This is a interesting site that may be of interest.
http://www.workingdogs.com/yvette1.htm

VanCamp/Jason I'm surprised you didn't comment on the article I posted. "The German Shepherd is descended from herding dogs that were bred for high performance and endurance. Because the dog moved constantly, evidence of bad hips was easily spotted while the dog worked. Breeding back then were based upon the dog’s performance and a dog with poor hips would naturally not be selected as the dog could not keep up with his share of the work. An example such work would to be to tend the shepherd’s flock. Sometimes the dog had to run for twenty or more miles a day. If the dog were incapable of doing this the shepherd would not use him for breeding. In this respect a natural selection would occur based upon performance" Isn't this what Richard and Ellen were saying. Jason also is agreeing that breeders are going to extremes. Working dogs should be bred on their work performance period.

Ellen,

Exactly!!! The problem I am pointing out is that on both sides things are being excluded. Working dogs that can't function as a companion, and companion dogs that can't do the work. A big part of the problem becomes breeders doing a lousy job of selecting owners for puppies, and owners making lousy breed selections. I can't tell you the number of times when we had the pet shop we refused to sell puppies to people because they wouldn't meet their needs and fit into their family. When breeds start to be selected for ownership based on appearance only, and then attempts are made to turn the breed into something it isn't. Working breeds trying to be converted into companion dogs only primarily.

Jason,

Line breeding is a very recent phenomenon. In past history almost all breedings were out crosses. If you watch lines, it is the out crosses that bring vigor to the lines. There is a breeder of Giants I have watched for years. If you watch their dogs about every 3 generations they have to go out of their lines or the dogs go down hill fast. Line breeding is not the way to really set the type and temperament, out breeding does it. It is at best a very tricky balance. One of the other things that has hampered this is profesional compition. Why help some one you are competing against? Also it is convinient to breed your bitch to your stud and then you lower your expences and you don't have to count on the kindness of strangers for good breeding material.

Milt,

If you look at the current type of of work being done it is based on short bursts of activity. Even dogs that are doing 8 hr shifts spend most of their time siting in a car. For this reason people will allow the conformation to slip since it isn't that important....Right? The reason I favor some type of conformation showing is that most people suffer from "Kennel Blindness" to one degree or another. They are also willing to make some excuses for the dogs conformation if they really like the working chacteristics. This is where the problem comes from. If you get some outside, impartial, evaluation of the conformation it will improve the breeds.

I'm all for improving the breeds, and having standards of conformation.

But, there is a misconception about working ability being affected by physical traits. Only major problems will keep a good dog from working. Animals with drive will adjust. MINOR differences in leg length, back angulation, goofy feet, none of these things will make a noticable difference in performance.

Here is a little story about a Kelty/Heeler cattle dog that works a ranch in Idaho that I have visited on a few occasions. He lost back foot due to an injury. That was two years ago and he is still going strong. 8+ hours a day, hard labor- running, jumping, you name it. This dog belongs to my cousin.
"Pogo" has hard core drive to work.

Yes, I think you should strive for conformity to standard, but often it doesn't make a difference in the dog's working potential.

Anyway I think that we are all right around the same place here. This thread is getting old. :rolleyes:

Van Camp,

That is true, as long as you don't mind if your GSD looks like a Collie or acts like a Mal!!!

You're gonna pay for that comment.

Mal, Collie- that would be like the end of the world.

How about if your BRT ended up looking like a Giant Puddle, 'er I mean Poodle?

VanCamp,

I have seen it happen with other breeds. I have learned not to ask what a dog is crossed with or what breed a dog is. Some people get really offended if you can't tell what Phydough is.

And as much as it pains me to say it...the BRT does kind of look like a giant Poodle if they aren't trimed properly!!!

Now THAT was funny. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

 Quote:

Originally posted by jason:
If those genotypes are not relatively "fixed" in the two lines that we are outcrossing, predictability in that cross does not prevail.

That's the problem ......... you don't want to "fix" the genotypes -- at least not beyond a certain point. If you did, you would limit the genetic diversity within the breed which is what is causing the problem we are talking about in the first place. Genetic diversity is what helps keep the unwanted recessives in check and keeps them from becoming expressed as phenotypes -- except occasionally as Nature in her "wisdom" originally intended it to be. Geneticists are discovering that the really bad recessives are often linked with highly valued genetic characteristics -- and why they are so difficult-to-mpossible to eliminate from the gene pool. This is why breeding too extremely for any one thing can significantly increase the likelihood of a really bad/unwanted recessive becoming spread thru the genepool and being carried by a dangerously high percentage of breeding stock. This is the problem the highly inbred/linebred dogs have now and it's a BIG problem for the breed as a whole.

The SV when it put its breeding rules together did some really great, far-sighted things to try to avoid having this problem. The breed surveys to screen breeding stock is supposed to flag unwanted recessives in individual dogs, and lines, when they are expressed in the offspring -- this is the source & wisdom of the "breed warnings" issued by the SV. They are there for the individual breeder to pay attention to -- whether they do or not is another matter. Now I believe (but not sure) that the SV is talking about trying to cut back the over-use of "popular" studs by lowering the number of breedings allowed per year. This is IMO a belated attempt to slow down the negative impact of flooding breed with certain lines or individual dogs caused by too much inbreeding & close line breeding -- the more extreme results of which we have seen in the ASD show lines.

Outcross after outcross is a great way to water down your line.

It is the only way to keep the unwanted and increasingly lethal recessives under control -- by decreasing the chance of their being spread silently throughout the gene pool. BTW how does selectively breeding for desired phenotype "water down" a line with regard to what you are selectively breeding for? It doesn't. Not JMO. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Ellen,

Thanks for picking it up <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> .... it needs to be discussed. I will move this over to "general breeding" and call it "line breeding and outcrossing". It may take me a few, I don't have my coffee in me yet and I just can't seem to crystallize my thoughts without it, but I'm rolling up my sleeves!! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />