Outcrossing to Other Breeds?

Sangmort

As some of you already know from the the Dutch Shepherd thread, I've been spending time looking up / researching / reading about some of the working-line dogs we have here stateside.

The one thing I've noticed is that two things are most important when it comes to working [ & even sporting ] dogs: 1. Health & 2. Temperament / Workability.

For the most part, while "standard" or "looks" are taken into consideration, they seem to be very low on the list.

From what I understand, [ & someone can correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not sure ] the working dogs tend to be far healthier than their showline cousins, even in the same breed. Many seem to point this to so much of the outcrossing to other breeds.

For example with the Dutch Shepherd, they are constantly mixed with Mallinois [ Belgian Shepherd ] & German Shepherds. The puppies belong to whichever breed they most resemble. They are not really called "crosses" even tho there are different breeds in their lineage. If it looks like a Mal, it's a Mal. if it looks like a GSD, it's a GSD, if it looks like a Dutch, it's a Dutch. [ despite what breed the dam / sire were ]

However, this does make the dogs vary in standard. Some will have slightly broader heads, be larger or thinner build, etc. but it seems that even tho they are mixing, you can still, for the most part, clearly identify what breed belongs to which. [ ex: a Mal might have a broader head, but it still looks like a Mal ]

I wanted to know what you all thought of this, & how it applies to our Nihon Ken? In Japan, some hunters mix the various NK to produce better working dogs.

But I wonder, what do you all think of outcrossing to another [ similar ] breed in order to improve genetic diversity & health? ~

shishiinu

Great topic because I have been thinking of this also. I know some will crindge at the idea but I thought of crossing a Kishu with a hunting line Shikoku just because at the time that was what was available.

If you look at some of the breeds like the Yakushima ken, the breed has several different breeds mixed into it to create a better hunting dog. To me I'm only interested in hunting dogs so I say its ok but at the same time will continued crossbreeding make a specific breed even more rare? Eventually I will breed Taro so I can have my own hunting dogs here and not have to get them from across the sea every time I need one. But most likely Taro will be bred with a Kishu, hopefully a non white Kishu.

Sangmort

I think tho, looking back on the history of the breeds, when they were very few in numbers [ like WWI & WWII time ] they were all outcrossed anyway.

It was a way to "rebuild" the breed. Outcross to various breeds to acquire the desired traits, then, once the breed was healthy / thriving again, to go back to a "standard" & limit what could be bred.

The dogs may have a 3 generation pedigree of "pure" bloodlines, but I bet if we went back 100 years, we would find a bunch of other breeds in their lineage as well. ~

ayk

Are the mixing in KNPV Belgiums really motivated by health, or by wanting to breed to the best performer no matter the breed identity? ie. Function first with health benefits as bonus?

For the NK hunters, would it not be in a similar vein? Function first? Is it really known if their dogs are healthier?

I think it'll be up to the Japanese powers that be to outcross in another breed and still consider the projeny as part of the original breed. The extreme example would be a Tosa. It's not the same as what it was before Westerners brought their dogs but it still has the same name. In addition, it's still supposedly acceptable to grandfather in other breeds with the Tosa to this day.

Try grandfathering another breed into something like the Akita and it's likely to be disowned as an Akita by AKIHO. Best to just rename the progeny instead of fighting a constantly uphill battle at that point.

dlroberts

I think we pretty well covered this in the thread on ethics. As long as you don't misrepresent what the dog is, I don't see anything wrong with it. It doesn't make much sense to outcross a show dog as it would be penalized in judging for any deviations from the standard. In working dogs there is no standard against which to compare. If the dog works well at it's chosen job, that's all that matters.

TheWalrus

Just an observation on hunting NK.

I used to think that because hunters were hunting for function the dogs would be healthier. What I've found is that is not always the case. Many hunting line dogs are very inbred or closely line bred. In some ways it's very similar to breeding for show in that people are breeding for a small defined group of genes. My Kishu Momo for example is from hunting lines and has terrible conformation. Her rear legs are splayed, and apparently that's common in this line. My vet thinks she doesn't have the strongest hips, though I haven't seen this slow her down at all, she's very athletic. There also may be a propensity in this line toward liver disease.

It's just cemented my belief that the important thing in breeding dogs is genetic diversity and balance. 'Shigei Ryouzen' is a term that translated roughly means complete in form and function. That's what I'm looking for in my dogs.

ayk

How long are the careers of the hunting NK? If a dog is hunted hard well into 7/8 yrs of age, I would think that conformational handicaps would noticible at that time - that a person would notice that the dog is slower to get to the prey animal than the other dogs.

If the dog is hunted solo, I would assume it's more difficult to compare or have a baseline. Kind of in the vein that you don't know what you're missing.

(Not all unsightly conformation is unfunctional btw. For instancem working border collies are supposedly cow-hocked to their benefit.)

dlroberts

Excellent point Shigeru. We've talked about this before IIRC (I'm not going to go hunting, pun intended, for the thread where we did). From a darwinian point of view, selecting for hunting ability is just as arbitrary as selecting for conformation. I think where you tend to see a difference is that dogs with poor health can still be (and often are) shown and do quite well in the show ring; however, most health issues can have a noticeable effect on working abilities. Turning this discussion to the relative merits of conformation vs. working breeding selection is likely to get a bit heated though. :-/

BradA1878

I have noticed the same thing Shigeru points out but in working PP Dogs - close inbreeding, line breeding, and health issues. I've never bought into working line dogs being more healthy or having better confirmation (the form follows function idea), but I do think working line dogs are selected more closely for temperament and so you are more likely to get the temperament you are looking for (assuming you are looking for working temperament) from a working kennel than you are to get a temperament you want from a show kennel.

It took 100s of years of selection and refinement to get breeds to their proper temperament and working capacity, while it took less than 100 years to get most breeds to meet a standard. From a preservation standpoint, it seems way more important to me to focus on genetic diversity, health, & temperament than on looks - you can always refine the look of the breed, but its hard to "rebuild" the temperament and health once they are gone in a breed.

----

BradA1878

I'll also add that I think one of the risks of the OFA mantra is that it focuses a spotlight on only a few health issues in a HUGE PILE of genetic health issues seen in dogs. One could argue that breeders who obsessively select for good hips do just as much line-breeding off dogs with good hips and end up creating other health issues that were not an issue to begin with - but the dogs have great hips! Woohoo!

----