Re: [PyrNet-L] Westminster

[JGentzel@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/17/00 8:21:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Kshoffman@aol.com writes:

<< 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) >>

The post is about Best In Show at Westminster and the almost unbelievable 
record of Salelyn with a father and daughter winning this top honor that 
almost everyone else in the whole dog show scene will never even come close 
one time.  If you want to see some problem with all the "what ifs" and 
"wonder what it could be", that's certainly fair fodder for discussion.  It 
does not diminish the accomplishment.  Some of us are impressed and believe 
the breeding program methods had some success in achieving this.  BTW, Julia 
Gasow wrote the book on Springer Spaniels i.e. the Complete Springer Spaniel. 

<>

I am sure that information is available.  

<<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.>>

I don't think so.  That's your perspective.  Again the post is about the win 
at Westminster and the sterling breeding program at Salelyn.  Do you know 
that the Salelyn breeding program fell short in all the other areas?  If so 
give us the data.  It will not impact the success they have achieved in the 
show ring, but will give more information.  You need to note that Salelyn is 
only one of many very successful programs utilizing linebreeding,  One of 
many, many, many, many, many, many, etc., etc., etc.  This is not a new 
notion untested.  You seem to condemn the whole practice of linebreeding, 
that they do not take in account the whole dog and assign its acceptance as 
"misleading"?  In my view that is not an accurate representation of what 
"all" these breeders do. 

<<Please don't take this personally, Joe, because it is not meant to be at 
all. >>

Its not.  I am only one of very many who subscribe to this as a useful 
breeding tool, used properly does not have any of the problems you outline.  
You are mixing the individuals up with the method.  Any breeding method with 
any numbers of devotees will have its renegades.  They do not make the method 
any less valuable.  

<< 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.>>

You believe these same renegade breeders would behave differently using 
non-linebreeding?  You seem to have the individuals muddled up with the 
methods.

<<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.>>

Superb!!   Maybe you could give us some objective information.  Do you know 
the incidence of the problems you note in the breeding program in the breed 
Vs the incidence in the specific breeding program.  You seem to imply that 
there are health problems in the breed that one breeding program has not 
effectively addressed on behalf of the breed as a whole.  I would all be very 
interested in your data, since you are "uniquely" positioned to have same and 
make such observations.  You have said or implied that the program is not 
able to breed dogs that make good pets, and has health problems that are 
being ignored.  Can you provide objective data that is statistically 
meaningful and devoid of rumor or innuendo?  

<<Maybe linebreeding in and of itself is 
not the problem.  Maybe selection methods practiced and misplaced priorities 
are the real problem.>>

Maybe you are on to something here.  

<<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.>>

Same would be true of any other method.  At least with linebreeding the 
evidence would be there for all to identify easier and earlier.  There may 
still be a few of us (I suspect there are many)  that have these overall 
concerns and would use any technique with responsibility.  Again the 
renegades will never care and if they could win and advertise the wins and 
use total outcrossing to do so they would.  Why?  It would disguise all the 
problems they care nothing about so the problems did not "come home to 
roost", if you will.  It does make them uncomfortable when this information 
gets out.  It hurts their business.  Their seeming success will be short 
circuited by it.  Lets step back and look at the big picture of these people. 
 Their few years of fame will be lost in the inferno of misbehavior if you 
will.  

Joe