Caralon's Phantom v Le Barland - Page 4

Looking back over decades & offering a critique, is it even useful?

I think that depends on what one hopes to learn from such an exercise. I certainly can see merit in the examination and history of a well known stud. It isn't like any one here will be able to take away their accomplishments, no matter if they are a fan of certain lines, or not.

To ignore such history in general, is that wise? No, I don't think so. A confident, successful breeder has their accomplishments as proof to do the talking, for all of time.

How much influence does a particular dog have in a pedigree decades later? I guess that sort of is the same question....

I would like to think that Fanto & Lasso have had a positive influence on Kali, & her pups....but honestly do they? Phantom is in her pedigree too, but is he an influence at this time? Or is that influence so dilute it doesn't especially matter? 

I think that was more what I was trying to say, & thus--why be disparaging? 

I love to study old pedigrees, & wish there was a guide to what each dog offered & what each dog had known as faults, sort of like what the SV does for each dog with the KKl. But a page of opinions from handlers & those who competed against them....for a balanced viewpoint. I know, fantasy-land! But I never know how to take opinions from folks that pop up after time....is this the truth? Or just someone who may have had a single bad experience? Or just really  liked that dog but never actually handled them....?

does that make any better sense, lol?

jackie harris

Some past dogs, while far back in time have a tremendous influence on the breed as a whole decades later. You might not notice it in your dog personally, but people in the breed notice it in the breed. I don't have statistics in front of me for CH (US) Caralon's Phantom v LeBarland (1974) but dogs like this usually sired hundreds of litters. I'll try and add some more progeny of Phantom's these days.

Interesting about Phantom is who he was linebred on himself in 6 generations. The new linebreeding feature lets you see this:) see who gets repeated all these times almost three decades later. 1974 - 1946. (Fun Stuff!)

" Show me a famous dog which would not have critics lined up behind  each other and saying Me! ME! Me! I too can critique this famous dog. " Prager

Prager, Not my style at all as anyone who knows me personally would tell you. I have owned and loved this breed for 51 years and during that time have tried to be both a steward of and student of the breed. I am a researcher by trade and natural apptitude and preference. I do not say such things lightly. I originally come from the East Coast and back there Phantom progeny were known to have issues with nerves and soft temperments. Obviously your friends had different experiences. Does not negate ours. Often there are many points of view depending on what you are looking at and from where.

For example, I know several people think Jello v Wienerau got a bad rap and like to see him in the pedigree for the great beauty he could bring and I have  been told also good strong temperament. Now while I thought the dog was gorgeous with a great gait and structure AND I think at the first USA Sieger show he might have been a victim of a tough transition arriving in this country and immediately being sent off with new people to the top show  the reality is the first year I saw him get run off the field and the 2nd year in Virginia, I saw him shaking in his boots in reaction to the severe weather we experienced. So I obviously have a different opinion based on my experiences and knowledge. Who's right and who's wrong. That's not the issue or important. We make our decisions based on the knowledge (note I said knowledge not speculation) we each individually have. So you might make the choice to use Phantom lines if they still existed and I might not.

Admin, the interesting thing about the old linebreeding is most people don't realize that German and American lines all came from the same fountain after WW2 - we just did different things with them. The gene pool was greatly impacted by the war and many good dogs were lost. The two pillars of the breed after the war were Axel Deininghauser Heide and Rolf Onasbrucker Land ( actually the R litter and all the repeats where they tried to get the same quality as the R litter but that's another story). The Germans basically took Axel daughters to Rolf sons and the Americans took Axel sons to Rolf daughters. As Pogo says, we have met the enemy and he is us!

Tig obviously you have a vast knowledge of the dog Phantom and I meant no disparaging comments on you.I was talking in general terms and I apologize if it did not come out right.  My point is that famous dogs are bred to many different females who then often pass problems down the line.  I have learned this. Studs are, or should be, breed improvers.  If they are not, then they do not become famous studs. There are  groups of studs:

1/ will improve with all bitches. ( rare)

2/will improve only with some bitches.( Common) 

it is then up on the breeders to recognize this fact and not to fault the dog  by throwing the baby with the bath water  and say the stud XYZ - Phantom in this case, produced poor temperament. Maybe it would be better to say that he produced poor temperament with some females or with some lines if he was used by breeders at that time did not know which females he produced well and with which he produced poorly.   

Prager Hans

As far as usefulness of studying dogs from past decades, I would say that that depends on dominance of their genes.  Basic bloodlines (  5 -or 6 bloodlins) I like to talk about, were started by dogs many decades ago who are  influencing strongly dogs today. For example founder of 2nd line Hettel Uckermark 1909 Sieger has tremendous and constant  influence on dogs of mainly 2nd line ( but other lines who were crost with 2nd line too)   today in 2014. So do not think that old dogs are not important. Some of them  are more important then most if not all dogs of today.  As a matter of fact it is safe to say that in some cases farther back you go more influence these dogs had on dogs of today. 

 Prager Hans

Genetics 101 - sire and dam each contribute 50% to the current generation. Grand parents each 25%, ggrandparents 12.5% ggggrandparents 6.25, etc. This is assuming no linebreeding on any specific dog in  5 generations. 

Blitzen, the problem with geneticists today is they are not Mendel. They are paper pushers, statisticians, chemical/protein seekers. They do not grow their own peas or breed their own dogs. The Malcolm Willis's of the world are few and far between and personally I think he was very unique especially because of his desire to apply genetics in a way that helped dogs and educated dog owners and breeders.

Many guide dog schools replaced long time breeding directors with geneticists. If I was Dr. Phil I'd say how's that working for you and the answer is absymally. They breed on paper- make decisions what dog will be kept intact  BEFORE the dog goes thru the training program and they have not at all improved the success rate. The few I have met seem to forget the prime axion to look up from the paper and look at the dog.

Old time animal breeders spent a lot of time looking at their animal. They could tell you if it represented the sire line or the dam line ( how many GSD people can even do that these days). They paid attention to detail not just the looks but the health, the working ability the quirks of temperament and character. Percentages and math do NOT tell the same story.

I have long believed in knowing what's in the "back 40" especially what's massed there because I have seen traits sneek right out of that back 40 and slap you in the face. A simplistic example but real -years ago was visting a breeder w/ a friend of mine who had heard she had black and red stud that the friend might like. It turned out the black and red dog was really a liver and he had a sister who was a white and the breeder (who had been around for a long time) had no clue where those two off colors came from in her pedigree. Yet the elephant in the living room was clearly evident in the 7th, 8th and 9th generation of her pedigrees where she had backed up many many times on Nordrakk of Materhorn who was know to throw off colors. Same thing can happen with missing and extra teeth so why not other traits such as health, temperament etc.

I do not know enough about how Prager and other Europeans use the "line system" to speak to what kind of information is available from it. What I can say is what I and others who have been in the breed a long time have seen and that is that there are certain archtypes (I would say about 5-7) in terms of strructure that and an expercienced eye sees them time and time again and some of these dogs look like they came straight out of the early 20th century ( there's one not seen often  but every now and again pops up that mightly resembles a great dane in structure). again if these common structural archtypes can persist down through the decades why not other traits.

The problem with the percentage method is two fold. First it has long been known both pragmatically and scientifically is that it is not always x% that gets passed on. That is why when linebreeding it is so important to know what trait or traits you are seeking, to know if the linebred ancestor a. expressed them and b. more importantly passed them on and c. are they expressed/carried by the dogs you are breeding because if they are not it is a wasted effort. Unfortunately I can not tell you the huge number of dog breeders who don't even get this simple concept. They breed by paper and percentage. The 2nd problem with the simplistic Medalian percentage method you posted is that it has long ago been outgrown in many areas. We are finding out today that even a "simple" mechanism like color can involve a multitude of protein, ensyme and amino acid paths that are also affected by environmental factors. So exactly what 50% are you talking about. We know genes can be turned off and on - so they are still there just not activated. An apparent example of this is the long term survivors of HIV who have never had treatment. They are being studied to try to determine what is switched on in them that is not in the majority of people.

Thank you Prager, that absolutely answers my question & explains my fascination. I'm glad you are here, so many of our knowledgable folks have left us.

TIG- your comment about temperament sparked my question, so thank you! You have a wealth of knowledge! 

My friend Blitzen, I know genetics at about the 101 level, & have forgotten most of that, lol. But there do seem to be traits that aren't lost from generation to generation, & with the equation of 50% to 25% to 12.5% to 6.25% to 3.125% etc., you would think traits would be lost in dilution, rather than carried forth. Obviously, they are not lost; I suppose that is the effect of line breeding. These are, I know, very simple questions, but I just want to make sure that my basic understanding is based on correct information. And I'm not planning on breeding, I'm just trying to sort out my somewhat jumbled thought processes about blood lines & line breeding, etc. 

thank you for having patience with me!

jackie harris