Out-crossing GSD with other breeds - Page 6

Tig your stories are great! Keep it up.

It is an interesting concept.  One would think that with today's available knowledge of genetics, one could feasibly do an outcross to eliminate a serious genetic fault and or improve performance.  In the GSD, it has been attempted once to my knowledge and the result is the Shiloh Shepherd.   However, in the process we create the curbstone setters that need a loving home and may not have the temperment and qualities that you are looking for.

Take the case of the "doodles", Austrailans decieded there was a need for a seeing eye dog that was hypoallergenic.  They went to the classic hypoallergenic dog the poodle and the trusty lab.  Through the several generations they took to get a hypoallergenic dog with the right temperment and itellgence to be a seeing eye dog, they produced a multitude of non-comforming dogs that needed homes.  They spent lots of time training them to be superior dogs for any handler and sold them at prices that reflected the high level of training they gave and help support the research into the new "breed" hoping to get a line that was truly hypoallergenic and to a standard.    Enter the entreprenuers that see the four digit price tag and being producing the F1 Hybrid with no goal in mind but making a buck.    The result, in a few short years, the US now has rescue organizations for the unwanted offspring and those that have all of the negitive qualities of both breeds and God forbid is not hypoallergenic!

Experimental breeding to produce a better quality dog is a feasible endevour, but it should not be taken lightly.  In the days before PETA, the bad puppies could be culled in crude fashion to develope the dog the originator desired, today, that is not the case. 

We are better off looking for the qualities we need within the breed itself and not ignoring the genetic diversity that has been geographically created.  If we truely need to rebuild our GSD, the blocks are all there. 

VKFGSD:  I respectfully agree to disagree with you.  You mentioned about a half dozen times that I am talking about something that I know nothing about.  I have explained that I have not participated in herding, however, I am a grown man who reads over a thousand words per minute with 92% retention (thanks to the Evelyn Woods speed reading course that I took at age 20) and I have read EVERYTHING there is too read about the GSD, that is in english (okay, maybe not everything, but you get the idea), including the original 1st English translation fo Capt. Max V. Sterphanitz' book, The German Shepherd Dog in Word and Picture, which I own.  I also own a new copy, which is not exactly the same as the original.

Do I know it all?  No.  Do you know it all?  No.  You have your opinions and I have mine.  I have the ability, as many have, including you, and just about any attorney, to argue either side of just about any subject, and present a decent argument.  Having said that, I find many flaws in your assertions.  You wrote too much to go into all of them, but I will mention a couple.

"Well first of all wrong. What you will get in terms of health and genetics is what you put in. If you put in dogs with health problems just because they are from 2 different breeds does not make the health problem disappear - in fact you may end up worse off. And nerves are a health problem. Plus many genetic diseases are either poly genetic or have a threshold method of inheritance and you've probably just added a boat load of  factors to your genome which will make these diseases more difficult to eradicate from the genome not easier. As to the suggestion of adding wolf - anyone w/ 2 gray cells understands the instability and problems of that particular endeavor.  Another old story that relates to the whole cross breeding thing is the one about Marilyn Monroe and Einstein. Supposedly she says we should make babies together - think they would have my beauty and your brains and he responds but my dear what if they had my features and your brains."

I happen to have a few more than two grey cells and I have read enough about genetics and inheritable traits to know that your statement is flawed from the get go, becuause you assume that if sucha cross is accomplished, it would be with canines that are not compatible, flawed with bad genetics, and that whoever does such a cross, would only make matters worse.  Fact is, any person with at least one grey brain cell knows that a mixed breed dog is GENERALLY healthier and better genectically.  That fact is beyond dispute, unless you are in fact the child of Einstein and Marilyn.  Additionally, Stephanitz, the all knowing wise wizard we all cherish and would like to follow, used a wolf in his great master plan.  Now, did Stephanitz only have one grey cell?  It is not happenstance that most GSD's have grey in them.  It came from the wolf used in Stephanitz' infusion of the wolf in the very early stage of the GSD's developement.  He was after what ever he wanted from the wolf, be it hardiness, health, crushing power, courage or whatever (maybe you know since you have obviously read his yearly reports that I am unable to find.

Additionally, to back up my viewpoint, I would like to mention that in come cultures, it is common practice to marry close family members.  For instance, the Arabic community mostly marries relatives.  Usually, a relative of an Arabic person (palenstinians for one example) are not just cousins, but can call just one person related to them, Uncle, Cousin, Brother-in-Law and be talking about the same person, all wrapped up in one.  It is very common in their culture to marry close family members.  It is also a fact that because of this, they have a higher incidence of children with genetic problems.  I know them.  I have live

  I have lived with them and they have many times more children with genetic problems than peoples who do not marry close relatives.  Thus, my point being, it does not take a genius to understand that the GSD came from a close genetic background and the present day GSD still has this close gene pool, hence all of its' health problems.  An outcross to ANY breed can not but help it genetically.  But of course, you also do not want to deviate far from the appearance, structure, etc, of the GSD, so a wolf, with its' more primative gene pool but its past relationship in the forming of the GSD, would be a good thought in my humble opinion.  More so than another dog with man made health problems.  The wolf does not have HD or Epilepsy, etc, as nature has almost eradicated health problems from them, by not allowing the weak to survive.  Man is the one that allows weak animals to survive, by providing them with care that they would not be able to get otherwise. 

Your other statements are so long winded that I won't even quote them hear, but disagree wholeheartedly with your "explanation" of why the GSD is in fact the best herding breed.  It is not disputable that they are not in GENERAL.  As with any argument, you can mention anecdotal info about this dog or that dog, but in general, they are not.  Not even close.  A simple check of Herding Trial winners and placements reveals that to be fact, no matter how you contort to expalin it.   Yes, they work differently, but then you are comparing apples to oranges and in order to make a judgement about the "standing" of one breed against another in any field of endeavor, you have to have a baseline, and the herding trials as they are presently programmed and executed, are the baseline.  I suggest you do a Google search and find out how many GSD's win any herding trials that include other breeds.

The GSD is a "jack of all trades but a master of none".  This statement or one like it, is legendary in association with this breed.  So, either Stephanitz set out to not develope the best herding dog, or he settled for less, because he wanted a great herding dog but not the best, so that he could incorporate other desirable traits and have a breed that could adapt to many many jobs.  We may not disagree so much on this point.

I am offended that you state that I should study the history of the breed.  I have studied it.  I may have not lived it, but I have studied it so much that I am about sick of it because it is really only a short story, and everything there is to read is just repeating the short story.  It is a hundred years of dog breeding, not two thousand years.  It is a simple history.  Start with a good herding dog, that exemplifies the qualities you like in a herding dog and companion, then find suitable mates that have similar traits or additional traits that you would like to add.  Do some inbreeding to nail down these traits, and have a long term goal of what you want as a finished product.  Adjust along the way for changing times and problems that arise, and wallah.  You have achieved your goal or you die before you do.  Unfortunately, since you did not have the luxury of modern science which would have helped in heading off HD, ED and Epilepsy, among other problems, you end up as I said.  Not achieving your goal.  I am sure that he did not set out to have a dog that is infamous for its' health problems.  I do not hold that against him as he did not have the science of today, however, it is proof positive that he did not die satisfied.  Proud maybe, but he could not have been satisfied unless he set out to achieve one of the top five unhealthest breeds around.

 "Since he (we) actually ended up with a dog that is full of health concerns and is not near the best

 "Since he (we) actually ended up with a dog that is full of health concerns and is not near the best at herding, he had to have been slightly disapointed with the outcome".

"I'm sure many will think I'm a dummy and some have told me that to my face because I have discussed at great length the genetic hole we are breeding ourselves into by each going in our own separate direction. To each their own."

Just a question.  Do you think that those "many" and "some" you mentioned above, are all two grey cells short of having four grey cells?

From this thread, another short on grey cells person:

http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/bulletins_read/69130.html#150086

"Someone here talked about hybridization and how it does not work. What does work is choosing a wild ancestor for which the animal is related and cross breeding back to the wild strain. It promotes vigor and since much of the same DNA is already in use the hybrids do not fizzle out.

GSD should not be crossed with Mals but with wolves in a closely monitored and controlled way. As far as I see this may be the only hope for the breed. Of course long stock coats would have to be accepted and the back would be straighter. Cross breeding with Mals is a bad idea. There is no dog smarted or has a higher prey drive than a wolf, its only been a hundred years since its blood entered the Shepherd, time for an infusion. Of course we have not got it right up to now, what makes us think we can do better?"

Another link you may want to view.  Now, I don't believe everything I read (obviously), but it sounds legit, and if it is, then it kinda refutes your entire premise VKFGSD.

http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/gsd/user_comments/25729.html

I am not advocating a GSD/wolf crossing, but I am not advocating any GSD/whatever cross.  I have stated on many past threads that it is not a good idea, that crossings should occur within the various GSD lines to get a "golden middle" healthier genetic pool.  However, I am saying that if outcrossing is to be considered by the powers that be (SV), then the wolf should be given consideration, not discarded totally.  It is one large canine that has the least genetic problems.  Certainly not Mals.

Maybe you will want to do some additional research before you dismiss it out of hand.

DoR - warning I'm about to be verbose and long winded so you might want to skip this post so  your knickers dont get in a twist.

Once again you totally missed my point re the herding. I did not say the GSD or ANY breed was the best herding dog what I said was that there is not one best herding dog because it depends on the job to be done - ergo why so many different herding breeds were developed. If you want a herding dog that can handle large stock and large flocks and work with a high degree of independence AND be a protector against human and K9 intruders - yes I think the GSD is the best for that particular job and that Capt Max succeeded admirably.  As to the health issues did Max fail or perhaps did we fail him by what we have done to his creation with all our bifurcation and show breeding and commercial breeding.

I am very familiar with the concept of  heterosis. I stand by statement above - What you will get in terms of health and genetics is what you put in. You know I had one of those "mixed breed dog ... GENERALLY healthier and better genectically" dogs- a collie/ golden retriever we got from the pound. Of all the dogs I've had in my life we spent the most in vet bills on that one. Just finding foods she could eat and not be allergic to was a many year experiment.

No need to look to Arabic communities for inbred and closed communities - we have plenty of them here from Appalachia to the Amish. Yes they have a higher incidence of genetic defect sbut they also are not planning "breedings" and "choosing" from the results who gets to continue to breed. You're talking apples and oranges plus if you look I specifically say that we are breeding ourselves into a corner by staying within our own little "kind" of GSD. I just happen to think we can find the diversity we need within all branches of our breed and perhaps it's closest relative the alte deutsche schaferhund w/o resorting to Mals or wolves. Also just a fyi re wolves - they do have HD. It is present in most mammals including gerbils.

And re the wolves a much debated topic. I am familiar w/ the picture and description ot the movement of the wolf in Max's book. He never said he incorporated them in the breed. I'm never seen convincing evidence to prove that and I believe the SV denies it. Yes there have been in the past and even today dogs registered with the name Wolfie as well as bear and mouse and devil- doesn't mean they are those things.

You are obviously are very irritated and peeved at me and for that I am sorry.  If I took the wrong tone with you or offended you by one of my comments,  I apologize. I believe all of us have been trying very hard to keep this conversation civil. For that reason I think we just need to agree to disagree because it is obvious we are looking thru differnent filters at the same object.

I have an article written in 1922ish my Ann Tracy that was published in the J.Heredity.  It was basically the introduction of the German Shepherd into the US - going into the history of the breed and what Max did to produce it.  I imagine she worked a little with Max when writting it as well.  There are about two pages of 12 dedicated to how the GSD is not infused with wolf blood.

I dont know if its true or not, but I thought I would mention it anyway.

~Cate

VKFGSD:  In respect for your brevity, I will be even more brief.

I disagree with the premise that a wolf could and should not be considered as a possible cross with the GSD, if the SV, and I stress, only the SV, decided it was needed to strengthen the GSD breed as a whole.

Stephanitz states in his original writings that he indeed use a wolf once in the formation of this breed, which was translated into english that way in the first english translation but subsequent translations and editions changed that fact and left it "hanging in the air".  The later editions of his book, after the first one, mentioned the name of the "dog" but left out that it was a wolf.  Left out any description at all of this canine, which is a little strange given his records and writings.  The reasons for this have been speculated on by some as having to do with the danger signal it might send, and in fact since in may localities now, a dog that contains wolf blood is banned and sometimes can not even be given dog medicine (ie: rabies vacine).   So that indicates to me that the proponents of the breed after the first edition of his book, realized that this was something they wanted to "gloss" over. that he did use one wolf in his "project".  I am sure some felt that the wolf blood thing "could" hurt the breed and decided to eliminate that from the history, however the info had already been published and is "out there".  History is revised almost always, by people with agenda's.

In the case of the currrent wolf dog crosses, whether it be this one:

http://www.wolfdog.org/eng/48.html

of the other one I reference above and provided ifno on, the experiments thus far have been a semi-success and look promising in the area of helath expecially.  Go to this link and read paragraph #7, which addresses the vigor and vitality and general health of a dog/wolf cross.

You speak of knowing what you are talking about before talking.  Well, do these people who are actually doing what I suggested might be an idea to consider, uninformed idiots?  They are doing exactly what Stephanitz did but taking a different and more quick route.

Read some about the various wolf/dog crosses around the world, not just in the U.S. where they do it on a whim, without a plan.  There are some that have a plan, and it is working well, thus far.  Of course some predict doom and gloom, but some see a light at the end of the tunnel.  I will never cross anything with anything so I do not have a "dog in this hunt" but I do think the idea is diffinitely worth considering because of the terrible health genetically speaking, of my chosen breed, the GSD.

Guess I wasn't so brief after all.  Sorry.  Have a good day and I mean that.  No hard feelings but I feel my ideas are as legit as the next persons, until I am proven wrong, then I will change.  I have not been proven wrong yet.  There were many who told Christopher Columbus that he was going to sail off the edge of our obviously flat earth.  That it wasn't even possible to think otherwise.