2-2 Line/In breeding - Page 8

YaYa, that 2nd paragraph of Jenni's says all you need. Don't unthinkingly trust Vets' 'advice' on dog breeding matters; you are wished good fortune with this pup, which you do seem likely to go with (although possibly some doubt about it, or the breeder, prompted you to come here in the first place ?). The real question, for you, is what you choose to do with the dog when it is grown. Should you use it to breed more ? As Susie said last page, if you outcross you lose the effect the breeder put in by close inbreeding; if you do it again, you are doing it from the position of a novice breeder, and that's not such a good idea (as has been noted !) but only you will decide - on whether the animal turns out 'breedworthy' at all; on whether you want to be guided by the SV's rules (given that AKC does not impose any that would affect this decision); and on whether you have managed to glean enough information about the bloodline to decide whether breeding on is worth the risks.

You were asking about HOW you find out the "stuff that isn't there", and nobody yet has tried to help you much with this question. And it IS quite difficult, I won't snow you. If someone has been in the breed a long time and repeatedly looked at lots of pedigrees, they do begin to amass a certain amount of information; patterns recur, both in matings and results, for example. A lot of what is generally termed "pedigree research" is just indulging one's own curiosity and seeing the info that gradually builds up. But the faster end of the process for someone in your position is to use what information IS readily available, through the PDB (which is an excellent resource, for all its drawbacks) and in Show reports and entry catalogues, and in books and magazines on the breed - whatever you can get your hands on where details of dogs are promoted. Nobody collates all this information for every dog; the SV is much more rigorous about it for dogs born in Germany, but that's just one country, one Club - no matter how much influence the WUSV thinks it has. And the closest you will find to a sensibly arranged and indexed list is probably PDB pedigree pages. But if you proceed one dog at a time, get the page of that dog's pedigree up and read it thoroughly, you can then begin to see whether the 'owner' of the entry (may not have been the owner of the dog) has entered everything they can about that dog. Does it carry any SchH/IPO grades ? Does it show any health results, like OFA certification ? Is there a Breed Survey (Kor) Report ? And repeat ...
Unfortunately not everyone fills in all the details they DO hold on a dog, when putting up its pedigree (guilty of this myself) - but those who are seriously expecting their dogs to be bred
from, and 'breedworthy', are more likely to dot those i's and cross the t's than yer average pet owner who is just putting the dogs name up 'for the record'. And where several dogs from a single kennel, in particular, NEVER carry that sort of information, for instance, is where alarm bells as to possible reasons for that should start to sound.


Mackenzie: I really don't understand why you are so reluctant to accept the notion that AKC 'has no rules'. Sounds pretty much like our own dear Kennel Club to me: yes, the KC has its own Breed Standard - but it does not actually enforce every clause in each Standard, it just tries to train and guide Judges in the application of those Standards to their decisions in the rings - and its only really started to do THAT through the Judges Training Programmes of more recent decades.  It has certainly never attempted to enforce the SV (or FCI) Standard; it isn't enforcing SV 'proclamations' of recent times, unless it has its own version, eg for 'standing' dogs, already in the pipeline.

Until the KC invented its Accredited Breeders Section, it made zero effort to influence the way puppies are bred and reared - and still does not, really, for those breeders who do not pay to join the ABS and get inspected etc; because we have never been able to persuade it NOT to register stock that has not passed eye tests or HD investigation, or is of non-Standard colours, and so on. And it is only in living memory that it has become difficult (I won't claim impossible) to register offspring from matings that go against rules it HAS imposed, about age of bitch etc. Yes, it provides information and GUIDANCE - but it doesn't make Rules about very much (and the dog community has usually had to kick for ages before any such measures have been introduced). Breeders here are still pretty much free to make decisions about what to breed to what.

Jenni78 - I did not really want to get into this again but this will be the LAST time that I respond to your off thread comments.

I would remind you that you were the one who went off thread and commented on the AKC as having no rules other than those governing registration. I accept that you are right regarding the rules. Using the name American Kennel Club is misleading especially to Readers from other Countries whose Kennel Club’s goes much further than the AKC. When you said “I realize Mackenzie has no more to say since he/she isn't not satisfied with the number of participants in this thread and has made it clear those of us participating don't know anything” I can tell you that it did not throw me into a loop. Your assumptions are completely wrong. Look at the numbers, they are so few that they cannot hold the opinion on behalf of all that are involved with the breed.

When you introduced the comment about the struggle in the USA it is going way outside the topic of the thread. The struggle in the USA between Clubs is nothing to do with the Thread and it‘s topic.

When you said “Again, it lands on the individual to decide what is right for them and their dogs” does that mean that you justify what you are doing in terms of inbreeding by using the AKC approval by having no rules?

To return to the topic of the thread you said “ I think we can all agree that tight inbreeding brings out faults. I think what they do from there on out is what should be judged, if anything.” If you know that tight inbreeding brings out faults then the question is “why do you and others still go ahead with the close inbreed and do the mating”? Albeit that some of the faults may be a small risk but still stamp the problem further into the bloodline. Especially when there is plenty of scientific evidence regarding close inbreeding as to the effects that it has.

Now to your favourite topic “Selfishness”. When people step out of the rules then that is called breaking the rules. Rules are there to benefit the breed as a whole and these rules are followed by the majority. In my opinion it is taking a selfish attitude to break the rules and suggest that those that do think that they know better. The rules for the SV were made when the breed was founded and have stood good for more than a century with few changes. The WUSV and the SV are addressing the problems of close inbreeding by refusing registration of the animals that fall within the parameters that they have set out. Does everyone think that they know better than the experience of the SV? Of course not. That is except those that have a selfish attitude and want to step outside the rules and ignore the problems that they may be introducing.

As I understand it the GSDCA-WA is a member of the WUSV. Will they follow the WUSV rules?

For your information I am a male and the name I use here is my family name. I do not hide behind anonymity as you and many others do.

Mackenzie

@ YaYax4....couple things....tight linebreeding brings out negatives AND positives, it also surfaces recessives ( again both positive and negative) ; when you outcross after a tight inbreeding, you will lose SOME of the effect, but will retain some of the effect.
Another important aspect is whether the dogs are backmassed, which is the continued " acceptable" linebreeding of 3-3 or better on only two or three dogs for 10 or better generations. The effect of inbreeding these dogs is usually deteriorating to the overall good of litter as the backmassing has already produced inherent strengths and weaknesses in the type that will only become intransigent. There are national breed clubs that allow and promote backmassing, but regulate tight linebreeding.
Finally, the straw man argument that tight inbreeding ( because of negatives) should never be done has to be considered overall. All breedings bring negatives, some more than others, but really the knowledge and skill of the breeder is far more important than the rules,imo.
A skilled breeder understands their stock and what is needed to compensate for a certain imbalance in breeding direction, so a skilled breeder would not backmass OR do a tight inbreeding but for short durations to accomplish something, then continue to use the diversity of the gene pool for balance.
I know very few people I would trust with tight inbreeding( and Jen is right about Vets, they usually know very little about breeding or training), so I am not promoting it in this case, but I don't know the breeders so I reserve judgement.

what most people forget is that line/inbreeding on paper and actual doubling up on genes in that combination can be very different, most dogs are so much outcrossed that a 2-2 inbreeding on paper will actually double up on few % of genes at best

Mackenzie!!!! I cannot believe what I have read! I know you're still reading this thread. First, *I* am not justifying anything *I* have done! I have never done an inbreeding, as I stated multiple times! I'm merely debating the (as I see it faulty) reasoning you're using to denounce any and all linebreeding. Cliff said it better, so I'll back off on that.

I've only been in the breed 15 years. I am on my 4th generation of my foundation and yes, I might linebreed on her, as I have a pretty good idea of her, with regard to how she produces with different males, and her pups and grand pups as well, I think, however it wouldn't be closer than 2-3 or 3-4. The closest I have ever done was a 3-2, PERFECTLY ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF SV (until next year, I hear, lol). I am in the USA where if I felt like it, I could breed mother to son every litter and not have an issue with registration. But, I have a conscience and that would serve no purpose, so I wouldn't ever do that.

However, back to what I was saying ON TOPIC of close linebreeding or even inbreeding, the goal and purpose and WHAT THE BREEDER DOES MOVING FORWARD are more important, along with the (hopefully intimate) knowledge of the bloodlines which should govern their decisions in the best interest of the breed. The "rules" would allow for a HORRID cross, as we've seen many times, if it were an outcross, but frown upon a solid 2-2 which was known to produce superb specimens of the breed in all regards. That's my issue with "rules" and rulebreaking being automatically seen as "selfish" according to you. The rules that govern allow for all sorts of things that imo are wrong and detrimental, and I don't trust the rules to protect the breed I love.

My point all along, from the get-go, was that the closeness of the breeding DOES NOT impact what genes EXIST- merely makes them surface a bit easier, though as Duke logically points out, they're hardly clones. So, if you expose the faults and know what each is carrying, there is a lot of possibility for IMPROVEMENT based on the new knowledge. Maybe you had an occasion issue crop up you couldn't quite put your finger on where it was coming from. Say you got 3 in the tightly-bred litter with the same issue. Now you know beyond a shadow of a doubt which side it's coming from-yours. You have valuable information with which to make breeding decisions to hopefully better your animals. I'm playing devil's advocate to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who might choose this. I won't judge based on "rule-breaking." I will judge based on why they did it and what came out of it and how they use that moving forward.

I didn't realize you were British. I understand a lot more now, and I apologize for calling you a "she." However, your anonymity comment is asinine. I have never used anything but my real name on dog forums. Sorry. My name is Jennifer Williams, in case you felt I should have also included my last name. If you go to my profile you can see my email address and kennel name, which would give you my phone number. I don't play that internet anonymity game where you say things to people you would never dare say if they knew who you were.

Jenni98 - When you said " I'm merely debating the (as I see it faulty) reasoning you're using to denounce any and all line breeding. Cliff said it better, so I'll back off on that" I have to correct you. If you read my posts you will see that I have not said anywhere one word about denouncing any and all line breeding. You really must stop assuming my words mean what you are suggesting in trying to prove your point of view. You are putting out fake news.  I seem to have heard that phrase before.(LOL)

I am British but I have not lived in the UK for more than twenty years. Also, my comment about anonymity is certainly not asinine when so many others use a name to protect their identity. Many readers will not know who you are, or, where you are, as Indeed I did not. By the way I do not know who Chris is.

I hope that we can now have closure as far as you and I are concerned.

Mackenzie
 

Duke: what most people forget is that line/inbreeding on paper and actual doubling up on genes in that combination can be very different, most dogs are so much outcrossed that a 2-2 inbreeding on paper will actually double up on few % of genes at best

Exactly ! Duke is on point here.

In many litters, the littermates could be so vastly different from each other, that the combinations of genes inherited from the parents, are clearly different between the various pups in the litter.  So even though on paper we might believe that a mating between 2 littermates is going to surface all of the recessives (good and bad), it may not happen that way at all, since there may very well be only a small delta of common recessive genes between them.  

Those "common recessive genes" could be present even among a male/female combo that is much farther separated in relationship (or even unrelated, but carrying the same recessive), and thus result in the recessives getting surfaced, if such an unrelated male/female mating were to take place ! 

Gustav= Cliff Anderson....I thought most folks of any length on PDB realized that....but I don't hide behind anything.😎

@Gustav

This thread had gotten so... Let me recap :

I am not committed to a pup from this litter, but am intrigued at the possibilities.

The 3 lines coming into the parents appear UNRELATED (DDR, Czech, and DKK) as far back as I looked, about 12-15+ generations, and were conservatively line bred unto themselves historical with most frequent pattern 4-5 and 5-5 with 5 generations between each line breeding- so minimal effect.

The G Grandparents I shared were representative of the lines without cherry picking. They are well titled. I did not share the grandparents, parents, parents, or breeder for discretion, but they all have some sort of titling be it IPO, K-9, Agility /Obedience, something.

I plan(ned) on spaying her, but now it seems one of the two I am interested in is one of his possible picks. There maybe options in co-owning. I have a heavy science and animal background and this prospect doesn't overwhelm me-I just know there'd be research and planning (at least 3 generations out) to do. I would not breed her if she doesn't perform as anticipated and if her health tests were unacceptable.

Otherwise, this pup's line stops with me.

The info I was wanting to look for is when and how dogs in these lines died. I don't know if or where that's available.

Again thanks to the serious responders.

People answered how that's available- it's just not an easy find. It's hours of work. Hours upon hours of following lines and asking questions, tracking down owners, breeders, etc. and hoping for answers. I use working-dog.eu because it shows the owner. I send lots of messages and ask questions and usually, I get answers. But it's not a quick process.