# Inbreeding/Linebreeding



## GNS Shorthairs (Aug 6, 2008)

Would you buy a pup from a brother x sister mating?

HOw about daughter x father?

Do you have a limit on purchasing a pup from an inbreeding? Linebreeding?

Inquiring minds want to know if you have a limit to "relatedness" of sire and dam!


----------



## midwestfisherman (Apr 19, 2001)

The daughter x father cross has been done a lot with good results. *Depending on the dogs involved*, I generally wouldn't have an issue with it.


----------



## michgundog (Feb 22, 2008)

I had a pup out of a daughter x father, she was a real good dog, very high strung. I've been told by a few professional breeders, it's risky way of breeding, and they advise against it.


----------



## GSP Gal (Nov 12, 2005)

I'm far from an expert, but I had a room mate that had brother and sister littermates, and accidently had a litter of pups- there were 4 that appeared normal, one was missing toenails, and one had ear problems, so in my limited experience, I don't think littermates are a real good idea. I didn't see the pups in adulthood either.

I looked up on the 'net about line breeding, as I some questions about it, but you do stand a better chance of homozygous genes. The article I read recommended 2 or 3 generation similar lines.


----------



## rmd24 (Jul 3, 2008)

GNS Shorthairs said:


> Would you buy a pup from a brother x sister mating?
> 
> HOw about daughter x father?
> 
> ...


Only in Kentucky


----------



## Jumpshootin' (Jul 6, 2000)

midwestfisherman said:


> The daughter x father cross has been done a lot with good results. *Depending on the dogs involved*, I generally wouldn't have an issue with it.




Line breeding is a great tool if done right. I would never take a brother x sister cross. They share genes on both sides, whereas the father x daughter cross only share genes on one side.
The young Basset Hound I have now is the product of a father x daughter cross, and he's a very nice dog. Runs the hide off of rabbits now, and is very good natured, even tempered, and very playful. 
But then his Sire & Damn both had those traits. Both are Grand Rabbit Champions without any faults as to hunting ability, temperament, & conformation.
If either had any bad traits the line breeding never would have been done. And if I didn't know the breeder and his line of great hunting Bassets for many years, I never would have taken a line-bred pup. This fella and his dad are have also been very serious cattle breeders for many years, so they know their animal husbandry.
The same should be said about any breeding. But as we all know, it isn't.


----------



## NATTY BUMPO (May 12, 2001)

GNS Shorthairs said:


> Would you buy a pup from a brother x sister mating?
> 
> Noooooooooo......
> 
> ...


Inbreeding birddogs is like just playing around with dynamite. How many of the Joe Sixpak _puppy producers_ really know how to use it:yikes:

NB


----------



## hehibrits (Mar 10, 2007)

There are people who know much more about this than I do, but I will chime in anyway. The best thing, if you are really serious about finding the answer, is to determine the COI that the breeding would produce. Now as a rule of thumb, brother X sister is not "acceptable" as a breeding pair. Half sibs (same sire different dam or vice versa) sometimes can be bred, but depends on how genetically different the backgrounds of the off dogs are. Father X daughter should be good if the COI isn't too high. 

Now, from what I have found these "line" breedings have a place and enthuse trialers and competitors, but for people breeding foot hunting dogs line breeding and half sib breedings turn off a lot of people.


----------



## Gina Fox (Nov 4, 2007)

GNS Shorthairs said:


> Would you buy a pup from a brother x sister mating?
> 
> HOw about daughter x father?
> 
> ...


 
Nope. Not an inbreeding. 

Linebreeding is something more acceptable and ONLY if you know your pedigrees problems. 

Unfortunately a lot of breeders only consider the GOOD traits worth passing on and turn a blind eye to the BAD things that will be passed on too. It is not for the faint hearted (inbreeding) and the folks who practice it must be willing to cull without mercy. Since I am against creating something that could be an ticking time bomb of genetic or congenital problems, just to destroy it. I see no purpose. 
There is plenty of breeding stock that have desireable traits and ability to pass on without having to do inbreeding.


----------



## 2ESRGR8 (Dec 16, 2004)

Too tight for my taste, run, run, run away.


----------



## crosswind (Sep 1, 2004)

It is hard to argue against something that has been proven to work.Breeders have been doing it for hundreds of years. If you have clean line bred ancestry to work with there have been great results from both line breeding and inbreeding. 
I use the linebreeding method in my kennel all the time and once in awhile I will inbreed. Michigan just held their region NSTRA finals last weekend,the top four dogs were from my kennel,the region high point dog was also.
I don't think I would recommend inbreeding to someone that isn't real familiar/experienced with the bloodline they are inbreeding.


----------



## GSP Gal (Nov 12, 2005)

Scott Townsend- I couldn't begin to guess how many dogs you have produced, or had a hand in selecting bloodlines to match. That's why I deferred to you yesterday before this thread was even posted. Your success with line breeding speaks for itself. And, you are going to have a critical eye on your line now, as you have enough examples of what works and what doesn't. 

I am sure if someone looked at some other lines of proven dogs, Elhew comes to mind, there is line breeding there. But, as Gina pointed out, there is culling involved. I had an uncle in TN that had a plantation full of pointers, and culling is not for the faint hearted. :sad:

So- given the *handful of breeders *that have truely worked and research their lines, I would shy away from line breeding. 

However, I have one of Scott's dogs, and for example's sake, we could use her. She is out of Fritz, and Lady Mack Fraulein. With her parentage, I see no similar dogs in her line. With the exception of Dixieland Rusty about 3-4 generations back top and bottom.

I have a male pup, he has similar lines but only 3-4 generations back. I see Dixieland Rusty, Moesgards, M Go Blue, Monkeyshines, and he does have Rawhide Clown, a proven NFC. 

So, is that line breeding that far back, or is it too far to be considered line breeding?


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

among professional breeders, breeders whose income solely or in large part depends on the breeding of animals, in other words livestock breeders, linebreeding is done but inbreeding is very rare.

inbreeding is like russian roulette. you can load a revolver and pull the trigger five times and nothing happens. but that doesnt make it a safe practice.

i have dogs whose gransire on top and great grandsire on bottom is the same dog. that's close enough. if you cant find other excellent dogs with desireable characteristics to breed to without inbreeding, your breed has some serious problems.

look at the pedigrees at the horses that just won the derby and preakness, you will find a little linebreeding possibly but no inbreeding, certainly no father/daughter or brother/sister matings. and that is the pinnacle of animal performance.


----------



## Shotgun Kennel (Feb 9, 2007)

rmd24 said:


> Only in Kentucky[/quote
> 
> :lol:


----------



## Gina Fox (Nov 4, 2007)

crosswind said:


> It is hard to argue against something that has been proven to work.Breeders have been doing it for hundreds of years. If you have clean line bred ancestry to work with there have been great results from both line breeding and inbreeding.
> I use the linebreeding method in my kennel all the time and once in awhile I will inbreed. Michigan just held their region NSTRA finals last weekend,the top four dogs were from my kennel,the region high point dog was also.
> I don't think I would recommend inbreeding to someone that isn't real familiar/experienced with the bloodline they are inbreeding.


 
There is no such thing as a clean pedigree.


----------



## crosswind (Sep 1, 2004)

Gina Fox said:


> There is no such thing as a clean pedigree.


 I didn't say spotless and I didn't say pedigree, I said clean ancestry. Nothing is perfect or we would all own National Champs every time we breed or buy a dog. The purpose of line breeding is to better the odds.Simple as that.


----------



## GNS Shorthairs (Aug 6, 2008)

So much to say, so little time to say it. Must wait until I'm out of work.


----------



## Gina Fox (Nov 4, 2007)

crosswind said:


> I didn't say spotless and I didn't say pedigree, I said clean ancestry. Nothing is perfect or we would all own National Champs every time we breed or buy a dog. The purpose of line breeding is to better the odds.Simple as that.


 
I am not talking about titles here. It is not always about accolades (at least for me its not). How many folks out there run trials or do hunt tests? 

Most IMHO want a well rounded dog. A sporty hunter and a good home companion. 

While I do believe ability is an inherited/instinctual trait, it is not a 'dominant' gene in most hunting dogs. A lot is training and bringing out the best in your dog.

Goals toward obtaining superb ability should never trump health issues...i.e. seizures, cataracts, hip & elbow dysplasia, VWD or any other host of problems that are passed on from generation to generation. 

Folks breeding supurb working dogs to closely related individuals because they are great hunters, have the thought process, that concentration of the genes brings the results of "more is better" and that inbreeding will bring about a 'genetically pure' performer. 
Unfortunately that is not necessarily the case. Along with concentrating those great genes for hunting ability you also concentrate those negative genes. Some of them are behavioral problems OTHER than hunting ability...some are physical health problems. I think that is what you get when you inbreed. A lot of risk and when you balance with the reward, what good is a hunting dog that is great in the field but can't get through the day without a seizure or it is blind from juvenile cataracts?

There are a lot of field dogs out there that are HIGH energy almost hyper kinetic. That's ALL they can do is hunt. They have a tough time being a well rounded animal that can do its job in the field and be a sound (mentally & physically) companion when not afield. Thats fine if you hunt your dogs day in and day out, but I don't know too many people like that. 

All most folks need and want is a well rounded individual that can hunt.


----------



## chewy (Mar 27, 2006)

the purpose of breeding is to better the breed.. Line breeding is a perfect way to do that... Its acceptable and proven... Go read the book snakefoot or other books about breeding.. 

I think elhew dogs are proven line bred dogs and not many people would object to the line breeding done with those.. 

If you want a companion dog with hunting you can still line breed to get that.. 

sibling to sibling breeding i would stay away from


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

wehles success was probably as much due to his marketing techniques as it was due to his breeding methods. wehle also employed many outcrosses, i believe snakefoot was a result of one.

bruce minard has the top coverdog at the moment, according to the last standings i have seen. i'm pretty sure she's an outcross of elhew to miller.

linebreeding has it's place in setting traits when outstanding individuals are bred together. however "linebreeding" two ordinary backyard dogs is just an exercise in wishful thinking. from what i've seen linebreeding to somewhat related individuals is just matter of convenience. another variation on breeding ready to handy.


----------



## Gina Fox (Nov 4, 2007)

dogwhistle said:


> linebreeding has it's place in setting traits when outstanding individuals are bred together. however "linebreeding" two ordinary backyard dogs is just an exercise in wishful thinking. from what i've seen linebreeding to somewhat related individuals is just matter of convenience. another variation on breeding ready to handy.


Agreed. In case it isn't clear, I am in favor of line breeding.

I linebreed without hesitation...and every once in a while I do an outcross, it increases vigor. Linebreeding solidifies breed type and traits as you said. 

I am not a fan of, nor do I ever do inbreeding. in my opinion, it is just inviting disaster.


----------



## WeimsRus (Oct 30, 2007)

Gina Fox said:


> Agreed. In case it isn't clear, I am in favor of line breeding.
> 
> I linebreed without hesitation...and every once in a while I do an outcross, it increases vigor. Linebreeding solidifies breed type and traits as you said.
> 
> I am not a fan of, nor do I ever do inbreeding. in my opinion, it is just inviting disaster.


It depends what your definition of line-breeding and in-breeding is. In my book line-breeding is where you breed dogs that are seperated by generations. In-breeding is Mother and Son, Father and Daughter, Sister and Brother. I prefer to outcross, as the whole part of breeding is to improve the breed. Line-breeding locks in the good traits as well as the bad. In-breeding I will not even touch on. If you take your time and select proper Dams to the Sires, neither one is necessary. I always take the pedigree in consideration when breeding, alot of people don't. I won't get on a soap box here, but for me it's not about the money or status. 

It's all for the breed.


----------



## NATTY BUMPO (May 12, 2001)

dogwhistle said:


> wehles success was probably as much due to his marketing techniques as it was due to his breeding methods. wehle also employed many outcrosses, i believe snakefoot was a result of one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## FindTheBird (Dec 18, 2004)

In reading _Snakefoot_ a few months back I got the impression that Wehle kept the Elhew breeding extremely close early-on, which as most would expect, produced some very undesirable traits. He then went on to say that over several generations, he was able to weed-out those undesired traits through culling but still keeping the breeding very close, ultimately producing what he wanted.

One breeding philosophy that I remember him mentioning was that a great bird dog is really a genetic anomaly and that nature will rapidly revert back to the mediocre norm over a few generations unless that anomaly is maintained by breeding only the extremely gifted dogs.


----------



## crosswind (Sep 1, 2004)

Gina Fox said:


> I am not talking about titles here. It is not always about accolades (at least for me its not). How many folks out there run trials or do hunt tests?
> 
> Most IMHO want a well rounded dog. A sporty hunter and a good home companion.
> 
> ...


Where do you get the idea that you cannot produce a good or great hunting/house dog by line breeding or even inbreeding.

You speak of accolades, by that I assume you are talking about titles.Titles are no more then proof of that individuals abilities and successes competing against its peers.Proven results.

Most of what you state above is based on your opinion, nothing wrong with that, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.But they are not facts.

Facts are based on proven results, and I think over the last couple hundred years that the facts about linebreeding and yes, even inbreeding have been proven time and again to produce great results.


----------



## crosswind (Sep 1, 2004)

dogwhistle said:


> wehles success was probably as much due to his marketing techniques as it was due to his breeding methods. wehle also employed many outcrosses, i believe snakefoot was a result of one.
> 
> bruce minard has the top coverdog at the moment, according to the last standings i have seen. i'm pretty sure she's an outcross of elhew to miller.
> 
> ...


----------



## WestCoastHunter (Apr 3, 2008)

Temperament has to do with what you select to breed, not whether the animal is line bred or inbred. I will agree however that by inbreeding or even line breeding you can really magnify the chance that undesirable traits will recur if you are not careful. That's why you cull relentlessly if you're going to use such practices.

You could go and try to breed for specific traits by bringing together any number of unrelated dogs from any number of breeds and probably get something credible over time. The Alaskan Husky is proof enough of that in its trade. But your failure and cull rate would likely be astoundingly high to get there.

I wouldn't knowingly buy an inbred dog simply on the basis of the breeding being too close for my taste. Having said that, I own two Pointers. One is from Kentucky and one is from Michigan. People ask me all of the time if they are related because they look so much alike. I'm sure some inbreeding, or at the very least, line breeding, has occurred in their lineage at some point. But back to the point, I understand the practice and believe it can work as long as the breeder doing it isn't sloppy and is willing to cull appropriately.

My two cents.


----------



## GNS Shorthairs (Aug 6, 2008)

I personally think that linebreeding and inbreeding both have their merits for the breeder, but may not be desireable for the buyer. I would also argue that a breeder is not a GOOD breeder unless they have done some inbreeding. Why would I say that? Because breeders don't know what they truly have in a breeding dog, unless they inbreed and measure the results. 

For example: A buddy of mine breeds "a specific breed of dog" when one day, one of his dogs, the father, accidentally mates, with the daughter. To make a long story short, the litter is born and 3 out of the 6 dogs (as far as he could tell) have seizures. He talks to the vet, finds out it is a recessive genetic trait. Notifies all the owners and is more than willing to purchase all the puppies back from their owners (or at least attempts to). Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending how you see it), he cull's the pups, and does what you would think a responsible breeder would do and neuters the sire and spays the dam. He calls and tells me what he had to do and he is just devastated. His pride of his kennel male, his best dog he has ever owned, his breeding stock, just had to be neutered. And I can attest that this dog was a very nice, very nice, dog both in the field and at home and was throwing some real nice pups. 

My question is this: Did he do the right thing fixing his male/female? Could he have done something else?

Now let's get back to my statement about breeders are not GOOD breeders unless they inbreed. In the above situation, if this wouldn't have happened (father x daughter), he would have continued to breed his male and 50% of the time, this male's pups would have received this recessive gene (pups would need both recessives, one from sire and one from dam to have a seizure pup) ... and they would pass it on to their offspring 50% of the time ... and so on... and so on ... Until, one of these pups breeds with another carrier of this recessive gene, and their offspring gets the double recessive, and with this, seizures. In this case, you don't know what you truly have in your dog genetically, you only see what is displayed on the outside. He had a very nice dog, something that I'm sure that a lot of breeders have, but genetically, not so nice, which was quickly pointed out by the nasty word, inbreeding. 

The other option he could have done (not saying that I would have done this), is to then take one of the pups with the seizures (or all three for that matter), breed them with the pups without seizures, and whatever litter that didn't have pups with seizures, the dam/sire of that litter becomes your breeding stock because he/she is the homozygous dominant, meaning he/she will never have a pup with seizures. Therefore, my friend could have kept the line of his breeding stock. This, in my opinion, are what good breeders will do. Test genetically what they have in their breeding stock by inbreeding before they breed and pass on those recessive genetic traits that will eventually show up down the line.

Now getting back to my original question in regards to, "If I would BUY a pup from a linebreeding?" Of course! 

"Inbreeding?" If I liked the lines (including genetic history). If I liked what the breeder was trying to accomplish. If the breeder's experience was sound in "animal husbandry". If I wanted breeding stock. With all this, I still WOULDN'T buy one dog from an inbreeding ... I'd more than likely buy three!!!


----------



## WestCoastHunter (Apr 3, 2008)

GNS Shorthairs said:


> I personally think that linebreeding and inbreeding both have their merits for the breeder, but may not be desireable for the buyer. I would also argue that a breeder is not a GOOD breeder unless they have done some inbreeding. Why would I say that? Because breeders don't know what they truly have in a breeding dog, unless they inbreed and measure the results.


Out of curiousity, is this done for cost purposes or because the genetic testing available out there in veterinary land hasn't matured enough to identify specific genetic flaws such as a propensity for siezures?


----------



## BIGSP (Sep 16, 2004)

GNS Shorthairs said:


> I personally think that linebreeding and inbreeding both have their merits for the breeder, but may not be desireable for the buyer. I would also argue that a breeder is not a GOOD breeder unless they have done some inbreeding. Why would I say that? Because breeders don't know what they truly have in a breeding dog, unless they inbreed and measure the results.
> 
> For example: A buddy of mine breeds "a specific breed of dog" when one day, one of his dogs, the father, accidentally mates, with the daughter. To make a long story short, the litter is born and 3 out of the 6 dogs (as far as he could tell) have seizures. He talks to the vet, finds out it is a recessive genetic trait. Notifies all the owners and is more than willing to purchase all the puppies back from their owners (or at least attempts to). Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending how you see it), he cull's the pups, and does what you would think a responsible breeder would do and neuters the sire and spays the dam. He calls and tells me what he had to do and he is just devastated. His pride of his kennel male, his best dog he has ever owned, his breeding stock, just had to be neutered. And I can attest that this dog was a very nice, very nice, dog both in the field and at home and was throwing some real nice pups.
> 
> ...


Excellent post!! I actually learned a few things from your post. Thank you.

Your post also illustrates why most Joe Blows (including myself) shouldn't breed dogs.


----------



## Jumpshootin' (Jul 6, 2000)

BIGSP said:


> Your post also illustrates why most Joe Blows (including myself) shouldn't breed dogs.



Exactly the reason I only buy, raise, & train male pups out of the very best bloodlines that I can find. I'll let someone smarter than me do the breeding and I'll bring out the the full potential.


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

crosswind said:


> dogwhistle said:
> 
> 
> > wehles success was probably as much due to his marketing techniques as it was due to his breeding methods. wehle also employed many outcrosses, i believe snakefoot was a result of one.
> ...


----------



## GNS Shorthairs (Aug 6, 2008)

... all have there merits to a breeder. 

Inbreeding - proves what you have at the genetic level for your breeding bitch or sire. Your breeding bitch or sire may have characteristics of a great/healthy dog but by inbreeding, you can identify these negative qualities and eventually produce offspring that won't carry a negative recessive gene (yes, I'm simplifying it by only talking about one gene but you need to start somewhere). A sound inbreed bitch/sire will produce more consistent offspring because the bitch/sire is more homozygous for good traits (offspring all get a good "gene"). 

Linebreeding - used to get back certain traits/characteristics that may have been lost through the generations.

Outcrosses - are used to bring in traits/characteristics that were not prevalent in the line.

Here is everything put into action (story is greatly simplified):
Got a real nice bitch, what do I do.
Inbreed my breeding bitch to find out her underlying genetic faults. If all pups turn out wonderful, i use my bitch for breeding. If they don't. Then I inbreed the "nice" male pups back to the bitch. If there is a male pup that throws pups that ALL the pups have the qualities/health that I'm looking for, this is the male that I keep for breeding stock. 
Now unfortunately, my male pup doesn't have the high tail that his ancestors had, so I research his lineage and look for the break where the high tail was lost/diluted. I do a linebreeding to try to get this trait, without disrupting too much the genetic makeup of what my male has.
Now I want to put some bird hunting desire into my line. My pups and all it's ancestors were bench champions and never had this desire (oh, i can hear the complaints coming all ready). Anyways, I do an outcross to get this into my line.

Yes, this is a simplified version but the principles are fairly sound on why all three types of breedings are important ... but important for different reasons.

Maybe I feel so strongly about this because my wife, is actually my sister.


----------



## GNS Shorthairs (Aug 6, 2008)

Jumpshootin' said:


> Line breeding is a great tool if done right. I would never take a brother x sister cross. They share genes on both sides, whereas the father x daughter cross only share genes on one side.
> The young Basset Hound I have now is the product of a father x daughter cross, and he's a very nice dog. Runs the hide off of rabbits now, and is very good natured, even tempered, and very playful.
> But then his Sire & Damn both had those traits. Both are Grand Rabbit Champions without any faults as to hunting ability, temperament, & conformation.
> If either had any bad traits the line breeding never would have been done. And if I didn't know the breeder and his line of great hunting Bassets for many years, I never would have taken a line-bred pup. This fella and his dad are have also been very serious cattle breeders for many years, so they know their animal husbandry.
> The same should be said about any breeding. But as we all know, it isn't.


... and by the way, you may have the best breeding Basset Hound out of the dogs that you mentioned... better than the sire and the dam. please tell me your dog's not fixed.


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

sounds good on paper but it doesnt work so well in prac tice. while you are identifying one bad trait by inbreeding anotherr one or two can crop up.

and unrelated dogs with the same traits are related quite closely genetically. the same genes that produce all the good traits in one, produce them in the other. i believe that kind of breeding is called assortive mating. it's an outcross, but an outcross to a sire very similiar in all respects to the dam.


----------



## chewy (Mar 27, 2006)

dogwhistle said:


> sounds good on paper but it doesnt work so well in prac tice. while you are identifying one bad trait by inbreeding anotherr one or two can crop up.
> 
> and unrelated dogs with the same traits are related quite closely genetically. the same genes that produce all the good traits in one, produce them in the other. i believe that kind of breeding is called assortive mating. it's an outcross, but an outcross to a sire very similiar in all respects to the dam.


Curious... how many dogs have you bred? Do you have any way to measure a succesful breeding? Not an attack on you but im curious because your opinion is so strong , trying to put credibilty to your opinion..


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

not many dogs, but i bred enough quality livestock to pay for a significant part of my college education. and i have bred horses as well and have a working knowledge of a fairly wide variety of animal breeding. some kids play little league when they are growing up, we bred livestock.

i dont know where you are at in this discussion. but google "impressive syndrome" if you have a chance. it's an "impressive" example of the pitfalls of inbreeding.


----------



## Mickey Finn (Jan 21, 2005)

GNS Shorthairs said:


> ... all have there merits to a breeder.
> 
> Inbreeding - proves what you have at the genetic level for your breeding bitch or sire. Your breeding bitch or sire may have characteristics of a great/healthy dog but by inbreeding, you can identify these negative qualities and eventually produce offspring that won't carry a negative recessive gene (yes, I'm simplifying it by only talking about one gene but you need to start somewhere). A sound inbreed bitch/sire will produce more consistent offspring because the bitch/sire is more homozygous for good traits (offspring all get a good "gene").
> 
> ...


I have no interest in purebreeding. On top of that, I have only a rudementry understanding of genentics. But I question anyway. Can you really expect to discover and eliminate any let alone all recessive genes. By inbreeding your line. It seems like they are with us til the end. Not only are they with us, but there could be some good as well in the trait or one that the gene carries apart from the obvious flaw. Wouldn't it make more sense to breed for the good qualities you like and not breed any obvious flaws that crop up. As for your wife being your sister. It's nice to see a close knit family.


----------



## Jumpshootin' (Jul 6, 2000)

GNS Shorthairs said:


> ... and by the way, you may have the best breeding Basset Hound out of the dogs that you mentioned... better than the sire and the dam. please tell me your dog's not fixed.


That's what we were looking for when he hoped and planned for the breeding many years ago. It was probably ten years ago that he started planning on bringing along two dogs that could be line-bred. Two years ago it took place.
And no, he's not fixed yet, and hopefully there will never be a need to. I give a dog until three years of age before I decide whether or not he is to be fixed or not. If no bad traits show up by then he can keep them.
I hope to finish him out as a Grand Rabbit Champion over the next two years. If/when that happens he will become the foundation stud for my own line of field Bassets.


----------



## GNS Shorthairs (Aug 6, 2008)

dogwhistle said:


> sounds good on paper but it doesnt work so well in prac tice. while you are identifying one bad trait by inbreeding anotherr one or two can crop up.
> 
> and unrelated dogs with the same traits are related quite closely genetically. quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## WestCoastHunter (Apr 3, 2008)

Induna said:


> Isle Royal is haveing a big problem now with the wolves being inbred too much.


There are lots of examples out there of this if you do some research.


----------



## GNS Shorthairs (Aug 6, 2008)

dogwhistle said:


> you are talking hypothetically of how inbreeding can be used to eliminate an unwanted traits or traits. but all breeds carry a number of undesireable genes and while you are culling lots of pups in an effort to eliiminate one, then others are going to surface.
> 
> as i said, i've had my taste of it firsthand in a couple different situations, seen other rather infamous examples and know of others. a bit of linebreeding doesnt bother me, especially if it's to superior animals. but i look at true inbreeding like not fastening your seat belt. you can get away with it, but sooner or later it catches up to you and when it does the results are pretty spectacular.
> 
> ...


Now my response may not sound too appropriate at first glance, but I mean it with all sincerity, you're wrong. In the example that I gave previously of my friend who accidentally crossed the father x daughter, and three out of the six pups had seizures. I could have helped him continue his line and eliminate this recessive trait in his line altogether, in one generation through breeding back to the sire.

As far as bad temperment goes. If you state that inbreeding causes bad temperment, no matter what, after a number of generations. Then I will find this bad temperment gene(s) in the population and I will eliminate it through inbreeding. 

Gina Fox wrote the following blurb and it is the main reason why I posted this thread in the first place:

"I went 24 years without a problem with CHD. 3 years ago I outcrossed to a beautiful dog that had all of his clearances (as did my bitch for 8 generations) and so did a friend of mine. In 4 litters of puppies (2 were mine, 2 were hers) there have been 6 puppies with CHD, 1 with elbows dysplasia and 2 with luxating patellas. So out of 39 puppies, 9 have issues. That is a little over 20%. Not acceptable as far as I am concerned."

Assuming that CHD is a homozygous recessive trait which only rears it's ugly head when both the sire and the dam give recessive alleles to their offspring. And by the numbers that were effected and total numbers involved, it sounds like it may have been but I can't say for certain. I know it's genetic but I'm unsure of what causes it. Anyways, this is what is happening throughout the world. People outcrossing their dogs, trying to create a superior dog, people being good breeders and trying to improve the breed. Until something like this happens. The dog that you have been breeding, turns out to be heterozygous for bad hips. After multiple matings with other dogs (putting this bad allele in 50% of the pups), you finally run across another dog that is also Heterozygous for this bad allele/trait. Therefore, this mating, on average, 25% of the pups will have bad hips (15% in GF's case, 6 out of 39). Now what about all the pups that were previously born from both of these parents. The 50% of the pups that are carrying this recessive allele? What are they doing? Who are they breeding to?
Now before I go on any further, GF is not doing anything different than 99.9% of the GOOD breeders out there. I have done exactly what she has done. Crosswind, I'm sure, has done the same thing. We're trying to improve the breed. In fact, my diatribe above is not based on 100% facts. I know that CHD is genetic, however, I don't know if it is controlled by one gene or multiple genes. I don't know if it's homozygous recessive. *****, I don't even know if this can be easily identified through inbreeding. But the point remains, outcrossing does not reduce the number of recessive bad alleles in a population. The only way to get rid of bad genetic traits is to know the genetic makeup of your individual dog and the dog that your breeding to ... and the easiest way to do this is through inbreeding.


----------



## GNS Shorthairs (Aug 6, 2008)

WestCoastHunter said:


> At the risk of preaching to the choir...
> 
> One of the problems with inbreeding is the lack of genetic diversity. You can have a plague that wipes out 98% of an animal population but there will almost always be that 2% that survives it because of some part of their genetics that gave them a way to resist it. There is no way to predict what part of an animal's genetics might help it survive such a thing because such plagues are usually pretty random themselves. But you can pretty well be guaranteed that consistent inbreeding will narrow the gene pool so much that you're flirting with potential disaster over time.
> 
> ...


Good post. You are absolutely correct and this is something that should always be taken into consideration.


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

i'll quote wehle again "it's impossible to get all the ***** up the same tree at once".

all breeds of dogs contain many desireble traits and many undesireable traits and genetic diseases. while you are cleansing the line of one undesireable trait, another one or several will surface. and "tempement" is extremely complex, it's a combination of many traits/genes.

inbreeding once is like flipping a coin. heads and you get some decent pups with maybe one or two culls. tails and you have an unpleasant task with the whole litter. but if you keep up the inbreeding many more recessive genes have the opportunity to combine and things get very complicated.

i think you are referring to a theory, something you have heard or read or seen on the internet. i was only about 14 years old when i saw the effects of inbreeding in my stock. i had introduced a polled male, a mutation that was inbred to "set" the trait. i watched one after another prized animals die of what we called eating disease. they ate and fell over dead.

like i keep saying, try it yourself. you will see it's impossible, when you think you have one trait whipped another will crop up or two or three. the dogs will be a total mess in just a few generations. there is just NO FREE LUNCH. <g>

mike


----------



## Gina Fox (Nov 4, 2007)

GNS Shorthairs said:


> In fact, my diatribe above is not based on 100% facts. I know that CHD is genetic, however, I don't know if it is controlled by one gene or multiple genes. I don't know if it's homozygous recessive. *****, I don't even know if this can be easily identified through inbreeding. But the point remains, outcrossing does not reduce the number of recessive bad alleles in a population. The only way to get rid of bad genetic traits is to know the genetic makeup of your individual dog and the dog that your breeding to ... and the easiest way to do this is through inbreeding.


 

I have a few questions... 

How do you know which are carriers and which are not? 

Do you assume that 1/2 the litter are carriers and half are not? 

How do you know which individuals to breed? 

Do you breed ALL of them to prove out the genetic makeup?

For example the 3 pups that did not have siezures, you won't know until they are 5 or 6 years old...If they did not have seizures does that mean they are free of the gene? How do you know? Recessive traits are the most difficult to work with. If all negative genes were dominant I would think that by inbreeding we would be able to breed out bad traits within 10 years. 
Unfortunately manifestation of negative problems doesn't always happen. 

The male that sired the CHD pups was bred to 4 different females...none related, but from similar lines, it is apparent he is dominant for producing CHD even though he himself is physically clear of the defect. These puppies were from of his first litters...the first 4 to be exact. So we will have to see how the next 6-12 months goes as he has been widely used.


----------



## GNS Shorthairs (Aug 6, 2008)

Gina Fox said:


> I have a few questions...
> 
> How do you know which are carriers and which are not?
> 
> ...


Well I just spent an hour typing a response to you and lo-and-behold, the computer said I wasn't logged in and then erased my message. Stupid technology!
i will respond soon.


----------



## GNS Shorthairs (Aug 6, 2008)

dogwhistle said:


> i'll quote wehle again "it's impossible to get all the ***** up the same tree at once".
> 
> all breeds of dogs contain many desireble traits and many undesireable traits and genetic diseases. while you are cleansing the line of one undesireable trait, another one or several will surface. and "tempement" is extremely complex, it's a combination of many traits/genes.
> 
> ...


Obviously, you will never believe that inbreeding has it's merits in the world of dog breeding. Even though you quote an individual who developed one of the most famous lines ever, in any dog breed, by producing sound homozygous breeding individuals through inbreeding.

Your polled male was one of the individuals who escaped culling, because his breeder had no idea what they were doing or didn't care to test his offspring. Or maybe he was just offered some money and said, "what the heck, I'll sell him". Or maybe he just didn't have any idea. Bottom line: Both you and I agree that he wasn't the ideal sire. But I think this may only be half the story.

I will begin my inbreeding masterpiece, with or without your approval. I will create the most dominant breeding GSPs that this world has ever offered. I will keep the good dogs and sell the mutants ... to you ... as ... large ... two-toned ... beagles:evilsmile. i am not afraid of your polled bull. I am not afraid of Isle Royale wolves. I am not afraid, to do what is right, to advance the breed.

P.s.- I have nothing against beagles, I just was trying to think of what a "malformed" GSP could look like and a beagle came to mind.


----------



## Gina Fox (Nov 4, 2007)

GNS Shorthairs said:


> Obviously, you will never believe that inbreeding has it's merits in the world of dog breeding. Even though you quote an individual who developed one of the most famous lines ever, in any dog breed, by producing sound homozygous breeding individuals through inbreeding.
> 
> Your polled male was one of the individuals who escaped culling, because his breeder had no idea what they were doing or didn't care to test his offspring. Or maybe he was just offered some money and said, "what the heck, I'll sell him". Or maybe he just didn't have any idea. Bottom line: Both you and I agree that he wasn't the ideal sire. But I think this may only be half the story.
> 
> ...


I wish you luck with that...

What I predict will happen, is poor performance of your inbred dogs due to loss of genetic diversity. Because of a high percentage of harmful recessives...the bad comes with the good and good does not always triumph over evil, it more than likely will be catastrophic. 

You will keep us informed on your results won't you??


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

gns shorthairs, i like to discuss breeding and i dont mind arguing. but there are dozens of undesireable genes for a large number of traits. there several for hip dysplasia alone.

your theory is that you can breed out undesirable traits by inbreeding and culling. but what will happen is that all your offspring will have undesireable traits and you will have to cull them all. wehle is reputed to have culled a lot of dogs, but elhews still have genetic faults like any other strain. and i dont know of any reputable breeder that follows a program like you advocate. 
i've heard this theory before. but to be valid, a theory has to be tested. give it a go, see what happens.


----------



## crosswind (Sep 1, 2004)

dogwhistle said:


> i'll quote wehle again "it's impossible to get all the ***** up the same tree at once".
> 
> all breeds of dogs contain many desireble traits and many undesireable traits and genetic diseases. while you are cleansing the line of one undesireable trait, another one or several will surface. and "tempement" is extremely complex, it's a combination of many traits/genes.
> 
> ...


 Mike ,this is total nonsense, it is based on nothing but opinion, not facts.The fact is you needed to do some more research when you were 14 to find the right polled whatever to breed to your stock. Or there were already something going on in your stock before you crossed to the polled male. Whatever I don't know. 

For the nonbelievers in the linebreeding/inbreeding I will suggest this, no is not something that one should consider unless they have a great amount of experience/knowledge with that bloodline.You also need to be able to keep several of the offspring to watch them develope.To verify what you are producing.
Linebreeding and inbreeding has been proven to work. It is backed up by scientific data.It baffles me how one can argue against this.It may not be what the average person needs to mess with but it is certainly a proven method.


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

you are confusing two arguements. i'm not particuarlly fond of inbreeding, but practiced once in a while with outstanding individuals, it can have its benefits. and all my dogs, except one, have some linebreeding. again, it has it's benefits if done judiciously. overdone, it just becomes inbreeding.

but what i am argueing against is that you can somehow "clean" a strain by inbreeding over and over to identify the recessive genes. it's simply not possible, never been done at least with dogs, horses or livestock. even wehle, with his money and the amount of culling he did, couldnt do it. elhews are no less suspectible to genetic defects than any other strain of pointer. my dogs have undesireable genes, yours do, they all do. all animals do. to try to "clean" them through generations of inbreeding and you just end up with a mess.

to clear up any mystery, i grew up on a stock farm of beef cattle and sheep. the problems arose when i bought a polled ram, a recent mutation. i dont know what kind of research could have been done, he was of high quality breeding from a reputable farm sold at an MSU auction. i cant prove he was a carrier, there was no genetic testing of livestock in 1962. but the problem showed up when he showed up and inbreeding/linebreeding was done to set the polled trait.

so the arguement isnt about linebreeding, i'm argueing that you cant inbreed to remove undesireable genetic traits. if anyone things i'm wrong, they are welcome to try. i wouldnt advise it, however.


----------



## Mickey Finn (Jan 21, 2005)

crosswind said:


> Mike ,this is total nonsense, it is based on nothing but opinion, not facts.The fact is you needed to do some more research when you were 14 to find the right polled whatever to breed to your stock. Or there were already something going on in your stock before you crossed to the polled male. Whatever I don't know.
> 
> For the nonbelievers in the linebreeding/inbreeding I will suggest this, no is not something that one should consider unless they have a great amount of experience/knowledge with that bloodline.You also need to be able to keep several of the offspring to watch them develope.To verify what you are producing.
> Linebreeding and inbreeding has been proven to work. It is backed up by scientific data.It baffles me how one can argue against this.It may not be what the average person needs to mess with but it is certainly a proven method.


Jumping in again. You would use line breeding and Inbreeding to lock in a certain charateristic that you want. Then immediately out cross for "fresh" genetic material to prevent the well known negative results from these breeding tactics. Yes? This way the future offspring would have a good chance of having the, say tail carriage, that you want to see. So, when you are seeing the tail you want consistantly. with these tactics. You out cross then and hopefully it will be a dominant charateristic? And, of course, you are producing sound pups.


----------



## chewy (Mar 27, 2006)

hmm you have to outcross everyonce in a while. when you do ,you outcross to a linebred dog with the traits that compliment your line or one with similar lines as yours... 

Just simply outcrossing to a dog with no linebreeding because you feel you need to outcross doesnt sound like a well thought out process. 

If you are breeding for a living then breed to every dog that walks by. ,

Im not a professional breeder nor claim to be one. but studying tons of pedigrees and keeping up with the field trial dogs you see linebreeding all the time... and guess what... it works.


----------



## dogwhistle (Oct 31, 2004)

i was thinking about some ground shaking breedings that have taken place in the past. one of the most important was in horses; arab and turk stallions, three altogether crossed on native british mares that produced the thoroughbred breed, which in turn was the fountainhead for many others. and the quarterhorse which was revolutionized in the mid 20th century by the crossing of a thoroughbred, Three Bars on foundation bred quarterhorse mares.

more to the topic at hand was the crossing of duke/rhoebe dogs, which were in large part collie, on laveracks inbred dogs to form the llewellins. and later the crossing of llewellins on the native setters in the us to form the english setter breed as we now know it.

while at the kentucky horse park in lexington i saw a german horse that was a combination of 5 breeds. used for 3 day eventing, an olympic sport. that speciman was worth $300,000, or so i was told.

many commercial beef breeders use high quality bulls of various breeds. they dont even look at pedigrees. they look at expected progency difference records if they are available. and those guys depend for most of their income on the outcome, and usually the income is fairly large.

i was 34 years old before i really looked at a pedigree. it was on a reg QH gelding i had bought. a superior animal in every way. his pedigree was total who's who of the quarterhorse world but no linebreeding at all. what he was was the product of a proven nick. one that was successful over and over again and still is today in the performance QH world.

just food for thought


----------



## GNS Shorthairs (Aug 6, 2008)

Gina Fox said:


> I wish you luck with that...
> 
> What I predict will happen, is poor performance of your inbred dogs due to loss of genetic diversity. Because of a high percentage of harmful recessives...the bad comes with the good and good does not always triumph over evil, it more than likely will be catastrophic.
> 
> You will keep us informed on your results won't you??


Genetic diversity does not predict good performance, it only helps the population survive a catastrophe. Plus, I am not looking for high performance, i'm looking for high "breeding" performance. You should not inbreed if your looking for superior performing offspring, this is why you outcross. You inbreed to test what you really have at the genetic level OR to produce a better breeding dog.

I'm not sure if you're familiar with GSPs but there was a dog named "Dixieland's Rusty". Do you know why he's in the Hall-of-Fame? It's not for his performance at field trials (although he is a FC). It's because he has sired the most Field Champions. Rusty was not a high-performer. He was a high-breeding-performer. I'm not sure if Rusty was a product of In-breeding, but this is what you try to achieve by inbreeding.


----------



## GNS Shorthairs (Aug 6, 2008)

dogwhistle said:


> gns shorthairs, i like to discuss breeding and i dont mind arguing. but there are dozens of undesireable genes for a large number of traits. there several for hip dysplasia alone.
> 
> your theory is that you can breed out undesirable traits by inbreeding and culling. but what will happen is that all your offspring will have undesireable traits and you will have to cull them all. wehle is reputed to have culled a lot of dogs, but elhews still have genetic faults like any other strain. and i dont know of any reputable breeder that follows a program like you advocate.
> i've heard this theory before. but to be valid, a theory has to be tested. give it a go, see what happens.


Yes, yes, and yes.

You can breed out some undesirable genetic traits. Some would be easy, some would be hard. Inbreeding increases homozygosity, and some of these may be bad and some may be good. This is a fact. But you also have these same risks when you outcross, maybe not as great of a risk, but still a risk. And outcrossing, you never really know what you're gonna get in the pups. I'm not talking about doing multiple generations of inbreeding. I'm talking about testing your breeding dogs through inbreeding before you go ahead and randomly outcross passing all of these bad alleles to unsuspecting puppy owners, or worse yet, producing bad puppies. I'm talking about creating more dominant breeders so you don't have a litter of six with two high-tailed dogs, one no-tailed dog, two curled under the belly tails, and one eastward pointing tail.

"Reputable" breeders don't do this because nobody wants a pup out of an inbreeding. How are they gonna sell them. Maybe they don't want to cull them. Maybe they just don't know how to do it successfully. Whatever their reason might be, they might want to consider it. They would be doing the breed a favor.


----------



## GNS Shorthairs (Aug 6, 2008)

dogwhistle said:


> what will happen is that all your offspring will have undesireable traits and you will have to cull them all. quote]
> 
> Just want to respond to this line alone because it's the most important part of this entire discussion. If all of the offspring have a bunch of undesirable traits, yes, it would be best to cull them all. But more importantly, do you know what else you need to do? Fix your dog! because without an inbreeding, you would have never found out that your dog, who you wanted to be the foundation of your own personal line, is genetically inferior. In my opinion, this test is much better than breeding with 10 individuals, spreading those crappy genes all across the country, until on the 11 breeding you meet with another genetic inferior individual and finally see the proof in the pudding.


----------



## GNS Shorthairs (Aug 6, 2008)

crosswind said:


> Mike ,this is total nonsense, it is based on nothing but opinion, not facts.The fact is you needed to do some more research when you were 14 to find the right polled whatever to breed to your stock. Or there were already something going on in your stock before you crossed to the polled male. Whatever I don't know.
> 
> For the nonbelievers in the linebreeding/inbreeding I will suggest this, no is not something that one should consider unless they have a great amount of experience/knowledge with that bloodline.You also need to be able to keep several of the offspring to watch them develope.To verify what you are producing.
> Linebreeding and inbreeding has been proven to work. It is backed up by scientific data.It baffles me how one can argue against this.It may not be what the average person needs to mess with but it is certainly a proven method.


I can't believe you started this entire mess.


----------



## Gina Fox (Nov 4, 2007)

GNS Shorthairs said:


> Genetic diversity does not predict good performance, it only helps the population survive a catastrophe. Plus, I am not looking for high performance, i'm looking for high "breeding" performance. You should not inbreed if your looking for superior performing offspring, this is why you outcross. You inbreed to test what you really have at the genetic level OR to produce a better breeding dog.
> 
> I'm not sure if you're familiar with GSPs but there was a dog named "Dixieland's Rusty". Do you know why he's in the Hall-of-Fame? It's not for his performance at field trials (although he is a FC). It's because he has sired the most Field Champions. Rusty was not a high-performer. He was a high-breeding-performer. I'm not sure if Rusty was a product of In-breeding, but this is what you try to achieve by inbreeding.


First let me say that I was raised with GSP, I have owned several over the years and even bred a couple of litters. But that doesn't qualify me to comment on present day GSP pedigrees. But I can comment on breeding in general.

I have been a breeder for over 30 years. When you quote stats to me they don't mean a hill of beans unless you have the COMPLETE statistical analysis of what a dog (or bitch) has produced. The correct term for 'breeding performer' is 'producer' 

If you are going to quote stats on a Hall of Fame dog..start with 

How many litters did he sire?
How many puppies in totality from those litters?
Out of said total, how many went on to attain FC titles?

If his stellar performance produced 20 Field Champions out of 200 puppies, that is only 10%. He probably sired MANY more than that over his lifetime standing at stud...since most people flock to the 'dog of the moment' 

In Cockers we have a very tightly linebred Parti dog that is the top winning showdog and prolific producer of top winning show dogs. He has an untold number of get that are titled...but how many are not?? He was used 2 times a week for YEARS, if he produced 2,000 puppies over a 9 year period and has 100 champions...well do the math, 100 is not nearly so impressive when you know the real numbers...so you can see how those numbers don't mean a whole lot.

Conversly the opposite is true. Limited use with sucess means nothing without consistent performance as a sire or brood bitch.

I own a dog that is one of 6 puppies all who obtained a championship title. When the breeder whom I purchased him from told me she was to repeat the breeding to the same stud dog and bitch, I advised her not to do it. You will waste a breeding on your bitch, you will not get the same results. She is still pissed at me to this day, says I jinxed her. (The breeding did not turn out how she wanted it to. The success was not duplicated) 

Linebreeding to intensly can also cause problems. I know a breeder in California that is essentially at a dead end. He has solidified breed type and performance. But lost breeding vigor. Fading puppies, deformed puppies, oddities that have caused premature death, essentially puts the skids on his future in dogs. He is seriously considering quitting. Because he refuses to introduce other lines to his pedigree to increase vigor. 

I personally have only done one inbreeding, 22 years ago and it was a nightmare. I would never do it again...I will line breed. 

Forgive me, but I really don't think you have a purpose for doing your inbreeding, at least none that I can tell from your posts. Inbreeding done selectively DOES have its purpose, I can see doing A inbreeding and then linebreeding from then on, but to continuously inbreed. Is breeder suicide. 

That is not to say that it can't have its place, by experienced breeders who have dedicated years to a particular line. Who KNOW what is behind each dog in the pedigrees, good and bad. 
But to continue to inbreed individuals that are already inbred, just because you can, is begging for disaster. 

Like I said. Let me know how it works out for you.


----------



## GNS Shorthairs (Aug 6, 2008)

dogwhistle said:


> i'm not particuarlly fond of inbreeding, but practiced once in a while with outstanding individuals, it can have its benefits.


Finally, we have agreed.



dogwhistle said:


> but what i am argueing against is that you can somehow "clean" a strain by inbreeding over and over to identify the recessive genes. it's simply not possible, never been done at least with dogs, horses or livestock. even wehle, with his money and the amount of culling he did, couldnt do it. elhews are no less suspectible to genetic defects than any other strain of pointer. my dogs have undesireable genes, yours do, they all do. all animals do. to try to "clean" them through generations of inbreeding and you just end up with a mess.


If this is how you interpreted what I was saying then you're absolutely correct, "I am crazy". HOwever, I don't think that I ever stated that you should inbreed over and over again or that you can rid an entire line of all possible genetic defects. Maybe this is where our confusion was.



dogwhistle said:


> so the arguement isnt about linebreeding, i'm argueing that you cant inbreed to remove undesireable genetic traits. if anyone things i'm wrong, they are welcome to try. i wouldnt advise it, however.


... and we disagree about inbreeding to remove undesireable traits. Some you most certainly can, but some you can't.


----------

