how many generations do people believe will get a pedigree.
no offence but i have seen a lot of people here with the kc just saying that purebreed is better.but what is a purebreed?
a ddb isnt originally,a bullmastiff isnt originally,a staffie/pit/irish,canecorso,dobermann isnt etc
the whole thing about dorset oldtymes or victorian bulldogs they are pure breeds.they have been bred only to other same types for more that 6 generations.
prince tiger the first bullmastiff show winner was only 6 generation of crossing bulldog to mastiff he was from tiger torus (5 generation bullmastiff cross)
so why not these old tyme be considered a pure breed instead of crosses and be accepted to the kc?

Interesting point! As you know, a 'pedigree' is literally a recorded line of descent - just a list of ancestors - it doesn't necessarily mean an animal is 'purebred'. You would have to ask the Kennel Club what their criteria are for recognising a breed - my personal opinion would be 10 generations of breeding 'true' - no 'throwbacks' that looked like one of the 'component' breeds. But as I say, that's my personal opinion, and no more valid than anyone else's. It's the decision of the Governing Body (KC) that matters.
:)

I would agree, at least 10 generations breeding true but would that be a wide enough gene pool to avoid having to breed too close and therefore increase the risk of inherited disease being right through the population. IMO it would not.

I would say that you could not even start counting generations until you had a big enough gene pool to work from without going outside the embryonic breed. If that criteria is used then you would possibly need 20 or 30 generations just to make the gene pool large enough to start counting! Don’t forget how long it took to establish the PJR or the Border collie.

Regards, John

John, how long did it take? Think once you have your breeding pool there would still be need for the at least 10 generations breeding true, trouble is the moment a pup is born not to type you have more or less got to start again, unless you can trace the line back and exclude it from the development programme.

Can't remember when the reverend gentleman started but I think it was in the late 1800's?? (Even I was not around then! ;) ) I dont think anyone would be able to start a new breed and see it established in their life time. I seem to remember reading that the the Parson went down several blind alley's before the end. It was an interesting story.

Regards, John

Yes I can imagine just when you think you have it cracked out pops a strange one and you have to start again. Such a labour of love one wonders why anyone would bother. I think some of those who do dabble with trying to change breeds (improve) do it because they think they are going to improve the health, but would have thought that was easier and quicker done by encouraging testing for known problems and an occasional out cross to try to strengthen any structural faults. Cross breeding does not seem the way to go, but at my age I am not about to try. Seems to me you need the age to have the knowledge but the youth to have time to see if you are going along the right lines.

Is there a book about the development of the JPR that gives a fair amount of detail.

The Russian Black was started up in the 50's I think, so it took them less than 40 years to be fully recognised. Not sure when there governing body accepted them as a breed, but I'm sure that you'd be able to find out on the Internet.

Weren't they bred by the Red Army as Working dogs ?

Forty years - that's about 20 generations isn't it?

Don't know of any books on the history of the PJR but I would almost think there would be. There was an article in (I believe) Shooting Times a few months ago and I seem to remember articles in Dog World or Our Dogs but that would be possibly 10 to 15 years ago (The last time I brought them! lol)

Best wishes, John

I think in years gone by it was easier to create a breed and have it breeding true, and getting it recognised, if not by a body such as the KC, but by the public in general, because it was much more acceptable then to cull any pups which did not look as they were supposed to.

These days, its just not socially/morally acceptable (if it ever was) to breed dogs and heavily cull the offspring that were not of the correct type.....so, it takes longer, becuase you have to home all the pups born, or keep them, and no one has that time or space to do it single handed.

EM

I think you are probably right Em. The RSPCA would throw up their hands in horror at the thoughts of culling for a start. There is also the cost, any progeny would have to be kept under the person's control to monitor health, bring back into the breeding plan and of course test for "Fitness of purpose". Talking about the latter, what exactly would the purpose be? Just about all jobs now have an admirable dog already fulfilling the role, or of course the role no longer exists. With mains running water Lap dogs are no longer required, (people would be horrified to have fleas instead of the days when the lap dogs were used to take the fleas!!) There are first class gundogs, ratters, coursing hounds and guarding breeds. Carriage dogs are no longer required. Fighting dogs again (Thank goodness) are not allowed! Herding dogs have around the ultimate in the Border Collie. Although thinking about it maybe there is a breed getting close? The Working Sheepdog??

Just a few thoughts, John

"The RSPCA would throw up their hands in horror at the thoughts of culling for a start."

Don't know why they are always telling us how many dogs they put down.