Re: [PyrNet-L] Westminster

[Kshoffman@aol.com]

In a message dated 02/17/2000 7:49:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
JGentzel@aol.com writes:

<< Nor can you surmise anything bad as well, can you?>>

Simply from seeing the dog on TV?  No, unfortunately one can't know what the 
health outcomes of a linebreeding program are simply by observing (as an 
outsider) their achievement of consistently producing coveted external beauty 
traits generation after generation.  Hence, I would caution from advocating 
or touting any breeding program as being successful based solely on what can 
be seen on the surface, regardless of the breeding modalities and selection 
methods are utilized.  If you had added the caveat "I don't know about the 
health status of the line, but from what I can see on the surface ..." then 
the comment probably wouldn't have struck a raw nerve with me. (G)

My point really was that to gauge whether or not any breeding program is 
*truly* successful, regardless of the methods practiced, I want to know a 
great deal more than how much winning the dogs and their ancestors have done 
and how beautiful they look standing there or moving in the midst of the 
glitz and glamour of Westminster.  I consider success in the show ring and 
near perfect conformation to the standard to be the icing on the cake, not 
the meat and potatoes.

The meat and potatoes of a breeding program, the most important outcomes of 
any breeding program, can't be gauged simply by dog show win records in my 
very humble opinion.  I am first and foremost concerned about health and what 
kind of companion a dog makes for its owners.  I would like to think they are 
all pets and companions FIRST, perhaps show dogs, working dogs, Westminster 
winners second.

You yourself have said Joe that newcomers and novices to the breed lack 
direction and knowledge and skill and understanding of genetics.  To suggest 
that one kennel's success at consistently producing beauty and conformation 
(based solely on the things one can see with their eyes without having any 
further knowledge of the outcomes of a breeding program) is a testament to 
linebreeding being the most successful method in the hands of a skilled and 
talented breeder is rather misleading and leaves out an awful lot of 
important variables.

Please don't take this personally, Joe, because it is not meant to be at all. 
I can't help how my opinions are colored on this, but I firmly believe my 
biases are based in truth.  I've had too many opportunities to be in the know 
about too many top winning breeding programs (all-breeds) who've staunchly 
embraced linebreeding for decades and who do an awful lot of very impressive 
winning consistently but that place more emphasis on winning and beauty than 
on health and temperament.  It happens, it's sad, it's unfortunate, and a lot 
of the time it may not even be a conscious effort by the breeders who do so, 
but to pretend it doesn't happen and that these aren't the very breeders that 
novice breeders might want to pattern themselves after is to bury one's head 
in the sand.  It is what it is and I have to acknowledge that.

I wish I could say it is not common practice, but I can't.  It may only be a 
few breeders here and there, only one or two breeders in every breed, but the 
problem is all too often it is *these very breeders* who are producing enough 
dogs that also go on to reproduce in the hands of others sometimes much less 
experienced that have the most influence on the future direction of entire 
breeds.

Surely we all as breeders want to strive to have it all, but we also know 
that when push comes to shove, you can't accomplish everything at once and 
something has to give and go towards the end of the priority line. I'm afraid 
I'm in a unique position to know more about that particular breeding program 
than what just the show records reveal.  The linebreeding effort, while 
successfully and consistently producing great beauty and a high precision in 
conformance to the standard as evidenced by many top winners generation after 
generation, has not managed to effectively address health defects prevalent 
in the breed.  I'm sorry, but I'm not impressed with where the priorities 
lie. Because of that, I really can't get too worked up and excited about how 
beautiful the dogs are.

Maybe what we should be discussing is how dog breeders might measure success. 
 Perhaps that is the pertinent topic.  Maybe linebreeding in and of itself is 
not the problem.  Maybe selection methods practiced and misplaced priorities 
are the real problem.  When you factor in what happens genetically by 
practicing linebreeding with these concerns, surely you can agree that 
linebreeding as such can be a dangerous weapon in the hands of influential 
breeders and it is can quite possibly rapidly increase the rate of health 
defects throughout an entire breed.

JMHO

Kelley