[ SHOWGSD-L ] Re: Kudos to Barb Williams
- From: Gsdman2@xxxxxxx
- To: Ketchy@xxxxxxxxxx, showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:20:05 EST
In a message dated 12/23/2004 8:12:10 AM Central Standard Time,
Ketchy@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
Check your pedigrees--they all go back to the same 2 or 3 dogs.
How far back should we look? Do we stop at fifty years to find common
ancestors to lay the blame on, or do we go all the way to Horand, a hundred
years?
There is no magic in identifying a previously existing problem and then laying
blame for it on common ancestors. You can pick any trait, good or bad, and
assign it to those few common ancestors, merely because they are "common
ancestors" ... (just as Horand is). The problems existed through and before
those
dogs. You must go well beyond Horand and the very existence of the GSD as a
breed if you plan to find a genetic beginning to almost any breed problem
because we are not talking about breed specific problems. In fact, many of the
problems our breed suffers are even more common in other breeds.
In my opinion, it is good breeding practice to trace traits as carefully as
you can within the first few generations of the pedigrees you are working with.
That is what good breeders do. It is also my opinion though, that the
theory of tracing problems back to any individual or small group of dogs, while
not
considering the existence of the very same problems beyond those dogs, and
beyond the breed itself, is little more than a witch hunt. There is nothing
constructive about condemning a huge portion of the breed's overall population,
merely because they share a common ancestor that lived decades ago. All GSDs
share common ancestors, and if a breeding coefficient after decades is
considerable, then it applies to all in equal proportions. I find the
suggestion that
our bloodlines are "tired" to be insulting, and I am still waiting to hear
any sensible argument to support that accusation.
Before the "breeding coefficient" theory is stated again, I will interject
that if you have a dog that shares a great grandsire in all four possible great
grandsire slots in the pedigree, you still have four great grandmothers
contributing to his gene pool. Since you cannot determine how much influence
each
great grandam gave to their progeny, you can only assume that the concentration
on the great grandsire has increased the odds of passing proportionately more
of his genes down, but that does not mean that the great grandmother's genes
were not also passed down, and the mathematics themselves certainly do not
take into consideration a breeder's job of selecting for improvement.
Tom Langlitz
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2004. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://www.showgsd.org
============================================================================
Other related posts:
