# Questions about breeding, genetics, appearance



## paulag1955 (Jun 29, 2010)

Hey, I saw someone mention in another thread that they think breeding for "things like long hair" will ruin the breed. That got me to thinking. 

I'm wondering how breeding for what seems to typically be called appearance (coat length, color, markings) is any different than breeding for a size that conforms to the AKC standard, a blocky head or big bones.

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'm just really curious.

Thanks!


----------



## KLCecil (Jul 1, 2010)

Great question! Because that is exactly what most "Show breeders" are doing, breeding for a "specific look" whether it is movement and/or stacked.


----------



## paulag1955 (Jun 29, 2010)

KLCecil said:


> Great question! Because that is exactly what most "Show breeders" are doing, breeding for a "specific look" whether it is movement and/or stacked.


That's kind of what I'm thinking.


----------



## rvadog (Dec 9, 2010)

Hmmm. Well to be honest I would argue that show breeders are going to ruin the breed just as fast as BYB's.

That said most show breeders are looking at the overall picture of the dog and though they may be focusing on a specific trait (ear set, chest, etc.) they are doing so in a way to keep the rest of the good qualities there. The reason they are looking for that specific trait is because that's what their line lacks at the moment. They are not focusing on head size simply because they like huge heads. If they are then they are just as bad as people breeding specifically for long hair.


----------



## paulag1955 (Jun 29, 2010)

But why do you consider that bad?


----------



## JKlatsky (Apr 21, 2007)

rvadog said:


> Hmmm. Well to be honest I would argue that show breeders are going to ruin the breed just as fast as BYB's.
> 
> That said most show breeders are looking at the overall picture of the dog and though they may be focusing on a specific trait (ear set, chest, etc.) they are doing so in a way to keep the rest of the good qualities there. The reason they are looking for that specific trait is because that's what their line lacks at the moment. They are not focusing on head size simply because they like huge heads. If they are then they are just as bad as people breeding specifically for long hair.


:thumbup:

This is what I was thinking. 

While there is a general breeding for appearance going on because that is what is ultimately important in the venue they are competing in- a reputable show line breeder should be looking at the appearance of the dog as a whole and not JUST a single recessive trait. 

It's okay to like what you like...but I think balance is important. I think it would be better in a program interested in Coated dogs to start with coats produced from stock coats, and then maybe breeding that dog to another stock coat that maybe carries a coat gene. Sure not all the pups produced would be coated, but then the breeder could draw from a much larger genetic pool and be sure that their dogs were suitable candidates in other areas besides coat length. Although to tell you the truth...I've seen enough coated dogs come out of Stock coat breedings to make me think that there are enough of them out there to fill the need without resorting to long coat specific breeders...but I may be getting a tad off topic


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

Will it be fair to assume that because a breeder only has longcoats that they must be ignoring other traits when breeding? Doesn't it depend on how large the gene pool is that they're drawing from? 

Which brings up another question...

How does someone determine if there's been too much linebreeding or inbreeding in a line? (besides the obvious)


----------



## rvadog (Dec 9, 2010)

How could there be too much inbreeding?

Or better asked, what do you consider too much inbreeding?


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

How to tell if there is too much line/inbreeding going on??? Well it is a scientific fact that too much inbreeding will eventually produce severe health and mental issues. If the dogs that you are linebreeding and inbreeding on, are no longer meeting the health and temperament standards of the breed......you might be doing too much or already have too much!!JMO


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

rvadog said:


> How could there be too much inbreeding?
> 
> Or better asked, what do you consider too much inbreeding?


I thought you were the breeder, I'm just asking the questions. 

Isn't inbreeding when you breed father to daughter, brother to sister etc. and I thought if done too often it caused problems. I know it's done to help improve a line but if that's all a breeder does isn't that a bad thing?


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

There is a difference between breeding a good GSD that conforms to the standard (and I don't just mean in looks) that happens to be coated compared to breeding a dog just because he is coated. 

In Germany you will not be able to breed long stock coats to stock coated dogs, but here people will have a better option of maintaining diversity while using long stocks if so desired.


----------



## rvadog (Dec 9, 2010)

Whiteshepherds said:


> I thought you were the breeder, I'm just asking the questions.
> 
> Isn't inbreeding when you breed father to daughter, brother to sister etc. and I thought if done too often it caused problems. I know it's done to help improve a line but if that's all a breeder does isn't that a bad thing?


I'm no breeder but I consider myself well informed. Inbreeding done for a reason is extremely important in a breeding program and line breeding is integral. Inbreeding is a way to intensify what is already there (good and bad).

A good breeder will not inbreed to much and if they can explain the reasons and goals behind the breeding you're in the clear. If pups start developing temperament or health issues then you know it's time to add some fresh blood (though hopefully fresh blood is added prior to problems).


----------



## Wilhoit (May 17, 2010)

paulag1955 said:


> Hey, I saw someone mention in another thread that they think breeding for "things like long hair" will ruin the breed. That got me to thinking.
> 
> I'm wondering how breeding for what seems to typically be called appearance (coat length, color, markings) is any different than breeding for a size that conforms to the AKC standard, a blocky head or big bones.
> 
> ...


Your question inspired a related one--do inherited physical traits, like long hair, ever seem to be inherited with other traits? I mention this because I seem to recall that those who are familiar with long hairs claim that they can be calmer and have heavier bone than GSDs with the regulation lengths of hair. Is this true, or is there any way to know? If it is true and these are deemed desirable traits, then maybe it would be a good idea to retain long hairs for breeding.


----------



## rvadog (Dec 9, 2010)

Albinism and deafness are linked (see boxers, pits, bull terriers)

Wire haired dachsunds are drivier and some can actually used for hunting


----------



## paulag1955 (Jun 29, 2010)

Wilhoit said:


> Your question inspired a related one--do inherited physical traits, like long hair, ever seem to be inherited with other traits? I mention this because I seem to recall that those who are familiar with long hairs claim that they can be calmer and have heavier bone than GSDs with the regulation lengths of hair. Is this true, or is there any way to know? If it is true and these are deemed desirable traits, then maybe it would be a good idea to retain long hairs for breeding.


I was watching a National Geographic show (I think it was called The Science of Dogs. It's available for instant viewing on Netflix) that indicated that, yes, appearance traits seem to be linked to other, non-appearance traits. Of course, I'm no expert, so I don't know how accurate the show was.


----------



## Greydusk (Mar 26, 2010)

Wilhoit said:


> Your question inspired a related one--do inherited physical traits, like long hair, ever seem to be inherited with other traits? I mention this because I seem to recall that those who are familiar with long hairs claim that they can be calmer and have heavier bone than GSDs with the regulation lengths of hair. Is this true, or is there any way to know? If it is true and these are deemed desirable traits, then maybe it would be a good idea to retain long hairs for breeding.


There was a study done in Russia where they were breeding Silver Foxes for tameness, just tameness, nothing else. What they found were after several generations was that not only were the foxes tamer, but they had also developed white spots, curly tails and other characteristics that are unusual to foxes. They found that they started to look and act like dogs. So yes, some genes do "piggy back" on other genes.


----------



## paulag1955 (Jun 29, 2010)

Greydusk said:


> There was a study done in Russia where they were breeding Silver Foxes for tameness, just tameness, nothing else. What they found were after several generations was that not only were the foxes tamer, but they had also developed white spots, curly tails and other characteristics that are unusual to foxes. They found that they started to look and act like dogs. So yes, some genes do "piggy back" on other genes.


That's the study they use in The Science of Dogs but I had seen a PBS special about it years ago. Pretty fascinating.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Wilhoit said:


> Your question inspired a related one--do inherited physical traits, like long hair, ever seem to be inherited with other traits?


Yes and this is one reason why we have to be careful about what we "eliminate" from the breed. I can't answer, though, if anything is connected to the long hair.


----------

