Non-GS, but please give opinions of this.... - Page 2

I agree with Rebel that the cross-breeding is not, in and of itself, deserving of criticism.

I am also not unfavorably disposed to attempts to improve the intelligence or health or any breed.  Many breeds would be improved by importing genetic diversity.  There have been many such examples in purebred dog history -- while the mainstream squawked, a minority solved a problem with cross-breeding, and everyone was better off in the end.

But this particular attempt is an astonishly simple-minded idea with a preposterous name and claim.  In fact, the first generation was the only move with any potential for improvement -- we all know about hybrid vigor.  But all subsequent breedings will presumably come from not a broadening of genetic material but a draconian narrowing of it.  So while the first Saint Dane may well be healthier than his parents, the next generations will face genetic risks that are much worse than either. 

I just scribbled the breeding plan long term on paper.  If you only have the two starter dogs, the third generation is 1-2.  If you have four, the fourth has to be breed to uncles and aunts.  If you start with eight -- four Saints and four Danes, you can last till the fourth gen w/o inbreeding, but the fifth has to come back.  I suppose in that case you have the genetic diversity of boxers, who I understand all come from the same six ancestors. 

Again, F1 crosses of Saints and Danes are probably a good thing, but trying to create a new breed from them requires an astonishing number of them to assure genetic diversity. 

As for breeding for something superior -- well, that's so far beyond this project that I won't bother to talk about the EXTRA genetic narrowing that comes about when you start selecting for traits and not for genetic variation.  My wild guess is that you need dozens of each breed at the outset to have a shot at not making a mess of things, and if you don't pick great dogs at the outset (like good old Hecktor Linksrhein, who Capt Max changed to Horand v Grafrath) you can't invent new genetic material, and all you can do is created improved combinations of blah.

If the breed plan follows something similar to the recreation of the Olde English Bulldogge (which was willing to allow the proportions of the ancestral breeds to change over time) AND the original dogs were exceptional, then this could work on some level.  Again, if the goal is to improve through hybrid vigor breeds with limited gene pools (and this applies within breeds to hybridizing across inbred bloodlines) then this can be good.  But if the breeder then starts selecting for traits and trying to standardize the type (which, oddly enough, never gets more standardized then the first cross-breeding -- but is more standard than later breedings) then he will have to continually go out for new genetic material -- for many generations.  If he or she goes out for new genetic material in virtually every generation, this should not be unhealthy at all.

Selection for "superior" dogs is in conflict, or at least tension, with the need for genetic diversity.  If there is economic or social or other pressure to move too fast (the lifetime of one person), then the gene pool gets too narrow too fast.  Or at least that is the risk.

It does appear as if they are getting good, loving care except for two problems: (1) weaned at two weeks, so sad! and (2) kept until 12 weeks -- a lot of missing socialization for huge dogs.

The pups look glossy and healthy, however.

WTF? There are millions and millions of unwanted dogs put down every year in this country alone. There aren't enough homes to go around for even all of the best bred Purebred dogs. How can anyone justify crossbreeding anything, except to try and make a buck of the Gullible.

occu, you came here!  Thanks for your commentary; as stated I absolutely don't mind the idea of creating new breeds (see the Continental KC if you haven't already).  And MVF, I agree.  You take alot of words out of my mouth.

My concerns are exactly as I stated (I asked questions that weren't answered, not simply "my opinions").

1 question was simply, "how are you going to get this great versatility and superiority using only 2 breeds?"

The bigger concern, and it lines up with MVF's concern as sort of a corrollary:

"But all subsequent breedings will presumably come from not a broadening of genetic material but a draconian narrowing of it."

That it seems only 1 person is participating, and surely he can only handle so many dogs reasonably, makes me concerned that what we essentially have is a puppy-mill type breeding frenzy going on.

The pups and dogs DO look healthy and happy and clean.  But I just have to wonder about how 1 person can handle so many dogs and puppies and actually create a solid inherently healthy breed in a short time span, without neglecting many of them.  And even if 1 has the money and space to bring in so many "outsider" good representatives of the breed even over a few decades, I even so wonder how you could ever handle actually having a big gene pool.

Hence my comments about "1 person" vs. having a group or club of people who each participate and trade amongst your hybrid gene pools.  It would alleviate my fears both about "puppy mill" and about true "hybrid vigor".

"But this particular attempt is an astonishly simple-minded idea with a preposterous name and claim.  In fact, the first generation was the only move with any potential for improvement -- we all know about hybrid vigor.  But all subsequent breedings will presumably come from not a broadening of genetic material but a draconian narrowing of it.  So while the first Saint Dane may well be healthier than his parents, the next generations will face genetic risks that are much worse than either.

I just scribbled the breeding plan long term on paper.  If you only have the two starter dogs, the third generation is 1-2.  If you have four, the fourth has to be breed to uncles and aunts.  If you start with eight -- four Saints and four Danes, you can last till the fourth gen w/o inbreeding, but the fifth has to come back.  I suppose in that case you have the genetic diversity of boxers, who I understand all come from the same six ancestors. "

If I understand the point you are trying to make then I'll summarize in this fashion. I only use two breeder dogs at a time, a sire and a bitch. I breed three or four litters from that generation then the female is fixed and we keep a pup from one of the litters. (This is this bitch's second litter.) We keep the breeders as family pets. All the dogs we breed are also pets and personal work dogs. We do not keep dogs just as breeding dogs, they are both pets, companions, and breeders. We sell all of the other pups to those who wish to own them, and on occasion we donate a dog to local small municipal police and sheriff forces to use as police dogs. We have also been asked to donate dogs as seeing eye dogs and a buddy of mine has asked if we would consider breeding for military uses. I'd like to but am still investigating the procedure.

When he (we always keep a male pup) grows to maturity then we seek a new female who is half Great Dane, half Saint Bernard. Being experienced with the breed I can recognize the traits and although difficult to find, we are in no rush in that regard. This time however we bought a full bloodied Great Dane bitch not only to breed with the sire but because he had lost his brother to snakebite in the woods and the horse doctor (our dogs are so large that we generally use the Horse vet) could not save him. Bart got so lonely and depressed when his brother died that we just went ahead and got the Great Dane bitch.

I am however the only one of whom I am aware that breeds these dogs specifically for the purpose of developing, continuing and preserving the breed. Others may be involved, and I would be very glad to hear from them, but I know of no others who breed this breed intentionally. I have looked though.

I am not interested in producing lots and lots of these dogs, that is mass quantity breeding. Just superior dogs. This is not really a profit driven enterprise, though we usually clear a profit. It began as a personal and scientific experiment in genetics, breeding, and biology. I conduct a lot of biological experiments. It really began as an almost accidental offshoot of experiments I was conducting in producing more intelligent dogs. I produced a hybrid dog who showed enormous intelligence and then carried on from there.

We also do not breed puppies who are related to one another in any way. Anymore than I would recommend sisters and brothers or cousins or uncles and nieces interbreed. That would indeed be a very simple-minded and unscientific process. Not to mention a rather fruitless one.

I am not interested in producing retarded or defective or diseased dogs, that would defeat the entire purpose.

"(1) weaned at two weeks, so sad! and (2) kept until 12 weeks -- a lot of missing socialization for huge dogs."

They are weaned

I apologize for the clipped response above. Apparently this site has a character limit for any given reply.

"(1) weaned at two weeks, so sad! and (2) kept until 12 weeks -- a lot of missing socialization for huge dogs."

They are weaned early because they develop very rapidly.

They are kept with our family until sold. They are treated like pets, not kenneled. As a matter of fact I'm not a proponent of the idea that it is either work, or pet. To me animals are both. A good work dog should also be treated affectionately, and a pet should be able to do his job when needed.

The first litter was actually born in our house and I personally helped deliver them (one was breech birth and I had to turn it, then again I was breech birth, so that's fine by me). The second litter was born under the south deck because our bitch had them during the night and we did not discover them until morning.

"WTF? There are millions and millions of unwanted dogs put down every year in this country alone."

I'm afraid my friend that is an issue of how people treat animals, not of breeding. It is an entirely separate matter in my opinion. If people did not abandon their animals then those animals would not die prematurely.

Well, now I've really gotta get back to work. Time's a wastin.

It was nice yakking with you folks.

Maybe I can get back to this later, maybe not. In either case, it was fun.

Not an issue of breeding? You have to be kidding. Every breed of dog is overbred. Some breeds more than others. Add to that the accidents that occur and the brainstorms of Peddlers such as yourself, and we are where we are.

"Not an issue of breeding? You have to be kidding. Every breed of dog is overbred. Some breeds more than others. Add to that the accidents that occur and the brainstorms of Peddlers such as yourself, and we are where we are."

You know I sorta get the feeling you're one of those kinds of people that see impending disaster in blue sky and bright colored lollipops. Good luck with that, and I hope it helps you live longer. But it seems like you've picked a bit of a weird venue Cassandra to expound upon the doom of the modern dog.

And to Ol'Line Rebel: This is the first time I have ever tried selling my pups on the internet (aside from local on-line ads attached to local newspapers). Because of that I'm new to this whole sell your pups on the internet thing, but you brought me here and so I went ahead and posted an ad on this site. I would have never heard of this place if not for you. Thank you.

Now I've really gotta go. My wife and kids are hollering.

the majority of what you are discussing is relatively simplistic mendellian genetics.  The problem with that however, is that genetics in theory give pretty decent odds but no absolutes.  genetic mutations and deviations and even norms exist on a continuum and cannot be exactly predicted.  whether this new "breed" can ever become standardized, for  a breed must standardize to be definable, it is WAY too early to say.