Thread: My thoughts in Line Breeding.

I realise the other thread is now closed (Just noticed that after spending an hour putting my thoughts to words) so I am posting it here. If the mods want to remove this or even instantly close it to discussion I have no issue, but I did make quite an effort to outline my thoughts and philosophies in a con confrontational way. I'd hate to just have to delete it lose an hour of my life for no reason at all.

This will always be a contentious issue and ultimately just comes down to
What ones personal goals are. To say dog breeds were not formed by use of inbreeding though is completely false... that’s the only way it can be done. Take the Pitbull as an example. The main two primary breeds originally were English Terriers and Bulldogs. Once the cross produces the “type” then only line breeding will “fix” the type for it to become a breed. They are not produced and become a “breed” just by repeating the respective breed mixes but by breeding together the progeny of the mixed mating. In most cases, especially in earlier times where transport did not give breeders as much access to diversity then close line breeding was often the only tool breeders had to fix breed type.
I have only bred one litter personally, but have studied the practises of those who produce dogs I admire in the field and the philosophy they took. Jim Clarke (RIP) of Ballyblack kennels was my main focus in this and he had some very stringent rules. He used a lot of commonality in his matings and yet rarely bred progeny any closer than having common grandparents. He maintained this was the distance he could maintain without creating or accentuating any unwanted genetic issues that can come with a close mating. A close mating is the best way to double accentuate the abilities and desirable traits in a breed, but it also doubles anything unwanted and unseen lurking in the genetics. While this fault may not be apparent in either parent when the genes that cause it get doubled, so often does the fault and this is where it can become unpalatable for some. In show circles these faults are not always very apparent and so the incidence of genetic flaws in dogs bred solely for show is much higher than in other endeavours. Most genetic faults in working dogs will be very apparent and hinder good work and so more care and attention is usually applied by breeders breeding for the field instead of the show ring. Jim Clarke’s main rule was that if you wish to breed close you also have to cull any faults instantly and without remorse. Mortenson maintained the same. It is often the lack of culling of dogs with faults which are later bred by people who should know better that causes the issues. In the entire time I have been trialling dogs I have not encountered a Ballyblack Spaniel with an apparent genetic issue. I have had people ask me why Jim’s dogs just don’t seem to have any of the issues most spaniel breeders fear... giving tongue, belligerence, PRA, HD etc.... the answer was simple “He shot the ones that did 30 years ago”.
Line breeding is simply the most straight forward way to fix type as it was done in the beginning. If there is certain type of dog you admire, by line breeding to that dog you have a much greater percentage of puppies that will be born with the traits of that dog, if you have done it correctly. If you haven’t then you do throw the baby out with the bath water, you simply have to start again, trying to breed out the faults is fraught with impending disaster and means the faults will, even if to a lesser degree, remain.
So the answer is the diligent breeder who knows what they are doing can and should use line breeding, inbreeding (There is no difference between the two, one just feels more palatable to some) to produce animals with a double up genetically on favoured traits. What gives it a bad name is simply where is used purely for aesthetics in show dogs, or where it produces accentuated faults which are not removed from the gene pool. The negative examples, where people have got it wrong, are the ones held up by people against it as examples of it being poor practise, and it is if not done diligently and with research and dare I say it years of experience having run or watched the dogs involved work. The proponents, such as myself though will point out the truly exceptional “cut above” dogs line breeding often produces, in the right hands, of why it is absolutely a 100% valid practise and I find applying a human moral ethic to it a little strange to be honest. Line-breeding in the wild is extremely common in dog packs and many of the strongest packs survive because the strongest dogs keep reproducing themselves in the same line. The naive belief that wild canines are all outcrosses is total rubbish. The females of the pack will most often always be covered by the alpha and he is also highly likely he will be her father. They are dogs, not humans. Our so called “superior intellect” can often lead us to make moral judgements which are simply not applicable to anyone except humans. Nature doesn’t care and when nature gets it wrong, it culls.
So those that believe in it should use the method, provided they have done their homework. Those that don’t believe in it should seek out outcrosses. The main issue with Outcrosses is that you cannot truly predict type and there can be massive variance in pups all from the same litter. Also, if you don’t know enough about the outcrosses you are using, you can still double up on genetics issues and get the same faults as you can encounter with line-breeding. What I am basically saying it that this is an accepted practise by those that do understand genetics, it can be abused or done poorly and it can be done exceptionally well. The choice to utilise it or not is a personal one and no one should sit in any moral judgement of anyone doing it based on human morality.
Personally I wouldn’t go as close as is being discussed but as has been correctly pointed out some of the greatest breeders in time have done so extremely successfully.
Ultimately... to each their own.

thats a good summary ruff.i've been away for 5 days so i've just had a read up. look all breeds are inbred in a species that's why they look like a breed.linebreeding is just a watered down version of inbreeding. to inbreed working gundogs,requires a vast amount of knowledge, money and time.something only very few individuals ever succeed in achieving. talking about incest is not helpful,too emotive. in humans it is illegal and unacceptable,and naturally repugnant because it attacks the very fabric of our society,the family. with animal breeding this problem does not apply. anyway had a great time at molesworth goose shooting,dog and shotgun and a great group of people.

Agreed but line breeding and inbreeding are the same thing, the only difference is word play!

[QUOTE=Tussock;526861)

Implying the pit bull is formed by inbreeding is miss leading.

Before type was fixed, it was just a different dog. Pit bulls, terriers and bulldogs were uses of dogs and there was no control over what was used. You can't cross two breeds and inbreed them to fix type, if they were not breeds to start with. .[/QUOTE]

Still having a hard time accepting it aye.
The pit bull terrier and it's de tuned version the American Staffordshire bull terrier do come from the same tree and are in fact inbred to hell English staffs, from a period after the English bulldog got made redundant after the laws changed banning its use.
The staffy itself coming from the rat pit and the result of crossing the slower bulldog with the faster terrier hence the bull and terrier breeds came about........cue in at some stage the growth of dog fighting and it's later introduction to the Americas the game bred American pitbull terrier evolved.........inbred,linebred and out crossed to other similar breeds along the way but still man made.

Pointers,setters,terriers,hounds,mastiffs, greyhounds and sheep dogs all were defined breeds and variants at the time the bull and terrier breeds were developed most named after the regions they were developed in.

By it's function.

tussock your 8.08pm post had so much misinformation about it i cannot be bothered to reply.but lets start with some common ground.there are a lot of people breeding pedigree dogs (mostly the show fraternity) that are going down the wrong path,a dead end street.but don't blame the methods they use,the faults lie with their selections and goals. in working gundogs, i have mentioned robert wehle, now dead but his line of gundogs are still breeding on, not only with superb conformation but great workers and easily trained.in working border collies there are other examples.Robert Wehle documented his results.if you have an open mind and not a mindset i suggest you acquaint yourself with them,it will broaden the mind.

But the end goal, a hunting dog has not changed.
You are debating the simple facts by over thinking the situation.

Originally Posted by Tussock

You have cultivated a story that justifies what you want, but it only holds up among believers.

Which do you prefer, pot or kettle, oh black one?

Thing is, it's not my argument. This is how we as a species have done this, for thousands of years. And no matter how much factless dribble you spout, that is fact.

I'll ask you one more time since you keep avoiding it, how did we arrive at all these different breeds in basically every type of animal and plant we have domesticated? Short answer, not one of your long winded empty replies.

tussock do you not think you are giving a sermon rather than a constructive argument. And i am not naive enough to dismiss a lifetime of experience and work which has endured to this day as 'old books'. you sure have a faith,but not many believers.

We are getting somewhere. Finally, you say by applying selection pressure over a given generational interval. Have a chocolate fish. And what does that selection pressure involve?

Science is useful in breeding,but it does have its limitations.there is a term,-'the art of breeding', because while it requires a knowledge of genetics, it also requires a knowledge of the sire and dam's lines,intuition etc.,a host of factors.there is no way you can absolutely manage genetic outcomes,rather you select from the results.some very undesirable genes have been removed by this policy. and when i say genes,its a lot more complex than that;to try and understand the full complexities does not really have much help in practical breeding.
With genetic mapping maybe we will be able to splice up the perfect dog. what would be the fun in that?