Printable View
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. :pacman:
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! :thumbsup:
[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.
Which do you prefer, pot or kettle, oh black one?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tussock
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?
Tussock, you know how people say "with all due respect" when they mean the opposite?
With all due respect, you are talking so much rubbish it is not worthy of response. I can, and have explained it for you. I cannot understand it for you. You are pushing a barrow that is incorrect, flawed and if implemented by anyone would lead to the demise of every breed that is coveted for its "type". If you just want a genetics raffle, go ahead forge your way forward, there are some of us that have done this long enough to not only know the truth, but have seen the truth by observing great breeding practices which have produced great dogs.... Your contention would lead to a world where there are only outcrossed mongrels, with no way of producing type fit for purpose and people just hoping to get lucky. You're a lost cause and have a bone in your grip you refuse to let go of even though very simple facts have been presented. I have said everything I need to say and have no intention of debating complete and utter bullshit with you.
You have made a valiant attempt, I give you that, at debunking absolute fact with conjecture, but you have failed. Just buy a mongrel next time, stay away from deformed breeds developed by people who don't give a shit about function and don't blame the people breeding for function for the sins of the people who developed the breed you love so much and totally fucked it up.
I will ask one question... if line breeding doesn;t produce type and I am wrong about the pitbull, does that mean every pitbull bred is an English TerrierXBulldog, or did they, at some point, start breeding the "type" they had created back to itself in order to establish a breed? Do I only need to get an English Terrier and a Bulldog now to make a pitbull or is there a bit more to it?
No genes...the poor critter would not exist without genetics...??Quote:
Originally Posted by Tussock
I don't think you have the slightest grasp of anything in this subject.
The Irish had poor crops of potatoes due to blight...Phytophthora infestans...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tussock
this one is pure gold, what happened to your version of the uber dog ??????????? oh thats right didn't work out so rehomed wasn't it ?????Quote:
Originally Posted by Tussock
your generation of dog breeders is already here mate the growth of the mutt which even the nzkc is trying to cash in on, designer breeds and 'real' backyard fuck ups or get rich quick schemes and quirky named mistakes..... what happens when they run out of purebreds to use ? the likes of the spca and the vets do a great job of promoting de sexing it is quite possible the popular stud syndrone could even affect breeding mutts, mutts are not devoid of genetic health issues........ your so called modernization of methods may not grow as fast as the law changes regarding dog ownership types of breeds owned or breeding, and i can see a time when getting a permit to breed could be a reality, current changes wihin the purebred world are slow but the recent rules for breeding pedigree labradors are a step forward.
'your' generation is actually this generation don't kid yourself.
actually i stated the american bulldog was in fact man made and the product of inbreeding/linebreeding, the fact it has major health issues is only a short term problem if someone loves the breed enough to start fixing the problems........it starts with that first step.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tussock
Often remedied in a single cross too which is the funny thing about all this talk of dead ends. It's only one cross away. I think he forgets we are talking performance animals here. Ask EBs how much setter the French put into the Brittany in modern times, or ask Robyn Gaskin where the light orange coat comes from in the working Irish setter. My own dogs have very recent relatives with fluffy ears and tails. Do I give a shit about this fallacy of purity? As long as they keep performing the way they do, not at all!
i think tussock gets some perverse pleasure out of winding forum members up. you ' don't read old dog breeding books' but you read scientific journals? tussock you try too hard, widen your mind. that quote you gave,the whole idea of a dog breed is to restrict genetic diversity, otherwise we would all have dingo like dogs. to provide such a quote, from a so called scientific journal,long windedly stating the obvious,makes me conclude there is a fair bit of vacant space somewhere.
so did you pass the dog on or not ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tussock
@the time of that particular thread you had the same blind them with bullshit approach, i do like to see the outcome even if it is a few years down the track as it may educate me with something i can use or another line of proven thought backed up by actual proof....... it's how the really uneducated like myself learn.
personally i will continue to get my schooling by a alot of the new and lessons learned from the past.
C'mon Kawhia, the missus ruined it :ORLY:
1Quote:
Originally Posted by kawhia
lesson one from the past.
if you cant dazzle them with brilliance baffle them with bullshit .::smash::cave:
comparing linebreeding or inbreeding to incest is like comparing invetro fertilisation in humans to ai in cattle.:O_O: