who bred the longist lines of proven dogs to date

[mucky paws 495]

There's probably dogs that can trace their breeding back to the old Deerhound/Collie/greyhounds from the Ashington area of Northumberland, to at least the 50's..... But as DNA has proved that at least 50% of Europeans can trace their lineage back to Ghengis Khan; it don't realy mean to much !! How many "lines" have kept true, without an outcross now and again ? Even the breeders of the best stock will tell you they have added a Greyhound or Saluki at some time, for whatever reason; and that alone means the "line" has been, at least, diluted !

 

Cheers.

yes but then you breed back to same line again,so your bringing the line tight

[stubblebasher 150]

Not if they have out crossed to a pure bred then bred back into the line, like the dickinsons did with shady

[stubblebasher 150]

That was reference to charts post

[chartpolski 23,103]

i can trace the lines of 2 of my dogs back to the early 1900s but thats from there sire side and him being a pure saluki and can go a fair way back on the dams side aswell but all you need is 5 generations really

 

I can trace the lines of my first X Deer/Grey back to 1820... but so can anyone with a first X. Just about every registered Greyhound goes back to "Pilot", and most Deerhounds can be traced back to the 1800's. But you're right; who needs more than five generations ?

 

Cheers.

[morton 5,368]

Lines this lines that,bollocks,people used to breed from the best to the best,regardless of the owners name.Lines now mean £££££££££ and little more.Hares have been run for millennia,find me a caught hare that ever gave a toss if it was captured from a jukel from whatever breeding.2 out of 2,3 out of 3 is a modern poison based on £££££,s and egos.Hares have been run,caught and killed for centuries by a multitude of dogs,some better than others,for no other reason than feeding a family,now the main reason for killing them is to augment a line,carress an ego and make money,the real reason for running an hare,to test a dog against the ultimate quarry,to feed a family,the sheer thrill of the course,is a thing of the past,now its numbers,stud fees,pup prices and inflated egos.

[stubblebasher 150]

A first cross is not part of a line but maybe the start of a line

[chartpolski 23,103]

Not if they have out crossed to a pure bred then bred back into the line, like the dickinsons did with shady

 

But surely as soon as an unrelated dog/bitch is introduced into the "line"; it is no longer the same "line" ? This isn't an argument, but what I hope will become a good discussion.

 

Cheers/

[stubblebasher 150]

You have to outcross at some point or a line would become too inbred

[cocker 2,654]

Edited September 22, 2012 by cocker

[chartpolski 23,103]

You have to outcross at some point or a line would become too inbred

 

I agree entirely, but the line must surely be diluted by 50% as soon as you outcross ?

 

Cheers.

[cocker 2,654]

line breeding is a way to help set, desirable traits, with line breeding you breed animals that are related, but you also introduce genes from other lines, into the genetic mix, it takes a long time to fix desirable traits this way, but doing so lowers the risk of problems, assosiated with repeated in breeding, with tight line breeding, you might find the same 3 or 4 dogs, showing up numerous times in a 5 generation pedigree

Edited September 22, 2012 by cocker

[stubblebasher 150]

You have to outcross at some point or a line would become too inbred

 

I agree entirely, but the line must surely be diluted by 50% as soon as you outcross ?

 

Cheers.

Sure ,but then you cross back into the line . The outcross then is only diluted by 1/4 and you would be fixing the genes of the line which would be stronger

[riohog 5,701]

theory has it , /or even proven fact in some cases the best outcross for your line . bred stuff , is outcross from unrelated line bred stuff , sh..t if it was only that easy, ,genetics allways seem to be fairly predictable in those two lines after several years of breeding , ..until a mutation is born seems to throw it all out the window .

[chartpolski 23,103]

You have to outcross at some point or a line would become too inbred

 

I agree entirely, but the line must surely be diluted by 50% as soon as you outcross ?

 

Cheers.

Sure ,but then you cross back into the line . The outcross then is only diluted by 1/4 and you would be fixing the genes of the line which would be stronger

 

So you'd take a pup from the "outcross". and put it back to a dog/bitch from the origional line ? Yeah, of course thats done, but it still dilutes the "origional" line; that's my point ! Dare I use "Minshaws" as an example ? If a Minshaw is put to a pure Collie or a pure greyhound, are the offspring "Minshaws" ? If a pup from the cross is put back to a pure "Minshaw", are the prodgeny "Minshaws" or a continuation of the "line" ? I use "Minshaws" purely as an example, and in no way denegrate the breed !

 

Cheers.

[riohog 5,701]

You have to outcross at some point or a line would become too inbred

 

I agree entirely, but the line must surely be diluted by 50% as soon as you outcross ?

 

Cheers.

Sure ,but then you cross back into the line . The outcross then is only diluted by 1/4 and you would be fixing the genes of the line which would be stronger

 

So you'd take a pup from the "outcross". and put it back to a dog/bitch from the origional line ? Yeah, of course thats done, but it still dilutes the "origional" line; that's my point ! Dare I use "Minshaws" as an example ? If a Minshaw is put to a pure Collie or a pure greyhound, are the offspring "Minshaws" ? If a pup from the cross is put back to a pure "Minshaw", are the prodgeny "Minshaws" or a continuation of the "line" ? I use "Minshaws" purely as an example, and in no way denegrate the breed !

 

Cheers.

charti i know were your coming from i think in reality some just like to believe they have genuine line bred offspring from the origenal whatever that was .. to be cynical it may help to seel pups!!!.