Re: [PyrNet-L] Westminster

[JGentzel@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/21/00 1:02:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
Kshoffman@aol.com writes:

<< 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. >>

I have it here in my kennel.  The term is "selective" linebreeding i.e. don't 
breed animals who are affected or have siblings with problems, unless you run 
the increased risk of having the problem go forward.  Leaves out a lot of 
animals and you have to be prepared to house or rehome a lot of dogs.

<<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.>>

Again you condemn the practice because of the problems of breeders or in the 
case (which has never existed in Pyrs) a very small affected gene pool.  
Linebreeding did not cause the problems.  The problems were there and poor 
breeding decisions were made innocently or without regard for its outcome.

<<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.
 >>

Yes, they (the affected genes)  would just lurk there to come up like a 
number on a roulette wheel.  Maybe with linebreeding one could actually purge 
the gene, or genes in question.  That's a novel notion, don't you think?

<>

There has to be places for people to go.  To leave the problems alone and 
simply cover them up by using a different breeding method that seems to hide 
the defective genes does not seem the thing to do.

"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."

Yes, yes, yes.  No doubt, but we are talking about people, not methods. 

Joe