Re: [PyrNet-L] Westminster

[Kshoffman@aol.com]

In a message dated 02/18/2000 8:17:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
JGentzel@aol.com writes:

<< BTW, Julia Gasow wrote the book on Springer Spaniels i.e. the Complete 
Springer Spaniel. >>

I know who she was and I've read all about her breeding philosophy and 
methods and I've viewed and studied the programs pedigrees in a number of 
books on dog breeding and I even have the book she herself authored.

<<If so give us the data.  It will not impact the success they have achieved 
in the 
 show ring, but will give more information.>>

I'm sorry, I'm not at liberty to disclose that information publicly.

<<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.>>

I have duly noted that the program was quite successful at consistently 
winning big in the show ring and producing a certain identifiable look and 
type consistently, but I guess since that's just not my primary yardstick to 
measure success by, I'm not overly impressed.

<<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.>>

No, I don't "condemn the whole practice of linebreeding" but I do feel that 
moderate to intense linebreeding practiced exclusively over many generations 
in succession results in an increase in health problems down the road more 
often than not, and most definately the vast majority of lines, even when 
linebreeding is done responsibly, will eventually suffer from inbreeding 
depression that can't always be so easily corrected.
 
<<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.>>

Show me proof of that.  I hear from you and others that linebreeding used 
properly as a tool allows one to effectively purge any undesirable genes from 
the population while still maintaining those genes that produce the desired 
type, conformation, and movement.  I have yet to come across a single 
breeding program that has truly accomplished this great feat without 
eventually running into problems with inbreeding depression.
  
<<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.>>

Sorry, I don't think so.  Have you ever discussed this topic with a 
geneticist, or with a genetic counselor?  It's difficult if not impossible to 
separate the method itself with all the other variables that tend to go hand 
in hand with it ... popular sire overissue, a relative few breeders having 
genetic influence over entire breeds based on a handful of founders that 
undoubtedly carried some genetic baggage as not dogs are genetically perfect, 
lack of disclosure and honesty to those who have a need to know, and placing 
more emphasis on beauty and winning than on health, just to name a few of the 
variables that tend to be associated with the practice of linebreeding.
  
 <<You believe these same renegade breeders would behave differently using 
 non-linebreeding?  You seem to have the individuals muddled up with the 
 methods.>>

No, I don't believe they'd behave differently, but simple math should tell 
you the odds of producing defective alleles in a double (homozygous) 
combination would then be decreased, and thus the overall frequency of 
defective alleles across the population would also be lower, hence the chance 
of doubling up on them breedwide is reduced.
 
<<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?>>

Not publicly, no I can't.  But I'll tell you what, if anyone out there is 
considering purchasing an English Springer Spaniel or considering starting a 
breeding program with them, email me privately and I will give you the names 
and email addresses of some really great folks to talk to who will steer you 
in the right direction and tell you honestly how it is -- the entire truth, 
not just what wins big.  
 
<<Same would be true of any other method.  At least with linebreeding the 
 evidence would be there for all to identify easier and earlier.>>

I suppose it's the lesser of two evils then.  I think I can very effectively 
research to find out what defects any line has produced regardless of methods 
used, and regardless of methods used, I can pretty much now figure out which 
other breeders I care to deal with and which not.  So then the issue to me 
becomes, do I want to go with tightly bred/related dogs, where the odds are 
much greater for defective recessive alleles to combine, or do I want to go 
with more outcrossed dogs where when done properly with good research, the 
incidence of producing affected anything will be reduced?

<<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.>>

I agree wholeheartedly with that, Joe, but the problem is people like us 
aren't trying to have an impact on the entire breed so in the big picture 
whatever we do has a minimal effect one way or another.  Those like us need 
to start working together collectively in the same type of directions to have 
an impact ... strength in numbers may make the difference.  At the very least 
we can all start talking out loud publicly about our dogs, our lines, and the 
strengths and weaknesses we perceive as regards health and fitness issues.

<<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.>>

A couple of differences of opinion I have with above statement.  First off, I 
think these renegade win-at-all-costs types don't linebreed to reveal 
defects.  They do it because it is a relatively easy way to breed beauty and 
external morphology traits with great consistency and predictability.  It 
allows them to "stamp their trademark" visibly on every dog they produce.  I 
honestly don't think the idea of using linebreeding to reveal then purge 
defects comes into play much if at all.  So long as one or two or three 
puppies in every litter survives and is free from obvious defects, they are 
satisfied with that outcome.  Doesn't seem to much matter about the rest of 
these litters and what happens with them.

Secondly, sometimes the "misbehavior" takes decades to reveal itself 
genetically, and by that time, the individuals in question have great power 
and control in the breed and their progeny are spread far and wide into the 
gene pool, and not many people are going to be willing to speak up about it 
or try to do anything about it, and the unsuspecting novices have no clue 
what is going on -- they only see what they see at the dog shows and in 
publications and advertisements that presents such breeders winning records, 
and they are naive and easily seduced by that and they buy into the lies or 
glossing over or cover-up, hook line and sinker.

Kelley Hoffman
kshoffman@aol.com