# Breeding Question..



## Ronald Beto (Apr 15, 2007)

just wanna ask if its ok for daughter to sire breeding?:-k 

thanks!


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

only if both heve great traits, without any medical issues. Than it is the best way to peserve those traits in the new puppy's. Just remember not only the good ones also the less desirable.


----------



## Chris Wild (Jan 30, 2008)

Generally, no. It would not be considered Ok.


----------



## Trish Campbell (Nov 28, 2006)

No..that is considered "inbreeding" when done that closely. All breeding is essentially inbreeding-that's essentially how we established a breed type. But generally the closest you do now is 2-3 linebreeding( that is also the closest linebreeding you can do and be acceptable by the SV if you are talking GSD's)


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

I say go ahead, as your recessives will pop up, and you will have a much better idea of what you are working with. Better to know than just go about guessing.


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

I don't get the point that inbreeding is a bad thing. If you want a stabile line, you must inbreed. Jeff says it in much better in english than I can, but if you don't know the recessives why breed the dog.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

The majority of people here in the US think of dogs in human terms and the idea of having sex with your mom or dad, or son or daughter is repulsive. Also, most here in the states do not have true "lines" for the most part. 

This should be obvious, as we are still getting dogs out of europe.:-k


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

The biggest mistake in inbreeding is being afraid to cull. Even then it takes a great deal of expierience and knowledge of the lines to do it.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Innate immunity (not adaptive immunity like with T cells and B cells) is determined in the genome. Beyond the direct potential health problems in fatal or harmful recessive traits (or dominant, in some cases) popping up, outcrossed offspring will have a more broad innate immunity than inbred offspring. Long story short, less susceptible to disease than inbred offspring. Just FYI that there really is a reason for incest taboo in humans.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Isn't the SV much more restrictive about inbreeding than the AKC who does not care? Maybe not?


----------



## Mike Scheiber (Feb 17, 2008)

Ronald Beto said:


> just wanna ask if its ok for daughter to sire breeding?:-k
> 
> thanks!


If you have to post this question on a internet dog board for advice I think you should realy reconcider having a breeding program or what ever you are trying to do.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Mike Scheiber said:


> If you have to post this question on a internet dog board for advice I think you should realy reconcider having a breeding program or what ever you are trying to do.


Aside from the answers given, I think Mike has a valid point.


----------



## Ronald Beto (Apr 15, 2007)

thus, daugther to sire breeding can produce quality puppies? considering daugther or the sire has no medical issues. aside from that, the both possess good drive and temperament? in which in my opinion i can keep those quality and passess the same to their puppies.

thanks!


----------



## Kris Finison (Nov 26, 2007)

Bob Scott said:


> Aside from the answers given, I think Mike has a valid point.


I think I'd have to agree.
However, as mentioned inbreeding is not necessarily a bad thing when done properly and not over used. It can bring out recessives (which can be good or bad depending on what is brought out and what you are trying to get out of the breeding.) It is also a very quick way to begin solidifying certain traits in phenotype and genotype.


----------



## Chris Wild (Jan 30, 2008)

I also agree Mike's point is VERY valid.

Inbreeding can be a good tool for use in breeding, but like any tool it can be used for bad or good. 

Inbreeding, especially inbreeding this close, is NOT something to be taken lightly, or to be done without a VERY thorough knowledge of both the individual dogs involved and the bloodlines behind them. And by bloodlines I don't just mean general knowledge, but specific knowledge about the traits expressed and passed on by their siblings, parents, grandparents, previous progeny AND the siblings, progeny, and other close relatives of those siblings, parents and grandparents. Breadth is as important as depth when studying a pedigree, and especially when inbreeding is concerned.

Back to Mike's point, my opinion is that if you're having to ask the question of whether or not it's ok to breed father to daughter, you probably do not have the knowledge or experience to be attempting such a high risk breeding.


----------



## Kris Finison (Nov 26, 2007)

Very good post Chris. You touched on what I wanted to say only you worded it better.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

It should also be mentioned that the risks in one breed (i.e., gsd's) are comparably greater than the those found in other breeds, where workingstock breeders like Selena have a more unified vision for what they are selecting for, and cull accordingly. Those breeds may be less predisposed to certain genetic conditions from long term selection pressures.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Ok, lets get this out of the way, how many of you have actually bred father to daughter (other than Selena) out there??? Do you have the experience to tell this guy not to breed??? The bottom line, is that for every person that we think is a knucklehead, and I am not in that catagory, there are thousands of people breeding dogs for no other reason than money, and could care less about anything except that the results are pups to sell.

This snotty attitude, and absolutely no experience whatsoever in this topic you would think would be enough to shut people up, but no, it never does. They just guess their way around the subject.

If you are wanting to start a breeding program, and have the opportunity to see what recessives are prevalent in the stud that you want to start with, you can use an inbreeding to see if this is the dog to start with.

Dogs are livestock people, the sooner you figure this out, the sooner you will realize that only by breeding that ruthlessly, will you ever get anything worth much.

Outcrossing.........is this why there are so few wolves????? I don't remember reading about a lot of outcrossing going on there.:-k


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Though I haven't bred so tightly, I'm not at all opposed to it. The OP was pretty non-specific (about breed, or bloodline, or actual dogs), so there's just no generalized "right" answer to the question. I agree, for the breeder, dogs are livestock, and by tight inbreeding from the get-go, you can find out sooner if you're wasting your time with your current breeding stock. The whole concept of linebreeding or outcrossing is too often viewed with such polarity of thinking, you find many people in favor of one and opposed to the other. This is self-limiting, a breeder should be well aware of the ramifications of each, and take advantage of both in whatever context necessary.


----------



## Chris Wild (Jan 30, 2008)

I personally feel the idea of equating dogs to livestock, and extremely close inbreeding in dogs to expose recessives as is sometimes done with livestock, to be flawed.

For starters, dog's are not livestock. 

Unlike cattle, sheep, goats, swine, poultry, rabbits we can't just eat the results of the experiment, or turn them into fur coats. Well, I guess in some parts of the world that might be an option, but assuming we're talking about the breeding of dogs as companions and working partners, not dinner, it's not a likely scenario.

Unlike most livestock species where this practice is utilized, dogs produce high numbers of offspring. Not just one or two. And for those species where many offspring are produced, with numbers akin to dogs, again there's that whole eating or turning into fur coats option.

And then there is the ethical issue. They are companion animals. Anyone who views dogs as livestock, or commodities, or test subjects for experimenting has no business breeding dogs.

But for sake of argument, I'll leave the whole ethical thing out and assume such an inbreeding is being done for the noble goal of vastly improving a bloodline or breed by exposing recessives, not for the more likely reason of "I've got a male and a female and want to make puppies for $$". Thus, if the experiment is truly the motivating force, perhaps the end justifies the means.

So, someone does a father-daughter inbreeding for the express purpose of improving the genetics by exposing recessives. And this experiment probably produces anywhere from 6-12 pups. Now what?

If the true reason is to expose recessives, that would mean keeping those 6-12 offspring. At the very least, until 12-18 months old when health and temperament can be somewhat accurately evaluated and those recessives seen. But in reality, since many temperament traits are not apparent until full adulthood, and many genetic health issues do not become apparent until the dog is in it's middle, or even senior years, the true purest who is doing this as a strict genetic experiment would keep those 6-12 dogs for their entire lives. And of course, that means providing them with a good diet, proper exercise and vet care, both because it's the humane thing to do but also because, in the true interest of the experiment, it is the only way to ensure that any health problems that develop are genetic and not environmentally related. Same goes for temperament. In order to fully evaluate temperament, and to ensure that any temperament problems are genetic and not environmental, it would also mean providing those 6-12 dogs with proper socialization, training and interaction for their entire lives. Or at least until full adulthood when genetic temperament is fully expressed. I guess after they're 3-4 years old they could be completely ignored, just kept around to see if any health problems crop up in the next several years.

Now I guess this scenario is plausible. And if someone wanted to do it and was willing to do all of the above, it could be valuable. But I think the scenario of keeping 6-12 dogs around for their entire lives is unlikely. Maybe they'll be kept around for 6-12 months until hip/elbow prelims and some temperament is seen. After which they'll be culled, which sort of eliminates a lot of what could be learned from the experiment, or sold. Expecting that $$$ will play somewhat of a role here in the decision, I'm going to go with the assumption that selling is the most likely scenario.

So, they're going to be sold. Who is going to buy them? The breeder would probably stand a better chance of selling them if he keeps quiet about their pedigree and sells them as unregistered dogs of unknown heritage. Not something I'd consider ethical, but YMMV. If he's honest about their pedigree, things get a lot tougher. 

I'm also going to make the assumption that considering this topic was posted on a working dog board, that we're talking a working breed and probably working bloodlines within that breed. IOW, dogs who generally aren't well suited to the average Joe Public pet owner. But the people with the knowledge and experience to handle such a dog, aren't likely going to be interested in the product of such a breeding. Especially if it's older and hasn't had anything done with it. That leaves the ignorant Joe Public pet owner as potential customer base, but incest taboo alone is probably going to turn most of them away too. So in terms of marketability, these dogs don't have much. Of course, there's always the option of dumping the dogs in a shelter and letting someone else deal with them. That doesn't bring in any $$ though, but at least it's cheaper than killing them because they can't be found homes.

And now throw into the mix that most of the questions about genetic recessives that would be answered by this experiment can also be answered by thorough pedigree research or the accepted practice of in/linebreeding on dogs a bit further back in the pedigree. Using those tried and true methods that have been in place by breeders for generations also eliminates much of the inconvenience and ethical issues that would be involved in such an experiment, and produces marketable puppies.

So in what way would a father/daughter breeding be a good idea?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Chris, how many father daughter breedings have you done???

Quote: For starters, dog's are not livestock

In what sense???? 6-12 pups at 2500 each......calfs cost less, so maybe we come up with a better word than livestock, but they essentially are the same.

Quote: Unlike cattle, sheep, goats, swine, poultry, rabbits we can't just eat the results of the experiment,

Says who????:twisted: 

Quote: And then there is the ethical issue. They are companion animals. Anyone who views dogs as livestock, or commodities, or test subjects for experimenting has no business breeding dogs.

OK so what do the number of breeders out there really say about that???? Having no business breeding dogs certainly hasn't stopped anyone that I know of. This is a business, and fair market value is how prices are selected for livestock as well as "dogs". I know too many breeders that sell far too many "companion animals" as working dogs to really tell anyone not to breed.


Quote: But for sake of argument, I'll leave the whole ethical thing out and assume such an inbreeding is being done for the noble goal of vastly improving a bloodline or breed by exposing recessives, not for the more likely reason of "I've got a male and a female and want to make puppies for $$". Thus, if the experiment is truly the motivating force, perhaps the end justifies the means.


Where do ethics come into play??? Is it so much worse to try and identify recessives and create a better dog, or is it enough to just keep doing what we are doing now which is spinning our wheels???? I look at the dogs that Selena and Dick are producing, and wonder if any of them would be able to find a home here in ethics land as they seem to be more dog than we have here. Granted I could be wrong, but I don't think so. On that line of thinking, do we just continue along the sad little path that we made for ourselves??? After all, if we are going to go on ethics, then everyone in this country needs to stop breeding as they are not producing the quality of dog necessary for sport and police/military on a consistant enough basis.......so they should just stop, not too mention that with all the little homeless animals that are infesting the shelters nationwide, to add to that population at all is unethical.

After all, what are the numbers that we are killing at the shelters across the country??? 50,000 a year???

I feel really bad about them, but it is too late to do anything about them. We have all preached spay and nueter as long as I can remember, and nothing has really changed.

However, with the current mindset, where do new breeders come from??? We all know that the best breeding on paper does not always translate, so does the new breeder just say **** it I quit?? Or does they wander around making the same mistakes of others, for example just breeding without knowledge of the recessives that are within their stock???? If the dog has so few that you do not see them until late in life, then I would use the dog providing there is sufficient drive, character, bla bla bla to do so.

My ex girlfriend had to put her GSD to sleep for spondilosis (sp) and called the breeder in Wis. to tell them, and was told off how their lines don't have that. Is this ethical????

Better to share knowledge and wish them the best as to just hammer them with this "ethical" nonsense. If we give the guy enough info, maybe he realizes just what he has and makes the decision not to breed THIS particular dog, but encourages him to look for something more appropriate.

Quote: I'm also going to make the assumption that considering this topic was posted on a working dog board, that we're talking a working breed and probably working bloodlines within that breed. IOW, dogs who generally aren't well suited to the average Joe Public pet owner.

There are some huge mistakes here. Who says that a working dog cannot live with joe average??? Currently, most of the working dogs I know are with joe average, and they are doing fine. I have seen thousands of rescues, and if you want to talk about not suitable for joe average, start there. I have had too many people trying to do the right thing crying on the phone because the dog is destroying their lives...........and not a working dog.


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

Chris: cull the ones who aren't good (if nature didn't allready). You don't breed to make money, but for making your bloodline better. 

We don't have pedigrees, and why should I lie about who we used? if they don't want a puppy from me 'cause of the inbred, that's ok. We breed for ourselves and what we like in a dog, not for somebody else. I don't have to eat from selling puppies or the studfees.
Don't sell to Joe Public anyway and still have people on my waitinglist for over a year (one who'll be there about 2.5 yrs before he gets his puppy).

Very inbred litters are smaller, the largest here was 5-6 puppies. look at the bloodlines of our own dogs (www.bloedlijnen.nl, search, van leeuwen scherpenzeel). and if you're on that site, take a look around..best inheriting studs/breedingfemales are from in/thight linebred combinations.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I'm sorry I didn't read too carefully all of your post. You lost me at "ethical", I think. You're an extremely knowledgeable breeder and practitioner in sport and deserving of my respect, but I must disagree on this point.

I'll use horse livestock as an example (yes, I know many people consider them close companions as well, though I'm more partial to my dogs than horses). If you practice breeding, without intent to produce lifelong family members only, then IMO you are in effect producing livestock.

Nothing in the quarter horse "industry", nothing I'm aware of has proven more devastating than "Impressive Syndrome". As a very popular sire, Impressive broadly used throughout quarter horse breeding, the Pandora's box is open, and it cannot be diluted through time. It can be difficult to find horses HYPP negative, or "Impressive free". This could easily have been identified and avoided with linebreeding. Any popular producer should be tested this way, BEFORE leading the breed down a path of destruction. What's one litter, if it saves thousands of others yet unborn?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: We are a small hobby kennel located near Ann Arbor, Michigan. We are actively involved in schutzhund, and specialize in breeding only exceptional German Shepherd Dogs from 100% European working bloodlines.

I cannot resist this one. So how are Europeans "ethically" producing GSD's???? So you are continueing someone else's breeding program???? How is it that you know the recessives in your stock????? Did you have to go on someone else's word???? Have you produced your own successful line or are you just adding a new stud from europe every now and then???? Do you think that they let the best they have come to this country???? Would you let your best go to another country???

The europeans I have known are ethically challenged at best when it comes to selling dogs.

I didn't read your website, but I am interested in your answer.


----------



## Chris Wild (Jan 30, 2008)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Chris, how many father daughter breedings have you done???


None.



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: For starters, dog's are not livestock
> 
> In what sense???? 6-12 pups at 2500 each......calfs cost less, so maybe we come up with a better word than livestock, but they essentially are the same.


What does the price of a puppy (and $2500 is a ridiculous price for any puppy) vs the price of a calf have to do with the equation?

I think Daryl's definition summed it up nicely:
"If you practice breeding, without intent to produce lifelong family members only, then IMO you are in effect producing livestock."

Hence, when breeding WITH the intent to produce lifelong family members, we are not producing livestock. Livestock are generally considered commodities. Pets are not. Or at least shouldn't be.

Livestock breeders work to pump out as many as possible as cheaply as possible, with the main goal being to produce money. If you think this is appropriate breeding practices for dogs, than you and I are from very different opinions on dog breeding and probably aren't going to agree on much of anything.

And just to clarify, my reference to ETHICAL breeding was in regards to the idea of treating dogs as livestock, and doing breedings because they're cheap and convenient. Rereading my post, I wasn't clear on that. Extreme inbreeding I do not think is a good idea as a general, common breeding practice. But I do not feel it unethical provided it is well thought out, being done by someone who has a clue about what they are doing, and they are prepared for dealing with the results, whatever they may be. But I also feel the circumstances where those criteria would be met are few and far between and as I said, more of these are undoubtedly done because it's cheap and convenient, or out of complete ignorance, than being done as a legitimate experiment.



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Where do ethics come into play??? Is it so much worse to try and identify recessives and create a better dog, or is it enough to just keep doing what we are doing now which is spinning our wheels????


Ethical breeding is working to try to create the better dog. 

But there are many roads to Rome, and a father/daughter breeding is one I would not recommend. Particularly to someone who is extremely lacking knowledge and experience regarding dogs (as would be the case of the OP in this thread).

Every breeding is an experiment of sorts. But some are more well thought out and planned experiments than others, and some that are more risky than others.



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Granted I could be wrong, but I don't think so. On that line of thinking, do we just continue along the sad little path that we made for ourselves??? After all, if we are going to go on ethics, then everyone in this country needs to stop breeding as they are not producing the quality of dog necessary for sport and police/military on a consistant enough basis.......????


I do think you're wrong. There are many breeders in this country producing dogs on par with those in Europe. And many who are consistently producing the quality of dog needed for sport/police/military work. They are fewer than in Europe, and with the vastness of this country, they are farther between. And they are a tiny minority compared to those breeding show and pet dogs. But these dogs can certainly be found in our own backyard.



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> However, with the current mindset, where do new breeders come from??? We all know that the best breeding on paper does not always translate, so does the new breeder just say **** it I quit?? Or does they wander around making the same mistakes of others, for example just breeding without knowledge of the recessives that are within their stock????


 
I'm not sure how a statement advising against a total novice doing a father/daughter breeding equates to "where do new breeders come from?"

I for one am certainly not anti-new breeder. But I do have some strong opinions on how someone should go about becoming a breeder, and most "breeders" in this country fall drastically short of that.



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> If the dog has so few that you do not see them until late in life, then I would use the dog providing there is sufficient drive, character, bla bla bla to do so.


 
So would most people serious about working ability. If it doesn't impact working ability or working life, it's not a major concern. Now try to explain that to pet owners who will scream bloody murder and rake a breeder through the coals if their dog dies of cancer at 12 and blame the genetics.

Unfortunately, breeders (especially in North America) have to balance between the 2 worlds. 



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: I'm also going to make the assumption that considering this topic was posted on a working dog board, that we're talking a working breed and probably working bloodlines within that breed. IOW, dogs who generally aren't well suited to the average Joe Public pet owner.
> 
> There are some huge mistakes here. Who says that a working dog cannot live with joe average??? Currently, most of the working dogs I know are with joe average, and they are doing fine. I have seen thousands of rescues, and if you want to talk about not suitable for joe average, start there. I have had too many people trying to do the right thing crying on the phone because the dog is destroying their lives...........and not a working dog.


Maybe your idea of Joe Average and mine are different. But I've met enough pet owners, and had enough in my obedience classes, that for the most part my opinion is that probably 90% of dog owners would be more suited to a goldfish or a houseplant than a dog. 

Yes, many of the problems they face are genetic nerve and temperament problems that probably wouldn't be present if they had a gotten a dog of higher quality from better breeding. But when I also encounter dog owner upon dog owner with a perfectly sound dog, who can't handle raising a laid back, soft, low drive, easy going animal without running into major problems, I have absolutely no faith in their ability to deal with a high drive, pushy, hard, strong willed animal.

Of course there are pet owners who make wonderful owners for such dogs and never have a problem. I've sold pups to several. And I absolutely am of the belief that within my chosen breed, the GSD, if a dog cannot serve both as a working animal AND a companion, it is not of proper GSD temperament. A working dog who has to live in a kennel because it doesn't have the temperament to be a companion is as incorrect, and as much an insult to the breed, as a pet who can't work.


----------



## Chris Wild (Jan 30, 2008)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> ...German Shepherd Dogs from 100% European working bloodlines.
> 
> I cannot resist this one. So how are Europeans "ethically" producing GSD's????


So I refer to my dogs as European working lines, and there's something you can't resist? Ok.....

Considering there are essentially (at minimum) 3 different types of GSDs, the American type, the Euro show line, and the Euro working line, with only 1 of those being suited to any sort of serious sport or actual work, and I breed dogs of the later type for sport and work, it certainly seemed logical to identify on my website what type of GSD I breed. 

I guess I *could* call them American working lines, seeing as they are born and raised in the good ol' USofA, but then no one would know what I'm talking about, and I really don't want to be confused with anyone associated with the ASS (American Show Shepherd).. but hey, if you find something comical in a breeder stating what type of dog they breed, whatever.



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> So how are Europeans "ethically" producing GSD's????


Well, by having breeding requirements for startes. It's far from perfect, but its a lot better than over here where people can breed whatever they want, no health or temperament testing required. 

I don't see too many of them breeding father to daughter though. In fact it's prohibited by the SV.

Funny how people talk about all the incredibly tight linebreeding, particularly in the show lines, as a bad thing and they rant about lack of genetic diversity and an ever narrowing gene pool... then on the other side of the fence there are those like yourself who seem to think the complete opposite. 



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> So you are continueing someone else's breeding program????


This question makes no sense.

Every breeding program starts out based upon someone else's. It's the only way to acquire a dog in the first place. From there, there are breeders who just continue to buy and breed dogs, and there are those who work to develop their own line. I'm working toward the latter.



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> How is it that you know the recessives in your stock?????


I live with them. I train them. I health test them. I study their pedigrees and their relatives, including lots of emails and phone calls all over the world to people who had first hand knowledge of the individual dogs, their siblings, what temperament traits they displayed, any health problems that developed, etc... And then I keep very close track of puppies I produce, am in constant contact with their owners to make sure I'm aware of anything significant, good or bad, that occurs.



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Did you have to go on someone else's word????


To begin with, of course. Now I can see the results for myself.




Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Have you produced your own successful line or are you just adding a new stud from europe every now and then????


Still not seeing what your questions here have to do with anything, but since you're so interested, I'll answer.

Yes to both. 
I am working toward breeding my own line, and so far the first generation has been VERY successful. Very soon, the second generation will start.

Since the foundation of a breeding program is stong females, we will continue to keep and raise and title our own home-bred bitches for breeding. Perhaps we'll consider bringing in an outside bitch at some point in the future, though at this point there would be no reason or need to do so. Those bitches will be bred to outside studs, since I don't want to be breeding brother to sister, and it would be silly for us in our situation to go buy our own stud for breeding. Some of those studs will no doubt be from Europe, some not.




Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Do you think that they let the best they have come to this country???? Would you let your best go to another country???


For enough money, they'll sell anything. Yes, I do think they will let their best go under the right circumstances. But I also don't think they will admit to it or want anyone to know that. The Europeans very much enjoy, and financially profit, from the misguided assumption that if it isn't imported from Europe it must be crap, and the only way to get good dogs is to buy from them.


----------



## Chris Wild (Jan 30, 2008)

Daryl Ehret said:


> This could easily have been identified and avoided with linebreeding. Any popular producer should be tested this way, BEFORE leading the breed down a path of destruction. What's one litter, if it saves thousands of others yet unborn?


From this angle, I would agree in terms of the value of an experimental breeding testing a popular producer who is going to have a potentially huge affect on the breed.

But apparently we've gotten far off the original topic of answering one person's question about the issue, because this situation certainly doesn't seem to be the same thing.


----------



## Ronald Beto (Apr 15, 2007)

wow..reading all this things learned me alot. i really appreciate all your answers and opinions.:mrgreen:

by the way, can anybody tells me the worst thing may possible happen?


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

that you;ve to eliminate the puppies. Choosing is hard, and you have to be very honest to yourselves and the traits. That's why you have to know the lines, dogs and enceisters, good and bad things in the dogs very well. Nature will rule out any of the puppies who are -in one way or the other- are not good.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> If you are wanting to start a breeding program, and have the opportunity to see what recessives are prevalent in the stud that you want to start with, you can use an inbreeding to see if this is the dog to start with.
> 
> Dogs are livestock people, the sooner you figure this out, the sooner you will realize that only by breeding that ruthlessly, will you ever get anything worth much.


I agree with Chris. Dogs are not livestock. We don't have to live with the goats, sheep, cattle, etc in our homes if the experimentation doesn't work out. A sheep or cow does not need to use its brain or strong temperament to "perform" like we want our dogs to. All they have to do is make lots of meat, milk, and wool. They aren't like their wild kin that have to rough it and defend themselves to survive and they don't need more than a neuron or two to rub together to do "their job." Not exactly the complicated tasks we wish our dogs to perform. Now horses on the other hand, because we must have a good steady temperament to work with them, are a bit different. These idiots who show their horses in halter and then breed the crap out of them even if their temperaments and health are crap are no better than the idiots breeding their champion show dogs for no reason other than they put a lot of time into them and they have Ch in front of their name.

And what exactly are you doing with all the pups in your inbreeding experimentation? Killing/culling them all if they aren't "good enough?" Selling them to pet homes knowing that you could have made some nasty health issue rear its head with a much higher probability than an unrelated outcross? While we're at it, should you kill/cull the adult dogs they came from too if they produce junk even if they themselves were good performers? Why would you waste 4 months of a nice female's life experimenting, especially since pregnancy has its share of risks? Dogs aren't a chemistry set. 

I think we should be getting beyond this sort of inbreeding experimentation, especially now that we have many more genetic tests and markers out there for traits and possible deleterious genetic diseases. If we had but a _very_ tiny handful of good males and females each out there in the entire world, yeah, we'd need to do some line breeding for sure. But last I checked, there weren't only 5 even half way decent German shepherds or Malinois or whatever out there for stud in the _entire_ world, so there's no reason we need to hunt around in the dark by doing experimental inbreeding. If you wanted to take a breed that was not as traditionally strong in working or working dog sport, you'd likely need to do some linebreeding somewhere along the line. But for GSDs, Mals, etc where folks know the lines, why would you reinvent the wheel?



> Outcrossing.........is this why there are so few wolves????? I don't remember reading about a lot of outcrossing going on there.:-k


Read a little more, Jeff. When wolves mature, many (males in particular) leave their natal packs and start new ones. This is your outcrossing. The ones that stay help with the pups of their parents. When their parents die, they have now inherited a territory. In healthy populations, this prevents the very real issue of inbreeding depression, which includes a lower spectrum of immunity like I mentioned on the first place and possible reproductive issues. 

Say what you will, but inbreeding depression is scientific fact. This is precisely why scientists are worried about the low number of Florida panthers. Not just the number, but the limited genetics. Same thing with the African cheetah, which has undergone at least 2 population bottlenecks in its relatively recent evolutionary history. Some scientists think that the cheetah is done for in 500 years or less, even if we are able to recover enough land for them, due to inbreeding depression.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> I think we should be getting beyond this sort of inbreeding experimentation, especially now that we have many more genetic tests and markers out there for traits and possible deleterious genetic diseases.


That would be nice and maybe that day will come, but it has to be known what to look for in the first place. A newly discovered disease or condition could be the result of narrowing genepool, or from recent genetic mutation, either of which may not have a 'specific test' designed to identify it before it spreads way out of hand.

With everyone wanting offspring from the latest "TOP" podium dog, the effect could be widely spread and unnkowingly until much too late. Breeders would have to then make even more serious compromises to retain control in the ensuing chaos, i.e. selecting from showline dogs to improve workingline diversity.


----------



## Mike Scheiber (Feb 17, 2008)

Ronald Beto said:


> wow..reading all this things learned me alot. i really appreciate all your answers and opinions.:mrgreen:
> 
> by the way, can anybody tells me the worst thing may possible happen?


Sorry I'm don't know how to say this any other way. There is allot more to to animal/dog breeding then what your going to learn from some of the nitwits giving you advice and opinions on a Internet dog chat. 
Your asking questions about things you don't even know about and these goofy mofos are telling ya what you should do and how you should do it. Not one of these experts has asked you why you want to do this breeding they just say go for it nothing with it. Be strong you may have to make some tough decisions.
So why do you want to do or considering this breeding whats your goal? Is there something that in your previous litters or line that's got you baffled.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Mike Scheiber said:


> Sorry I'm don't know how to say this any other way. There is allot more to to animal/dog breeding then what your going to learn from some of the nitwits giving you advice and opinions on a Internet dog chat.
> Your asking questions about things you don't even know about and these goofy mofos are telling ya what you should do and how you should do it. Not one of these experts has asked you why you want to do this breeding they just say go for it nothing with it. Be strong you may have to make some tough decisions.
> So why do you want to do or considering this breeding whats your goal? Is there something that in your previous litters or line that's got you baffled.


I thought there used to be an unwritten rule here that if you're not experienced on any given subject, you should just shut up and listen.

I don't think Selena and some of the other posters should be referred to as "goofy mofos" especially by people that believe that a 5-5 is linebreeding.


----------



## Mike Scheiber (Feb 17, 2008)

Gerry Grimwood said:


> I thought there used to be an unwritten rule here that if you're not experienced on any given subject, you should just shut up and listen.
> 
> I don't think Selena and some of the other posters should be referred to as "goofy mofos" especially by people that believe that a 5-5 is linebreeding.


Don't you think it is goofy that they are advising to the op with out gathering any facts. Listen I'm not a dog breeder I'm a consumer and a sport guy I am far from a expert but I do understand basics of animal breeding.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I don't believe I offered any advice, and I usually don't. How others choose to breed is their business as far as I'm concerned. I do however, like to be as informative as I can to allow people to make the best decisions possible for themselves, whatever scenario that may be. Whether or not their goals are aligned with mine, is irrelevant to me. I dislike "preaching" as much as anybody.

I do however feel that anyone who is against linebreeding or inbreeding for any reason, is being somewhat hippocritical by a certain degree when they recognize and select only from within their chosen "breed". Inbreeding is how breed type is set, and diversity will ever be diminished from that point on (excluding evolutionary forces), as all "breeds" must be.

Perhaps a proponent for outcrossing would have better results and control of their breeding by mixing breeds within the species of "domestic canine". Type cannot be maintained with continual outcrossing, it weakens the line, and dangerous recessives will never be revealed, but instead be perpetually delayed and inevitably widerspread.

This begs the question of, what is the "breed" when it no longer fits its own standard? A registry of parentage can't mean much if it doesn't retain its type.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

I'm not a breeder, nor will I be any time soon, but I personally dislike when people go on about breeding, genetics, and the flow of genes in a population when they couldn't identify what a Punnett square is, let alone do one. :evil: 
Refining breeding is an art, but at its core, it's a science. I would be just as pleased as punch if breeders would go take a basic genetics class in the biology department of a local community college or something so they could *really* see what things like dominant, recessive, inbreeding depression, epigenetic, etc. mean.


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

Mike Scheiber said:


> Sorry I'm don't know how to say this any other way. There is allot more to to animal/dog breeding then what your going to learn from some of the nitwits giving you advice and opinions on a Internet dog chat.
> Your asking questions about things you don't even know about and these goofy mofos are telling ya what you should do and how you should do it. Not one of these experts has asked you why you want to do this breeding they just say go for it nothing with it. Be strong you may have to make some tough decisions.
> So why do you want to do or considering this breeding whats your goal? Is there something that in your previous litters or line that's got you baffled.


TS asked an open question, "can it be done". You'll give answers who are equally open, what the results can be and what you be carefull of. 
He doesn't aks can I use "pietje Puk" on " trijntje puk"..

If you're ethically in to it or not, if it is wise to do or not, is to everybody's own opinion. And in this topic you can read different opinions of breeders on this subject.

We don't have to agree to eachother, but TS can see a lot why or why don't do it.

If you breed it has always be with a goal (and that should not to do with $$, 'cause that is a bad one, dogworld in the Netherlands certainly doesn't pay much), but if your goal/opinion is the same as mine is totally irrelevant. Chris probably has an other goal than I have, is one of us better of worse than the other? I don't think so, we've different well thought goals.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Science is great, but has its limitations in breeding practice.



> In order to understand the complex real world, we must simplify the phenomena and try to explain them using the smallest possible number of factors. In doing so, we necessarily ignore other factors, which may have important effects.
> 
> Almost all of the theoretical studies deal with *models* of simple systems of only a few genes and alleles. The models are further simplified by assuming that the genotype is identical with the phenotype, i.e. that phenotypic changes reflect accurately the genetic changes in the population.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ronald Beto (Apr 15, 2007)

Mike Scheiber said:


> Sorry I'm don't know how to say this any other way. There is allot more to to animal/dog breeding then what your going to learn from some of the nitwits giving you advice and opinions on a Internet dog chat.
> Your asking questions about things you don't even know about and these goofy mofos are telling ya what you should do and how you should do it. Not one of these experts has asked you why you want to do this breeding they just say go for it nothing with it. Be strong you may have to make some tough decisions.
> So why do you want to do or considering this breeding whats your goal? Is there something that in your previous litters or line that's got you baffled.


that's why i pop this question to you guys asking some good advice. im already aware of the concequences such kind of breeding. but aside from the higher risk im also into possibilities.. since im pretty much impress of the sire's quality.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

I agree with that passage, Daryl. However, there are many real world examples of inbreeding depression leading to limited genetic variation (cheetahs, elephant seals, the lions of Ngorongoro crater) which leads to problems with a lack of diversity in their immune response system and reproduction. The Ngorongoro lions, as powerful as they appear to be, seem to actually be very susceptible to biting flies, which decimates their population even further.  Nature prefers heterogeneity as it's ultimately more adaptable. 

Back to dog breeding though, though it's been suggested, I don't think you need to necessarily out cross to different breeds (though some have suggested bringing Malinois blood to the German shepherd, for instance), but instead out cross different lines? How many times have I heard breeders say that they breed this high defense civil male to this high prey social female (or vice versa) to get a nice _balance_? And even if you wish to get a relatively uniform type, you can still take 2 pretty much unrelated through 5, 6, however many generations who are both similar for both physical and temperament traits and get pups that are relatively uniform, yes? (relatively being the key word!)

A somewhat similar phenomenon in evolutionary biology occurs with two completely different species ending up having very similar traits to fill an ecological niche, like the emerald tree boa and the green tree python. Nothing's ever perfectly the same though, due to epigenetics. Even if you cloned a dog, the "same" animal won't be produced as an adult. That's why I think the reasons people for giving for doing inbreeding or real tight linebreeding (to unify type) is not going to be even close to 100%. Epigenetics won't let even two identical twins be "identical" for all traits. That is the power of the environment on the genome.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

> Don't sell to Joe Public anyway and still have people on my waitinglist for over a year (one who'll be there about 2.5 yrs before he gets his puppy).


If something is worth having it is worth waiting for. Far too many people breed for money. I watched the most nervey piece of shit showline GSD trying to breed with a soft nervey low drive showline bitch. The male couldn't even figure out what to do. The reason for the breeding??? "I can sell black and tan shepherds all day long." I was pissed.

I don't wanna see any name calling or insults on this thread, or this forum, again. Thankyou.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

> Nature prefers heterogeneity as it's ultimately more adaptable.


"Adaptable", in a sense, also means _less specialized._ The survivability of a species depends on alot of conditions, and from a matter of different perspectives. Working dog enthusiasts desire a dog that is more fit to a specialized purpose. A wolf is perhaps more genetically diverse, but less fitting to the tasks we need it to perform.


----------

