buying a inbred/line-bred dog?

Would you buy an inbred/linebred dog from a top breeder?

inbreed and line breeding is the same but with line breeding it take abit longer to effect the dog health.

I think the answer isn't as simple as that.

I don't agree with inbreeding, but a lot of very healthy pups are over the breed average COI purely because they have linebreeding quite a way back in their pedigree.

I certainly wouldn't buy a pup that has close breeding within the last 5 generations.

I think it would be intersting to know just how many (if any?) on here actually own a staffy without at least some line/close breeding upto 5 generations back ?

I understand it is very commen to have atleast 1 dog twice in a 5 gen ped
but the worrying trend at the moment we are seeing pups reg with 3/4 the same dog upto 4 times in some cases which i think most of us will agree is totaly disgusting

ben monte has a very good line it doesn't look like he has much close line breeding

https://staffy-bull-terrier.niceboard.com/t11654-monte-s-ped

An experienced breeder will In Breed to compound or fix the good elements re conformation temperament and type, but then of necessity will breed well away from his Line to ensure the health of his line etc etc. They have an ideal type of dog in their mind and will breed toward that type. Unfortunately habitual In Breeding causes all the problems Steve writes about. In Breeding is not for the amateur to try. It requires years of knowledge of types and lines of dogs. But it is a fascinating subject.

Panda wrote:An experienced breeder will In Breed to compound or fix the good elements re conformation temperament and type, but then of necessity will breed well away from his Line to ensure the health of his line etc etc. They have an ideal type of dog in their mind and will breed toward that type. Unfortunately habitual In Breeding causes all the problems Steve writes about. In Breeding is not for the amateur to try. It requires years of knowledge of types and lines of dogs. But it is a fascinating subject.

But you see this is the problem. As long as it's considered to be acceptable by experienced breeders, inexperienced breeders will do it.

Surely it would be better to ban all close line/in breeding, then nobody will get it wrong!

If I'm perfectly honest, until the past few days reading some of the topics on the forum I'd never even thought about it. A few names appear on Logan's papers a couple of times, but I've also seen these same names appear on others papers a few times. Reading other people's takes on it hasn't changed my feelings for Logan in the slightest.

I might get flamed, but I can't help but feel it's a tiny bit over exaggerated

Line breeding / In breeding is useful to fix virtues,and if done properly and not to excess then it isn't that big a deal IMO.

It's like anything, when done to excess by people with bad intentions, it leads to negative consequences. Done by people who care bout the breed and in moderation it's fine.

MatLogan wrote:
I might get flamed, but I can't help but feel it's a tiny bit over exaggerated

It may appear to be exaggerated, but believe me, it isn't. You don't see the health problems created by inbreeding because they are pts at birth. The odd name appearing twice on a pedigree isn't a problem, but if they appear several times, or if there are several names appearing twice, you could have health problems.

racamoe wrote:Line breeding ? In breeding is useful to fix virtues.and if done properly and not to excess then it isn't that big a deal IMO.

But where do you draw the line? At the moment it's acceptable to breed a half brother x half sister or uncle x niece & grandfather x granddaughter - to many people nowadays, who have seen the health issues that inbreeding brings, this is totally unacceptable. Where do you draw the line? What about a pedigree with several half brother/half sister matings?

If a pedigree has too high a percentage of inbreeding then of course there could be health problems. In this case an experienced breeder would outcross and come back to their lines at a later date to avoid this.

That's why it should only be done by people who know their pedigrees very well and who aren't prepared to cross that line.

Also the KC will not allow any Puppies to be registered when percentages rise too high....although I personally think they should lower that to prevent people hovering close the threshold.

IMO keeping the number below 6.9% is unrealistic in Staffords and although health should always be put before type, if we don't fix virtues then we wouldn't have a dog that looks like a Stafford eventually.

IMO line breeding is as bad as inbreeding we wouldn't do so why should we put our dog thru it

I'm VERY much ignorant of the whole issue to be honest, I don't mind admitting I'm clueless about it lol.

I feel it's more that sometimes it comes across that some people are giving the dog human thoughts etc, as in, it's weird and we wouldn't do it ourselves. Hard to explain, but this is what I mean by exaggerated.

This is another reason that I would never breed dogs, because I don't know anything about this kind of thing.

Caryll wrote: You don't see the health problems created by inbreeding because they are pts at birth.

What sort of problems do you get?

racamoe wrote:Also the KC will not allow any Puppies to be registered when percentages rise too high.

IMO keeping the number below 6.9% is unrealistic in Staffords.

there plenty dogs on here below 6.7%

MatLogan wrote:I'm VERY much ignorant of the whole issue to be honest, I don't mind admitting I'm clueless about it lol.

I feel it's more that sometimes it comes across that some people are giving the dog human thoughts etc, as in, it's weird and we wouldn't do it ourselves. Hard to explain, but this is what I mean by exaggerated.

This is another reason that I would never breed dogs, because I don't know anything about this kind of thing.

Caryll wrote: You don't see the health problems created by inbreeding because they are pts at birth.

What sort of problems do you get?

short life, increase of health problem the list go on

6.7 % sorry.


I don't know a huge amount myself to be honest, just like to do a bit of reading and look at things objectively.





I think peoples reservations are based on perceived morals and not scientific logic.

i cant have a big opinion on this as i would have to read more into this BUT as it stands it doesnt seem sensible with regards to the health issues and just seems wrong to me on any form of inbreeding but as i said i would have to educate myself on this

MatLogan wrote:I'm VERY much ignorant of the whole issue to be honest, I don't mind admitting I'm clueless about it lol.

I feel it's more that sometimes it comes across that some people are giving the dog human thoughts etc, as in, it's weird and we wouldn't do it ourselves. Hard to explain, but this is what I mean by exaggerated.

This is another reason that I would never breed dogs, because I don't know anything about this kind of thing.

Im the same as you, you put it into words for me........................but im not into the breeding scene i have my own views on this

we all know how bad inbreeding how it weak the gene pool line-breeding is inbreeding no can say it isn't and top breeders are doing more damage then good. if staffy was bred right we should have our pet for longer not shorter that why i get so mad with the kennel club!

It's worth remembering that offspring can only inherit the genes of the parents. If the parents have no major faults or health issues then, however closely related they are, the offspring can't inherit any( barring random mutations which are totally unpredictable)

That's why I would rather buy from a breeder who health tested, showed,and knew their pedigree and had a COI slightly above average, than Joe Bloggs who put two dogs together ,that by chance had a COI of below the breed average.

i cant wait when the kennel club ban it, we alll know inbreding/linebreding whatever you want to call it increase risk of cancers/tumours and other big health issue you cant test for.

i would rather buy a pup from a 5gen that doesn't have any keep it in the family! i want a health dog not inbred dog

I agree with everything Sarah as written, about 25 years back before SBT's were popular, the conformation of the dogs available were basically all the same apart from colour, short muscly little dogs, strong heads, tenacious and loving. In the last few years we have seen an eruption in numbers due mainly to BYB's, and the conformation of the SBT is all over the place, long legs and tall dogs ,small heads wrong shape with longish muzzles, some with what I can describe only as a whippety body. This is because breeding to the Standard of the SBT was not adhered to and what we have now is a mixed bag. But we do love them all no matter what shape or size

this forum will never ever support line breeding we be teaching people when buying you the get a dog below COI of 6.7%, if you cant find a dog that will fix your dog fault without keeping it in the family then you shouldn't be a breeder.

Panda wrote:I agree with everything Sarah as written, about 25 years back before SBT's were popular, the conformation of the dogs available were basically all the same apart from colour, short muscly little dogs, strong heads, tenacious and loving. In the last few years we have seen an eruption in numbers due mainly to BYB's, and the conformation of the SBT is all over the place, long legs and tall dogs ,small heads wrong shape with longish muzzles, some with what I can describe only as a whippety body. This is because breeding to the Standard of the SBT was not adhered to and what we have now is a mixed bag. But we do love them all no matter what shape or size

Our main reason we have a such BYB problem today is because people dont want a KC dog because of the inbreeding and they think they going to get a health dog.

A few short points....

racamoe wrote:Also the KC will not allow any Puppies to be registered when percentages rise too high....although I personally think they should lower that to prevent people hovering close the threshold.

IMO keeping the number below 6.9% is unrealistic in Staffords and although health should always be put before type, if we don't fix virtues then we wouldn't have a dog that looks like a Stafford eventually.

The KC will register anything that has two registered parents of the same breed! I don't see why it's unrealistic to keep the figure below 6.7%. After all, that is an average, so there must be many, many dogs well underneath that figure.

racamoe wrote:
I think peoples reservations are based on perceived morals and not scientific logic.

Nothing to do with 'morals' and everything to do with health. Although line breeding can 'fix' certain good characteristics, it can also fix and magnify certain bad characteristics. Epilepsy, heart problems, structural problems, cleft palate are all known to be made far worse through inbreeding.

racamoe wrote:It's worth remembering that offspring can only inherit the genes of the parents. If the parents have no major faults or health issues then, however closely related they are, the offspring can't inherit any( barring random mutations which are totally unpredictable)

Two parents may have mutant genes which do not affect them, but will afect their pups! You won't know what those genes are or what effect they will have until the pups are born.

Panda wrote:I agree with everything Sarah as written, about 25 years back before SBT's were popular, the conformation of the dogs available were basically all the same apart from colour, short muscly little dogs, strong heads, tenacious and loving.

Going back to the early 80s staffords were not all one size - short muscly little dogs - they were 'bully' types, 'terrier' types and middle of the road.

It is a really interesting debate and one we are probably going to have to agree to disagree on for some of the points

''Nothing to do with 'morals' and everything to do with health. Although line breeding can 'fix' certain good characteristics, it can also fix and magnify certain bad characteristics. Epilepsy, heart problems, structural problems, cleft palate are all known to be made far worse through inbreeding.''

This is very true Caryll, and it would be totally wrong for anyone to breed from an animal with any of these problems. That is why is so important to health test and know the history of the two animals you are breeding from to avoid this.

The KC won't register very close matings, such as Father to daughter or Mother to son, brother to sister.

but they allow half sister and half brother mating be registered, you cant test for tumors, cancers and so on when they will pop up in dog at a later stage of life.

the bad out weight the good in any type line breeding/inbreedin

I think i can speck for most dog owner that we want healthy dog not inbred clones

[/quote]Our main reason we have a such BYB problem today is because people dont want a KC dog because of the inbreeding and they think they going to get a health dog. [/quote]

I honestly don't believe that the reason people are choosing non KC reg dogs is because of inbreeding.
I would imagine the vast majority of the general public don't even consider this. I think most people choosing to buy a non kc registered Stafford, do so because they either want to save money and believe they will still get something that looks and behaves like a Stafford.

Of course when people home a rescue it is totally different and I would never discourage someone from not doing so just because they couldn't prove the dogs heritage. There are some wonderful dogs out there that are not KC registered.

You ask people why they don't want a KC dog i bet 70% of people will say because they dont want a over price inbred dog.

The problem with buying a non KC reg pup is..

a) how do you know both parents were Staffords?
b) has the bitch been bred from under age, over age or from 2 consecutive seasons or over bred from more than the recommended amount
c) have the relevant health checks been carried out

By buying un-registered pups you are allowing un-regulated breeding and therefore the breeder has no guidelines to follow and no governing body to answer too.

I also see lots of non kc reg dogs being sold for the same or more than kc registered ones.

racamoe wrote:The problem with buying a non KC reg pup is..

a) how do you know both parents were Staffords?
b) has the bitch been bred from under age, over age or from 2 consecutive seasons or over bred from more than the recommended amount
c) have the relevant health checks been carried out

By buying un-registered pups you are allowing un-regulated breeding and therefore the breeder has no guidelines to follow and no governing body to answer too.

i'm not pro buying unregistered dogs I'm just saying that with all the TV show on inbred in the show world we had over the year people just prefer to buy from BYB without knowing they could buying dog with a lot of health issues so some of the blame as to go to this breeder doors for carrying on their line breeding ways.

racamoe wrote:I also see lots of non kc reg dogs being sold for the same or more than kc registered ones.

yea your right i wouldn't pay more then £50 for unregistered dog

top and bottem of the situation there are anough healthy well conformed examples of the breed to be able to breed healthy pup with verry small COI
but saddly it seems some breeders are to lazy to do the research and hunt around for mating pairs and the KC are making it easy for them to carry on the practise