Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lake Gaston, N.C.
Submit Photo: 0
Photo Submissions 21 Times in 21 Posts
Generally, I agree with most of it except it's a pretty simple minded approach to topic number 1. Outcrossing is not better than linebreeding when the dogs being linebred have generations of good health records behind them. Comparing blind outcrossing to blind linebreeding might be better, but I expect it's still just a personal opinion. Better breeders use linebreeding with much more data than simply doing it blind. Linebreeding locks things in, but it can also be used to lock things out.
I agree that producing a lot of champions means little to nothing. I'll take a Best in Home any day over a Best of Breed, although we do get those once in a while too.
Health testing is not a be all and end all. It's just part of the big picture that a good breeder wants to do to know more about the dogs being bred. If you only have health testing one or two generations on a pedigree, it's still a guessing game, but at least you know you are not breeding some problem. Just simply doing it, means little to nothing.
I have one example of breeding 7 generations of health tested, and mostly linebred parents, with over 275 individuals, that I will put up against any other database of outcrossed dogs with similar numbers of generations and numbers of individuals. Heck, we can even cover dentition. I doubt such a database even exists. Everyone has an opinion. It's one thing on a list of things that everyone has, and usually worth no more.