Outcrossing into Established Breeds
- Thread starter Linds
- Start date
I'm definitely for it. I do think it can be trickier than anticipated for certain breeds, because the most obvious choices for outcrossing often have the same health issues. But if breeders want to do it I think they should be able to go for it.
In the case of my breed, spaniels were more or less the same breed until the late 1800s, and even in the 1900s there is evidence that ESS were crossed in. I wouldn't have a problem with someone mixing different spaniel breeds together especially to improve hunting or performance abilities, or temperament.
In the case of my breed, spaniels were more or less the same breed until the late 1800s, and even in the 1900s there is evidence that ESS were crossed in. I wouldn't have a problem with someone mixing different spaniel breeds together especially to improve hunting or performance abilities, or temperament.
I don't think mixing them all is a good idea. Keeping some predictability is good. We don't want to throw out all the good we have done 
I am all for intelligent crossing http://bobtailboxers.com/the-cross-corgi-ex-boxer
There is such a thing as outbreeding depression just like there is inbreeding depression (though neither is a given)
I am all for intelligent crossing http://bobtailboxers.com/the-cross-corgi-ex-boxer
There is such a thing as outbreeding depression just like there is inbreeding depression (though neither is a given)
It depends on the breed and the age of the breed.
Anything actively created after the 1850s for example, to me is fair game.
The really ancient breeds, I really really think we should make a concerted effort to maintain unbroken lines. Things like the azawakh are genetic treasures and only very distantly related to modern domestic dogs, and I don't think should be mixed unless it's to bring something from the azawakh into a more modern lineage, vs. introducing modern dog to theirs.
Anything actively created after the 1850s for example, to me is fair game.
The really ancient breeds, I really really think we should make a concerted effort to maintain unbroken lines. Things like the azawakh are genetic treasures and only very distantly related to modern domestic dogs, and I don't think should be mixed unless it's to bring something from the azawakh into a more modern lineage, vs. introducing modern dog to theirs.
I feel like if there is a very low genetic diversity in your breed or some major temperamental issues/structural issues that need to be addressed, have at it.
Larger well established breeds that are overall decent and have a wide variety to choose from? Nahh. Keep them pure until something changes.
In the case of doing a better job of hunting/herding/whatever other job, I have mixed feelings. I personally don't know enough about any of these to say one way or the other. I know many cattle workers swear by a BC/ACD, however I don't understand the appeal as it sounds like most of them work more like a BC. Why not just get a BC if you like that style? But again, I don't work them (yet), so I feel like my opinion on that shouldn't hold much weight. Lol!
As far as genetics go, I don't know much about that. I've heard something about F1 crosses getting bred over and over and how that is bad, but I don't know why. Is it the lack of consistency?
Larger well established breeds that are overall decent and have a wide variety to choose from? Nahh. Keep them pure until something changes.
In the case of doing a better job of hunting/herding/whatever other job, I have mixed feelings. I personally don't know enough about any of these to say one way or the other. I know many cattle workers swear by a BC/ACD, however I don't understand the appeal as it sounds like most of them work more like a BC. Why not just get a BC if you like that style? But again, I don't work them (yet), so I feel like my opinion on that shouldn't hold much weight. Lol!
As far as genetics go, I don't know much about that. I've heard something about F1 crosses getting bred over and over and how that is bad, but I don't know why. Is it the lack of consistency?
It's always a balancing act. Breeds are there so you can get "consistency" whatever it is you're looking for in any particular breed. You have to balance that reproducability and predictability with the health and diversity of the breed too.
Opening up stud books is going to take more than just, hey this is a good dog, let's add him. I mean that's the easiest, but it's going to do a number on the predictability of the breeding. First generations will be "ok", but breeding the next and the next after that will take a lot of work and culling from the pool to keep a breed "true".
It could be done, but it would take a lot of very dedicated people and very strict record keeping as well.
I think if people were more likely to accept dog "types" than breeds it would be just fine, but then a lot of people with money and power and influence in the dog world would lose all their marketing and perception they build with buyers by keeping defined breeds.
Opening up stud books is going to take more than just, hey this is a good dog, let's add him. I mean that's the easiest, but it's going to do a number on the predictability of the breeding. First generations will be "ok", but breeding the next and the next after that will take a lot of work and culling from the pool to keep a breed "true".
It could be done, but it would take a lot of very dedicated people and very strict record keeping as well.
I think if people were more likely to accept dog "types" than breeds it would be just fine, but then a lot of people with money and power and influence in the dog world would lose all their marketing and perception they build with buyers by keeping defined breeds.
