-beauty-krasnoocko She, personally, has no common ancestry in 7 generations. Click and see for youself. I would call her pedigree, for all practical intents and purposes, an "open" pedigree Her parents both have linebreeding, though not super close- just like you pointed out, Mackenzie, about Uno, so I'll save you the trouble. Going further back, you'll see more linebreeding. Same as I was saying with regard to Madox. Not that hard to find current dogs w/out so much linebreeding, if that's a concern to you, but if you're finding dogs w/no linebreeding on them, their parents, grandparents, great-grandparents, etc., you're really looking at some scatter-bred dogs or they're not purebred. It's impossible to avoid any and all linebreeding in purebred dogs.  

 

Yep, I just looked and I am definitely blue in the face, so I think I'll leave it at this. 

 

Signed, 

Jennifer Williams aka "Jenni" aka "Jen" 

Once again, luck criteria is subjective. I won't be dragged into the personal. Have your numbers really been lucky? Have my lack of numbers been unlucky? Can't claim the direction being suggested with its flawed math works, either way. And we can't even agree what life stage marks a success. 

No matter, I am out of this thread. Lots of life to be lived today.

What you’re seeing is the difference between the producer and the end user. To the end user, one failed product is too many, to the producer there is always an acceptable level of issues that are acceptable. I’m sorry, anyone expecting 100% perfection from the breed is clearly lacking in understanding of how breeding works. I’m in no way advocating for a 2-2 line-breeding. I’m personally way more comfortable with no shared ancestors in 5 generations and completely understand why it’s basically impossible to get to 6 or 7…as by the end of it you’re talking 254 dogs total in the pedigree and if in theory breeders are only breeding the best stock…something in there will have been doubled up or more at some point.

But problems will and do happen…and you learn from them and try to avoid them if you’re a good breeder, but you can’t avoid all issues. A customer doing their own prudent research, should be able to stack the deck in their favor and avoid problems as best as they can. Some get unlucky and still end up with a problem…but even then once you start digging you can probably figure out where they didn’t do “enough” research. As a whole population, the breed is not all that unhealthy. IMO (my “acceptable level”) I don’t see anything really being an issue…especially if you’re going to prudent/reputable breeders that are working/training/health testing their dogs.

Although it’s an impossible dream…but if you look at those of us who are “involved” in the breed, both on the show dog and the working dog side…we rarely have dogs that have problems. If the general population could be half as educated and involved as those actively involved in the breed, you’d see a huge decrease in issues because they’d understand what to look for and what the red flags are. Somehow those of us “in the know” have no issue getting and keeping healthy dogs.

Jenni78 - I have been posting solely on Maddox and whilst not bringing his sire into the conversation it still shows that Maddox has Lorret in the blood line. It was you that said Maddox had no inbreed until the 6th generation No linebreeding until gen. 6, and that's just 2 dogs. Robby Glockeneck and Harro. I just thought that you had forgotten to mention Lorret who is indeed 4:4 0:7. There was no need to go into a long winded rhetoric about Uno because it does not change the fact that his son has Lorret behind him. I do understand what you have been trying to say and the point that you have been making from the beginning. There was no point in you now introducing yet another one of your own dogs to reinforce what you are saying.

Your comment “Is this supposed deceit you refer to like the deceit in going by my anonymous Internet name "Jen" or "Jenni" when in fact my given name is "Jennifer"??? If I were trying to "omit" something intentionally or "claim" something, why would I link to the ped? Surely, you are in the minority if you really think I'm being deceitful!” is another case of you interpreting what I said as something else. I have never mentioned the word deceit or accused you anywhere in this thread of being deceitful. What other readers think about your omission or forgetfulness is up to them. Leaving you with a blue face

Mackenzie

The key here is, even when there is linebreeding among one of the parents, to the puppy born to them, there is no linebreeding, assuming no common near-ancestors among the pup's parents.

That is because the puppy only received 50% of the genes from the linebred parent (like with any other parent) and 50% of the genes from the other parent. Since the descendant has only 50% of the genes from either parent (regardless of some gene concentration via linebreeding on one of those 50%), there is zero linebreeding effect on the descendant.

Thank you, Aaykay. It gives me great hope to see that someone understands that. Mackenzie, please pay attention to Aaykay's post. REGARDLESS OF THE LINEBREEDING OF HIS SIRE, MADOX'S LINEBREEDING IS AS I STATED, 6th gen Harro and Robby...also available for ANYone to see if they click the ped. Going into ancestors behind ANY dog there is tons of linebreeding. It doesn't change the genetic material passed to the offspring. Mackenzie, I felt there was a need because you don't seem to be grasping the difference between a dog being linebred and its parents/grandparents, etc. You didn't use the word deceit, but you "outed" me as if there was some, and said I was giving the wrong impression by selectively omitting info. Nope.

I would point out that, for the benefit of the newbies, it was necessary to have very close inbreeding in the beginning because there were very few dogs at the time. However, the gene pool is much wider these days.

 

Were there really so few dogs during the inception of the breed, or just fewer dogs that fell within the "defined" standard to be utilized as the breed's founders?  Geo political boundaries, lack of internet, high speed transportation, and other modern amenities contributed to the "backmassing" ( a term Gustav created and so loves to use) of good ole Horand.  But if you think the gene pool has become "wider" since, I would ask for your explanation.

 

Yes, inbreeding or line breeding can happen because of limitations and constraints with your available resources. But that is not necessarily the reason WHY inbreeding or line breeding occurs in a breed.  Even before "German" shepherd dogs, there were lots of shepherd dogs. But the creation of the breed was about establishing a standard and setting a "type".  I promise you that at least for centuries, inbreeding has been a TOOL to accomplish such.

 

Jenni78 - First lets clear up one thing about your comment “You didn't use the word deceit, but you "outed" me as if there was some, and said I was giving the wrong impression by selectively omitting info”. Completely wrong !!!  What I actually said was “  It is bad for you to claim one thing and omit another because it creates the wrong impression”.  Please explain to me and the other readers where I used the words “ selectively omitting info” in what I actually said.

I am not prepared to continue this discussion with you because of your continually misquoting and changing what I had said in trying to prove your point.   Mackenzie