HOLY LINEBREEDING, BATMAN! - Page 9

LOL... deliverance!

Nope :) lol hahahaha

I just heared about it never seen in with my two eyes :) lol

BTW I always look for a dog with no linebreeding in the first 5 generation :) or more if I can find it, Only one of my dogs was line breed 5-5 on Faro but that's all.

 i am still awaiting a response as to what Jeff has bred, inasmuch as he has come on here as the definitive expert, pontificating to the rest of us.  I, too, wonder whether he has, or has ever had a gsd.  Yes, he may be quite knowledgable about training and reading a dog, but this thread is about breeding.   To respond with "show me yours," after coming on here in the manner he did tells us all we need to know about him and his opinions on this matter:  ignore the troll.

 I have seen pedigrees of the game-bred pitbulls Jeff seems to be touting.  In one instance,   ONE DOG appeared SIXTEEN TIMES in a 5 -generation pedigree.   The dog in question, was a very nice, approachable, staple, social pit .  Unfortunately, as this was in a schutzhund club, the poor, sweet little thing only did "okay" in the bitework.  She would really  rather have bitten a nice biscuit with gravy on it than the sleeve.    But, as I said, she did have a very nice temperament and would have done well in a pet home as a result.    I was told at the time that the breeder religiously culled his litters and "knew what he was breeding."  Maybe so.  Maybe he and Jeff are correct.  However, as this guy was breeding game-bred pits for the pit game (fighting), it seems to be that his breeding practices, or his culling, or both missed the mark, otherwise, this dog would have been better than merely "okay" in the work.    "Course, that might have been just a fluke, huh? 

In other instances, the dog was precisely the type of monster I would have expected:  HORRIBLE temperament, absolutely unapproachable, unstable and with several screws loose.  They also all had serious health problems ranging from malabsorption syndrome to epilepsy.  Admittedly, my experience with game-bred pits may be substanitally less than Mr. jeff's.  But, when I can count only one stable dog with a decent temperament out of a few dozen, I tend to think over-inbreeding might be part of  the reason.  I could be wrong, of course, especially given the type of people usually involved with game-bred pitbulls.  God only knows what environmental factors were at work tas well to create the dregs I saw.

JMHO

Mystere, We are on the same page...when i look at a 7 generation pedigree and see Canto/Quanto or their sons or daughters 11 or 12 times I KNOW just what you mean!!!  Principle is the same as the ex. you gave of the game pit, and I daresay the results are roughly the same.

I have no experience personally with breeding other breeds, but I've heard from several "old" breeders of puppies born without limbs and organs in some cases, when closely inbred. 

I'm sure this could happen, but if you read a lot of old books on dog breeding, like those 50 years old and older, inbreeding was done quite frequently, much more than now. 

And as pointed out, the breeding in this topic is inbreeding, not linebreeding.

Usually the breeding done was father/daughter, but brother/sister was not unknown.  Remember that usually these breeders knew the individual dogs in these pedigrees, I mean knew them personally, for generations - we don't have that so much today with most of the people breeding litters.  I say, MOST, not all - most of us having a litter or two a year have not lived and worked the ancestors of our dogs going back 5-10 generations.  A lot of people writing the dog breeding info back then did know this and inbreeding was done carefully. 

I just went and pulled a book off my shelf - published in 1962 and it speaks of how the "greats" in dogs are frequently closely linebred if not inbred, and that "the less tight the line breeding" the more genes are mixing it up and the more variations, rather than consistency of type, you will get.  "It is much easier to keep re-creating the situation that produced the great animal if you use only the same genetic elements and do not complicate the problem by introducing elements that outwardly may look the same as the original but actually are of an entirely different nature in genotype." 

"Inbreeding in itself creates nothing new but merely preserves what exists.  It will bring out recessive faults, which, as we mentioned earlier, can be destroyed in this way."

And after an inbreeding (say, father/daughter or brother/sister) you ALWAYS bred those offspring either outcrossed or definite linebreeding - IOW, you just did a lot of genetic concentration, so you take that and carefully linebreed it not too close.  If you inbreed and then inbreed again is when you're going to see some problems.

More quotes from late 1950s, early 1960s::

"Inbreeding...involves no such hazards  as are and in the past have been attributed to it.  It produces some very excellent dogs when correctly employed, some very bad ones even when correctly employed, and all bad ones when carelessley used.  All the stardard breeds of dogs were established as uniform breeds through intense inbreeding and culling over many generations.  Inbreeding brings into manifestation undesirable recessive genes, the bearers of which can be discarded and the strain can thus be purged of its bad recessives."

"Dogs of great soundness and excellence, from excellent parents and grandparents, all of them much alike, may be safely mated together, no matter how closely they may be related, with reasonable hope that most of the progeny will be sound and typical with a close resemblance  to all the members of their ancestry.  However, two such superlative well-bred dogs are seldom to be found.  It is the way to make progress rapidly and to establish a strain of dogs much alike and which breeds true.  The amateur with the boldness and courage to try such a mating in the belief that his dogs are good enough for it is not to be discouraged.  But if his judgment is not justified by the results, let him not complain that he has not been warned."

"By outcrossing is meant the breeding together of mates of which no blood relationship can be traced.  It is much favored by novice breeders, who feel that the breeding together of blood relatives is likely to result in imbecility, constitutional weakness, or some other kind of degeneration.  Inbreeding is the mating together of closely related animals - father to daughter, mother to son, brother to sister, half brother to half sister.  Some of the best animals ever produced have been bred from some such incestuous mating, and the danger from such practices, if they are carried out by persons who know what they are about, is minimal."

"Absolute outcrossing...is seldom to be recommended, since the results from it in the first generation of progeny are usually not satisfactory.  It may be undertaken by some far-sighted and experienced breeder for the purpose of bringing into his strain some particular merit lacking in it and present in the strain of the unrelated dog......Good breeders never outcross  if it is possible to obtain  the virtues they want by sticking to their own strain.  And when they do outcross, it is for the purpose of utilizing the outcrossed product for futher breeding.  It is not an end in itself."

"Line breeding is the safest course between the Scylla of outcrossing and the Charybdis of inbreeding for the inexperienced navigator in the sea of breeding.  It, too, is to be used with care, because when it succeeds it partakes of much of the nature of inbreeding.  At any rate, its purpose is the pairing of like genes."

 Quote: 

Mystere, I agree with you and my point is basically that successful breeding is like successful training....and it all starts with knowledge and material. Therefore inbreeding can be highly successful and linebreeding can be highly successful. Training only postive can be highly successful and training with force and compulsion can be highly successful. It all depends on the knowledge base of individual and material they are using. That's why I abhor when people come on this board and preach that something will only work the way they see it now (most times in their limited view). Preposterous!!! Fritz Beihler is still one of the great trainers in the world, he still uses compulsion and force though he has modified his approach somewhat....he'll train circles around 99% of people in the world.....my point is that people catergorized this breeding as evil before they knew the facts about the dogs or the reasons. This shows me people that are very limited in their knowledge of the history of the breed and the methods that have proven successful in capable hands. And these people actually get nasty and viscious with their assessments in their limited views. I was always taught there are three sides to a story, yours /mine and somewhere in the middle the truth. I see too many judgements made with just yours or mine and it leads to ignorance....JMO  As a matter of fact I was somewhat intrigued at first as the dogs that were inbred were of very substanial bloodlines....not saying I condoned at that point, just saying at least the equation had dogs that if this was purposeful based on KNOWLEDGE it could have been successful. Most people on this board don't have the type of dogs to do this because they are already linebred on too many weakness!