Producing Better Dogs - Drag on the Breed

Hotpepper · Post by **Hotpepper** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:45 am

Was posting to the Midwest GSP thread this morning and it comes to memory of the "[size=150]Drag on the Breed.

[/size]This says that if you breed 2 equals you have a much greater potential to produce get that are less then the parent. There are literally lots of articles in the American Field on this subject. I hope we can have a good discussion on this here and not get it dragged away into something else.

My own personal experience has been that the goodness to potential great needs to be on both parental sides.

Let's see what happens with this.

Pepper

Ruffshooter · Post by **Ruffshooter** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:09 am

This should be interesting and informitive. I am getting ready to breed my GSP (Mercy) To a Son of (Sonny (Shooting Star). I looked back at each pedigree, looked at the parent of each and am fortunate enough to have worked with both sides. In my case I feel I have consistent and excellent results on both sides to the pedigrees and dogs. And of course the two dogs to be bred are great animals and a joy to watch and work with.

I look forward to watching this post.
Rick

kylenicholas02 · Post by **kylenicholas02** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:16 am

Hotpepper, great thread choice. I believe that this needs to be discussed. As responsible owners and breeders, it's our job to make the full effort of researching into the pedigree of the animal to try and better the breed. My argument on my thread was that, I am trying to weed out the weekend breeders or the guys who produce dogs for money. And find dogs that are produced for the betterment of the breed and are properly research prior to penning two dogs up to shack. I've had experience with both, and feel like alot of the breeders participating in this site aren't that way, and have a genuine passion to produce top quality dogs each and every breeder.. Breeding a dog for money or any form of revenue, is out right wrong...

markj · Post by **markj** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:35 am

I for one would like to know where all this money is?

A guy has one or two dogs, breeds one litter a year, pays out vet cost, shots, etc. Just what is left?

I have read that tight line breeding over multiple generations will produce smaller dogs. I am of the belief that the direction some go only betters their piece of the dog. Whatever the breeder uses the dogs for is what I mean, a hunter wants good hunters that train easy and only want to hunt, FTs want a far ranging dog that is highly visible so he breeds for that, the dual breeders want the whole package, conformation and hunt ablity and the FT all in one dog. Not an easy feat but some consistantly produce the dual type dog.

Sure hope this post doesnt upset anyone, but I firmly belive the dual type dog is the way to go to ensure the breed remains and doesnt morph into a completly different dog as some have claimed is happening to the GSP.

RayGubernat · Post by **RayGubernat** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:22 am

As far as breeding for the betterment of the breed, there is no all knowing and final authority to whom we can go to find out: "What is better?"... for any individual breed.

As far as sporting type dogs are concerned, I am of the firm opinion that form will, and must follow function. So the conformation side of the equation, if it exists in a meaningful way, must be responsive to the dog's function. For breeds such as the setters, this is clearly not the case when you see conformation dogs being rewarded for having coats of thick, flowing hair in such amounts and at such lengths as to make it virtually impossible for such a dog to go afield. The conformation standard is flawed and should be adjusted. The dual dog, if it to have meaning, must be a dog that exemplifies...is the pinnacle of the both the conformation standard AND the performance standard.

As far as breeding two similar dogs and getting mostly progeny that are less than their parents, that kinda depends on how well the talents and genetics of the parentls line up. The former owners of both Gunsmoke Kennels and Elhew Kennels, bred their pointers principally for the hunter market. They bred for different hunter markets but both were focused on producing dogs that hunters wanted. However, both kennels kept an eye for the individual dog that seemed to have what it took to compete in trials and when they saw one, they developed it accordingly.

Interestingly, Elhew stayed very close to a standard that the kennel owner had as a vision and bred rather tightly to produce dog that met that standard of a Genleman's shooting dog, outcrossing when necessary to reinvigorate as needed or improve as the opportunity arose.

Gunsmoke bred to a different, less defined, but wider running standard and did not generally breed as tightly as Elhew. Gunsmoke tended to lean more toward the competitive side with their breedings. They outcrossed regularly, continuously attempting to produce the occasional exceptional competitive dog, while producing dogs that suited the needs of many hunters.

RayG

BigShooter · Post by **BigShooter** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:39 am

Hotpepper wrote: This says that if you breed 2 equals you have a much greater potential to produce get that are less then the parent. There are literally lots of articles in the American Field on this subject. I hope we can have a good discussion on this here and not get it dragged away into something else.

My own personal experience has been that the goodness to potential great needs to be on both parental sides. Pepper

The current 2x NC Spot is the product of a National Gun Dog Champion & an untrialed bitch out of field trial stock. In this case a single get exceeded the stud & dam. I like to compare genetics and breeding to humans because we can all relate to it easier. Were both of Einstein's parent of higher intelligence than their son? Parents of any certain IQs have had children both smarter and less smart than they are. A 5'11" man with a 5'6" wife can produce a 6'2" or a 5'9" son. If two parents have four children, how similar will the children be to one another. So it is with dogs. Statistical chances is the name of the game - certainty is not. With multiple litters from the same parents I submit there is a greater probability subsequent offspring will be somewhat more similar to prior litters than offspring from a subsequent breeding between the same stud and a different dam. However, if everyone simply line bred without sufficient outcrosses it would diminish the genetic diversity and potential of the breed. There are, I would submit, a number of FC and even NC/NFC potential dogs never trialed.

We tend to stick with the tried and true because we don't have an unlimited life span to mess around with breeding our dogs. Our natural inclination then is to go with what has worked in the past rather than to apply limited time and resources to trying all kinds of unproven dog combinations to see if something even better can be produced.

Post by **kninebirddog** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:04 pm

when breeding there should be a core of complete desired in both dogs

for the gun dogs

Both dogs should have a a strong desire to hunt..i will not breed a dog that has any issue with the gun man made or not

there should be the build which will make for a dog that has good movement in the field so they are capable of hunting all day long

so you have a base

then since there is no perfect dog ...what you do if you have a dog that is stronger in one area and needs help in another then you find a mate that again has the base core of being a hunting dog and can help put a potential pup that has all the desired results

never breed two dogs together that have the same weakness

I also will not breed a dog that has any issues with the shotgun..man made issue or not

also here we have Valley Fever..i will never breed a dog that had to be treated for it....Valley fever is not contagious but when a dog has to be treated for it ..that means the body didn't have the resistance to the spore and that is a weakness which I just prefer not to take a chance breeding potential dogs also with a lower resistance to the valley fever spore.. and every time you inhale dust from broken earth ..you are breathing in the valley fever spore so anytime we have a dust blowing a dust devil or the major Haboob ...yes google up that is the name of the major dust storms we have here in the desert valleys and yes they carry the spore where ever they blow through.
a bird dog that don't hunt...do not need to be entered into future gene pools either

there are many things...but if your breeding a bird dog.....breed a bird dog with functional form and desire

Breed for a reason other then to just fill a market

When you breed that litter plan on what you will do with pups you can not sell cause people are not beating your door down

Just because a pup is 10 weeks old if your breeding with purpose it doesn't make it worth less then the first pup that went out the door at 7 weeks..or at least it shouldn't be just because when someone starts to drop the price then it send out a message that it was just another litter and those pups are not wanted and the dropping the price to get rid of them .... what kinda message is that?

Ridge-Point · Post by **Ridge-Point** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 12:25 pm

Line breed for consistancy and outcross for vigor.

Look and the meat production industry. The best producers of chicken and beef are crosses.

I think this topic is a little overblown. A drag on the breed usually means there is a very small genetic pool to start with.

Some dogs have the ability to reproduce themselves with consistancy, other dogs might throw pups that are better than they are. I think most people that claim drag on the breed, are probably just breeding a dog that doesn't produce.

markj · Post by **markj** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 1:14 pm

Howdy Ridge-Point, hows it going? Do you still have that casey dog?

Ruffshooter · Post by **Ruffshooter** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:28 pm

I have never seen a cross between a chicken and a cow.

Sorry just struck me funny.

3Britts · Post by **3Britts** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:43 pm

Ruffshooter wrote:I have never seen a cross between a chicken and a cow. Sorry just struck me funny.

That's because it is too hard to get them out of the coop. duh.

Post by **kninebirddog** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:45 pm

Ever hear of a Pheasant Chukar cross?

it was called.... ahh never mind

Ridge-Point · Post by **Ridge-Point** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 2:57 pm

Ruffshooter wrote:I have never seen a cross between a chicken and a cow. Sorry just struck me funny.

Here you go.

Ruffshooter · Post by **Ruffshooter** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:24 pm

I want one!

Sorry to get off topic.

Post by **kninebirddog** » Wed Mar 25, 2009 3:53 pm

Ok we now resume to Post at hand

on the note of the beef industry yes a cross can do very well...the south devon cross with limousine or herford were nice but when bred to an outcrossed cow didn't produce as good of a cross so when you kee crossing you begin to lose pretty quick any of what the first cross did specially if you just kept on randomly crossing

but then take a cross go back to daddy also produced some nice calves

nice thing about the south devon on the herford or limosines they produced a smaller calf which grew faster thus many first time hefers could be bred sooner with less problems so that would be an extra calf produced in the cows lifetime

anyways yes a cross can bring out something from both lines but just random crossing and continual crossing will lead to no uniformity and undesired results

Hotpepper · Post by **Hotpepper** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:08 pm

I feel I had a pretty good subjct to discuss but seems bird dog folks would rather talk about crossing cows with antelopes.

Peppere

prairiefirepointers · Post by **prairiefirepointers** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:32 pm

Hotpepper wrote:I feel I had a pretty good subjct to discuss but seems bird dog folks would rather talk about crossing cows with antelopes.

lol.. Yeah, well whatever your crossing be it cows, chickens, dogs, ect, Just make sure you don't turn ANY kind of profit because that would just be out and out wrong. :roll:

I guess anyone who breeds seriously/kennel owner is supposed to be providing a community service instead of running a business. I agree with everything about ethical choices in betterment of breeding and the practices that go with it. However it takes money to do that. I make money... Does that somehow make me a bad guy for it?

Love to hear the rebuttal on this one.

postoakshorthairs · Post by **postoakshorthairs** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 1:56 pm

I guess anyone who breeds seriously/kennel owner is supposed to be providing a community service instead of running a business. I agree with everything about ethical choices in betterment of breeding and the practices that go with it. However it takes money to do that. I make money... Does that somehow make me a bad guy for it?

I don't see many people giving quality pups away, so I can only surmise that almost everyone that breeds hopes to at least break even. Even the most reputable, educated and succesful breeders, that are trying to improve the breeds, certainly hope to make a fair living....and some, based on prices of a grand and up on pups, hope to make a better than fair living

. I think the post you were referring to was a little idealistic, but I'm hoping he's aiming that at those who are mass producing the popular breeds, colors etc without regard to matching the right dogs. So no prariefire...I don't think that makes you a bad guy.

lvrgsp · Post by **lvrgsp** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:00 pm

Ok I'll bite here......I've not seen the drag of the breed so to speak yet in the breed as a whole, I think we could get there rather quickly if were not careful. I think there a few dogs within some very tight linebreeding programs that were basically the end of the line as far as producing great get or better than themselves, along with that came some health issues that resurfaced after about 20 plus years of linebreeding, the recessive came back to the surface, mainly a few linebred Moesgaard dogs. I think to much kennel blindness goes on now, were wrapped up to much on who did what at what trial, and look at the papergree on that dog...(thats my slam on paper x pedigree breeding). I could give a rats "bleep" about multiple NC's bred to multiple NC's, are they freaking birddogs, are they smart birddogs, are they biddable birddogs, what hangups do they have, they've all got em. Are they good wild birddogs, not just AA dogs whipped around the course to win NC's, (and yes it happened). I think unless your in a position to evaluate many dogs from breedings it is going to be hard to make an honest assesment, I think most people would like to do that, but it's hard for us amatuers to honestly do that, that's where we turn to pro's who have done it. From there we have a better chance of a proven breeding program.
On another subject here, I think some breedings could do with some german dogs bred back in for toughness, some lines are getting a bit soft, maybe a little bit of that hard driven german breeding would'nt be so bad, just an opinion, not to start a freaking DK vs GSP war here, but you get the idea.

Linebreeding creates smaller dogs, I will agree with that, and can attest that it is true in some linebreedings I have seen, now they have to go somewhere, I think a loss of toughness came with that some, maybe poor selection, or poor decisions right or wrong, it happened. The thing now is do you recognize it and correct it? So many people will only breed to a titled dog, fine great, no problems with that, other than not every titled dog is breed worthy, as well as every swinging hunting dog never titled is breed worthy.

I had a gentlemen contact me about If I was going to breed my female now. It's her first heat cycle, she's barely two, heck I've not had her on enough wild birds for my liking to see how shes gonna turn out for sure. Yea I think she's gonna be a good one, she won plenty as a puppy/derby so what. Thinking and knowing are 2 different things in my book. Her hips are'nt done, he did not care. That bothers me a little. And we've all got different concerns, but I think we must honestly evaluate those and address them within our breeding programs, don't be afraid to go outside the box.

And as far as cattle go I prefer the Limousine x Angus cross, or the beef to dairy cattle F1. Sorry Jerry.....

Just my opinion,
Chip

Gordon Guy · Post by **Gordon Guy** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:23 pm

The statement were discussing is this "if you breed 2 equals you have a much greater potential to produce get that are less then the parent." This statement would be impossible to prove unless the whole litter was kept and trained the same as the parents. I've bred a few litters and it would be impossible to say whether the pups are better than the parents due to difference in expectations of their owners and levels and type of training or lack of training.

FYI, Eistein was a product of two people that were second cousins, so does that support linbreeding?

I also agree that a breeder who's breeding commercially (for profit) is not necessarily a bad thing depending on the commitment of the person doing the breeding. If you're in it to make money you better produce good puppies or else you won't be making much of a living.

Rob · Post by **Rob** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:44 pm

Line breeding produces consistency and has the ability to reduce the occurrence of undesirable recessive genetic traits, if done properly. In my opinion, it is the only way to consistently do this. It also has the ability to magnify those undesirable recessive genes. There are a myriad of examples in livestock, mice, and even humans. I am not a geneticist, but the statistics on this are fairly straight-forward.

But on an individual basis (ignoring consistency) outcrosses can be just as or more productive (IMO).

BigShooter · Post by **BigShooter** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 5:54 pm

I view "drag of the breed" to be those traits that are part of the generic breed. Undesirable traits that keep popping up in a breed despite selective efforts by breeders are included in the "drag" of the breed. To get to "drag of the breed" one first needs agreed upon standards to know what traits will drag a dog away from the best within a standard. Here many say, form should follow function. A show standard that produces a versatile gundog unable to excel in the field is IMO a "drag" on the breed. The important measure of drag is working ability and functionality.

Is there a narrow shared vision of function within a breed today? I perceive significant variance in the expectations of desired function by owners and breeders. Field trial stock, NAVDA stock, close working, emphasizing retrieving or not yields endless options but creates little clear vision for breeding away from the generic for the betterment of the breed. This is after all the USA, with independence and freedom for all. Form necessarily follows function. So we have a lot of diversity of type. The diversity of breeding stock that went into the origins of each breed, plus the current diversity in expected function leads to a wider range of forms (or type) & in turn creates a wider range of "average". The factors leading to a wider range of "average" result in more "drag" to the "generic" dog within a breed.

If a DC gets vastly outperformed by significant numbers of field trial dogs, is the DC truly the epitome of breeding away from the "drag of the breed"? On the other hand what are acceptable faults in Field champions? Should bad bites, negative recessive traits, minor skin issues, etc. be overlooked if the dog has what it takes to functionally excel in trialing ... or is this simply another "drag on the breed"?

So to get away from "drag of the breed" or what's "average" we'd need a marriage of show and field standards, otherwise we will have "drag of the field breed" and "drag of the show breed". If we have two different functional standards, next we'd need to know what traits are considered "de minimus" for the field standard and the show standards. For example, can a dog with a bad bite still be a field champion and be considered one of the "best of the breed" and that trait can be ignored for subsequent breeding attempts to reproduce the most desired functional traits in offspring. The next measure is offspring. If the "better than average" traits cannot be selected for and passed along to offspring that particular line will become average over time.

Medical testing for health issues and soundness, show tests and field tests are the best measures we have today to look for breed excellence ... a cut above the rest of the breed. Unfortunately what we don't know about the exact process of genetic transference of traits vastly exceeds what we do know. However, we can only act based upon the state of our present knowledge and experience.

As I said before two parents can produce offspring that "appear" to be better by some defined measurement than the parents. That being said however, commmon sense would seem to dictate that the statistical probability of above average parents producing better than average get is higher than the probability of average parents producing better than average get.

Obviously I agree with Gordon Guy that it is not only genetics but other significant factors such as type and level of training, time, money, opportunity, experience, level of competition, etc. that impact the measured performance level of subsequent get.

Ruffshooter · Post by **Ruffshooter** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 6:11 pm

Excuse my ignorance, but please define "Drag on the breed". I think I know what you mean but please help.

If you bred two equally great dogs, why would that mean you would end up with less? Possible sure. Am I not understnding this right?

BigShooter · Post by **BigShooter** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 6:33 pm

Drag of the breed might be explained this way: what long time breeders think and value are "hard to get" virtues vs drag of the breed (or average traits). High tail set vs low or average tail set, stylish in the field vs undistinquished in the field, etc. The best, harder to get traits vs what any old average dog of the breed might have.

Two great parent dogs are more likely to produce more outstanding pups in a given litter. However, pups in the litter can be better than, as good as or less than the great parents . Two average parent dogs are more likely to produce more average pups in a litter. However two dogs that appear to be just good dogs can also produce a great pup but statistically they have a lesser chance of doing that than great parent dogs do.

Ridge-Point · Post by **Ridge-Point** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 6:48 pm

Ruffshooter wrote:Excuse my ignorance, but please define "Drag on the breed". I think I know what you mean but please help.

If you bred two equally great dogs, why would that mean you would end up with less? Possible sure. Am I not understnding this right?

I usually hear this topic discussed with regards to range. Alot of people talk about using All-Age dogs to keep the run in their Shooting/Gun dog stock. Some people have the belief that without crossing to All-Age dogs you will eventually lose the run. I'm not sure if I believe that or not.

To me drag of the breed refers to inbreeding too closely, which is a problem in breeds with small gene pools.

Here is a decent article from the Pudelpointer perspective.

http://cedarwoodgundogs.com/line_breeding.asp

Here is some related articles from wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding_depression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outbreeding_depression

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterosis

Post by **kninebirddog** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:35 pm

for me drag on a breed is when someone doesn't breed for the core base of a dogs breed

Like someone taking a long feathery thin coated hackney gaited show bred dog and then breeds it to a pedigree that has a field title in it and then sells that as a hunting dog ...if only some pro's could tell you what they really think ..I know what I think when I get to work with them

or a dog that for what ever reason didn't cut it as a meat dog ..so they make a brood bitch out of her..If he or she was useless in the field sorry they is useless for a gene pool also

prairiefirepointers · Post by **prairiefirepointers** » Thu Mar 26, 2009 8:55 pm

postoakshorthairs wrote:
no prariefire...I don't think that makes you a bad guy.

Postoak, Okay good.. I was thinking to myself "Wow, I have all these other character flaws, and now I can't even make money or I'm a bad guy"

Okay, back to regular scheduled programing and the point of the thread!

kylenicholas02 · Post by **kylenicholas02** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 7:10 pm

Firstly Prairiefire, i believe you interpreted my post incorrectly. I have both worked for and owned dogs of a breeder who didnt do the DNA testing, etc... Main goal in breeding his pups was to get rid of them, not see them excel at their future homes. This is alot of the reason I no longer work there. I just Friday, spent alot of money and purchased a EP. But, I know and it shows that the breeder's desire isn't to make a million off his dogs, it's a love and passion. Business school 101, Never do something you dont love or have an immense passion for or your work will express likewise. Your pups for instance express this passion and desire to see them excel. BDK, Erin's OutBak, ETC ETC.. These are the dogs worth the money, its the guy who produces pups as a source of economic resource, this is shown because he doesn't trial his dogs, doesn't do the blood work, and breeds consistently back to the same sire and bitch till they are done. There was an entire article in PDJ or Gundog regarding this topic.

Thus I hope you now see I wasnt cutting down the breeders who get the money for their pups, I was discussing the intentions and moral issues regarding some breeders motive for breeding. Heck, I'm a conservative, small business owner... I definitely support capitalism and free market enterprise and the effects on supply and demand.

prairiefirepointers · Post by **prairiefirepointers** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 9:35 pm

Great!
I was hoping that it was'nt a harsh generalization, but you never know. I love what I do.. I being fairly young and confident (somewhat neurotic also) will hopefully see my business through to fruition. If I didn't want to do what I love, and did'nt have the passion for it, I would have never quit a job I'd been in for 8 years that made me $40K a year more in salary.

I realize that there are your aforementioned unethical breeders out there. However, I would like to think most of your "birddogers" out there (say 90%) are good people. We want nothing more than to see our progeny succeed, have loving wonderful homes, and live a happy healthy long life. I don't know if your in the business or not, but I got a RUDE awakening as to how competitive, costly, timely, and how much work is involved in raising/training/marketing those pups and dogs.

Nonetheless, It just made me more determined than ever. Having good people behind you is key. I have several great individuals that have done this for along time. Great people helping out the next generation, and passing the torch. However, advice, input, and a little help from someone else is great, but unless they are funding you, its your money to get things rolling. Takes money to make money. You sound smart, and I'm probably preaching to the choir, but, yes it is about all the ethics, moral breeding practices, ect, but it is also about making money. Hunting is so comercialized anymore, that most people have to do something on the side like raise one litter a year, just to fund their hunting passion.
For me, Its doing what I love and feeding my family. Hope to raise a few pups of my own and have them dragging water pails behind me! Hopefully have them (son's I hope) set up with a good thing when I'm gone.

As far as people who do this for an economic resource.. I do.
As far as people who breed back to the same bitch? I do, sometimes with my own dogs, sometimes not? It depends on what market you are targeting. If I'm targeting FTers I have one breeding (like our upcoming one)
If I am targeting the general hunting dog market, I have a different mating. The Problem isn't breeding back to the same dog. Was Wehle a bad guy then?? The purpose is making sure those breedings are producing what I want, and what my clients are looking for in a gundog. If I've got 2 brood matrons worth say 6k, am I supposed to breed each one only once and sell them, and look for different ones? Hogwash. Not unless they are not producing what I want.

As far as FT my dogs. I do not. Strike 3 I guess.
This venue also takes alot of time and money. (to do it seriously enough to make a name for yourself)
My wife and I operate this entire business. She has a regular job, and I Train, and run the business end. I don't have the financial resources to hire people so I can do the FT thing or have them do it for me. Wish I did, and eventually that might be a possibility.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to call you out, not trying to make you mad, but I think If you take a step back and look at what it really takes for a person to make it in this business, you'd be less apt to talk down on some breeders. Everyone starts somewhere. I'm only a year into my run at this. Maybe I'm wrong, but I bet the kennels who you envy and aspire to be like started just like I am, started with little money and lots of inspiration and dreams. They built a foundation from there and kept it going. Just keep those dogs getting better each time.

Just my 2 Cents.

Jess

mountaindogs · Post by **mountaindogs** » Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:45 pm

I am going to go out on a limb and post this link. It is not birddogs, and not really performance driven breeding, BUT I do believe it relates to the topic at hand. This issue of two "greats" producing mostly "moderates" is something this breeder seems to have tried to overcome with a "regression to the mean" philosophy. What are your thoughts on this? I am still mulling it. Obviously you can not have extremes positives and extreme negatives on the same dog unless you are really good at what to do with all the pups that get all the extreme negatives and few of the positives, but in re-reading the link again, it seems she is still looking at dogs that are correct for the most part but with some very extreme traits that make them look off balance. Try to translate this to performance and conformation together and what do you think.

http://www.kennelcity.com/cdnote.html

kylenicholas02 · Post by **kylenicholas02** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 11:09 am

I'm not a breeder and not interested in breeding. Im just now got the financially dependent assets in my life secured, and am making a effort for the first time to chase a passion at some amazing dog work... I'm not talking down other breeders, I'm just pointing out flaws in their motives and theories of producing pups. I understand the line breeding, but have a first hand knowledge of several breeders who outright lie to folks about their pups and their work i.e.. DNA, pedigree research, and previous breedings... If you produce "great" pups (object of opinion to anyone as I have not seen your pups), and exhibit moral and ethical practices, there's half the battle won.. Anyone who believes you can be a sales person in a economical crisis and misconstrued folks to the work described above, is gonna have a hard time remaining in business. And that works in any industry. I think its the folks like described above, that are a "drag on the breed." In turn, let your pups do the work. I drove 4 hrs Friday to pick up a pup in BFE.. She is worth ever penny I paid, and not just because of the way she handles but the overall purchasing experience with the breeder. Thats how you become a five star kennel...

prairiefirepointers · Post by **prairiefirepointers** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:11 pm

kylenicholas02 wrote:I'm not a breeder and not interested in breeding. Thats how you become a five star kennel...

Thanks for your input. However I'm less apt to take Dental advice from a Proctologist.

(that's called an analogy)
How would you know what all it takes to become what you call a "5 star Kennel", when you are not a breeder or have no ambition to do so?

Oh and I pulled this up.. these are your own words from a previous thread.

Considering I'm a younger guy wanting to START my own kennel, but want to start with some good stock

I'm not trying to make an enemy out of you, but sounds like you're talking out both sides of your mouth. Unless I misinterpreted your post. I agree with some of what you say, but not all of it.. and that's okay.

kylenicholas02 · Post by **kylenicholas02** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 1:12 pm

Personally I'd say you need take a step back, look at the service/product your trying to sell. If customer satisfaction isn't your main objective day in and day out, you won't make it long. I spent alot of money Friday, and after handing over a month's budget... I left there happy. I'm already interested in spending alot of money again with the breeder soon, but more so I referred him to two other guys who are getting dogs from him. I.E more sales... isnt that as a business owner what your looking for? That's what the post described.

As far as me starting my own kennel;
I didn't realize that me starting my own kennel in turn made me a breeder of dogs. I personally dont have the time nor desire to do the work I've spoken about in the above postings prior. Sometimes people would rather have dogs than puppies. And building a personal stock is kind of like starting a business; you go through alot of personnel prior to finding the people you want to work with. That's an analogy, btw in case you were wondering.. :roll:

Great post tho..and you have some great dogs it seems

Ridge-Point · Post by **Ridge-Point** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 1:33 pm

I personally don't see how breeding ethics has anything to do with draggin a breed down or building it up.

If Mr. John Doe of POS Kennels is producing poor dogs people will stop buying/breeding to his dogs.

A good breeder will make his own business, and it doesn't matter how much money he makes off his dogs. If people are paying big money for good dogs then what does it matter. If you think you got a good deal then you got a good deal. Everyone has the option of buying a cheaper dog from somewhere else.

The top kennels will always be breeding to the best blood because thats what makes them succeed, they aren't going to breed to terrible dogs just because they exist.

The Hunting Irish Setter was not destroyed by the show crowd. The show people made their own Irish Setter that fit their needs. If the show crowd can make a show dog then it would make sense that someone could have created a hunting dog, but no one did.

prairiefirepointers · Post by **prairiefirepointers** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 2:32 pm

Ridge-Point"
If Mr. John Doe of POS Kennels is producing poor dogs people will stop buying/breeding to his dogs.

A good breeder will make his own business, and it doesn't matter how much money he makes off his dogs.

Exactly.

As far as running a kennel and not breeding dogs to acheive what it is you're looking for is sometimes called a DOG BROKER. Buying dogs from someone else and reselling them is a exactly that. However, If they are just your own personal dogs, for your own use, then that does not make you a "kennel". As far as taking a step back and looking at my customer service and product. Sure I do. I look at it and think "hmm.. How can I improve, whats my next step, lets do this next time."

And yes I do have some fine dogs. I do thank you for the compliment. The finer ones I never get to keep. However even the one's I have (as much as I love them) can always be improved. The term "Kennel Blindness" comes to mind. Its when someone has breeding stock and they think, Okay.. I'm good to go! No need to change anything ever! These are the people who I think you are speaking of. You have to not be kennel blind and always be looking at ways make your pups/dogs better. However breeding practices are a good way to change them for the better, but so is training, Different pup rearing methods like Early Neurological Stimulation, and so forth.
Like I said, I'm one year into my run. I think I'm off to a pretty good start, and have a laundry list of happy customers who keep in touch, send pics, and progress reports. I could'n t be more pleased with our sucesses so far. One step at a time, and learning something new every day. Belive me, there's alot to learn and even more I don't know.

Of course, I'm preaching to the choir, as you already know it, it seems.

birdogg42 · Post by **birdogg42** » Sun Mar 29, 2009 8:43 pm

Kyle, what is your pointer pup out of?

CherrystoneWeims · Post by **CherrystoneWeims** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:24 pm

3Britts wrote:
Ruffshooter wrote:I have never seen a cross between a chicken and a cow. Sorry just struck me funny.
That's because it is too hard to get them out of the coop. duh.

Does the cow inseminate the chicken or does the rooster inseminate the cow???

CherrystoneWeims · Post by **CherrystoneWeims** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:30 pm

The dual dog, if it to have meaning, must be a dog that exemplifies...is the pinnacle of the both the conformation standard AND the performance standard.

I have to disagree with this. If you take a look at most of the DC dogs they have mediocre conformation. They finish in the show ring but are not standout dogs. They are more functional than the strictly showbred dogs. When I bred my MH bitch to a DC stud I bred down in conformation but way up in performance. I knew that I could take the hit because my bitch is tightly linebred and pretty much produces herself for conformation.

Post by **ezzy333** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:04 pm

CherrystoneWeims wrote:
The dual dog, if it to have meaning, must be a dog that exemplifies...is the pinnacle of the both the conformation standard AND the performance standard.
I have to disagree with this. If you take a look at most of the DC dogs they have mediocre conformation. They finish in the show ring but are not standout dogs. They are more functional than the strictly showbred dogs. When I bred my MH bitch to a DC stud I bred down in conformation but way up in performance. I knew that I could take the hit because my bitch is tightly linebred and pretty much produces herself for conformation.

This maybe true in your Weims but I haven't seen this in either Brits or GSP's. I do understand your point and can also agree that it is easier to breed the outstanding confirmation if that is your only concern but the other side of that is the dog that you feel is better is only your own opinion. Other people may have a different opinion since all any of us do is pick the performance or conformation that we think is the best. We continueally hear field people talk about all of the problems with the coats, movement, or temperment of the show dogs and the show people do the same about the field bred dogs. Neither is true, as all they are doing is expressing their own bias. There are dogs that excell at both and though they are more difficult to produce they are the dogs that really improve our breed and not just change it. And there is a difference. Form follows function is expressed quite often and there is a lot of truth to it. And what that says if the dog that meets the standards of the breed can not compete in the field then we have changed the function of the breed. Not all breeds were produced to look the same and they sure weren't bred to hunt the same. Each had a special nitch to fill that wasn't being covered by the other breeds. But I think we have lost sight of that and want our dogs to compete with every other breed instead of being the best of our specific breed.

JMo

Ezzy

CherrystoneWeims · Post by **CherrystoneWeims** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:14 pm

This maybe true in your Weims but I haven't seen this in either Brits or GSP's.

Ezzy,

Tell me how many FC/DC's have you seen win Best in Shows?? How many have won the breed or the group at Westminster or Eukanuba?? I have seen MH's do it but no DC's.

Show dogs are usually bred for the extremes in conformation and coat and not moderation. These extremes hurt them in the field.

Post by **ezzy333** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:49 pm

CherrystoneWeims wrote:
This maybe true in your Weims but I haven't seen this in either Brits or GSP's.
Ezzy,

Tell me how many FC/DC's have you seen win Best in Shows?? How many have won the breed or the group at Westminster or Eukanuba?? I have seen MH's do it but no DC's.

Show dogs are usually bred for the extremes in conformation and coat and not moderation. These extremes hurt them in the field.

Can't think of a single one but there have been few Bis in either breed. I can't think of a single DC that was ever specialed since they were home working on their field performances.

But like I said I understand your comments and agree to an extent.

Ezzy

vzkennels · Post by **vzkennels** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:13 pm

Let's face it show dogs & Ft dogs are two different animals,yes there are dogs that can finish CHS at both for DC but to win BIS in a show ring the dog has to be Show Fit,& not FT trial Fit same goes when running trials they have to be in field condition.Once the DC is finshed then the big decesion would be in which direction you really want to go one or the other.I don't know if a dog could do both successfully at the same time no matter how good the dog is plus there are very few that could afford it.

kylenicholas02 · Post by **kylenicholas02** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:26 pm

Which one? I just purchased one from Phillips White LIne kennels, and would recommend him to anyone.. He has some stellar young pups and I'll probley pick another up if my buddies dont decide to get one

Fireside · Post by **Fireside** » Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:49 pm

Brittany

BIS DC Classic's Can Do Andrew