Filial Degeneration - Have we reached it?

The following was an article by Richard Stratton in the 1977 Vol.1 Issue 3 of the Pit Bull Gazette : AND A FILIAL DEGENERATION TO YOU TOO!
Richard F. Stratton
(Pit Bull Gazette, Fall 1976)

One of the historical breeders who has always been of particular interest to me was D.A McClintock of Oklahoma. As far as I have been able to ascertain, McClintock never matched a dog; yet, his accomplishments as a breeder were extraordinary, and his line of dogs was in particular demand by the dog men of his day. He wrote a number of articles for his contemporary dog magazines, and they make fascinating and instructive reading even today. For example, in one article Mr McClintock begins by apologizing for a lack of formal education, then goes on to explain filial degeneration, a concept that even bedevils scientists!
Filial degeneration refers to the tendency of the offspring of any breeding stock to revert to the average of the race or strain. Thus, if the two top dogs in the country are bred together, their offspring have only a remote chance of being as good as either parent.
Similarly, in humans, if two geniuses marry and have children, the chances of their producing another genius are also remote. The genes are jumbled, and the tendency is to revert back toward the average. Filial degeneration has also been called the “drag of the race”; however, the same process also works the other way. If two morons marry and have children, chances are their offspring will not be like them. Also, if we breed two “curs” of a good strain together, we have a chance of getting some game pups. There have been some “aces” that came from such breedings. Tudor’s “Black Demon” is just one such example. (Now that does not mean that it is alright to breed curs! Please read on before jumping to that conclusion!)
Dog men have often been perplexed by the fact that certain outstanding dogs would not produce when used at stud. The reason, very likely, was that the dogs were not representative of their ancestry. (They were like a good looking girl springing from a long line of homely ancestors. The girl may be good looking herself, but her progeny will likely revert back to the average of her “line”!)
That is why it is important to study the pedigree of the animals we are breeding. Just because a dog is good himself does not mean that he will produce good pups. While it is true that some Pit Bull who are not game themselves are good producers, I agree with Pat Patrick that this little fact has all-too-often been used as an excuse for breeding to a cur. Whenever we breed to a cur, we are throwing the “wrong” genes back into the hopper to be once again jumbled, and while we may get good results in the first generation, eventually there will be the devil to pay!
Anyway, the question is how do we get around this filial degeneration which looms as such a great obstacle to what we are trying to accomplish. Well the answer is to breed to a quality line and to work to raise the average of the line. That means never breeding to curs and always using quality individuals. Yes, I know that means extensive use of inbreeding, and inbreeding is a bi bugaboo to many individuals. However modern geneticists have dispelled many of the old wives’ tales about inbreeding, and we need not worry about using it to our hearts content - as long as we are careful to cull out the undesirable traits! It is generally believed that inbreeding causes a decrease in fertility and size; however, hardnosed selectivity can nullify even these effects. Hybrid vigour is a famous phenomenon that is characterized by increased size and vigour in the offspring. However, geneticists have demonstrated highly inbred lines in which the selectivity of stock had been so stringent that the lines actually lost vigour when crossed with any other!
Now, gameness very likely consists of a number of different genes that work together to produce the trait. Unfortunately, there are probably a number of genes that nullify or modify the effect of the desired genes. (That’s the way things usually work genetically, but of course, no real research has been done on gameness!) So our main task in breeding is to purify our strain of those unwanted genes. This takes many generations, and all our work is un-done when some yahoo breeds to a dog whose gameness is suspect. We also always take a chance when we outcross to another strain because we may be throwing into the hopper some of the genes that will modify the effect of the pattern of genes that produces gameness in our stock. However in my opinion, it is better to breed “best to best” than to stay within a strain but not be sufficiently selective.

To sum up:
(1.) Genetics is nearly purely statistics, predictable in only large numbers. Breeding dogs is like rolling dice in that we are jumbling the genes and seeing how they come out on each “throw”. We gain an edge by limiting the possible combinations.
(2.) Inbreeding enables us to overcome the effect of filial degeneration by reducing the variety of genes so that we have a better chance of matching desirable genes.
(3.) Breeding “best to best” is difficult to fault; however, if this is done without regard to strain, results will be less consistent. A greater strain gives us greater uniformity.
(4.) The emphasis should always be on the quality, regardless of the breeding model you use (for example: best to best, inbreeding, outbreeding or whatever). Selectivity is the single most important factor in breeding.

Do you, as breeders, feel that we have reached the point of no return on breeding "untested" dogs in the gene pool ? Has "gameness" taken a backseat in breeding and if so is the Pit Bull still a Pit Bull?

Olddog

 

good articale there olddog

 

Bump........................

 

Google...game-dog+your question.....it's THE WAY....thnx first time I tried it.

 

..i think with-some,,gameness has taken a back seat..in prefrence to other traits.???...but at the same time there are some who will/can/do find the right balance...?????......but yes sure is food for taught....mm

 

This brings up an interesting concept in my mind.

Gameness is king, of course, but it has been noted that dogs have become rougher as the decades pass.

I have always considered an "event horizon" where our dogs become so rough that we no longer can accurately gauge game or even come to it.

In other words, has game taken a back seat to raw physical ability?

I think a lot depends on the philosophy and purpose of men in the game. Those who want W's and $ more than anything would probably trend towards raw physicality, roughness. Others who are more esoteric in their devotion to the breed as a whole, or as a family, probably trend towards gameness or more generalized bulldog qualities. Obviously anyone in the game would want a total package of both.

I wonder though, will we get to a point (or could we hypothetically) were the average baseline of roughness in our dogs becomes such that they are cause such catastrophic damage, so quickly, that game takes a backseat?

 

:party0051:Great thread and find.

 

Dogs will NEVER become so rough that gameness can't accurately be judged. Only in certain individuals do you have that issue with at times. While you have dogs that are just terrible at their profession, there are usually dogs just as terrible without lacking any of the gameness. Those dogs are a rarity, depending on who they come from.

In my years of dogs, I've only met ONE individual who bred strictly for gameness. Most simply don't, or they do it to whatever degree they're pleased which usually doesn't mean seeing if the dog is remotely close to game to begin with. Getting game dogs with the ability to win against formidable odds isn't a stretch of the imagination. It's just that most people simply don't have the fortitude to withstand that type of grind that takes on THEM. That means going through a lot of time and animals that may have ended up being winners for most everyone else.

Breeding for legitimately GAME dogs is hard work, and unfortunately, not many people are interested in such endeavors.

 

Times have changed and so have these dogs. That said... people have always looked for an edge above gameness. Game enough... is game enough until it isn't...and that much isn't going to change. But I think allot was lost when people went with smaller yards.

 

Alot was lost a long time ago when people stopped breeding for gameness and put other traits ahead of the one thing that separates bulldogs from other breeds. Smaller yards have nothing to do with breeding for gameness no more than a larger yard. Breeding for that one thing is a CHOICE.

 

Fair statement..... But it's hard to argue that a successful breeder would take anything BUT the whole view into consideration. These are just dogs.... and, ( as I'm sure you are aware) they need more than gameness to make a dog of themselves in the real world. It isn't an either or argument as I see it except in that they will either have enough of it or they won't. The extent to which a large yard matters lies only in the percentages.