GSPCA is voting on new breed standard change to ALLOW BLACK

original mngsp · Post by **original mngsp** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:57 am

I've looked at my ballot and will be casting my vote soon. I don't read and memorize "the breed standard" as my focus is more performance based. Not saying I like ugly dogs but I'm not much of a show guy. Been to one in my life and to be honest I'd rather sit and watch my truck rust than to have to watch another one.

My question is...

It seems there are some other issues than the black coat in the new proposed standard. Can someone explain the whole nose thing so I can compare if my thinking is the same as what's proposed.

Currently noses must be solid liver. The way I read this is know multicolored noses (ie black and white & liver and white) would be acceptable. Am I understanding this verbage correctly.

Thanks

Texrab · Post by **Texrab** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:06 am

Dave Quindt wrote:John,

The logical next step would be for the AKC to forbid ANY DK from being AKC registered, or at least in participating in AKC field trials and conformation shows. What's the point in allowing them to compete? There is absolutely no value in allowing a dog to compete that can't be part of the gene pool! I guess we could issue them ILP numbers and allow them to run hunt tests :roll:

Since I have a male gsp who has been neutered should he not be allowed to test in hunt test and field trails since he can't be part of the gene pool? I agree with you it should work both ways if the DK's won't let in american gsps then the AKC should do the same for DK's. I do not see a problem with the DK's running in test. I use my test to reach a goal of a good hunting dog. I don't care about breeding since I don't plan on breeding. I just want something for my dogs and I to enjoy and train for.

DK Dogs · Post by **DK Dogs** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 7:59 am

100% DK huh? It's good to see that the DK male you chose to breed to includes in his pedigree the great DK dogs like PJ Wildfire and Checkmate's Dandy Dude.

Yes I am a 100% Dk guy. . You will only see German registered dogs at my place.

mountaindogs · Post by **mountaindogs** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:03 am

original mngsp wrote: My question is...

It seems there are some other issues than the black coat in the new proposed standard. Can someone explain the whole nose thing so I can compare if my thinking is the same as what's proposed.

Currently noses must be solid liver. The way I read this is know multicolored noses (ie black and white & liver and white) would be acceptable. Am I understanding this verbage correctly.

Thanks

Hereis the old standard with regards to nose and color.

1992 - Revised Standard for the German Shorthaired Pointer - AKC
Gazette, approved 11 Aug 92/effective 30 Sept. 92 This was done to
comply with AKC's new breed standard format for publication.
Head - "...The eye...preferred color is dark brown. Light yellow
eyes are not desirable..." "China or wall eye are to be
disqualified." "The nose is brown,..." "A spotted nose is not
desirable. A flesh colored nose disqualifies."
Color - "The coat may be of solid liver or a combination of liver and
white such as liver and shite ticked, liver patched and white ticked,
or liver roan. A dog with any area of black, red, orange, lemon or
tan, or a dog solid white will be disqualified."
Disqualifications - "China or wall eyes. Flesh colored nose. Extreme
overshot or undershot. A dog with any area of black, red, orange,
lemon, or tan, or a dog solid white.

I was under the immpression that the nose is the same other than allowing black noses on black dogs.

DK Dogs · Post by **DK Dogs** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:09 am

Wagonmaster:
Sorry it took so long to get back... I have read that thread. So are you really more upset with the owners of the DK and how they come across or is it the DK dogs that you don't prefer? I have read your threads, but and dont take this wrong are kind of long and I cant find specific reasons or facts why you don't like the DK. All I come up with is your have an issue with the owners and how they come across to people who own the GSP. I was hoping you could just list some breed specific facts on why you are so against them.

Wagonmaster · Post by **Wagonmaster** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 8:59 am

i will keep it short then. i don't like DK's because they are sharpness tested and aggressive. gee, i think i said that before somewhere did you miss it? i don't like DK people because they are rude and enjoy taking gratuitous potshots at AKC GSP's. maybe you did not have a chance to look at that old thread i posted.

have plenty of experience with "old German lines." i would guess more than you. and more than just shorthairs also. they liked em good and sharp. lets see, nadkc is what, 13 years old? you have had a DK for what 4 or 5 years? you guys crack me up

but you are off the point. the point of this thread is that black should not be accepted into the AKC standard because the source will be DK's. you and i agree they are two different breeds. lets keep it that way.

Wagonmaster · Post by **Wagonmaster** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:02 am

oh, hey, dk, i almost forgot to ask. i can find a ton of stuff on the DK/NADKC websites about breeding, testing etc. seems the germans like to write. but can't find the sharpness test guidelines, criteria, format description, what it takes to pass. not anywhere. could you send it to me. i'll post it and we can have a good discussion.

cumberland · Post by **cumberland** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:24 am

i will keep it short then. i don't like DK's because they are sharpness tested and aggressive. gee, i think i said that before somewhere did you miss it? i don't like DK people because they are rude and enjoy taking gratuitous potshots at AKC GSP's. maybe you did not have a chance to look at that old thread i posted.

Is that all? Other than these things, do you think DK's are good hunting dogs?

Wagonmaster · Post by **Wagonmaster** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:25 am

no. he asked that i keep my post short.

cumberland · Post by **cumberland** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:32 am

Well then, don't be short let's lay it all on the line, what else don't you like about the DK?

markj · Post by **markj** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:40 am

All I see here is divisive discussions. I would like to see a DK reged dog also go AKC and do a Dual Ch there too. Has this been done? I would bet yes. My first GSP was a little sharp, was not afraid to take on anything, coons, skunks, cats, rabbits he would run down and kill, then leave there as if it was beneath him to retrieve

I sure do miss him and am looking for that same "dog". On pheas he was as good as any of my current dogs, he did retrieve a quail from out of a hole in the side of a hill once.

I say lets all come together and enjoy our dogs, as I said before they care not, all they wish is to serve us.

Humans tend to ruin a good thing...

Post by **pear** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 9:43 am

Wagonmaster wrote: the point of this thread is that black should not be accepted into the AKC standard because the source will be DK's. you and i agree they are two different breeds. lets keep it that way.

John, I normally see you as a very intelligent, and respectful individual, but the above statement is dead wrong... The intent of this, and all threads at GDF is to allow opinions to be made and discussed. Not to declare emphatically something “should not” be done, or that the opinions of other are wrong.

Many people here have an opinion, and many of them have been expressed, and discussed, and as it should be.

Please let’s not loose focus of the fact that this is a “forum/thread” of discussion.

Now as with anything, there exceptions when safety is concerned where “should not’ becomes emphatic, however I don’t see this as a safety issue.

With that in mind I would ask that, we keep on task. I ask this not as a “Forum Moderator” but as an individual poster…. These are just my, thoughts on the issue, and may not reflect the opinions of the other moderators. Thanks, Respectfully, Randy”pear”Bauman

Wagonmaster · Post by **Wagonmaster** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:10 am

not interested in starting all over. there has been plenty to read. you guys gotta decide between you, short or long version. you only get one.

but hey cumberland, i haven't heard from dk about the sharpness test documentation yet. do you have it? could you send it? no fair keeping something like that a secret

Kurzhaar · Post by **Kurzhaar** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 10:17 am

Wagonmaster wrote:but hey cumberland, i haven't heard from dk about the sharpness test documentation yet. do you have it? could you send it? no fair keeping something like that a secret

John:

The Hartenweis Certificate is awarded by the JGV, not the DKV. Its not a secret, a dog is awarded the certificate when in the act of hunting it dispatches a predator. Pretty simple.

Jim

Post by **ezzy333** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:00 am

This whole discussion is the same that I hear with the Britts. DK's and French Britts are the foundation of our present breeds. They are not seperate breeds but are different today because the dogs that have been bred here in this country over the past years have been bred to our desires while the dogs in Europe are still very much the same dog they were in the past. Why they are the same is that they are being bred to the standards that make the Europeans happy just as ours are bred to our standards that make us happy.

It amuses me when I hear about them being different breeds because of some minor looks or behavior differences. With the Brits, I'm just old enough to remember a lot of the original dogs that were here and I see the exact same dog now being made over like it is something new. I also wonder just how long it will be till the French Brits and the DK's will be Americanized and then some group will bring over more dogs and call them a new breed again.

We have as much controversy over the different type of dogs already here as there is with the European dogs. I hear some of you espouse the field trial dog as being the real GSP. A few of you want the Dual type and there are some that worry only about show standards. This is not new as it has resulted over the years into two different looking and acting dogs that are still in the breed but are getting farther and farther away from being related.

When anyone that is interested in the betterment of the breed decides to argue over color there is something wrong. Hunting ability and confirmation are not effected by color so it has no bearing on improving or detering the breed as a whole. I understand many of the points John has brought up and they do make you mad. But not one of them has a thing to do with the dogs but is doing nothing more than demonstrating the narrow mindness and the egotism of the people involved. But there has not been a thought or an idea expressed so far that tells any one that the color of a dog has anything to do with a dog except change how it looks to the human eye.

Its not wrong to have opinions but it would behoove everyone to try and form their opinions on facts that will effect the breed of dog that we are concerned about. I can also understand that breeds through out history have been a certain color and if that color is the prefered color and the people involved don't want to change it so be it. But when the color is already in the breed and someone decides not to recognize it for political reasons then that is dead wrong.

I'll make a bet with any of you that no matter how the issue is solved, the dogs won't care a bit, most dog owners won't care a bit, and the dogs will be just as good as they are today. And it won't make a bit of difference even to you when you get to the Pearly Gates. I doubt if it will even be brought up!

Stop and think! There are German Shorthaired Pointers through out the world. Some are white even though some people tried to eliminate them, some are liver, and some are black even though some people tried to eliminate them. Some are in Europe and some are in every other country of the world. Some are called different names due to language differences and some perform slightly differently due to what different people are breeding for that fits their idea of what they want in a hunting dog. If any of you are more interested in saying that the dogs you like are better than anyone elses and the their's should be destroyed or at least not considered the same breed as yours, are doing a great dis-service to the breed and yourself.

I thought the American way had improved the breed for our way of hunting and I also thought the American way had improved the owners way of thinking. Maybe I am wrong on both counts!

Ezzy

Wagonmaster · Post by **Wagonmaster** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 11:52 am

kurzhaar-

ok, jgv then. i can't keep up with the alphabet soup. but the germans write down standards for everything. i would just like to have a copy.

Wagonmaster · Post by **Wagonmaster** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:23 pm

ezzy-

nice post and a rational view.

i agree with you that coat color has nothing to do with hunting ability in the absence of anything else in the equation. i believe i am on record on this board and shorthair.net essentially saying that.

what is different in this case is where the black color will come from. and the situation is a little different with respect to GSP's, than in the britt world. i don't pretend to be a britt expert, but i had a couple in the late 60's early 70's and have been to a number of britt trials. there has been somewhat of a size change from what i can tell, but not much else. they were a nice dog then and are a nice dog now. maybe, being involved in that world yourself you will tell me i am all wet, you have had the same debates as the GSP's, but i doubt you have.

in the GSP world, however, there has been pretty much a raging debate going on for a couple of decades about "keeping the old dogs." this debate has gone on inside the AKC GSP world as well as outside. proponents of the "old lines" claim the dog should still be what it was 30 or 40 years ago.

the modern GSP truly is a changed dog. i am not going to inflame the debate further by going over the list again of the ways it has changed. it has. in almost every way. and the changes have been much more fundamental then anything that i have seen in britts. DK says the dog is different, those of us who have the modern dog say so too. it is not just a "people politics" issue, it has been a real, substantive change.

yes, color of the coat has nothing to do with hunting ability in the abstract. the problem presented by this proposed standards change, is that since black has not been part of the standard over the last 30 or 40 years, black coated dogs have not been part of the change. an awful lot of us like the modern dog. an awful lot of good breeders have spent careers involved in it. (not me, it is not my living). there is not a really strong desire to see the black coat come in, and by opening that gate, open the gate for more "old lines" to walk in. for all practical purposes, that is the only place they can come from.

as i have said before, i like that black and white coat. if that were the issue, i would not have any problem with this change.

Kevin · Post by **Kevin** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:37 pm

John,

I hear ya, I had to sell my man eating DK after he swallowed the the paper boy whole. I was lucky cause I found a guy that owns a junkyard that gave me a case of beer for him.

You crack me up!

Post by **Ayres** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:43 pm

John, if a black dog has not been part of the so-called change then you don't have to breed to it. If all the "new GSP" breeders don't like the "old lines," and black only comes from the "old lines" (two very self-serving and incorrect claims I think), then there won't ever be a problem in your eyes because black will not be bred to in any breeding program in which you wish to take part.

However, there are a number of GSP owners who still breed for versatility. In their minds, the black AKC dogs and the black DK dogs are all part of their maintained breed lines. What you are proposing is to stifle them all as a means to cut out the DK lines completely (which, as I've said before, will never happen because liver DK lines are still being utilized). Also, a lot of people disagree that the DK is so different from the GSP yet you continue to make this claim like it's some sort of infallible fact. You're confusing your own opinion with what a fact is.

Wagonmaster · Post by **Wagonmaster** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:43 pm

hey kevin, that made me smile.

really. glad to see there can be some humor in this debate. if it was blue, send me one down here would you. haven't had one of those in awhile and i am thirsty.

Kurzhaar · Post by **Kurzhaar** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:44 pm

John:

I just gave it to you!!!!!

The only parts missing are the details of timiliness fo reporting and the cost of the certificate.

Jim

Wagonmaster wrote:kurzhaar-

ok, jgv then. i can't keep up with the alphabet soup. but the germans write down standards for everything. i would just like to have a copy.

Wagonmaster · Post by **Wagonmaster** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 12:45 pm

ayres-

can i ask what iron a vizsla guy has in this fire? or do you just want to debate?

Post by **Ayres** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:31 pm

I run with, hunt with and train with both black and liver shorthairs five to seven days per week. I don't own them but I spend so much time with them and think just as highly of them as my own dog.

There are some things that I'll debate just to debate, but those things are usually confined to other message boards and usually about politics. This time I really do have an interest. I personally know more than a couple black GSPs that have the potential to earn a CH title. All of them are being run in hunt tests now and, for the ones that don't already, will eventually have MH titles. Not one of them has ever shown any sign of aggression. And they either play with or wholly ignore the cats around the farm, they don't attack them.

Wagonmaster · Post by **Wagonmaster** » Fri Mar 31, 2006 3:05 pm

hey pear-

John, I normally see you as a very intelligent, and respectful individual, but the above statement is dead wrong... The intent of this, and all threads at GDF is to allow opinions to be made and discussed. Not to declare emphatically something “should not” be done, or that the opinions of other are wrong.

read back would you. i think you will see DK specifically asked me to keep it short and to the point. i did. normally i would spend a few more words to keep the post more respectful and stated in the form of an opinion, as you note.

understand, DK has messaged around and they are now all in. i respond to one person, his friend comes in next with a
"hey wagonmaster".

perhaps if DK's post were somewhat more respectful of those who have other types of dogs, they in turn might find themselves treated with more respect.

but you are right, i should remain patient with them anyway. point taken.

wannabe · Post by **wannabe** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 11:55 am

Steven,

I didn't get a chance to discuss the black GSP issue with the Parietti's this weekend. I was too busy riding and field trialing. I will probably run into the Hill's or Blackborne's this Spring and I will try to get their point of view.

I would like to hear Dave Quindt's opinion though...

I also have a question regarding this:

The facts are:
1. The black color was bred into the DK for the betterment of the breed a century ago.

How does the color of a dog improve the breed?

Chris,
Regarding nose color: A black dog will have a black nose and a liver dog will have a brown nose.

mountaindogs · Post by **mountaindogs** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 12:16 pm

My understanding is that the Arkwright pointers being black were bred in to darken the liver color as some were getting washed out in color, and to darken the eyes as many are yellow and not brown. Please coreect me if I am wrong, but those are the reasons I have read.

Post by **ezzy333** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 1:20 pm

The black dogs improved the breed not the dogs ,because they were black. Or the color was desired because of what mountain dog saidEzzy

wannabe · Post by **wannabe** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 1:45 pm

mountaindogs wrote:My understanding is that the Arkwright pointers being black were bred in to darken the liver color as some were getting washed out in color, and to darken the eyes as many are yellow and not brown. Please coreect me if I am wrong, but those are the reasons I have read.

Those may have been their reasons 100 years ago, but since brown and black are two different genes, it won't work. If you want dark eyes and dark coats, breed to dogs with dark eyes and coats.

Margaret · Post by **Margaret** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 4:18 pm

Not that it matters now, but one person/group of enthusiasts wanted to improve the field work of the dogs by introducing more Pointer blood. There was argument about this because others felt that all the hard work they had put into water love and the dogs getting their heads down to track would be compromised.
This is why the blacks went into a seperate register.

If I remember the DD were having coat bleaching in some lines so they used the black DK to improve pigment.

It was felt that the black might improve eye colour but it doesn't.
In fact a satisfactory eye colour on a liver dog looks light on a black dog.

This is from my research, but does it really matter now how or why black was introduced? It may be a new issue to show dog folk in USA but it's an old issue to the DK/GSP.

Post by **Ayres** » Sun Apr 02, 2006 9:57 pm

wannabe, as mentioned, some believe that black was originally bred into the line to darken the pigment of the liver dogs. Another reason is what Margaret eluded to in that the Arkwright pointers were used to lift the head of the GSP while hunting so that they could better utilize the wind. In one instance the actual color black was the desired trait; in the other, a trait that the black dogs possessed was the desired end. Either way, black was introduced in an effort to improve the breed.

Wagonmaster · Post by **Wagonmaster** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 6:17 am

This is from my research, but does it really matter now how or why black was introduced? It may be a new issue to show dog folk in USA but it's an old issue to the DK/GSP.

i agree with margaret. what does it matter. they added in st. hubert hound, and old spanish pointer, and a bunch of things. it is pretty clear from the history that plain old english pointer went in in around 1890. old history for everybody.

adding the blacks in now though is a different issue. time stood still for them ten or fifteen generations ago.

is everybody aware that DK/FCI allows "yellow tan" also? we don't.

wannabe · Post by **wannabe** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 7:20 am

You can not darken the pigment of a brown dog by breeding to a black. They are two different genes; it is not like mixing paint.

What is the percentage of black DK's in Germany compared to brown? Does the breed club have any regulations regarding the breeding of black dogs similar to the VDD?

Wagonmaster · Post by **Wagonmaster** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 8:25 am

black and black mould combined were 16% of pups in 2005

12 Volt Man · Post by **12 Volt Man** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:33 am

Wagonmaster wrote:black and black mould combined were 16% of pups in 2005

That is fairly big percentage.

Wagonmaster · Post by **Wagonmaster** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:04 am

just to be clear, 16% of DKV pups, that was the question.

AHGSP · Post by **AHGSP** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:17 am

Wannabe,

I am not in the DKV or anything to do with it, but from previous discussions as I understand it, No, they do not regulate breeding of Blacks and allow Black to bred to Black.

John,

Where were you able to find the info on registered Black and Black Moulds?? If I recall correctly, an old study from the '90's showed a 10 year trend of, I believe, from 8 to 10 % Black and Black Moulds registered in Germany. I'd be curious what a more recent average over the past 5 or 10 years would be.... Might even be worth taking a look and seeing what a long term trend over a 25 yr period would be....

Wagonmaster · Post by **Wagonmaster** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 10:43 am

the 2005 DKV breed book

AHGSP · Post by **AHGSP** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:06 am

Wagonmaster wrote:the 2005 DKV breed book

Thanx, research to do

Post by **Ayres** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 11:51 am

wannabe wrote:You can not darken the pigment of a brown dog by breeding to a black. They are two different genes; it is not like mixing paint.

This is known now. It wasn't known when black was first bred into the GSP. Flawed logic on the part of those people wanting to darken the coats of the liver dogs if that was, in fact, what black was introduced for. However, as mentioned, the Arkwright (black) pointers were also introduced to raise the head of the hunting GSP. In that instance the color black was just a by-product.

Margaret · Post by **Margaret** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:22 pm

16% b&w is a lot? 84% are liver & white.

Please don't get mixed up with the yellow markings.

I do not know anyone who has seen them. It is NOT the colour of the dog.

The FCI (country of origin breed standard) allows this marking because the dogs with it have shown to be particularly good at following a track.

As you do not want your dogs to track, I recommend staying away from it

he,he.

Wagonmaster · Post by **Wagonmaster** » Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:42 pm

nein. 56% war braunschimmel (liver and white) 1% were weisse (solid white). the rest were braune (solid liver).

markj · Post by **markj** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 8:14 am

do not want your dogs to track

funny statement, yep we 'mericans dont want our bird dogs finding wounded things. Takes all the sport outta it

I see GSPs every year "track". It is one of the best things about the breed. I never loose a wounded bird, nada, not one. Now my dear cousin who I love with all my heart, runs Labs, he looses birds. I have seen one drop, run off into taller grass, only to have the labs come back empty mouthed, run my GSP and guess what? they manage to "track" the bird and come back with him alive and kicking most times. But you can think what you wish

if it makes you feel all warm and fuzzy

Thanks for my morning laff, it made my day..

Margaret · Post by **Margaret** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:22 pm

Mark - I do not own DK's.

I have GSP, and they track wounded birds too.

I was just having a little dig at WM

Wagonmaster · Post by **Wagonmaster** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:41 pm

shoot margaret, did i miss some little pleasantry. well, can't read everything.

Margaret · Post by **Margaret** » Tue Apr 04, 2006 6:14 pm

Don't worry, I'm sure we'll get our teeth into it somewhere

markj · Post by **markj** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 9:50 am

I was just having a little dig at WM

Yes, I was having a little fun myself

I know how much you love this breed.

I would have replyed yestyrday but was out of commision

So how did the vote go?

Post by **Ayres** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:56 am

I think the polling closes sometime around April 20 something. Can't remember the exact date.

AHGSP · Post by **AHGSP** » Fri Apr 07, 2006 4:06 pm

April 27th and the results will be announced on the 3rd.

AHGSP · Post by **AHGSP** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:00 pm

I've been thinking on this topic some and have a question that I have perplexed over and can't come up with a good answer for it.

There have been statements made to the effect that some would never breed to any dog that had Black in its ped and that even U.S. Breeders of Black GSP's have German dogs "close up" in the ped, as close as 5th or 6th Generation..... Yet, how many times have these same folks made statements to the effect of, "a dog 5 or 6 Generations back does not really have an influence on what the pups will be".....

Am I missing something?? Kinda contradictory, Eh.....

Could someone PLEASE explain this to me?

Wagonmaster · Post by **Wagonmaster** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 10:19 am

the discussions in which we have talked about the fact that "a dog 5 or 6 Generations back does not really have an influence on what the pups will be"..... have been discussions of line breeding to individual dogs. it becomes unrealistic to say that a dog is linebred "Terminator," for example, when Terminator died fifteen years ago, there is no frozen semen around, and the most "linebred" progeny in existence are about 4% Terminator.

the "old lines" issue is a different thing. for lack of a better term, it is collective breeding to a type. a group of people (a breed club for example) breed to a specific desired type, and a "type gene pool" is created. linebreeding may be used to accomplish the "typecasting." history tells us that it takes many generations to change such a type, if it can be done at all without outcrossing. decades at least.

25 years ago it was pretty common in the US, among GSP's, to see peds where the distance to imports was mixed, i.e. in one or two ancestry lines the import might be three generations away, in another couple of lines it might be five gens., in still other lines it might be six, seven or eight. but every single line would run back to an import that was not ancient history. pretty hard to put a number to that kind of ped. i would use "old lines" to express it.

it is a dog bred to a type. linebreeding could be used or not. but it is a different issue from linebreeding.