Quote:
No, line breeding and inbreeding show the weakness in your line of dogs.
You bring up a good point up with line breeding and inbreeding..........That will cause a dog to double up on traits and become Double Het with recessive genes.
Quote:
Pure breed dogs breed true to type and if a hound has colors outside true hound colors something else has been bred in. Liver color, blue eye or eyes, short tails and many other things have something else bred in because these things could not have come from a hound.
That is why these problems pop up from time to time. These Hounds originated from crossbreeds. And yes your correct of non-hounds in the blood.
Alot of things are in play with breeding dogs. A couple things to factor in. Yesteryears breedings can pop up in today's results. Not to mention the non-hounds crossed somewhere down the lines. Single registered dogs. Or papers being thrown on grade dogs with no history known of the dog.
UKC first registered the B&T's 114 years ago. Less than 70 years ago, the English Breed began spitting up ('45 TW, '46 BLU). Even after 69 years of breeding with the 3 separate breeds on their own, yesteryear's breeding shows up into play today.
No doubt that non-hounds crossed in breedings come into play as well. Tennessee Hardrock was a Registered B&T that is 50% B&T and 50% Walker that was single registered with UKC and sired litters...........You reckon that somewhere down the line, his blood will not show up in a litter with some pups - could be a litter where too much white than what is the normal as example?
Take the buckskin color of the Plotts (UKC first registered in 1946) - You can have a couple buckskin colored pups in a litter. If you research the buckskin coloring, you will see many different opinions of how the coloring originated -- Even different opinions from the way back old school original Plott men.
Here is a quote from a thread on buckskins back in 2005:
one thing that really makes my ears burn is to have someone whos female has just had pups say she had 5or6 brindles and a buckskin . then say i did away with the buckskin. im sending the others registration papers in tommarrow . if i were that deadset against buckskins i sure wouldnt register its full littermates i would cull the parents as well .He's correct, if you do not want to continue passing on this trait, don't breed the parents and register the littermates..............Not going to completely eliminate it but can reduce the number of registered dogs carrying the trait as folks still breed grade dogs. But if you register those littermates, they will have that bucksin in their genes to carry on and pass on to future dogs.
One thing I have seen on the buckskin coloring that most seem to agree on is that it originated WAY back............It's not something that originated currently - yet you have litters pop up with a couple of pups that are buckskin colored. Throwbacks.
That is why I say that yesteryears breedings can pop up in today's results. As the DNA those breedings have been passed on even today they are being passed on.
With these hounds, we have a alot in play since they originated from 114 years and less.
- Yesteryears breedings come into play.
- Non-hound added
- Single Registered Dogs (cross-breeds)
- Grade dog with swapped papers.
You take the author of this thread, he says he know the 4 generation of these dogs. IMO, I would call the litter a full blooded litter*. Even if a nonhound was 6 generations back.
*Or we can call them crossbreeds since all the hounds originated as crossbreeds. I am sure that every breed is not without one of the mentioned bullet points above.
IMO, I think the "unique" color you see in some litters where a couple of the pups in the litter have "unique" color is a product of yesteryears breedings such as the buckskins. Compounded with the line breeding and inbreeding and doubling up of the traits.
Then you have some out there that is simply for money and capitalizing on unwanted traits of a breed with no regard to the Breed Standards.You take the Chocolate B&T's. Years ago, I seen someone on here jacking the price up for the 3 pups in the litter that were Chocolate claming they were rare and thus worth more money. Then there was a guy who was breeding the Chocolate B&T's trying to get 5 generations of Chocolate B&T's. In 2006 he was still on 4 generations. Last time his site was updated was 2011 and still showed 4 generations.
Quote:
In regards to homologous and recessive gene a true hound or any other type of pure bred dog should bred true to type. In addition sometimes it’s not just homologous or recessive, but a combination of genes all working together.
Correct. The whole DNA makeup of the dog is in play.
Quote:
In many of the dilution genes, some that determine color it only takes a single dose so only one dog can have it. (The blue eye common for a cow dog, the merle gene is a good example.)
Good example. And this trait is passed on.
Quote:
We pay UKC for making sure we get pure bred dogs as outlined in their written standards and written goals but when a breeder sells someone a pup and breeds it and get’s a mixed litter they do nothing to enforce or take action. Of course they are happy to take your money
One of the problems is the fact that UKC accepts cross breeds and once they pass breed inspection and hunt test, become a recongized breed will full breeding rights. I have no problems with cross breeds. I wish (and UKC is discussing some kind of program finally) that instead of single registering a hound as they do now, they allow those cross breed dogs to have papers as they would with single registration, but papers marked as cross breed and not as a recongized breed they were single registered as.
