Estahaus, against the grain? - Page 3

Do Right and fear no one, Breeder of Estahaus, Bill Leonard, is indeed someone I respect and look up to. Mr. Leonard has told me that in his opinion, time and again, still often breeding American lines to the German lines still produces the "American" look in the dogs for many generations. I wish I still had his email regarding the matter, for it was very helpful and full of excellent information! He also said that judges need to start judging according to the standard, and placing those middle sized, properly angulated, proportioned, and structurally correct dogs where they belong. Perhaps he would be so kind as to post regarding this matter directly? Regardless, I think that you have the ability to find GOOD dogs in every venue possible if you look hard enough (working, show, German, American,Czech and others!). There are American dogs out there that have the traits necessary to correct problems found in our own dogs; there are also other types of GSD's that have the same trait. It just depends on how hard you look. I have bred a working line female to my showline male, and the pups were phenomenal out of the breeding! Were they gorgeous specimens for Sieger type showing? No. That was not the intent on breeding that litter, as I had people who wanted pets that could also work (PD, SAR, etc). I have acheived that with the breeding I am speaking of. Everyone is happy with the puppy they received. The pups were properly priced at $750-$1200(1200 being the older, already basic obedience, tracking and protection trained male). Do some people think I was stupid for this breeding? YOU BETCHA'! My feeling is that until someone who is willing to go against the grain to get what they need from wherever that trait is best found, in a specimen that is a good and proper specimen, and to HEALTHY dogs without issues, this breed will likely not move in the direction it should be. I think personally that there is way too much linebreeding on the same dogs over and over. It's hard to get away from!!! In order to have less and less linebreeding, and more outscrosses, people are going to have to start looking elsewhere for studs, rather than the same dogs over and over. There are many ways to accomplish that. So, as to your question: "What is the answer to the "small" genetic pool we now have?" I would say that there needs to be more diversity in the proper selection of dogs to breed to each other. Find the "best of the best" who complement eachother, and what you are trying to produce in your breedings, and go with it. You may not always be perfect, but there is only one way to learn for yourself. Other people can certainly point you in the "right" direction for what you are after (and Mr. Leonard would be one I would email and speak with directly), but it's still up to you to decide what you're going to do! Great topic, and one that I am sure everyone will have a varying opinion on.

I do not want to spend a lot of time on this but I will make the following observations: I agree with Blitzen that probably the 600 dogs as a gene pool probably is pretty high. With many of my dogs I have traced their lineages and they all go back to one of just a handful of first recorded dogs in this GSD breed. As we all know, none of those dogs were much like we have now. Secondly, genetic diversity or limitations are not, de facto, bad things. It depends on the situation. Yes, anyone who has studied the evolution as it relates to mammalian diversity as it arose in the Gallapagos, New Zealand, Australia, and Indonesia, versus what happened with species in the Americas, and the European continent, can see that genetics did play a large part in creating species that have been successfully able to adapt. This is also true, in large measure, of the plant species. However, what is unique with not only the GSD breed, but with other dog breeds, is that we humans have been now actively involved for a 100 years or so making these selections. Some of the selections will clearly have resulted in positive genetic elements. Some perhaps are negative. The fact is, we often like to say we are ruining the breed, causing health issues etc., but we really do not know this. Why? Because we do not have good history. I do think that the rise of the big shows and trials may, in fact, have an unintended influence in that, as Blitzen says and we all know, when a dog is a big winner or gets a lot of publicity, it gets a lot of exposure and probably a lot of breedings. One thing I actually seek out when I select dogs is how many dogs are in their pedigrees who are NOT those big winners. So I think it is possible to continue the genetic diversity if one wants to do so. The actual core genetics of ours and other species is millions of years old. Very few genetic changes have taken place and diversity in all sorts of pheotypical and genotypical expression has always been present. What is really wrong with this entire picture is that so many people do not have a common goal as to what we should be producing. Rather, they just want to produce dogs.