OMFG Stud request... look at this inbred pedigree

I was working out how long it would take if you only bred ch health tested clear parents and you started with a pop of 20 000 dogs of a single breed how long it would take till all the dogs were almost homogenous (like cheetahs)

I ran into some mathematical formulaic type issues (need more school) but its not as far off as you might think! It really shocked me-hence why I see no need to do this to an animal. Yes you might distill all that is great in those lines, or you may unleash a horrible health issue that will haunt that breed for years to come.

Ever heard of a stallion called Impressive? A whole pile of inbreeding/line breeding produced quarter horses that one on the line, and dropped dead in a horrible fashion. The problem was by the time people started to realize what happened he was all over most of the top halter horse pedigrees. The AQHA world is still dealing with that.

http://www.foundationhorses.com/impressive_syndrom.htm for anyone thinks that because their lines appear clean they should/can intensively line breed without risks. This syndrome was not seen before him, it is believed to be a mutation in him. HYPP was not seen right away in his offspring so he was bred to everyone, and they were often bred back to him or relatives.

"Of the top 15 halter horses in 1992, 13 were descendants of Impressive. Even at the age of 23, Impressive himself was fourth on the list. In 1993, it was estimated that more than 55,000 Quarter Horses, Paints, and Appaloosas world-wide bore his pedigree."

The only good thing about this issue is that is controlled by a single gene and that it is dominant. It would have been much more insidious if it had been recessive.

I am not a fan of people who play Russian Roulette with an animals genome just to produce a pretty dog.

I know i have only one kennel and one man's beliefs to fall back on, but even one generation line breeding was seriously frowned upon and not practiced. I was there for 2 decades, long enough to be able to state that our dogs did not have genetic based illnesses, and i never saw one case of cancer. Old age was the normal, as Mary the last of this family tree (that i know of personally) is an example of. I have never read of so many purebreeds with such a mirad of illnesses as i have here on CHazhound. I am shocked and horrified that so many young dogs are suffering, so many with elegant pedigrees. My Mother just called me and informed me that my brother found out his old english sheepdog, the same one that had the birth defect of the ureter wrapped around the spine, has now sinus cancer at the age of 5 years. I know of too many dogs that were line bred that developed cancer as well, be it a coincidence or not, it makes me very suspicious. I personally would not invest any money in such breeding practices, nor would i ever encourage this type of breeding.

How do you get consistency without any linebreeding at all?

Erm... My Shar-Pei MIX mated with a Malamute and somehow the puppy still ended up with entropion... no way they both carry it... so how DID you get consistency?

Well I know lots of breeders who have great type and almost no line breeding. Now personally I am not a fan of breeding cookie cutter dogs (for this reason among others). If a dog fits the standard, can work, has the correct temperament, and is healthy then that is good.

A lot of the issue with dog breeding a disease is the current trend of many breeders to breed almost soley based on appearance. Take JRTs and BC for example, there is more variation in the look of the breed. As long as the dogs can work, and are in the breed standard (and of course health tested etc) then variation is good.

IMO many conformation breeders ARE aiming for cheetahs, a whole line of dogs who look the same. As a breeder yes I want typey dogs. But not little clones of each other.

Actually if you wanted conformity to a physical standard, cloning would be the way to go.

Well just as an example in the good breeder thread someone posted a Dane breeder. The dogs seem to win in everything Hall of fame conf champs, top agility Danes, obed and rally too. They are gorgeous typey dogs. So I looked at their pedigree. Almost no line breeding in the 5 that I looked at.

Oh and the breeder is a geneticist.


So yes you can get type without breeding relatives together. I am not saying it should never be done-if there is a small gene pool to begin with, then you have too (like Basenjis), or if you are solidifying a type in a rare breed (like LHW in the beginning).

If you breed dogs for ability and structure and rigorously cull (by s/n) those that don't fit then you will have type and some genetic diversity.

I think it is worthwhile to point out that my purebreds that have had serious problems have all been outcrosses. Beau, Rose and Summer are all actually linebred about as tightly as I would have and are super-sound dogs. Same breeder tries an outcross and guess what? The outcrosses may have brought in some unknowns but who really knows. We have found out that someone behind the pedigree a ways was NOT entirely truthful about health problems in their dogs, even though that issue isn't nearly what's affecting our pup. But it is important to note.

Next step? Probably another line breeding between cousins with Beau as the sire. With Beau you know what you've got inside and out. No unkowns and no chance for someone to be less than truthful.

I think there's often a knee jerk reaction to linbeeding/inbreeding but it can be a useful tool. People always think outcross = healthier but really it's not always the case. From my experience, the inbred litter had healthy pups, both finished their championships, both are capable performance dogs (one does obedience and Beau is pretty good at agility), they don't look at all like little clones... The outcrossed litter- one average pup, one pup with severe neurological problems, one mismark, and one dog with one ear up and one ear down.

Of course that's not saying that is what is going on here.

I don't think anyone has the issue with some line breeding, esp cousins. BUT if that is all a breeder did it wouldn't take long before you did end up with a riduculously small gene pool. This issue in that case wasn't the outcrossing it self. AND if there are issues that are not seen redily in the stock that she out crossed to, then those issues are ALSO in her lines.

If the issues were dominant the parents would have to be affected. If it is recessive then BOTH parents need it. So then her lines must have it too. If is polygenetic then her lines also must carry it as well (even if the other lines carry more). So if she line breeds enough she will end up with more issues. Statistically speaking. She might not breed enough to fall into Hardy-Wienburg equilibrium.

Erm... many dogs "in the standard" [for AKC anyway] couldn't ever work... no way. Look at American-bred GSDs.

Well, the issue isn't actually apparent in the lines yet... We just found out about some serious shoulder problems in one dog that was surgically fixed at a young age and somehow managed to go without anyone hearing about...

As far as the other issues in her own lines, possibly not because it showed up in a cross from a bitch who was half her lines, half outcross bred to another outcross. I realize I forgot to mention that.

Of course there is no reason now to believe that any of Hiro's problems are genetic according to the vet.

That is an issue of ring trend. The standard does NOT call for an extreme sloping back but that was winning in the ring and therefore people were breeding for it. Breeders who were breeding for nothing BUT the ring trend are now facing joint health problems from the extreme sloping backs and they must now do a lot of work and careful breeding to get the GSD back on track.

Furthermore Dekka herself said it - the dog doesn't need to just LOOK as it should but it also must be able to WORK as it should. Dekka's words were actually great: "ability AND structure."
So what you just said is exactly what Dekka is talking about.

Agreed. Captain Max himself said it best...

"The breeding of Shepherd Dogs is the breeding of Working Dogs, and this must always be the aim, or we shall cease to produce Shepherd Dogs." Max von Stephanitz

"We cannot tell from the exterior what value a dog has for breeding purposes, either from his expression, his body-build, or from his achievements." Max von Stephanitz

The good Captain felt that the aesthetics of the breed should arrive directly from it's working ability. A sound working dog will be a dog of sound body.


I know I'll probably catch flak for saying it, but I truly hate what the AKC has done to my breed.

That's what kills me most about the difference between working and conformation stuff, the GSD's that are very highly sought after in the ring don't really seem to fit the written conformation, they fit what politics and judging seems to favor, which of course is where the politics and money come in.

I used to concern myself with that sort of stuff, but have now resigned to working my dogs and showing people what real GSD's do, and let others walk around with their 30K show dog or 5 K puppy and talk about what "great lines" it comes from, never mind that it has the mind of a flea and is deficient in courage, athleticism and temperment.

Well I'm just wondering what exactly the AKC has done to ANY breed?

As to Goldens , I feel it was the judges !

What the AKC does. IT sets up a money making organization that structures shows in such away that allows these things to happen. If you had more specialized judges, so that each judge wasn't supposed to know everything about every breed it would be a start.

The AKC is out to make money, and they seem to be good at it. IMO they are enablers of millers and the bane of working dogs. Because they have the money for marketing and their titles get to go on the dog's papers that does give them a monopoly. People tend to take the AKC name as an endorsement of quality. In no small part to their marketing.

They allow puppies to finish, even though some of the nicest puppies would be laughed out of the ring a year later. Its common knowledge that people dye, and alter their dogs hair/appearance in order to hide faults. They don't police this...and is its THEIR titles they are handing out to breeders then yes they should police these things.

The AKC will register anything that is from registered parents (of the same breed) regardless of health issues, temperament problems etc etc. They have the power to really help dogs. But then they wouldn't make as much money.

Ok, it was the judges that picked dogs that are more and more extreme to the point that now most AKC show GSDs don't even have the capacity to do what they were bred to do.

Please refer to the quotes in the post that you quoted. Those dogs, while aesthetically pleasing, simply aren't what a German shepherd should be, and to someone who cares about what the breed is supposed to be, it hurts.

I realize that it's not the organization's fault directly, but rather the trends that it's judges pick due to their inability to judge working dogs, since the AKC has banned things like Schutzhund. So instead, the AKC's judges have for years consistently picked dogs that had a pretty prance and more and more extreme stacks.

Working ability comes before aesthetics. Most American show Shepherds can't even compete in AKC style competitions such as agility or obedience with any hope of winning. Put a working Shepherd in there, and they'll generally do well.

I just wish the AKC's judges would start picking GSDs that can work like GSDs, not ones that can prance and stand pretty. There are many breeds that would benefit unbelievably if the AKC would have some sort of working trial for it's herding (uhh herding) and working (do SchH but leave out C, or each breed can do what it was bred to do) breeds to earn their "CH". If a dog breed is bred to work, working should be a requirement of winning.

Granted, there are alot of breeders who do AKC showing who still test their dogs, but there are far too many that don't, and there seems to be almost none in the GSD end.

-------

I have this really funny feeling though, that when I given this debate, you already knew everything I was about to type.

*disclaimer* I am not a show person, breeder, or even into dog sports (at the moment anyway )

I would like to say that I made a similar statement about the AKC judges and things quite some time ago, it may have been here, or it may have been on the dobe forum I used to frequent.

It was explained to me that "Judges" and officials are picked/used from actual breeders, leaders of different kennel clubs, etc..........so in reality, the BREEDERS are actually forming the types of dogs you see winning at these events. It's not really the AKC as a separate entity as we like to think of them...........they are all part of the same "whole"

Anyone can correct that statement as they please, I am just repeating what has been explained to me.

The AKC is a governing body. Yes the breed clubs DO educate etc etc. BUT the final word is with the AKC. They are the ones who put their name on the papers, and the titles. Not the breed clubs.

Think of it like any other business. Would you put your name on a product if you had no idea what it was like. Would you not want to instill any QA.

You do all this to promote your business but don't check to make sure the product is any good? And if it fails or isn't as pictured in the cataloge (if you get my meaning) they say... oh it wasn't me I didn't actually MAKE the product, I just endorsed its breeding, and endorsed those who judged it worth, and endorsed the tests (trials) that it was measured by.... but all the issues with faulty products lies with the person who made it.