Managing Breeding
Managing Karakachan Dog Breeding in the USA for Long Term Success
D.P. Sponenberg
An important detail in long-term breed management (of any breed!) is that as soon as every dog is related to every other dog, then every mating is an inbred mating. This is not necessarily a problem for all breeds, but it does become a problem for a hefty percentage of breeds. And, importantly, when all of the dogs of a breed do end up related to one another, there is no way to back out of any problem that might arise. With that in mind, it is always best for breeders to assure that some dogs are unrelated to others. This takes planning for matings all along the way, ideally thinking two or three generations on into the future. If all the dogs end up being the same blend of bloodlines, then it becomes impossible to have completely unrelated matings.
It is also important to note that linebreeding (a moderate form of inbreeding) can, and does, succeed in producing sound, productive animals. It is important to use strong dogs for linebreeding, though, in order to not risk weaknesses. The point is that a linebred dog is not necessarily a weak dog. Some of the strongest and best breeding dogs have been linebred.
In order to help the genetic management of Karakachan dogs, it is useful to analyze the backgrounds on the Karakachan dogs that have been imported into the USA. These are the ones most available to breeders, simply because they are already here. Analyzing the bloodlines is a complicated task, and at some level a distant relationship can be unimportant. However, close relationships among breeding pairs are important, and tend to get overlooked unless pedigrees are closely examined.
The analysis is complicated, but may help folks to understand which dogs are related to which. That information can help to pair up dogs in the future. Remember that linebreeding should only be done when true excellence (and not wishful thinking or convenience!) is available.
This analysis has several parts. A first point is to list dogs that have been imported, and to whom. This list may be incomplete, and any corrections and additions are welcome. The analysis only involves these dogs. Names on several are not their registered names because they were not available to me, but in those cases the owners are indicated.
| Name | Year Born | Sex | Dead | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vucho KaraKitan | 2003 | male | dead | Sponenberg |
| Mechka KaraKitan | 2003 | female | dead | Groot |
| Kusha II KaraKitan | 2003 | male | dead | Sponenberg |
| Sharo III KaraKitan | 2003 | female | dead | Groot |
| Rado KaraKitan | 2007 | male | Kolb | |
| Rila (Running River) KaraKitan | 2006 | female | Houchin | |
| Pirin (Running River) KaraKitan | 2006 | male | Houchin | |
| Pirin (Syncope Falls) KaraKitan | 2007 | male | Kolb | |
| Duda KaraKitan | 2007 | female | Kolb | |
| Gizda Vlahi KaraKitan | 2010 | female | Kolb | |
| Kandzha KaraKitan | 2010 | female | Kolb | |
| San Francisco Female | female | ? | ||
| Karaman Kyurenitsa | 2013 | male | Anderson | |
| Zaslon Kalin | 2013 | male | Sponenberg | |
| Kera KaraKitan | 2013 | female | Sponenberg | |
| Krina KaraKitan | 2013 | female | McDaniel | |
| Anastasia Vulkan | 2014 | female | Sponenberg | |
| Lilly Kyurenitsa | 2014 | female | Anderson | |
| Kara KaraKitan | 2014 | female | USDA | |
| Kasho KaraKitan | 2014 | male | USDA | |
| Tina KaraKitan | 2014 | female | USDA | |
| Zara KaraKitan | 2014 | female | USDA | |
| Varda KaraKitan | 2014 | female | USDA | |
| Vita KaraKitan | 2014 | female | USDA | |
| Balkan Vulkan | 2014 | male | USDA | |
| Boyan Vulkan | 2014 | male | USDA | |
| Buntar Vulkan | 2014 | male | USDA | |
| “Sugar” | 2014 | female | USDA |
The KaraKitan kennel is the Sedefchev (Sider and Atila) kennel. Those dogs have included some truly excellent ones, and are the basis upon which the breed in the USA is based. They are the reason the breed has enjoyed such popularity here in the USA. As far as I know, the original pair that the Sedefchevs used was Kitan (male) and Gizda (female). These must have been impressive dogs, and genetically strong. Because most KaraKitan dogs are linebred back to them, I have tried to indicate the relative proportion of these two in all dogs. This is noted by the “% K” and “% G” on the file with the pedigrees of imported dogs. In addition, Kitan’s sire was Magero and his dam was Yantra. Magero’s dam was also Yantra, so I track the percentages of Magero and Yantra as well. This is also because Yantra contributes through dogs other than Magero, such as Yantra II and so these also figure in different ways in pedigrees. The reason for emphasizing these four dogs is that they are the usual repeats in Karakachan dog pedigrees in the USA as well as in Bulgaria. That will likely change in the future, but is a useful place to start.
With regard to Kitan and Gizda, it is important to track pedigrees all the way back to founders, which is no easy task in all cases. This is due to Kitan and Gizda “falling off” the right side of the pedigree, even in dogs with a very high influence of these two due to the creative and successful linebreeding that was done to these two through various of their descendants.
While not all linebreeding, or even inbreeding, is bad, it is always best to know when it is occurring, and to what extent. This is the reason for indicating the proportion of Kitan, Gizda, Margero, and Yantra when it is possible to do so. At this level of analysis, the dogs sort out into a few distinct groups:
- These are relatively high in Kitan and Gizda. The definition I used was that the dogs were over 30% either Kitan or Gizda. In most cases this is both. Included here are Rila (Running River) KaraKitan, Pirin (Running River) KaraKitan, Pirin (Syncope Falls) KaraKitan, and Kera (and Krina) KaraKitan.
- These are more moderate in Kitan and Gizda, being between 20% and 30% at least one of these. Included are Duda KaraKitan, Kandja Vlahi KaraKitan, Gizda Vlahi KaraKitan, Kara KaraKitan (and her siblings Kasho, Tina, and Zara), and Varda KaraKitan (and her sibling Vita.)
- These are dogs with 10% to 20% Kitan and Gizda breeding. Included are Kusha II KaraKitan, Sharo III KaraKitan, Mechka KaraKitan, and Vucho KaraKitan. These were the original imports. Due to the original imports being two brother/sister pairs, many dogs are influenced by these. These four were never mated to dogs outside this original group. A few pedigree errors have crept in for some dogs, but those should have all been corrected now. The key point is that these four dogs were only mated to one another or to descendants of the others within this group.
- Other groups, such as this one, are more loosely connected to one another. A few dogs go back to “Sherif Tito” enough that this should be monitored. Included are Rado KaraKitan, and Zaslon Kalin. These are two males, and so any “doubling up” would be the next generation, and therefore of minimal concern.
- Vulkan dogs. These tend to have repeats of a few ancestors, but far back enough to not be of much concern. Included are Anastasia Vulkan, Karaman Kyurenitsa, and Lilly Kyurenitsa. Balkan Vulkan (and his brothers Boyan and Buntar) fit in here too, but this is hardly a group at all due to the distant relationships within the group.
If these assessments are considered valid, then the following chart indicates the animals, by sex, and the groups represented:
| Males | Group | Females | Group | Owner |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vucho hips 70th percentile | 3 | Sponenberg | ||
| Sharo short tail | 3 | Groot | ||
| Kusha short tail | 3 | Sponenberg | ||
| Mechka | 3 | Groot | ||
| Rado KaraKitan | 4 | Kolb | ||
| Rila (Running River) | 1 | Houchin | ||
| Pirin (Running River) | 1 | Houchin | ||
| Pirin (Syncope Falls) | 1 | Kolb | ||
| Duda | 2 | Kolb | ||
| GizdaVlahi | 2 | Kolb | ||
| Kandja Vlahi | 2 | Kolb | ||
| Zaslon | 4 | Sponenberg | ||
| Karaman | 5 | Anderson | ||
| Kera | 1 | Sponenberg | ||
| Krina | 1 | McDaniel | ||
| Anastasia | 5 | Sponenberg | ||
| Lilly | 5 | Anderson | ||
| Kara | 2 | USDA | ||
| Kasho | 2 | USDA | ||
| Tina | 2 | USDA | ||
| Zara | 2 | USDA | ||
| Varda | 2 | USDA | ||
| Vita | 2 | USDA | ||
| Balkan | 5 | USDA | ||
| Boyan | 5 | USDA | ||
| Buntar | 5 | USDA |
By reducing the complexity to put the dogs into these different groups, it is easier to figure out rough relationships not only of the original imports, but also of their descendants here in the USA. As an example, Sponenberg’s dog Tupelo is the result of mating Vucho to Rosie (Smiley x Kusha, Smiley is Sharo x Mechka). All of these ancestors were group 3, so Tupelo is firmly in group 3. A second example is Ivanna, who is a nice combination of 1. x 2 x 3 x 4, and so can be taken back to a male from any group male without linebreeding too closely.
The only moderate snag is that group 5 dogs are really not all that close, so any linebreeding there is minimal and should be safe.
Hopefully this makes some sense at some level. By using these animals carefully and by planning mating pairs, it will be possible to breed genetically sound dogs long into the future. Future imports will also be important, and necessary for long-term breed security. How they are used is important for the future of the breed that we all enjoy. The best way to do this is for breeders to cooperate, for breeders to know what other breeders are pairing up, and for useful combinations to be made available to others.