Ankle Express wrote:
Well Mr. PacoJack has spoke the gospel! I haven't read any books about breeding dogs but my experiences or experiments have shown me he is correct. Traits get watered down after each breeding, period. Only way, only chance of improving those desired traits is compound upon them. Linebreeding, breeding closely as possible in a certain gene pool with dogs that exhibit the exact same desired traits. Here's the kicker you can't compromise a trait or its watered down after. So perfection or darn near it has to be obtained and then compounded. To see it over and over again for generations. The old saying "best to best" is meant to mean the same thing (best similar desired traits you can find blended) just without the linebreeding. Linebreeding just doubling your odds. Aligned traits and aligned genes, should be about the same product.
Which is probably how breed specific registry's were started?
Now you can still take those "best to best" hybrid vigor lightning strikes and with one or two close breedings establish a gene pool to linebreed out of and maybe keep your head above water for a while. As long as the desired traits are never compromised. Standards being the same similar outcrosses can be made and again maybe keep your head above water. Compound it again. Maybe. You aren't helping a specific breed then usually because color isn't considered.
Fact is most of us will be the latter bunch. We could have better odds of being in the same bunch if the folks at the forefront of the breeds followed Pacojacks methods. Trying to cover or add one trait from another is BS. You'll end up with several that have the undesired and desired traits in sometimes usable/coachable but frustrating ways at best. Typically not usable. Might have the one super hero. Typically its all that was desired minus one of the major desired. 2+2 does not equal 4 in dog breeding. The right 2+2 might give another 2 though, if you know what you got and how to use it. Should be a line thats producing.
Really. Tell me why people breed blood hound into their dogs? Tell me why people breed pits or airedale into thier hounds? It is to "add" the dominate trait like nose or grit into a dog that lacks it.
Catch, I’ve been away for a week so just now catching up. For the life of me I don’t know why you would add pitt for grit or blood hound for nose? Not following you here? Heard of it but don't see it working around me. I think that in your typically testy way you are taking something wrong? I think we are almost saying the same things after reading more of your explanation but you may be a habitual fence jumper? See I wouldn’t be trying to add nose or grit in the beginning. Don't think you would be either? I would be starting out with it. Proven dogs. It would have to be acceptable/satisfactory for me to begin with. Attempt to improve upon it, well why hell yeah. Everything, hell yeah, I just don't want to back up. Then potntially nothing is compromised. Considering training time, work, family and life expectancy most of us are only gonna have a few chances at this and I'm not wasting time theorizing and blending on hope. I'll attempt but won't count on it and nobody else will be bothered by it. I wouldn’t breed to anything that didn’t exhibit at least the same qualities or better if I was a breeder. I'm not but do understand and have seen linebreeding makes those odds that much better. Odds that more pups will exhibit those desired qualities. 1 to 2 vs 3 to 4 or more. I’ve seen litters of six with only one cull and the nurture could have been its problem. I think that’s unheard of. That didn’t happen in my yard either, though but you can't tell three of the females apart and thats walkers.
A pitt for grit would compromise everything else desired. Nose, track speed, endurance and brains to mention a few. Blood hound well same story track speed, endurance, grit and athleticism would be compromised. All these type breedings are basically breeding for one pup, the super blended one. If you do get the one the rest hit all over the place and are useless/frustratingly coachable to a point then if the hole is big enough still useless. And there is no way to move forward with that. That’s comparing breeding apples to oranges. I don't think thats what you completely meant but even in breeding apples to apples the same can occur and more often then not does. Breeding the same apple to the same apple ups your odds of getting the same apple is all I was saying.
Steve Herd claims that after breeding within a line of dogs, that the alike colored dogs tend to be the better ones, and the better the crosses get the more alike colored the litters are. Kind of refining the genes and pinpointing all the desired traits til you are producing alike dogs in every way. Makes some sense to me, but definatly not gonna be the deciding factor in a cross
Thats how I've seen it and it works. Just like putting on an ole hat, its eerily familiar.
Go drive around town with your dog box.
) the problem comes from color-blind fools that tout a specific breed/line/type of dog on the merits of their "genetics" ie. looks, size, pedigree, style, etc basically anything OTHER than PERFORMANCE. 
