IPO prospect? - Page 2

And some very heavy backmassing on Jeck ... oi...oi...oi....

Ah, susie, I know you certainly wouldn't have done that tight a breeding, even if you were permitted to do so, my reply to yours was to illustrate a safer way to achieve the same goal, and make sure the OP understand specifically why THIS particular mating would make many breeders nervous...

Baerenfangs Erbe, I agree with you on that as well; I don't mind seeing Jeck in a pedigree, even if it's a couple of times, but so much of him AND the inbreeding together, well, like I said...it makes me nervous. A dog with such a background would have to be absolutely phenomenal, or I'd have to have had an instant connection with the dog, for me to even consider getting it for a companion or for competition.

this is just not a good idea & so unnecessary for this breed.

From a breeders standpoint there is only one reason to do a 2-1 or 1-2 and that is to find out what are the defects and problems in the bloodline. It was a common practice in animal breeding for dairy and beef animals to breed a bull back on his daughters because after about 60 such matings any serious genetic faults would likely appear and be observable. Clearly a mother bred to her son will produce offspring a lot like the mother but possibly some with health problems and mental problems. The European aristocracy practiced inbreeding and that did not work out well for them either for their health or mental abilities. For a sport dog (any sport) the safer choice may be a less inbred individual. The pups are going to be a lot like their mother and father and few will be the same as their grand or great grand relatives either mentally or physically unless mom and dad were like them to!! For any sport a healthy and robust dog is the most important first selection criteria and inbreeding never produces the most robust or mentally stable entire litters. Picking the best pup from an inbred litter is mostly luck at 8-12 weeks of age.

bubba,
What do you think of full brother/sister breedings?

A breeder can do what they want .. If you want to create something new then inbreeding will do the job faster than any other method ... BUT .... there is no free lunch and inbreeding will concentrate both bad and good traits ... often in the same dog. Close inbreeding may produce a litter with one fantastic healthy individual, two with health problems, and one with health and mental problems .. all in the same litter. As a breeder if you are willing to raise all of the puppies up to the point of 2-3 years then the outcome MAY be visible or it may take 7-10 years to know the full effect of inbreeding so close. As a buyer of puppies that are 1-2, 2-2, or 2-3 you must know the risks because the outcome is sometimes years in the development of qualities/symptoms both good and bad. Inbreeding on an already highly inbred line is asking for problems and all dogs from any breed are inbred by definition. If you take a highly inbred mother and breed her to a male of similar bloodlines and then inbreed her son back on the mother ( 2-1 ) you are asking for some serious problems which can "pop" out. If the breeder wants to suffer the heartbreak of having some sick, dead, or unhealthy puppies or likewise the hope that a miracle dog will magically appear that is the breeder's decision. The buyer should know that the buyer has probably a 1 in 100 chance of getting a puppy significantly better in mental or health qualities than the mother or sire from a 2-1 type breeding with probably a 1 in 4 chance of getting a puppy inferior to the 2-1 son and mother breeding. For the breeder inbreeding is a way to get that "one" special dog at the probable cost of creating something of a mess that must be dealt with if puppies are unhealthy or mentally affected. For the buyer the risks outweigh the benefits when buying just one puppy from a 2-1 or a 2-2 inbreeding.

I like going tight.. if it's on the right dogs. It's not uncommon in other working breeds and has showed success in fixing and amplifying working traits. GSD people are unnecessarily squeemish about this imo.
That being said a quick glance at the pedigree should tell you all you need to know about this breeding. Run.
If you want an IPO prospect go to a breeder with proven success on the field themselves with their dogs.
Such a breeder does not use Show Line dogs and most definitely does not linebreed on them.

That would imply that the best TRAINERS are also always the best BREEDERS, and that is simply not true. Breeding takes an eye. It's something of an art. Handling and training are skills and also a form of art...but to assume that someone possesses all 3 talents would be unrealistic. Maybe someone has enjoyed only moderate success on the field, or even chooses not to trial their own dogs; if they are consistently producing dogs that the owners are having success with, that should count for something. I know several excellent trainers that haven't clue #1 about breeding. You just can't specialize in all things and do them equally well all that often. 

Then there are the breeders you couldnt find on the field if your life depended on it..

OP check the regional and national results over the last couple years. You will find certain trends in the blood lines and breeders emerge. Go to the success.

A lot of breeders used to train and simply don't enjoy it anymore, or got too old, or had a family or other circumstances that prevent long drives every weekend. If they know their stuff, they know their stuff. If they can read a dog, they can read a dog. Breeding to the big winners is common but how often does it result in dogs as successful as the parents? Not as often as you'd think because just as many of the most successfully-campaigned dogs are not the best dogs for breeding, many of the most successful trainers are not the best breeders. Different talents.

Haz, your outlook is very juvenile and narrow-minded. Lots of breeders have "earned their stripes" so to speak. Many did it before you were born.