That's a "distinctive look" alright. And it's not all right. It's disgusting.
Lloyd Brackett was an idiot, a sexist, and a bigot who not only put his own breed on the rails to ruination, but who has given countless show breeders an excuse to pretend that they are doing something safe, proven, and scientific by inbreeding according to his “formula.”
Lloyd Brackett talked about Lloyd Brackett in the third person. He was also a legend in his own mind, declaring himself “Mr. German Shepherd.” Here is his autobiographical hagiography which starts his award winning pamphlet “Planned Breeding:”
One of the fathers of the German Shepherd in this country and the oldest living continuous fancier of the breed in America (since 1912) his theories on breeding have been more than proven in his Long-Worth Kennels where he established his own strain in the breed and produced more than 90 champions in only 12 years —a world’s record for any breed. Known affectionately as “Mr. German Shepherd” he has proven beyond doubt the soundness of his breeding program.
There’s just so much wrong with dog culture captured in that paragraph:
- Someone who had nothing to do with the creation of the breed declaring himself a “father” of it
- The notion of “I got here first” being important, appealing to longevity instead of quality
- The unnecessary division of the breed (and thus breed type) by country
- Using the language of the scientific method and formal logic (proven theories, formulas) to describe what’s really nothing more than an entirely indistinctive suggestion to inbreed
- The ethic of establishing a distinctive strain within a breed that must be a visual trademark of the breeder
- The ceaseless ribbon chasing as something worthy of praise and proof of efficacy. (Fallacy: Appeal to Accomplishment)
The proof of his plan is not in his own satisfaction, but in the breed he left behind. And what we find is not proof of “agricultural improvement,” but of disaster, severe and intentional degradation of both health and conformation. Inbreeding has lead to unintentional explosions of disease in many breeds, but what we have with the GSD is intentional. Those “roach backs” are premeditated, the wobbly cow hocks desired. They don’t put these monsters they’ve created down, they put them up for awards.
Can anyone honestly claim that the GSD of today is in any way improved over the dog Max von Stephanitz gave us 111 years ago?
Hektor Linksrhein a.k.a. Horand von Grafrath, the first "German Shepherd"
The deficiencies of the German Shepherd could fill several volumes, and a future post will cover just how far they’ve fallen from their roots. What I’d like to start with, however, is the actual formula.
Favorite Breeding Practice for Superior StockThere is a favorite breeding theory, or system, used by successful breeders of many varieties of animals. It usually eventuates in superior stock IF the male selected is himself an outstanding specimen, nearly faultless, and has such progenitors. It goes as follows: “Let the sire of the sire be the grandsire of the dam, on the dam’s side.”
Here is an example pedigree constructed using this formula:
An example Brackett's "Formula" pedigree.
If this common dog, let’s call him Studley, is the only source of common blood on the two sides of the pedigree than this is what the formula produces: the resulting puppies are 37.5% Studley, getting 25% from the father’s side and 12.5% from the mother’s side. Half the genes from the mother’s side would be expected to meet themselves and double up in the pups, so this litter would be 6.25% inbred.
The problem with applying a name and pseudo-scientific trappings to an otherwise unremarkable scheme, is that laypeople will make the false assumption that it’s important enough or efficacious enough to warrant this designation and that it’s been held to the standards of the scientific method. Neither are true of Brackett’s Formula.
As you can see from the analysis, the desired dog Studley represents 37.5% of the blood in the puppies and also has a “Cov A X” of 37.5%, matching the percent of blood. The “Cov A X” is the “Genetic Covariance” and represents the degree to which the puppies will resemble that given ancestor. Notice how in this case the puppies are no more likely to look like Studley than the degree to which Studley is already in their pedigree.
Thus, there’s noting special about this formula.
Brackett’s formula hasn’t produced Studley qualities in our puppies any more than any other inbreeding scheme which would result in a Cov AX of 37.5%. But notice which dog has a Cov AX greater than their percent of blood: the grandmother, Bitch, with 25% Blood but a 37.5% Cov AX.
This is a significant observation because Brackett fails to mention the importance of this dog in his scheme. This dog is every bit as important in the looks of the puppies, but not a word is given to why she is important. She’s important because it’s not a random collection of Studley’s genes that get passed on or even doubled up in the puppies, it’s only those genes that exist in his offspring, specifically in Bitch.
She passes along 25% of her genes to the puppies directly, but half of her genes are from Studley and of those, 12.5% make their way to the puppies through the sire line. It’s only the genes we see in Bitch that have a chance to get doubled up on in the puppies. None of Studley’s genes that aren’t present in Bitch will get doubled up and thus be guaranteed to be expressed.
This scheme is breeding to Bitch’s conformation equally as much as Studley’s, and it is in her that we are getting a glimpse of what parts of Studley we’re going to get most potently.
But Brackett is a sexist who doesn’t believe in rationally giving the dams as much credit as the sires. This is especially irresponsible in breeding because one has to work much harder to maintain diversity in the dam lines given how hard it is for any one dam to pass along her genes, as I’ve discussed before.
The point I want to make, however, is that in selecting a mate for a faulty bitch whose wide-open pedigree offers no individual in it free of her faults, and dominant in correcting them, one must select as her mate a dog not only himself CORRECT where she is failing, but through some intensity of corrective blood is dominant.
Here we have a multitude of sins.
- The first of which is the unsupported idea that only bitches have faults which can and need to be corrected by “dominant” blood in the male.
- The second is that this “dominant” blood is really a code word for “prepotency” a.k.a. homozygosity; the vast majority of traits that are hard to breed for are not dominant, but recessive, and thus the ability of a male to pass them along requires him to be highly homozygous (inbred) and for the female he covers to be at least a carrier for those recessive traits as well.
- The third is the presumption that a “wide-open” pedigree (an outcrossed, non-inbred pedigree) would have “no individual in it free of her faults.” This is faulting outbreeding for what happens in inbreeding. Even if an outcrossed pedigree could be found with such a trait, the fault in question would necessarily be “identical by state” even though as far as we know it’s not “identical by descent.”
That last point brings up an important new definition when we’re talking about genetics: autozygous vs. allozygous.
When the two alleles at a locus originate from a common ancestor by way of nonrandom mating (inbreeding), the genotype is said to be autozygous. This is also known as being “identical by descent”, or IBD. When the two alleles come (at least to the extent that the descent can be traced) from completely different sources, as is the case in most normal, random mating, the genotype is called allozygous. This is known as being “identical by state”, or IBS.
Brackett’s claim is a cherry-picked strawman that’s popular among shameless inbreeders. Beg the question by creating the mythical uber-diseased outbred dog and then pretend that inbreeding is no different. Outbreeding promotes heterozygosity and thus prevents recessive diseases from being expressed. If there’s an expressed recessive disease, the only way to “breed it out” is to first make it heterozygous and then select for the second generation dogs that are free of the disease. As far as the disease allele is concerned, outbreeding isn’t the best way, it’s the only way.
Outcrossing has a solution for this hand-picked strawman. Outcross more. Inbreeding offers this mythical pedigree nothing. There’s no way to inbreed your way to health if your entire pedigree is affected.
Speaking against this makes Brackett a fool. We’ve established that Brackett’s formula is nothing special, nothing unique, and nothing so specific that it needs to be proven or disproven. It’s simply one form of inbreeding that offers nothing special or unusual. We’ve established that Beckett was a sexist and a denialist of Mendelian genetics which gives no preference to the male nor the female contribution for all autosomal chromosomes. And we’ve established that Brackett uses specious arguments against outcross breeding.
In future posts, we’ll look more at the rest of Brackett’s plan and the fallacies he employs in them, as well as why his ideas are still dangerous today.
* * *
Comments and disagreements are welcome, but be sure to read the Comment Policy. If this post made you think and you'd like to read more like it, consider a donation to my 4 Border Collies' Treat and Toy Fund. They'll be glad you did. You can subscribe to the feed or enter your e-mail in the field on the left to receive notice of new content. You can also like BorderWars on Facebook for more frequent musings and curiosities.
* * *
What Max von Stephanitz would say about his breed today:
“In all my articles, lectures, and judges reports of the last few years, I have desperately tried to point out that we must cling to the breed standard of the working dog, and I gave reasons why we must do so – as it was once laid down, as a model of the breed’s design. I have emphasized over and over again that we should not get overly engrossed in details of outward characteristics, even if they are ever so attractive, when, for the breeding value of the dog, he must be based entirely and decisively upon the totality of hard constitution, good health, endurance, authentic working structure and stable temperament.
The vision, the understanding of this standard, is thus sometimes lost. Many young fanciers have unfortunately hardly ever seen correct conformation in respect to these dogs. They become intoxicated with appearance which so often has so little in common with the working dog as he is supposed to be. In this case, the only thing that helps is trusted faith in the system, until one’s pondering leads to eventual understanding. The belief in what is well meant – the thoughtful suggestions and guiding principles – are for the welfare of the breed’s future.
As with so many breeds, sport and fad breeding led to more severe evidence of natural traits, and therefore to bad breeding situations that had nothing more in common with working ability.
This may seem nice to the faddist, however, for the true lover of Nature, who doesn’t engage in matters based on eye appeal, it appears as a strange caricature.
Over-sized, massiveness, height, racing ability, straight front or tucked up racing dog body would be for the shepherd an adverse perception leading to the death of the breed. And actually, some of our dogs and especially those who receive applause among the novices resemble the racing dog type in his over-sized, narrowness, tucked up appearance and effemination. The Borzoi, who hunts the wolf on the Russian prairies does not look like this; he is still a correct, rugged fellow. He who looks around at dog shows, pages through dog magazines, will find often enough that there are still a few other breed’s destinies which are threatened, that is, they are about to step out of their breed type because they are not bred upon a breed goal, but rather upon an imaginary ‘beauty concept’.”
retrieverman recently posted..Babies
“As with so many breeds, sport and fad breeding led to more severe evidence of natural traits, and therefore to bad breeding situations that had nothing more in common with working ability.
This may seem nice to the faddist, however, for the true lover of Nature, who doesn’t engage in matters based on eye appeal, it appears as a strange caricature.”
This is perfect. I am going to steal it.
Jess recently posted..Well- Crap
What an excellent find, Scottie, I’ll be sure to incorporate it into my future posts. It’s rare to find such condemnation of where the breed is going so soon after it’s founding, written by the founder even.
From what I’ve gathered so far, the GSD had several hiccups in the early years.
The quoted source on that is “Palika” which I imagine is our friend who writes for Pet Connection.
Loving this comment!
“The Borzoi, who hunts the wolf on the Russian prairies does not look like this; he is still a correct, ruged fellow.”
I haven’t seen enough Borzois from long ago, live or in pictures, to know if this statement remains true.
DOES it remain true? Just wondering.
http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v485/Pietoro/Dog%20Breed%20Historical%20Pictures/Borzoi/
As a long time breeder of Borzoi with an emphasis on field trials an amateur racing I have seen some differences between my fastest dogs with the best endurance and many of the popular show Borzoi. The best field trial dogs are smaller than average in the show ring (closer to the original Borzoi of 1890’s) and when at rest flatter in the topline. Really roached up dogs are slow. Also the angulation both front and rear is more moderate than seen in the show ring.
Something that is not evident in a static “stacked” dog which is very important to speed and athleticism is flexibility of the body. Even when a dog is relatively (for a sighthound) flatter backed at the passive stance, a very flexible body is necessary for speed. Really stiff backed dogs are also slow. Dogs weighing over 100 lbs are either slow, or if they are fast they injure themselves a lot. Full speed in a fast Borzoi is 38 mph. In most athletic dogs full speed is under 30 mph. Reallly fast racing greyhounds get up to 40mph on specially prepared tracks but greyhounds for field work are a bit slower – similar to the fast Borzoi. Similar speeds are seen in athletic Scottish Deerhounds, Whippets and Salukis. Most modern Irish Wolfhounds are too large and stiff bodied to have much speed and the non windhound “sighthounds” such as Rhodesian Ridgebacks and Basenjis have similar speed to working Labs.
It would be interesting to get actual speeds on working Border Collies. The ones that have been out in my large field playing with one of my Borzoi (they try to herd the Borzoi) can only catch up by cutting the corner when the Borzoi turns. They cannot match the speed in a straight run.
Here is an video of one of my faster Borzoi at a full gallop at a field trial.
Here is a link to a series of drawings done of
Borzois in Russia in 1879.
A caution, the drawings do suffer from the victorian tendency to emphasize the body of animals and make the heads much to small. One sees this also in horse drawings of the time.
My biggest fault with Brackett is he assumes that natural selection and artificial selection are equivalent, that a breeder can select away all the problems associated with tight breeding as well as natural selection can.
It’s just simply wrong.
And he also thinks that most wild animals are inbred. Most wild dogs are not.
retrieverman recently posted..Babies
I think they are turning the GSD into the brown hyena:
http://www.hyaenidae.org/uploads/images/brown%20hyena%20pix/brown%20hyena4-cropped.jpg
In Namibia, they call them “Strandwolf,” (beach wolf in German), because they hang out along the Skeleton Coast scavenging flotsam and jetsam.
retrieverman recently posted..Babies
I think you are blaming Bracket for something that is not his fault. Brackett suggested use of line breeding as a tool. The mis-use of that tool is the fault of the user, not the man who suggested the tool. If someone wanted to build a house, he could use a hand saw and get it done. But he could do it easier and faster with a power saw. Now if someone who was a poor carpenter used the power saw, he could really mess up a bunch of lumber faster and easier than he could with a hand saw. he would make a mess instead of a house. But you couldn’t put the blame on the power saw. the fault is in the mis-use of the power saw not the power saw itself. The same is true with Brackett’s ideas. You can’t blame Brackett because some idiot used his ideas to make a mess instead of building a house. Line breeding simply allowed the idiots to make their mess easier and faster. But line breeding isn;t the problem. It’s the idiots using it.
A pure tool has no agenda and is only a magnifier of the efficacy and ethics of the operator. A printing press is a pure tool, it can not write for itself, only human error can corrupt the message. An imperfect tool can magnify the power of the operator but imperfectly or by impairing the ethics of the operator. A gun is a slightly imperfect tool because the ease of use and magnification of power are extreme such that a child can operate it and accidentally kill themselves or another: the ability to do evil is out of proportion with the ethics of the user. A nuclear bomb is a grossly imperfect tool because the destruction is massive and widespread and indiscriminate and the radioactive fallout is an undesirable consequence: by design the bomb does harm that is not intended by the operator.
Inbreeding is a grossly imperfect tool. The negative externalities are unavoidable and the positive qualities are moderated by chance. The ethics of the user are unable to escape or overcome the negative ethics of the process.
You wrongly assume that there exists a user smart enough, knowledgeable enough, to inbreed with abandon. There are no such breeders. You can’t name one breed that is better, more complete, healthier and improved with the wise application of inbreeding. Show me the success of Brackett’s Formula. His breed of choice, the GSD, is one of the worst breeds out there. A total mess.
Advertising his rather non-special and entirely unscientific scheme as a “formula” is evil. It is implying a level of efficacy and safety that does not exist. It is giving a how-to lesson to students who will never be smart enough or know enough about the genetics of their dogs to deploy it successfully, doing more good than harm. No one even today with a handful of genetic testing can possibly know enough to balance the harm.
So I have no problem placing blame on Brackett himself for his self promotion and marketing of his scheme. He put his name on it, he wanted the credit, so he shall get the blame.
I agree with much of your answer. I feel most people don’t have the knowlege to “inbreed with abandon”. You state that you can’t name one breed that is better, more complete, healthier,and improved with the wise application of inbreeding. My question is could any “breed” have been developed WITHOUT the use of inbreeding? I don’t mean that as a smart remark, but as a serious question. I can find very little history on the specifics used to develp any of the canine breeds we have today. BTW my main goal in breeding always concerns working dogs, not show dogs. Therefore I am intersted in confirmation only as it affects working ability.
There are several regional purpose-focused landraces that speak to your question regarding breed formation or definition that isn’t dependent on inbreeding. I cover them briefly in this post:
http://www.border-wars.com/2010/11/inbred-mistakes-ii.html
You’ll notice that the defining characteristics in these breeds is overwhelmingly work. Even when some of these landraces have been divided and distilled into breeds, like the retrievers, the reason to divide (and often inbreed heavily) is usually visual and frivolous, like color. And the retrievers are worse off for this.
Some breed formation is actually a hybridization process. The German Shepherd dog was a mix of breeds, so is the Jack Russel Terrier. Neither of these breeds was defined by a rare recessive physical trait that required the use of only one stud or vicious culling and inbreeding. Still, when they were the pet project of just one initial breeder, such breeds often have plenty of diversity at the start but too few formulas are created from scratch to give a large enough founder pool to keep the lines non-inbred for very long.
Again, my discussion of landrace breeds covers some breeds that are defined as F1 crosses (like long dogs) so they can always be in formation technically, or other breeds like the Alaskan sled dogs where constant new blood is part of the breed culture.
The Saluki/Afghan/Tazi/Taigan complex is a prime example of a landrace breed, with regional variations on the same theme, that developed naturally through breeding for function. Developing a ‘breed’ strictly through breeding for function is a much slower process than show type inbreeding to set physical type, but that is exactly how all landrace breeds developed.
Jess recently posted..Tazis in the Khanate of Khiva- Uzbekistan- 1850
After pondering for some time on this issue I don’t want to say I’ve reached a “conclusion”. As that implies that I’m at the end. I’d rather say this is where I am now in my thinking. I still have trouble blaming Brackett’s method for the problems in the German Shepherd breed. After all, as you said in the intro, the “roach backs and wobbly cow hocks are intentional”. How can you place the blame on the method when the problem appears to be in the goal of the people using the method. I will agree that Brackett’s method made it easier and faster for the idiots to bring this breed to its present state. But one of Brackett’s pre-requsites for beeing a “breeder” was/is the ability to recognize what constitutes a superb specimen of a given breed. Clearly these “breeders” have missed the mark here, but you can’t blame the method for that.
Also I agree that most people using Brackett’s methods are not very successful as breeders. But most people using any method are not very successful as breeders. I think that the problem comes for two reasons. First off Bracketts methods do act as a magnifier or accelerator in breeding programs. That allows people to make a mess of their breed or strain much faster and easier than they would using out cross methods.
But mainly what I think happens is that people who decide to use the inbreeding methods tend to wind up making breeding choices based entirely on the relationship of the breeding stock and totally ingnoring selection, compensation, etc. Where as people using out cross methods tend to make desired traits their main criteria for choosing their breeding stock. In other words people who employ inbreeding, for some reason, seem to forget about selection and compensation and make their brood stock selection purely from the standpoint of relation.
One other point that Christopher has made somewhere in all the stuff I’ve read, and I agree with, is that inbreeding does not create improvements. That is done by wise out crossing. Inbreeding at its best can be used only to maintain what has been created. But if this is so, then inbreeding can’t really create the problems in a breed either, but only maintain what is already there. As I’ve already said, it (inbreeding) is a magnifier or accelerator and it will show the flaws faster and easier.
Christopher asked me to show the success of Brackett’s methods and put forth the German Shepherd as an example of its failure. But if the German Shepherd breeders were TRYING to breed dogs that look like the one pictured at the top of this article, then the method can’t be the fault, but rather the goal must be the fault. As for inbreeding success look at what game fowl breeders, cattle breeders and even the King Ranch Quarter Horse breeders accomplished through various degrees of inbreeding. No they are not dog breeds, but genetics are genetics.
Can you show me a breed that is worse off primarily because of Brackett’s methods and not because of poor judgement, choices and goals of the people using the method??
A couple of final notes, I think Brackett’s methods are more successful when applied to working dogs, dogs that DO something. Mainly because the doing helps the breeder so much in making his choices for breeding stock. Also I would ask (and I really don’t know) what did Brackett’s own line of dogs look like after several generations of inbreeding?? Wouldn’t that be a better measure of his method (tool) than what some other idiot might have done with it later?
Melvin,
Thanks for the considered response. Here’s an analogy. Brackett’s Formula is a recipe, and like any recipe the purpose is to give information to people who don’t know well enough what they are doing to allow them to make a respectable result.
This recipe is touted as multiple award winning and singularly impressive with a special method that is unique and worthy of being branded with the name of the inventor.
But the recipe is actually crap.
Do we blame the people who bought into the hype or the person who published it and advertised it in the first place?
Another example. An engineer designs a car that is safe to drive at 40 mph, and although it’s not perfect the driver should be able to overcome any problems at that speed. Then someone comes out with a driving manual that says “you can get there in half the time if you drive twice as fast” and this manual documents how to modify the driving technique to go 80mph. But, the car was not designed for this speed and the steering is not robust enough to be responsive to dangers in the road, the brakes can not stop the car in time when the driver sees a problem they can’t avoid.
Who do we sue? The original designer or the advocate to drive twice as fast?
The intention in the first example is to bake a product worth eating, that performs as advertised. The intention in the second is to get to a distant location. Both are analogous to what breeders want with their dogs. They want a method that produces consistent results and which will allow them to get to a distant goal eventually.
Brackett’s formula makes assumptions that can never be realized in the real world. There are no perfect stud dogs, there are NO lines that are free enough of disease that his method can be used successfully. There’s no way to prevent the hundred or so mutations that happen every generation, no way to stop all of those from being doubled up, no way to know if there’s a latent disease or bad gene…. because there always is and the vast vast majority of them are unknown, undocumented and have no DNA test.
You can absolutely blame the method when it not only fails to produce a superb specimen, but it has the uncanny ability to destroy what contributions they could have made to the breed irreparably.
You, yourself, make my case. People using Brackett focus on relatedness, because that’s what’s in the formula. The formula speaks NOTHING about the actual TRAITS you want to see “magnified” … it speaks only to the relation of the dogs you are using.
So, this speeding manual says noting about how to pay better attention to the road, how to avoid accidents, how to handle the car at higher speeds… it speaks to how hard you’re supposed to slam that gas pedal at every turn and keep that tachometer in the red zone. It says nothing about how the whole car falls apart if you do it too long, usually taking you with it.
I think we now are basically in agreement. Brackett offered up a recipe that the majority of people cannot safely use. I still feel that it does have some practical LIMITED use in the hands of very responsible, and experienced breeders, especially for “working” dogs. And on this note, I will end my part of this very interesting, educational, and enjoyable discussion.
I am not sure if this is a quote from Brackett or your words:
“She passes along 25% of her genes to the puppies directly, …”.
However the Bitch is actually going to pass 50% of her genes to the puppies – one randomly selected set from each 1/2 of her diploid chromosome set because when she makes an egg – the egg is haploid – that is it has 1/2 of the mothers genome. A sperm has 1/2 of the father’s genome. Exactly which chromosome of each parent’s chromosome pair is selected is random so the probability of any two eggs or any two sperm having the same subset of the parent’s paired gene sets is very low.
Also percent of the blood is not an accurate method for predicting homozygosity due to a common ancestor. One needs to use the coefficient of inbreeding.
Bonnie Dalzell recently posted..Interactive Genetics Tools Websites
Bonnie,
That’s my text and it’s correct as is. I’m talking about Bitch in the photo and she’s a grandmother, thus she passes along 25% of her genes to Brackett. Review the image. “The” puppies, not “her” puppies. Her grandchildren.
Also, I didn’t link %Blood to homozygosity, I’m just talking about relatedness. Homozygosity doesn’t guarantee likeness either, only for genes where the ancestor was homozygous. The offspring could be homozygous for a recessive allele that was not expressed in the ancestor.
Interesting – in my initial visit to the page the neither the image of the pedigree nor the table of ancestors used in the calulation displayed so your blog was confusing. When I came back to the page through the side link all the images displayed. Some sort of Browser strangeness I suppose. I did my incomplete PHD project on high speed locomotion in dogs and I ended up with a side project on floppy German Shepherds. The floppy state appeared to be a dominant of incomplete expresion – which is true of a lot of connective tissue protein mutations (one dose bad two doses terrible).
I personally think that the current state of disaster in German Shepherds is due to a combination of connective tissue laxity genes and the gene for degenerative myolopathy (DM)
http://www.caninegeneticdiseases.net/DM/ancmntDM.htm
which seems to be the same gene as the one responsible for the commonest form of Lou Gehrig’s disease in humans.
Researchers have observed that not all dogs who are homozygous for the DM gene display the illness during their life time. My hypothesis is that other factors – such as having very lax connective tissue may accelerate the onset of the degenerative changes.
It is an interesting question to contemplate – Starting with a wolf exactly how many defective conditions do we have to select for to produce a show German Shepherd or a modern English Bull Dog?
The secondary question – why? Is answered by realizing that conformation shows select only for cosmetic appearance and not function. If the dog fancy actually subjected their breeding stock to, and valued, tests of real athleticism as much as they value conformation awards many of the most terrible conformational defects in dogs would not exist.
Bonnie Dalzell recently posted..Interactive Genetics Tools Websites
I’ve joked with Dave@Prickeared and Scottie@Retrieverman that the ultimate defective dog would be a Harlequin Hairless Pug. It’d have Harlequin, Merle, Hairless, Brachycephalism, Achondroplasia, Pituitary Dwarfism, and more. A mix of recessives and lethal semi-dominants that would really leave the litter sizes very small, mothers unable to whelp naturally, and puppies that looked like giant grubs.
There’s probably a market for dogs that look like Spotted Naked Mole Rats. You could charge enough for them that it would make up for the difficulty of producing them. Rare = expensive!
Jess recently posted..Goodbye, Zora
Christopher, may I ask what have you breed, produced or accomplished Champions? I see your dog is a border collie and while he chases frisbees, that does not make one a breeder. Actually no long worth dog ever looked like the one in your photo, that is a german bred dog, not even american lines. But before I go into the discussion, what have you bred, owned or produced that has been in the ring?
GSD Breeder: Zero. I do not breed, show, train, exhibit show Champions. I see very little value in conformation showing, especially as it exists in Border Collies in the AKC. This is not an uninformed or inexperienced opinion either, I have taken my foundation female into the show ring several times at a variety of shows and won ribbons each time. I found no value in the system where there is no feedback, no written evaluations, no coherency in what wins with what the breed standard says with what the vision of the breed is. I gave conformation showing the benefit of the doubt and experienced it first hand: not impressed.
You can read more of my critique in posts like this: An Honest Dog Show.
Very astute of you to finally realize that there’s an important difference between throwing a piece of plastic and monitoring dog sex. It’s a tricky distinction. Maybe soon you’ll also figure out that there’s a distinct difference between hair spray, chalk, martingale collars, and a swift trot around a ring and being a dog pimp too.
I usually don’t argue in tautologies because they are so basic, but apparently we need to start with definitions. Being a dog breeder means breeding dogs. I see from your website that you’re involved in this, but I have to question how good you are at it when your foundation female gave birth to only two puppies just a month ago. If that pattern keeps up you should really rethink the stud dogs you use, your lines, and the pairings because that is really not a robust litter size. How are you going to have a good chance at finding the traits you want when you have so few options?
Well, given that you’re a judge, perhaps you can explain to me how the dog in the photo is substantially different than the dogs I am seeing on your website. They all have horribly decrepit backs, hocks that drag on the ground, and I’m not so impressed with their fronts either. Maybe you can spot the subtle difference in dysfunction by an American show dog and a German show dog, but I think even a totally uninformed mostly blind person could figure out that the dogs photographed on your webpage and the dog whose picture is in this post look nothing like the historical German Shepherd nor any working GSD.
Are you really claiming that your dogs are somehow not as malformed?
What have you bred, owned, or produced that has ever done anything outside the ring? Let me guess that you’ve never bred a dog that has served in the Military in any capacity. Never bred a dog that’s worked for Law Enforcement. Never bred a protection dog. Never bred a dog that has even done protection sport like Shutzhund.
Have you ever bred a dog that wasn’t a crippled mess even?
LOL you crack me up! For someone who has not bred, own or shown, I will consider the source. 🙂 All it takes is ONE puppy to be a superstar. When one is good, you dont need 15 to make an impact.
“All it takes is ONE puppy to be a superstar.”
This tells me everything I need to know about your experience in breeding and your goals for your breeding program.
Come back when you have some real experience and we’ll talk.
Jess recently posted..Ranee, Straker, Kanee
My word, you’re a brainwashed little turd aren’t you?
retrieverman recently posted..Chat room
Oh please do “consider the source.” You will find no advice here on how to blow out a show coat, how to massage the dog’s taint for maximum expression, or how to manipulate ears into the perfect set with glue, tape, and ad hoc engineering.
If you’re looking to jock sniff your way into show ring success, you won’t find much here that’s useful. This blog is about ethics, genetics, and rational arguments.
Selfdeception is a very interesting phenommena.
Anna recently posted..O padrão de raça e práticas de criação
Well just goes to show that ANYONE can be a breeder and therefore inherit the sanction of knowledge with regard to breeding by any illicit act thereof..just breed..experience(knowledge) not required but certainly acquired by default..the whole aspect of statements implying lack of knowledge from the result of having not bred is a sad, naive and ignorant projection..rudimentary thinking as best..which should imply you shouldn’t be playing with the propagation of dogs..I’ll stop there.
Breeding is fundamentally about natural laws, not kennel club laws, so one would hope that actually observing the act of breeding does lend knowledge of those natural laws. Kennel club laws and fashion are not necessarily informed by natural laws and it’s sad but many think that KC rules and even worse fancy fashion are all that need be heeded.
Ultimately it’s not surprising to me that there’s so much stupid in dog breeding, simply because of the culture of the institutions which promote it. There isn’t a “science based breeding” club, there’s a “we put on dog shows club.” So that’s the culture, that’s what people join, and that’s the nexus of popularity.
The fancy only accepts science in so much as it advances their fancy goals.
Roger that..and I would have to agree with GSD Breeder that I have no experience in the vocation contributing to the fucking up of a breed intended from inception to be a ‘working’, activity oriented breed by it’s founder who was adamantly against the very situation currently of the breed..blaspheme of the founder’s intention..shame on them..ignorance not withstanding.
all I can say of the above picture of a GSD is “Poor Dog!”
This is what the Germans have done to the breed…it has NOTHING to do with Lloyd Brackett!
“This is what the Germans have done to the breed…”– well, sure, some of them. Not all of them. ‘Cause not all of the dogs from the German breeders look like the one pictured. Are there too many which do? Yes, as even one is too many. The majority of the dogs, however, don’t look like the one in the photo above.
“…it has NOTHING to do with Lloyd Brackett!”–True. Brackett himself is not personally responsible. His theories on breeding, however, can’t be absolved of all involvement, however. Greater damnation for the malconstruction of the dog pictured goes to human nature in general. Fix THAT, and we fix all the world’s ills.
Nothing wrong with Bracketts methods , the success or failure depends purely on SELECTIONS of breeding stock , you cant blame the method if somebody goes of and makes poor selections you cant breed dogs to a formula only to a good eye and an understanding of inheritance , how can show breeders ever truly understand whats needed in a performance dog and then go off and inbred to the max on rubbish dogs full of hidden faults that are formed around a poor performance standard to start with and then blame a formula for failing , to blame the use of heavy inbreeding is moronic , inbreeding is a tool it doesnt make decisions or choose what gets mated and thats the most important part of the equation .
Of course selection is paramount. Phenotypic selection without inbreeding is just as effective as that with inbreeding without the negative side effects.
Ah, you’re proving my point. You can’t breed dogs to a formula. And how does it go… BRACKETT’s _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ? Oh, that’s right. A magic formula!
Yeah, Rod Barker, you actually confuse me. Structure for a performance dog is actually pretty easy. Which is why you see few CONFORMATION bred GSDs doing any type of performance or working. You need a nicely-angulated but not over-angulated dog, and balance is more important than front or rear assembly. You need a brain, and some instinct, but I have seen dogs with no drive whatsoever produce extremely drivey dogs, and dogs with tons of drive produce duds. The saddest thing, no matter WHAT you are doing with your dog, is getting a dog with all the “want to” in the world whose body won’t hold up. Thus selection for phenotype rather than pedigree.
“Nothing wrong with Bracketts methods…unless you have no regard for the not so raw genetic material you are bequeathing to the breeders of the future.”
Fixed that for you.
Inbreeding is a tool that is horribly misused because the dog fancy joined the cult of purity that is the closed registry, and loaned almost all it’s other tools to a neighbor that never returned them.
Jess recently posted..Guest Post: Suzanne Phillips: Why dogs develop food allergies
“Nothing wrong with Bracketts methods…unless you have no regard for the not so raw genetic material you are bequeathing to the breeders of the future.”
The problem with this so-called formula is much like computer data, garbage in, garbage out. Bracketts “method” ignores Mendel and uses a carcass livestock evaluation method for a species that requires a more comprehensive set of tools.
How many “breeders” keep a full compliment of sires and dams as was once done, perform enough ‘test breedings’ of sires on existing dams to secure a meaningful mathematical sample, keep and record progeny data for long enough to see results, perform F2 backcrosses to test those observations and tests, and then replace their best sires with still better sires?
Only breed clubs with a properly educated and motivated membership interested ONLY in the health and welfare of their breed could now do this, perhaps under the guidance of a geneticist or two.
Brackett surely never does this work. Instead he tries to dumb it down to some ridiculous formula that caters to ego instead of knowledge and assumes his mythical sire is above average in some way when the product in the end surely disproves that notion..
The trouble isn’t that there is no DNA test for stupidity. It is that the cheerleader mom ego of the dog show fancy is dominant. That particular theory has been proven over and over. In reality, all it takes nowadays is one in fifteen dogs awarded a few pretty ribbons by some grandma (that lives in an apartment that has never seen a working GSD in her life) to completely screw up the remaining gene pool.
Man’s best friend? With friends like breeders, who needs enemies?
BTW, I should say….I’m not sexist in concentrating on sires, better dams would certainly be required, but as we know, a sire can cover many more bitches than bitches can whelp litters, so if we are to make more (hopefully better) impact in less time, we need better sires to move the needle.
how can anyone be so blind to the disadvantages of having a narrow pedigree is beyond me, But then that may be because I would love to see breed standards thrown out the bloody window & go back to putting function & health before type.
Inbreeding can cause health problems to mutate & evolve if you ask me. But even if I am totally wrong there & I could be as yet it is an unproven theory . But it is proven that inbreeding will up the chances of any issues present be they obvious or hidden in the main bloodline will show up in the offspring. Given that we all agree that NO dog is perfect that alone should give you pause for thought.
I think breeder get stuck in their ways as are too scared to say what they have done in the past may not really be in the best interest of the dogs even if done in good consequence.
I myself am willing to learn & change things as I do learn & do things differently now to a decade ago & even a few yrs ago,
I bought a GSD puppy, now 90days old, he is growing up into a very handsome n gorgeous one. Yesterday I called a trainer to check if we can train him…… I cannot believe, the trainer refused to train my puppy as he seems to be almost straight back. Trainer says that it is not show quality as only roach backed one are allowed to compete. Anyway I love my puppy, n its healthy to be straight back than banana back GSDs….. thanks the above article n comments have boosted my confidence.
Nila, congratulations on having a straight-backed GSD! Your dog will live a much longer, happier, pain-free, and capable life because it has good structure. RUN away from that trainer. Anyone who would deny good training to a well built dog is an idiot and unethical. Frankly anyone who would support those “roach” backed dogs is unethical too.
I hope you enjoy your new dog and thank you for supporting a breeder who didn’t follow a current fad that is hurting many dogs and destroying the reputation and ability of the breed.
That’s ridiculous — what that trainer said to you. Ditto — run away, and never look back.
It’s sad that some people within the GSD breed seem to think the roach back thing is ok.
On a side note I ran into somebody with a GSD who was interested in purchasing a Border Collie– he was going on about how the Germans had totally fixed the GSD problems by breeding lighter weight dogs (ok, abnormally huge dogs can be a problem, but ). Everything was clear sailing for GSDs now; all problems were being taken care of. I couldn’t bite my tongue :”I don’t think size is the only thing that’s going to fix your favorite breed there sportsfan, and I’m pretty sure it isn’t just the American dogs with problems at this point.” I pointed out a GSD in town that is a big boy (he’s from some old American working lines, and was sadly neutered as a pup) — and is straight backed, good hocked, substantial boned, and is still kicking around at age 14 — I asked him if he thought that dog was unsound due to his size. He had to admit that dog was certainly healthy and had a good reputation for being a smart, well adjusted dog.
It seemed to tick him off (oh well).
Anybody who thinks that merely making smaller hyenas is a-ok is probably somebody who can be sold all manner of ocean front property in New Mexico. He was into schutzhund too — the breeders of his new pup have got him going to schutzhund classes before the dog is even a year old and through puppy basic obedience….oy.
Too bad, his pup isn’t extreme, but does have the beginnings of a roach back, and while he’s a pleasant little chap now , I wonder what he’ll be like a year from now.
OMG! I knew someone who named a dog “studly”, I hope she wasn’t using this magic formula.
Hint: if you do something wrong, doing the same wrong thing over and over will not yield different results. You can prove this by entering the exact same WRONG password over and over, no matter how many times you enter the same wrong code, it won’t suddenly be right. That’s just the way it is.
And using the same wrong password/formula since 1912 will not turn wrong into right. No matter how many people you talk into doing it wrong with you, it still won’t work. That is just the way it is.
You’re an idiot, every dog breed is pretty much a product of our ways of breeding. The german shepherds now have been bred just the same as any dog you see. Each breed has their pros and cons neither the german shepherds from the past or from now are better. Breeds change no matter if we breed them ourselves or not. You can’t just use the worst picture you can find along with the cons and say he screwed the breed up. There are plenty of beautiful german shepherds out there that have amazing qualities. Learn to look at the pros along with those cons. I didn’t read the whole article because it’s totally moronic.
Getting a little defensive about your support for canine incest, are we John?
Every dog breed is not a product of the same culture of breeding, sorry. There are landraces, purpose bred crosses, breeds that evolved slowly out of large populations of purpose bred dogs and breeds that were manufactured in an instant by dog dealers and fanciers from very few founders. There’s no one way to make a dog, sorry, and extended inbreeding is not necessary or sufficient for such.
And why would you assume this is the “worst picture” … it’s in fact a champion dog being put up as an ideal example of the breed. It’s not some insane backyard torture experiment (although the results are still rather horrific).
Since you lack the ability to finish a small essay, let me spell it out for you to help your reading comprehension. The format of this essay is in response to the self-published hagiography of Brackett himself and the sort of cultish following of idiots like you who think there’s some formula for easy breeding success. You couldn’t read the whole article because YOU are totally a moron.
I don’t understand much about the breeding tree or anything but I do know that people have to be ASSHOLES to destroy a dog’s spine the way they destroy the German Shepherd’s one. Dogs forced to those positions end up with their legs stuck in wheelcarts IF they are lucky enough that they owners finally care about them.
If you love your German Shepherd, give him all the vitamins and supplements your vet recommends to fight dysplasia and make sure they exercise their rear legs well enough. DO NOT FORCE them into the akwward downling position.
I had a beautiful female German Shepherd who died from old age with her spine intact and now I have other two who are still pups. My Vet and I are giving them every help with can to prevent their spines from going down the way stupid breeders think it’s nice and hopefully they’ll get to old age healthy and happy.
I am appalled at what the show breeders have done to a once great herding breed. Von Stephanitz would roll over in his grave to see the small size roach backs and poor hocks. If you look at the great champions of the 30s through 50s you see size bone and level backs. Von Stephanitz wrote in the origional standard that they should have straight level backs. Every breed of herding dog has straight level backs this is needed for the hard work in the pastoral fields. Thank goodness backyard breeders have done a better job of breeding proper back angulation, and that it only takes a few generations of out crossing to correct the problem. You would do better to buy King Shepherds, or Shilo Shepherds, both produced from out crossing to look like the old time German Shepherds. This is not the only breed ruined Labradors bred for hunting whether upland hunting or duck hunting are bred to be lean and long legged the better to cover the ground. But I a bird hunter was shocked to see Labs at a conformation show were short legged and overweight they would be incapable of doing the job the breed was intended for. Form follows function is a lie in the A.K.C.