The Bottleneck of the Century - Only one bloodline left! - Page 7

Hi Daryl!

You wrote: "Why did he pick these 130?  Did he start with the founder, and follow the lines of succession?  Is there any reason a dog of several generations bygone shouldn't have 130 descendants?"

You probably missed the point. The dogs mentioned were those of my former study: "The stud-business in the SV." Don't worry. An english version of the text might follow.

BTW, Jan is a Dutch version for John, so I'm male.

Blitzen, unless you're talking aobut some other Mutz, he was whelped in 1966!

http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/pedigree/33.html

Gorgeous looking dog! Now, that's my idea of what a GSD should look like...but I prefer the 60's style dogs.

Blitzen, you clearly do not understand the meaning of foundation dog in reference to this thread. First, in my post I SAID that foundation dog is determined by WHERE you start  but for purposes of West working and show I started with Marko vom Cellerland, Quanto and Canto v Wienerau, and Mutz vd Pelztierfarm. Also, Bodo and Bernd v Lierberg who were VA 1 and 3 respectively, but once the Wienerau influence took hold show people stopped using the Lierbergs for show stock. This also happened to Marko vom Cellerland who was like the Lierbergs a dog closer to bi-color than black and red and produced all blacks. It left for the show people, Quanto/Canto/Mutz for show people to breed to. From 1975 to 2000 the inflence of the Quanto/Canto grew to such porportions that by say 2001, of 15 VA dog in that year, 13 lines would be predominatly Quanto/Canto and only two would go to Mutz. When you saw the seiger protection work, the dogs with more Mutz blood would always outperform the other two.Today, Mutz is no longer a predominat show line....so if my information is correct than what direction would the working aspect be going with these dogs?????This isn't rocket science. Canto and Quanto were never known for producing strong working dogs(especially Canto whose mother could not get her korung because of temperament issues and thus Canto could only go V-1 when he was shown at the Seiger show.) So what did the show people do even with this information????they bred to him more than any other show dog of his era thus spreading this weakness throughout the showlines; but wait...then they linebred and linebred and linebred on him and Quanto even up to today!!!! So you see breeding type to type of these dogs will really have no discernable effect on improving the temperament...the only solution is an influx of new lines not containing these dogs for many multiple generations and the show world isn't prepared to do this BECAUSE looks are more important to them than the dogs working ability. I am through with this subject because most show breeders KNOW this they value their preferences in type and color over the well being of the breed. (and when I say show people I am including JUDGES as most judges are breeders also)

Given Mutz was whelped in 66, that means there are even more generations between him and the foundation dogs for a total of 76 years. That would probably represent 38 or more  generations of selective breeding for one thing or another. Evidentally the results were excellent as many feel he was a pillar of the breed at that time.  However, Mutz cannot be considered a foundation dog for the breed.

http://bowlingsite.mcf.com/genetics/inbreeding.html

WOW! Those COI's for the Sheltie ROM dogs are just unreal!

Thank you, Blitzen! Those are VERY valuable links!

If I can, I'm going to try to get my hands on the software to calculate COI's for the German Shepherd. I am very interested to know what the COI's would be for our current crop of Seigers!!

Blitzen, With all the information you know, their is no reason for you to ask about foundation dogs and certainly no reason for me to impart what little information I have on the breed. The foundation dogs for GS were of Swabian, Thuringian, and Wurttemberg stock. But I'm sure you know this so I will leave this post to you....Thanks

Most I know use Breed Mate, Sunsilver. It would be big job, you'd have to go way back to the foundation dogs to make it truly significant, but it sure would be interesting to learn. Doing a 5  generation pedigree on a dog like Zamp would probably not be very meaningful.  You;d have to break it down dog by dog for 50 or more generations.

You just can't outcross in the literal sense unless the working and show lines actually sprung from a different nucleus of dogs in which case outcrossing may be possible assuming anyone has kept each line pure and not interbred one with the other. Outcrossing would then be possible but only if the 2 lines- working and show -were combined.  Here again we have to assume that all pedigrees are accurate from day one and no other breeds or species have been introduced into the mix. If all GSD's do go back to the same foundation dogs, then the resulting phenotype of today's dogs  would certainly be a testiment to the power of selective breeding.

Gustav, what is  your problem? I asked who were the foundation dogs and you gave me the names of dogs whelped in the 60's and 70's over 80 years after the first GSD was registered by the SV. I didn't know who they were or I wouldn't have asked in the first place.  I found out by using this database, plugging in Mutz and then researching his pedigree back to the beginning.  You could have done the same thing. Either you want to state correct information here or you don't. Don't blame me for your errors. No wonder people stop posting to these threads.