Line Breeding

[parnew]

Join our free community today.

Connect with other like-minded dog lovers!

Login or Register

Well.... only being involved in the breed for a few years (11) its hard to step up to the plate and talk about what is what, but the thing about showing and racing that I have seen is that a good pedigree is based on performance over many years, because if you can't win and produce winners then there is something missing from your lines ( face judging aside ). You try and breed a whippet with breed type and like some of the big winning ancesters ( first Cruff's Best In Show winning whippet). If a certian line of dog is producing winners all over the world then it would be certian that these lines have some very strong points, so why not breed strongly to them. It seems that a point is made about the war and that many whippets are line bred because of the small number of them at this time, most of the old photo's of whippets back then looked very much alike, where as now we import whippets from the U.S.A which look different to the U.K imports which are different to most of the Oz breed dogs, so how can outcrossing be a good thing when the whippets vary in size, type and standards with no two countries sharing the same type. I feel that you need to look at what lines cross well and what some of our older whippet breeders have produced and continue to produce and base you whippet on the style that appeals to you as close to the standard as you see it. The writing is on the wall with the older kennels and this alone will tell you if line breeding or inbreeding is favoured over out crossing or which line can be out crossed or line breed, not some fancy facts about which gene is better than the other, because if this was the case then some lab rat would have bred the perfect whippet by now. :blink:

 

[Seraphina]

You try and breed a whippet with breed type and like some of the big winning ancesters ( first Cruff's Best In Show winning whippet). If a certian line of dog is producing winners all over the world then it would be certian that these lines have some very strong points, so why not breed strongly to them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Well, it just depends if all you care about is to breed dog that is going to win or if you care about health of future generations and the breed as a whole. Due to inbreeding, several breeds ended up with so widespread serious inherited diseases that their future survival is in question. But there are other, less noticeble, effects of inbreeding; such as impaired immune system.

You obviously did not read this article, here is the link again:

Dangers of inbreeding

But trying not to bred too close does not necesary mean you have to breed to a dog that looks totally different to you dogs.

I agree with you about the fact many Whippets nowadays are very far from the little nibble dogs of 100 years ago. I could scream when people say that Whippet needs to be as big as they are now in order to catch a rabbit (w00t) . I know people with Italian Greyhounds who have no problem catching rabbits. I had a little cat, only bit over 3 kg, and he would catch rabbits lot bigger than himself. The original standard was based on existing dogs, which were perfectly suited for the purpose they were used for.

 

[~elizabeth~]

I will now clamber off my soap box

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Please stay firmly on it, you are speaking for many of us. JayP too, and thanks for raising such an important topic. :thumbsup:

 

[jayp]

Well.... only being involved in the breed for a few years (11) its hard to step up to the plate and talk about what is what, but the thing about showing and racing that I have seen is that a good pedigree is based on performance over many years, because if you can't win and produce winners then there is something missing from your lines ( face judging aside ). You try and breed a whippet with breed type and like some of the big winning ancesters ( first Cruff's Best In Show winning whippet). If a certian line of dog is producing winners all over the world then it would be certian that these lines have some very strong points, so why not breed strongly to them. It seems that a point is made about the war and that many whippets are line bred because of the small number of them at this time, most of the old photo's of whippets back then looked very much alike, where as now we import whippets from the U.S.A which look different to the U.K imports which are different to most of the Oz breed dogs, so how can outcrossing be a good thing when the whippets vary in size, type and standards with no two countries sharing the same type.  I feel that you need to look at what lines cross well and what some of our older whippet breeders have produced and continue to produce and base you whippet on the style that appeals to you as close to the standard as you see it. The writing is on the wall with the older kennels and this alone will tell you if line breeding or inbreeding is favoured over out crossing or which line can be out crossed or line breed, not some fancy facts about which gene is better than the other, because if this was the case then some lab rat would have bred the perfect whippet by now. :blink:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

The point being made about breeders of the past is relavent in that their breeding programs were carried out in such a different way, there were no hobby breeders as such,test matings were done and substandard culled. And i dont just mean anything with obvious faults, i also mean the "unthrifty" or hard doers, the youngsters who refused to eat, the bitches or dogs who didnt reproduce easily, the sickly pups,non of these were allowed in the breeding program. They also produced literally hundreds of litters giving them greater knowledge of their lines.

Todays breeders are in the majority hobby breeders who may only produce say 10 litters in a lifetime of breeding, their sickly pups remain in the gene pool, their littermates also an in many cases will be bred from and often closely bred on the advise of others who maybe should know better.

By the way i am not advocating breeding hundreds of litters but pointing out times have changed and the way we breed now does not sit well with close breeding.

And i totally agree everyone commenting should take the trouble to read the links provided and if only half the people reading this do so then all this b....... typing will have been worth it Jan

 

[~elizabeth~]

If a certian line of dog is producing winners all over the world then it would be certian that these lines have some very strong points, so why not breed strongly to them.

Because if these few individuals carry genetic problems (and dogs can carry and pass on health problems without necessarily suffering from them themselves), then fairly soon their many offspring will all be carriers too, with the problem not expressing itself fully until their further descendents are inbred to each other, eventually affecting a very high percentage of the whole population.

not some fancy facts about which gene is better than the other, because if this was the case then some lab rat would have bred the perfect whippet by now. :blink:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Well, the fancy facts are usually observed by people who have dedicated a large number of grey cells and very many years of their lives to studying such problems, and making sure such observations are tested in large groups to ensure statistical accuracy; usually they don't just rely on anecdotal information or subjective evaluations of what is of benefit in a population. Very few people will ever breed enough dogs in their lifetime to make statistically meaningful observations about issues of this kind.

Evaluating inbreeding in terms of coefficients won't help you breed the perfect dog either, but it can indicate where the danger zone for a breed may be, as research has shown there is a direct correlation between numbers of pups born dead or which don't survive beyond 15 days due to congenital problems, and higher inbreeding coefficients.

Understanding genetics may not help you breed the perfect whippet (especially as this is largely subjective judgement anyway, as you observe yourself by pointing out the differences in taste that exists between different countries) but it will help avoid conditions that may shorten or affect the quality of life of even the most aesthetically perfect whippets, which should surely be the first consideration of all who breed dogs?

 

[Avalonia]

The point being made about breeders of the past is relavent in that their breeding programs were carried out in such a different way, there were no hobby breeders as such,test matings were done and substandard culled. And i dont just mean anything with obvious faults, i also mean the "unthrifty" or hard doers, the youngsters who refused to eat, the bitches or dogs who didnt reproduce easily, the sickly pups,non of these were allowed in the breeding program. They also produced literally hundreds of litters giving them greater knowledge of their lines.Todays breeders are in the majority hobby breeders who may only produce say 10 litters in a lifetime of breeding, their sickly pups remain in the gene pool, their littermates also an in many cases will be bred from and often closely bred on the advise of others who maybe should know better.

Oh for gosh sakes, with all respect, this is pure crock!

Whoever are you talking about who produced "literally hundreds of litters giving them greater knowledge of their lines" and then culled the substandard,. the 'unthrifty" or hard doers, the youngesters who refused to eat, the bitches or dogs who didn't reproduce easily, the sickly pups? Who were these dogs -- I haven't ever heard of such problems as you describe in the whippet breed for heavens sake, and more to the point, who were these breeders, please? What part of what century did they breed in, according to you, what kennels are you referring to, and what were the results of this practice and its impact on the breed going forward as a result of their alleged breedin practices? Facts please.

The reality is, most people enter and leave a breed in relatively short order.

Those that stay for 20 years or more are about 10% of those who enter a breed to start with. This point was brought home to us here, when we began to keep whippets (for 8 years as pets ) and then breed (after the first 8 years of owning whippets and carefully studying the breed before we even dared to contemplate breeding ). As we bred our first litter we were spoken to, kindly to be sure, by some of the well known 'old time breeders' and show judges for that matter here in Canada -- none of whom I caution to say ever bred hundreds of litters or produced scads of unthrifty dogs they euthanized as part of some learning process -- only in England I guess???.

All had a simple message: the statistics were against us staying in the breed for longer than a set period of time, so please. please could you breed with care and commitment, seek the counsel of those who have gone before you, and please don't leave the breed any worse off when you depart than it was when you arrived? This was pretty daunting stuff, but I am damned glad they had the nerve to say it to us, because it made us think and to be frank it needs to be said to everyone who takes the life of a dog, or a series of dogs, into their hands and decides they can or should determine its life course.

They told us this:

The vast majority of those who choose to be breeders -- of any dog breed, and not just whippets -- get in, enthusiastically, breed a litter or two with little regard to pedigree because they are on a big learning curve and generally know so little (or think they know a lot more than they really know), over time find it too hard, too much work, not rewarding enough, etc. etc., interest wanes, and suddenly, poof! they are gone from the breed within the first five years, usually leaving behind one or two or three ill-bred litters because they didn't know enough about the breed to breed the dogs they had wisely enough. These are the true hobbyists.

A second group last longer than five years and go 10 to 12 or so years. This group is more committed, but eventually they too tire of the psychic energy you need to breed well, tire of the financial and emotional effort it takes to keep the dogs and maintain a sound breeding program, and eventually they move on, to raise their family, take up a new hobby, or whatever. They usually leave the breed without doing too much irreparable damage. They are the committed hobbyists.

And then there are the people who live and breath the dogs that they breed and they do it for a lifetime. And they only stop when death or severe illness stops them. They research everything they breed in terms of health, temperament, sociability, and overall quality, and they breed with all these factors in mind. They study the breed, endlessly, they try to learn, endlessly. Their lives are devoted to their dogs and they live and breathe their dogs.

These are the people the old breeders who spoke to us back in the mid 1980's whom they referred to as "The Lifers", -- people who treat breeding as an avocation and a calling, like a calling to the priesthood.

These are people so in love with and so committed to their breed that they are in it for life. Breeding for them is an avocation, a calling to doing something out of love so exquisite for a breed that they invest heart, soul, spirit, and every inkling of their being in it. They know everything about the breed, the health of their dogs, the issues within the breed, and they are not open to breed politics, be this in the whelping box or in the show ring. Their commitment first and foremost is to their dogs and to excellence of the dogs in their breed.

The health, quality and quality of life of any living species is far too important to be entrusted to pure 'hobbyists'. Hobbyists should collect stamps, pieces of Torquay pottery, or whatever, but not species above the level of guppies or goldfish. They should certainly not be breeding dogs.

This said there are many people out there who can or will only breed a handful of litters in a lifetime and there is positively everything good about what they do. They do so with extreme care and they think, plan and carry out a modest breeding program that has goals and that is intent on ensuring the dogs they produce are healthy, sane, companionate, and that meet the attributes associated with the breed. Tonnage has never been a requirement for a good breeder, nor should it ever be used as a barometer. However, good breeding sense is and should be.

The truth is -- and this is where I take exception with the old guys who took us aside and read us the riot act back in the mid 1980s -- , you can be a good breeder, even if you breed only a handful of litters and even if you are only in the breed for five years, or ten years. What matters is the level of understanding of the breed you have, and in terms of the overall healthy, quality and viability of the litters that you produce.

Breeding is for life. It doesn't stop when the pup you bred leaves at 8 weeks and moves to a new home. A good breeder is responsible, and commited to the dogs they have breed from birth till death. And those who are not prepared to make that 15 year commitment to the dogs they have brought into this world might want to ask themselves why and whether it is better perhaps to buy in a pet, or a showdog, than breed litters that they are prepared to wash their hands of once they leave the portals of their home.

Lanny

 

[Seraphina]

Culling was certainly widely practiced in Europe. When I was about 12 I spoke with a breeder of Danes who told me about a litter of missmarks he just had to cull, leaving only one for the bitch to rear and once the pup was weaned it was also put down. They were healthy sound pups but the wrong colour, and that was only 45 years ago. Anything considered imperfect was put down, and only 6 pups from any litter were allowed to live.

By the way, those people who breed only couple of litters and then disappear generally leave absolutely no mark on the breed, as the progeny they produce is very unlikely to be bought by a breeder of importance. Their pups end up desexed pets with no influence on the breed as a whole. It is the famous breeders who breed lot of dogs, whose dogs are used to sire many litters for other breeders, whose pups are snapped up by people wanting to breed, that leave huge mark on the breed.

 

[Seraphina]

Yes, it would be difficult to find total outcross. But just because we believe in diversity does not mean we go out in search for total outcross. I look for a quality stud dog that best compliments my bitch. Full stop. That includes looking through his pedigree to see also his ancestors, to se how inbred he is etc.

To have the only criterion in choosing a stud dog that he would not be related, regardless of anything else, would be as ridiculous as breeding two dogs just because they are from the same lines.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I'm not sure this blinkered opinion will help you very much in your breeding program!!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

So you think that carefully choosing stud dog for his type, and for the quality that my bitch lacks is blinkered, while "linebreeding" two dogs having the same faults (as did most of their common ancestors) and possibly carrying the same genes for some recessive inherited disorder is enlightened? :wacko:

 

[Tesa]

By the way, those people who  breed only couple of litters and then disappear generally leave absolutely no mark on the breed, as the progeny they produce is very unlikely to be bought by a breeder of importance.  Their pups end up desexed pets with no influence on the breed as a whole.  It is the famous breeders who breed lot of dogs, whose dogs are used to sire many litters for other breeders, whose pups are snapped up by people wanting to breed, that leave huge mark on the breed.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

The key word here Lida is generally, but this is not always the case. Phoebe, her littermates(Fergus & Maggie) and half brother (Rio) are an example of this. As you know these dogs are sired by Collooney Silver Jigolo. Barney has left his mark in Australia and so there is no need to bring his side of the story in here.

If you look to the other side of these dogs pedigrees you will find a dog called Aust. Ch.Dachswyn Toucha Sun (Piggie). You probably won't know of her...because she died tragically at an early age, along with her daughter Nancy. Piggie was a granddaughter of 4 Aust. Ch. including Aust. Ch.Dachlah Drum Tenor and Aust. Ch. Drum Solo. Apparently at the time (of the accident) Nancy was just starting to have an impact in the ring. Phoebe's grandmother (Jess - Jenizall Hot in the City) is a littermate to Nancy, and just like Phoebe she was sold to what was at the time a pet home.

Jess has produced Jackie (Aust Ch.Jeniem's Brand New Day) and Heidi (Aust Ch. Parnew Something Aboutca). Jackie is responsible for Phoebe, Fergus & Maggie. Heidi has produced Rio. All under the Parnew prefix.

As I struggle to learn ring handling skills poor Phoebe is not shown at her best, this does not mean that she is not a lovely example of her breed. Jackie, Heidi, Fergus, Maggie and Rio on the other hand are in capable hands with experienced handlers, and have all been pulling In Groups and even some In Shows.

If you look through Phoebe's pedigree you will see a mish-mash of prefix's. Jenizall and Jeniems are in fact the same breeder, with a new prefix. All of this has been brought about because of the loss of Piggie and Nancy. There has been some carefully planned breeding here by breeder's who are trying to do what they see as right for the breed.

Now back to Phoebe... just because I am a pet home, does this mean that I should not breed from her. Are we more responsible to stay a pet home and leave the breeding to those that have been breeding for so long, that they have forgotton, that, once upon a time, they also had humble beginnings... OR...is it in the best interest of this breed that we love so much, to continue the lines of some very nice examples. [SIZE=14pt]IF [/SIZE]we do breed from Phoebe, she would only ever have one maybe two litters. You are most likely right that these pups would go to pet homes... but there is no reason why they would not be good enough for the show ring (and future breeding programes), and besides which I LIKE PET HOMES. I would give my eyeteeth to have pups I bred go to homes like myself, your friend Doug & Louise D. The thought of pups I bred going to the more prominent show kennel/breeder where they will be housed out the back and only be bought out for shows and breeding - and then rehomed when they have out served their purpose, is as repugnent to me as neglectful homes.



Here's Nancy (Aust Ch. Jenizall Daytime Drama) for you

And Piggie (Aust Ch. Dachsyn Toucha Sun) as a pup

 

[Seraphina]

Karen, I am not really sure what you mean. I was replying to a statement that new breeders who do not know what they are doing, breed only couple of litters and then disapear, are detrimental to the breed. What I meant was that a dog, good or bad, is not going to have much influence on the direction of the breed as a whole unless it is used widely. Barmey will have a huge impact on Australian Whippets as he sired number of litters and no doubt his progeny is going to be heavily linebred to him. If you have couple of litters from Phoebe and sell them to pet homes, Phoebe is not going to have a huge impact on the breed. Some of her siblings may have litters, and what is going to happen to them will determine if they have some impact on the breed or not. But the only dogs that do have areally important impact (for better or worse) are dogs like Barney, Rogue, Jack (Hugo Boss) and in the past Noholme Pepper Mill, Delacreme Dragonslayer and Dondelayo Statue to name just few that spring immediately to my mind.

Even a person breeding awful lot, like certain person here in Victoria, specialising in every colour under the sun, is not going to have impact on the breed as a whole, unless progeny of his dogs will be used by other breeders.

 

[Ridgesetter]

But the only dogs that do have areally important impact (for better or worse) are dogs like Barney, Rogue, Jack (Hugo Boss) and in the past Noholme Pepper Mill, Delacreme Dragonslayer and Dondelayo Statue to name just few that spring immediately to my mind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Hey, you left out Airescot Chaconne & Waistcoat!!!

And interestingly, all males. I appreciate that dogs can sire lots of litters in a short space of time and so they do have an impact, but my girls are more important than any male a they are the future.

An interesting topic and read.

Cheers

 

[Seraphina]

But the only dogs that do have areally important impact (for better or worse) are dogs like Barney, Rogue, Jack (Hugo Boss) and in the past Noholme Pepper Mill, Delacreme Dragonslayer and Dondelayo Statue to name just few that spring immediately to my mind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Hey, you left out Airescot Chaconne & Waistcoat!!!

And interestingly, all males. I appreciate that dogs can sire lots of litters in a short space of time and so they do have an impact, but my girls are more important than any male a they are the future.

An interesting topic and read.

Cheers

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

:lol: I am sure there are many more that were very important. Yes, girls are very important, but none can produce so many pups in such a short time as a dog can.

 

[Tesa]

Todays breeders are in the majority hobby breeders who may only produce say 10 litters in a lifetime of breeding, their sickly pups remain in the gene pool, their littermates also an in many cases will be bred from and often closely bred on the advise of others who maybe should know better.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Karen, I am not really sure what you mean.  I was replying to a statement that new breeders who do not know what they are doing, breed only couple of litters and then disapear, are detrimental to the breed.  What I meant was that a dog, good or bad, is not going to have much influence on the direction of the breed as a whole unless it is used widely.  Barmey will have a huge impact on Australian Whippets as he sired number of litters and no doubt his progeny is going to be heavily linebred to him.  If you have couple of litters from Phoebe and sell them to pet homes, Phoebe is not going to have a huge impact on the breed.  Some of her siblings may have litters, and what is going to happen to them will determine if they have some impact on the breed or not.  But the only dogs that do have areally important impact (for better or worse) are dogs like Barney, Rogue, Jack (Hugo Boss) and in the past Noholme Pepper Mill, Delacreme Dragonslayer and Dondelayo Statue to name just few that spring immediately to my mind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Hey, you left out Airescot Chaconne & Waistcoat!!! 
And interestingly, all males.  I appreciate that dogs can sire lots of litters in a short space of time and so they do have an impact, but my girls are more important than any male a they are the future. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

Sorry if I haven't made my point clear Lida. Now you know why I don't like to struggle with writing these epic posts.... tend to lose my point :lol:

What I was trying to get across was, that we can not look at a dogs pedigree and make a general assumption that just because the names are a collection of assorted unknown prefix's it does not alway's mean that backyarder breeders and hobbyist are at work. I have used Phoebe and her family as an example simply because I know their pedigree and the reasons behind the last 5 generations (regarding the prefix changes). None of these dogs have been sickly pups who will remain in the gene pool. Whether or not Phoebe's line appeals to a particular person is a personal choice, but Piggie, Nancy, Jess, Jackie and Phoebe are to my untrained eye a "of a type". Having met Jess and Jackie, and assorted offspring, I know the stable and confident temperament that comes through this line.

Perhaps my point in my original post would have been easier to understand if I had not added the last three paragraphs. The point I was trying to get across there was, that we also can not assume, that it is not impossible for a small or unknown breeder to place their dogs a higher profile home. I am sure someonce will correct me if I am wrong, but didn't DeeDee's owner come from a humble beginning only a few generations earlier. The reason I used Phoebe as an example rather than her more prominent male siblings is simply because she is my dog.

As for the future for all our dogs, be they from breeders of 30 years experience down to the new comers learning their way... nobody has any guarentee as to the what the will produce, how long it will take and what impact it will have on the breed. As long as careful thought and planning has gone in to the choices that are being made, and as long as experienced breeder teach the new comers... then there is hope.

P.S. Interesting coincident that Toni pointed out the Airescot Chaccone as being left of your list Lida. Chaccone is Phoebe's GGG Grandfather - twice.

 

[jayp]

In answer to your rather uncalled for remark, The information is to found in the classic, "how to breed dogs " by Leon F Whitney first published in 1937 revised in 1947 to quote, "No one is better qualified to write of breeding dogs than Dr Whitney,Geneticist,researcher,veterinarian. Over the past 50 years he has supervised the breeding of over 12,000 dogs in his kennels As he himself observes,one would have to be blind not to have made some useful information. Nowhere did i suggest he was a whippet breeder but actually bred hunting dogs, he was also involved in nutritional research. I was not referring to kennels breeding purely for show purposes or whippets in particular, dogs are dogs whatever the breed. Neither was i trying to suggest mass murder but sentiment did not come into breeding as it does with the smaller hobby breeder. And by the way he is American jan

 

[Avalonia]

In answer to your rather uncalled for remark, The information is to found in the classic, "how to breed dogs " by Leon F Whitney first published in 1937 revised in 1947 to quote, "No one is better qualified to write of breeding dogs than Dr Whitney,Geneticist,researcher,veterinarian. Over the past 50 years he has supervised the breeding of over 12,000 dogs in his kennels As he himself observes,one would have to be blind not to have made some useful information. Nowhere did i suggest he was a whippet breeder but actually bred hunting dogs, he was also involved in nutritional research. I was not referring to kennels breeding purely for show purposes or whippets in particular, dogs are dogs whatever the breed. Neither was i trying to suggest mass murder but sentiment did not come into breeding as it does with the smaller hobby breeder. And by the way he is American jan

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

​

I don't think my remark was uncalled for as the clear inference or conclusion most readers would draw from your remarks was that you were referring to whippets because this is, after all, a whippet website. You did not reveal your source of information so I see no reason why one could not question where you came by that information. I am really and truly glad it was not whippets -- indeed I never thought it was whippets, so I am very relieved.

I do find it very interesting, and telling actually, that the guy you have chosen to quote might be called many things but breeder or breed lover would not be words I would associate with him. This guy was, like it or not, someone who bred dogs, like lab rats, for lab experiements and his testing, especially since it was nutritional in nature suggests that the failure to thrive comments he made in his now ancient piece of research that was published and then republished more than 60 years ago, likely had far more to do with the quality, quantity and nature of the food he was eperimenting with provided to these poor dogs, and not to any real life experiences of dogs living in household situations with people who love and keep and cherish dogs as housepets.

The fact is this horrible trade continues today in some countries as we all know, with a couple of major animal experimentation labs operating in Scandinavia. One one of the occasions when I was delivering one of our dogs to KLM in Montreal for shipment to the Netherlands en route to a new home in Europe (there is a direct flight from there to Schipol airport), I was horrified to see the whole KLM cargo hold full of the hugest exercise pen of barking beagles I have ever seen in one place. There were several hundred of these lovely dogs in the pen. I asked the folks at KLM cargo where on earth they were going and was told there was a "breeder", and I use that term euphemistically obviously, located near Montreal whose "job" was to breed these dogs for research labs. These poor dogs were en route to Denmark, to a research facility there. It was awful!

Lanny

 

[Seraphina]

Whitney certainly did some things which left me horrified, but that does not make his observations less valid. I have the 1971 edition of ths book.

Another person who did cull heavilly was Dick Mean (Kishniga Borzois) from Canada. In an interview in a dog magazine he described how they cull at several stages, the last being almost a year old. That would have been printed in late 80s or early 90s. They bred number of litters and sold very little of their stock. And i am sure there are other breeders who would cull. I could never kill a viable pup. Certainly not because they are not quite up to being top show dog. Besides that, over the years I have seen some surprises, both ways

 

[jayp]

Hiya. Whitney was also a geneticist and veterinarian and studied all aspects of dogs. His main hobby was hunting and breeding hunting dogs to work. I too found some of his writings quite disturbing but nonetheless it cant be argued his book,revised in 1971 which is the copy i read gives the most fascinating insight into breeding dogs. His hunting dogs were as far as i could see kept in packs and regularly worked to test the dogs he bred in the field. Brilliant book. Jan