Purebred dog breeding discussion for the broader population - Page 3

When will some of you people focus on causation instead of justification of failed breeding....Linebreeding is not the problem!!!! Linebreeding on only two dogs for 15 generations is the problem....this is the case in both American Show and German show. This isn't rocket science people. Take any current German showline dog back 10 to 15 generations and you end up with 90% of lines being Canto/Quanto. There are many many many other lines with strong points that were present doing the time of these two dogs. Hell Canto wasn't even VA because of famial temperament issues, and yet all of the show dogs are linebred and linebred and linebred on these two dog ever since. None of the other lines of that period (except Mutz which is all but extinct now) has been used in producing showline dogs. What the hell do you expect out of this but decline in temperament and working....this is where the genetic diversity has been eliminated. Focus on this practice and the negative that can come from excessive linebreeding for extreme lengths of time and PRESTO ! you will see what has been created that is no longer used by the working world anymore. Let me give you a hint to the breeding problem....in the sixties before this phenomena, people bred the two best specimens based on working traits and structure and needs, and maybe one maybe none of the dogs would be show dogs. You see they weren't breeding for show they were breeding for correct working dog and if there was a good conformation dog they showed it.....in past thirty years people breed litter "only" for show with expectations that 4 or 5 dogs in litter can become V rated. This is required for the uniformity that can only be achieved by excessive linebreeding, at the expense of the evils that come with EXCESSIVE linebreeding.  This mindset was never the intent of the breed, was warned against early in the breed's history and yet here we are today with what we have. And as long as we continue this practice in showbreeding it will still get worse even with breeding the best tempered showline to best tempered showline because the cumilative effects on this backmassing on these two dogs will continue to denigrate health and temperament. And all the testing and certifications will not overcome the genetic imbalance as some so called experts wants you to believe....This isn't complicated, its just that the beauty is addicting and people can't divorce themselves (like cigarettes), even though this breeding practice is destructive to the dog that was noble and brave!!!

ITA, Gustav. Of course, with the American showlines, the dog bred on was Lance of Fran-jo and his offspring.  Just try to find an American showline that does not have Lance multiple times in the pedigree. I will guarantee you it is impossible!

Back in the early days of the GSD in America, many breeders did not even use linebreeding. They bred 'like to like' to get the traits they wanted, and the good ones were very successful with this strategy.  Reference: Fred Lanting's The Total GSD.

At the risk of being totally boring by being repetitious - I believe that there is no such thing as a reasonable or judicious amount of linebreeding (that is the last time I will use the term linebreeding - it should be  called inbreeding).  It is all - taken in aggregate - deleterious at this time.

Of course, inbreeding is necessary -in practical terms - when a breed is in it's formative years. (Assortive mating alone would take much longer and would have been practically impossible at the turn of the 20th century.

But the amount of inbreeding necessary to "set" a breed apart is radically different than the amount that can be sustained 100 years later.

At this juncture the only real solution is true altruism on the part of dog hobbyists.
While inbreeding is the surest way to "stack the deck" in favor of obtainting competitive dogs - I believe it must be abandoned, at least for some generations, for the benefit of the breed as a whole.

Perhaps a complete moratorium on any inbreeding could be shortened in duration IF genetic material outside the breed is incorporated judiciously.

Of course, all the different Shepherd strains and related breeds should IMMEDIATELY be amalgamated into one gene pool, where any individual may be bred with any other. This, of course, should include White dogs, "Giant" shepherds like Shilohs  and Kings, "Working lines", "Highlines",  "American Show lines, DDR, Czech, etc;.... etc....  Certainly fanciers can abrogate their absurd prejudices long enough to understand that the mixing of genetic material is much more important for the breed than their own particular preference for one of the many types.  I am non-plussed by people who "love" one type and "despise" another.  Why would anyone hang on to such a tribalistic notion?

For many the joy of the dog hobby is the winning in competition. Unfortunately, these are the people who must sacriice the most, because eliminating inbreeding (at least for some years) will make a person's next competitive prospect less predictably what they want (in the narrow, specific sense). 

This lack of predictable competitiveness in turn will also serve to reduce the hallmark of old fashioned dog breeding - snobbery - which, sadly,  for many,  still lies at the heart of their love of dogs.

I don't believe in breeding mostly for a certain feature, although a certain feature can be an adjunct consideration.

The stud I chose resulted in a mostly outcross, only one grandparent in common.

As for looks and movement, they are justifiably  important  for certain lines. The criteria for good looks for the GSD, to a large extent, are consistent with natural fitness for an animal as an animal. Excellent and balanced angulation facilitate smooth movement with less effort, for example. Thick pads on the paws and well-arched toes are features that allow endurance. A correctly sprung ribcage allows volume for the lung without interference on movement.

See what I mean?????Sigh!!!!!

How many Mongolians have Gengis Khan's paternal lineage? Most!

It happened long time ago. How many Mongolians today are genetically greatly influenced by Gengis Khan? Not many because there is phenotype and genotype and after 40 generations the influence of one generation is diluted.

Not true?

Unlike Ghengis Khan and other human settlements, the purebreed dog does not bring in new genes unless you go OUTSIDE the breed.  All of the genes for one breed are directly originated by the founding breed stock.  If Max used only 10 dogs to begin the breed, then all of the GSDs today have some mix of those genes within them and that is all there is to work with, they are all related geneticaly.    Some outcrossed dogs may have more genes in common than first cousins, one never really knows.  We can guess by phenotype (how the dog looks) but unless those traits are purely recessive, we cannot know for sure. 

The art of dog breeding was to create all animals looking like the standard,  perfect breeding results in dogs that are unifromly the same in looks, temperment ect, this ultimatley means carrying very similar genes.

Face it, there is little to no diversity within a human created dog breed.

"very similar genes"

I am not saying that your are necessarily wrong, but the point is still that different genes may express phenotypes differently.

There are different combination with the same gene pool.

I think it goes both ways.

If one states that the influence of one dog is so  seminal after 40 generations, then it should go for both good and bad traits.

I don't think so for either.