Line breeding/in breeding, Is there a difference? and how close is to close when breeding? Grandfather to grand daughter etc. etc. I'm new at this sight and was trying to understand some posts here.

Thanks

Here is a link to a pretty good explanation of the different breeding options.

www.bulldoginformation.com/breeding-types.html

I have read and studied many breeder's breeding programs, and I have likewise read and studied many articles and books on the subject of breeding dogs. More importantly, I have bred my own strain of dogs for over twenty years, with winners and Champions on the ground now bred down from an unbroken chain of my breedings, starting with the first two dogs I ever bred together in 1988 (different breed).

With that said, I will provide three universal comments on the subject of breeding dogs and then discuss each one: (1) most people are not qualified to speak with authority on the subject of breeding dogs, and should not even breed dogs, period; (2) there is no such thing as 'too tight,' there is only poor selection; (3) there is no 'one' rule of breeding to follow regarding whether to inbreed, linebreed, or outcross.

Regarding number one, "reading artcles" about breeding dogs doesn't make one an expert in breeding dogs, any more than reading articles about surfing makes one capable of actually surfing as a pro. Articles and books are good for guiding people, but the truth is only after a person experiences all the pros and cons of breeding a line of dogs himself, and builds a successful line of dogs that stands the test of time, does that person prove his or her competence at breeding dogs. The rest is sounds and words. Worse, breeding dogs just because you want to "have puppies" is the single greatest problem afflicting every breed type. There is only one legitimate reason to breed dogs, and that is to improve (or at least preserve) performance excellence within a breed type.

Regarding number two, I have personally gone far enough into a breeding program of my own (all line- and inbred) to tell you that what most people say about breeding dogs is flat-out false. I have seen outcross dogs not worth a plug nickel, inbred dogs not worth a plug nickel, as well as great specimens produced from each breeding type. The whole key to breeding dogs is NOT "individual excellence," the ultimate goal to any intelligent breeding program is obtaining genetic uniformity, meaning the ability to get whole litter (or nearly whole litter) excellence regularly and predictably. A person will never get predictable excellence making crosses. Ever. The only way to get predictable excellence is through a linebreeding program. However, this doesn't mean every wannabe who tries to start a line will be successful. If anyone tries to build a line on a so-so dog, or on a lousy dog, or on a dog with too many defects ... or who starts with a good dog but who chooses the wrong offspring to carry forward with ... that person will never succeed. Breeding dogs is a serious commitment, and breeding dogs well requires a) selection of good specimens, b) from strong and consistent genetic backgrounds, c) testing and properly evaluating all offspring, d) carrying forward with the right offspring, and e) following proven line- and inbreeding patterns with the right individuals plugged-into the right genetic "slots" for influence.

When one compares this kind of lifetime commitment to producing quality animals to the typical pet-owner "I wanna breed my doggie cause I love him" mentality, one will quickly see why I recommend that most people don't breed their dogs.

Finally, regarding number 3, there are many ways to create and preserve canine genetic excellence, there isn't just 'one' way. I may get good pups breeding my bitch back to her sire, but I could get just as good a set of pups breeding her to her half-brother, son, or cousin ... all of which I know are good dogs, genetically-similar, and thus all of which will give me some very predictable results. However, if I decide to outcross her, just because I am scared to do an inbreeding, out of ignorance, yeah I might get some good dogs too ... but I have always lost some genetic control by making such a choice and thus some uniformity. Worse, the outside dog's gene pool might not be as clean and problem-free as I have worked the last two decades to make mine, and thus genetically I might be putting a "turd in my punch bowl" so to speak. Yes, I could work to dilute the genetic influence with subsequent breedings, but still diluting the "turd smell" out of a bowl of punch by adding more punch might reduce the aroma ... but do you really still want to pour yourself a drink? Well, the same truth applies to adding undesireable genes to your line by outcrossing. It can work, yes, but it can also ruin everything you've worked so hard to purify and dovetail.

If you're a newbe to breeding dogs, I hope this brief write-up on breeding got you to think before you breed. When in doubt, don't breed. Only breed dogs when you have a handle on the performance standards of your preferred breed type, and when you have a full understanding of the familial genetics of the particular dogs you own, so that you can thereby guide the genetics of your own animals with competence in the direction of excellence for their breed type.

Good luck,

.

This is not the first time this was touched upon with TheLittleBlackBook.
 

A point that is being missed is that an inexperienced breeder may have a load of knowledge,a good eye and a sincere love of the breed of choice. Even the top breeders have culls. I'd really love to see the backyards of some top breeders. Whele hit the nail on the head.

A top breeder may very well be defined by what a person likes in a dog. So many people are taken in by a look of a dog-it's flashiness,it's show record, when in fact that dog may have little to offer the gene pool expect a nice coat color. In each breed breeders have different goals. Goals that have little to do with why the breed was originally bred.

Is there a right and wrong. I think so.

What makes a top breeder may be left up to the imagination of an individual.

Francine

Hi Matt;

Thank you for your comments. I don't have all the answers, but will try to answer yours. Even if the number of pups available from top breeders are in short supply, remember that not everyone goes to top breeders for pups. In fact, most people don't. Most people try to save a penny and buy from newspapers, new breeders, etc., which leaves a lot of room for you to make a better choice. I would not worry about what other people do, but instead I would only worry about what you will do. And I would say it would be a better long-term decision to get on the waiting list of a truly top breeder, and get a great foundation dog in a year from now, than it would be to rush right out and buy a mediocre foundation dog "right now." A longtime breeder I knew once said, "The bitterness of 'poor quality' remains long after the sweetness of 'low price' is forgotten ..."

.

Very good point. I will say that my recommendation was that most people shouldn't breed dogs ... which leaves room for the fact some people should take up this lifetime challenge

If a person is truly committed to producing excellent dogs, he or she will do their homework, get to understand the working aspects of the breed, and then seek out a mentor (who very often will be the top breeder from whom he or she purchases their foundation stock).

In getting to understand both their breed of interest, the dogs they have, and the nuances of the genetic propensities behind those dogs, the aspiring breeder will begin to get a sense of direction as to what he or she needs to work on, genetically, in his or her program ... and will thereby know which choices to make in their breeding program to carry forward in the right way.

Once a person puts in enough time into the breed, and breeds deep enough into their own strain, the correct choices to make become clearer and clearer with each successive generation, because the growing breeder now knows (rather than has to 'ask about') the qualities of the dogs he or she is working with.

That type of working knowledge has to be earned, and so the person who really is willing and eager to put in that kind of time, and who is subtle and observant enough to understand where he or she is going, is the person who will eventually become a top breeder themselves.

.

That point hasn't been missed at all, it's just that very few people who start breeding dogs have "a good eye, a load of knowledge, and a sincere love of the breed." Most beginners who try to breed dogs, in fact, possess none of these things. These things require experience, therefore being a beginner and possessing these qualities are almost mutually-exclusive.

A top breeder is pretty easy to define, I think, because it is simply a person who reliably and consistently produces dogs that do their jobs well for their given breed type.

A breeder of greyhounds who reliably and consistently produces winners and place-runners in open competition is a top breeder of greyhounds. The breeder who 'makes puppies who never win' is not. A breeder of pointers who reliably and consistently produces dogs that identify and locate game to the satisfaction of all the breeder's customers is a top breeder of pointers. The breeder who 'makes puppies who can't satisfy a descriminating hunter' is not. The breeder of terriers who reliably and consistently produces game little varmint dogs that go to ground and dispatch (or hold) vermin to the satisfaction hunters and farmers is a top breeder of terriers. The breeder who 'makes puppies who can't do this' is not.

It is my opinion that any breeder who is breeding for a "look" is not a top breeder at all, but a show breeder, since the worth of any dog (or human being for that matter) is not found in its 'look' but rather in its ABILITIES. Coat color has nothing to do with the function of an animal, and so any breeder who selects coat color as a 'top priority' in his breeding program has deviated from the true purpose of a working dog, and in so doing has become part of the pandemic problem of "show breeders," whose shallow and ultimately worthless standards have weakened virtually every breed type today.

I would never buy consider buying a dog from a show breeder; I would only buy a pup from a working breeder who reliably and consistently produces solid working dogs. Sure, good working breeders have culls, just as good dogs can pop up out of lousy dogs. The point that is truly being missed is the "reliably and consistently" part, as that is the key to everything. In fact, since it is a proven fact that dogs revert back to the "average" of their line, I would rather breed a cull from a generally-reliable and excellent gene pool than I would breed to an excellent dog out of a generally lousy and inconsistent gene pool ...

.

Very nice post Francine, with many important considerations. I particularly liked and appreciated your thoughtful comment that you "would like to see the same dog in 3-4 years." That is a chin-rubbing statement as I too have seen many flash-in-the-pan dogs that look great for awhile, and then degenerate, versus a dog that truly is good to the bone ... and stays good its whole life.

The only thing you said which raised an eyebrow for me was your list of important considerations in a dog ("health,temperment,conformation and ability.In that order.") My own view is that ability must always be #1, above all else, and I will leave you with some analogies, all with common denomonators, as a chin-rubbing point for your own consideration.

Regarding faults and conformation in human beings, it could be argued that being deaf would be a major fault for a music composer ... but in point of fact this physical flaw never stopped Beethoven from being one of the all time greats because his drive to excel and his natural talent overcame all barriers and allowed him to transcend time. If I were going to breed humans for the ability to compose music, I would surely not allow the 'faults' of Ludwig Van to blind me to the fact that his talent and drive were otherworldly, nor would I breed to a "perfect person" (physically and health-wise), who lacked musical talent, thinking that the offspring might possess the compositional talent of Beethoven.

In the same fashion, maybe Albert Einstein wasn't a very handsome man, and he might not have enjoyed the best of health, but (suppose he had a physically-perfect brother) and if I were breeding for human intelligence, I would walk right passed Albert's perfect brother with a bitch and 'breed' to Albert himself, if I wanted to keep the genetics for extreme intelligence intact.

In going back to dogs (LOL), I was once given a tremendous Patterdale terrier named Avis by his owner who wanted me to build a bloodline around this dog for him. The dog was ugly as sin. He had horrible (but huge) teeth, all crooked, and he was straight-stifled. The dog couldn't win a conformation show if his life depended on it ... and yet at his job of being a varmint-killing terrier Avis simply had no peer. Avis was once on a hunt with his original owner, with many other fellas and their hunting terriers, when a groundhog went into a hole that was straight-down into sheer limestone deposit. No other dog would dare to go into it ... but Avis did. Without exaggeration, that little dog went over 20' down in there, wedged deep into solid rock in pitch-black darkness, got his groundhog, but he couldn't get him out ... and so Avis REFUSED TO COME OUT. His owner at the time actually had to rent a backhoe and hire an excavation team to get Avis out of the hole ... and some 12 hours later they pulled a half-dead Avis out of there, still doggedly hanging onto the groundhog, and the men finally handed both dog and quarry to the owner. Only when Avis was placed in his owner's hands did he then drop the groundhog, after which Avis had to be revived with IV fluids and cortico-steroid therapy to save him from his ordeal.

My point is this: regarding "health and temperament," a person could find "healthy well-mannered" terriers everywhere ... the truth is healthy, well-mannered dogs are a dime a dozen ... but to a serious hunter a person would have to go through SEVERAL THOUSAND mediocre terriers to find one as game, talented, and determined to do his job as Avis. Thus, the truth is, if a breeder wants his dogs to be truly top-notch performance animals, he needs to keep their abilities as his or her #1 consideration ... otherwise, I assure you, those abilities will fall to the level of importance that they are placed on one's list.

Many people might not breed to as ugly a little dog as Avis, nor to one with straight stifles, but if they bred to another dog besides Avis they would be breeding to a shell-of-a-terrier compared to Avis ... just as if one bred to a male runway model they would be breeding to a shell-of-a-composer as Beethoven.

That is just something for you to consider when placing "ability" where you have on your list. In my view, drive and ability should be #1 on any list (and that includes human beings), with all else falling a distant second.

Thanks for reading, and thank you for your own view

Jack

.

Jack,
very nice story.
When I put health first and ability last it is b/c I stated that it is difficult not to breed a GSP with nose and point,this is important aspect to consider. The basic ability is already there,a serious hunter can work with this.It is worth mentioning that my idea of ability may not the same as some other's. Health has to be number 1 b/c a dog is only a hunting dog a short time each year, the rest of the year the dog is a family companion which is why temperment must be number 2 on the list.
Thankfully, the shortahir gene pool is not as limited as poor little Avis'.
Placing an oder of desired traits should not affect the breeding choices. If a dog is a perfect specimen of health,temperment and conformation but lacks the desired abilities sought after then that dog is not breeding material. It has to be the package or the deal is off.
Just my 2 cents worth.

Francine

Haha. I was just thinking people called it line breeding when they did it on purpose and inbreeding when it was an accident or someone else did it.