Gun Dog Forum

How much emphasis do you put into titles in the pedigree?

I am currently researching the pedigree of some potential pups and was wondering how important it is to you?

I put quite a bit of emphasis on the bloodline and individual dogs, including their titles, if I am looking for something specific. If you are wanting a companion hunting dog, titles are not as significant. Health clearances might trump titles in that case, easily.

Depends on the situation. If your looking at a litter that is not close to you and you can't see the parents work in the field, then I would want to see some titles up close in the pedigree.
If I can visit and see the parents then I can make my desicion from that. But even still I like to see some titles somewhere

Cajun has some good points also.

I put alot of emphasis in titles & health clearances. Unless you can see the parents actually hunt and work birds you don't know what you are getting. With titles in the pedigree you know the dog has a backround in hunting and bird work. If it is an FC or AFC, you know it is upper level of hunting drive. The more field titles in a pedigree, usually means most of the pups in the litter will be decent bird dogs( the kind of litter you can close your eyes, reach in and grab a pup, and it will turn into a bird dog). With out those titles(unless you can see the parents work) you have to trust the owner if he says he has a good bird dog. I've seen TOO MANY dogs that the owner says were GOOD BIRD DOGS that took out birds, didn't back, spent more time behind you than in front of you, chewed up birds, pee'd on every bush, spent all it's time within 10 yards of the hunter, or was on the upwind side of an objective. If you have titled dogs in the pedigree you know those dogs got the job done and hopefully are passing those genes along. You have to be aware that in SOME BREEDS a show title by itself doesn't guarentee those dogs can hunt(some breeds are split into show or field and alot of the show dogs in those breeds can't hunt--not saying there aren't exceptions)
Also on the health clearances, you have alot better chance of getting a normal dog. Example if you have dogs that are OFAd hips you have a better chance of getting a pup that will have good hips(dogs that are OFAd still have a chance of having a dysplatic pup but you have a higher chance of bad hips if the parents haven't been OFAd and might have bad hips. If you see 3 or 4 generations of OFA dogs you have an even better chance of getting a pup with good hips). Same thing with all the other health tests they do on dogs. All of this is "Just My Opinion"

ROTTnBRITT wrote:Depends on the situation. If your looking at a litter that is not close to you and you can't see the parents work in the field, then I would want to see some titles up close in the pedigree.
If I can visit and see the parents then I can make my desicion from that. But even still I like to see some titles somewhere

Cajun has some good points also.

i agree with this except I don't agree with Cajon that one thing is more important than another. Titles are great when dealing with a dog you have never seen. But overall like beget like so the best is to be able to see the dogs involved.

Ezzy

Cajun Casey wrote:I put quite a bit of emphasis on the bloodline and individual dogs, including their titles, if I am looking for something specific. If you are wanting a companion hunting dog, titles are not as significant. Health clearances might trump titles in that case, easily.

Well said.

( Some titles say a lot! like AFTCH or NFCH ; others say little like .................( don't want to offend anyone's accomplishments). Questionable whether any titles after the third generation mean much- jmo- I could be wrong.

I also would have to agree that field titles are important. I like to see Field Champion or the variants (AFC, NAFC, etc.) or Master Hunter titles no further back than grandparents in the AKC pedigree. Remember when looking at a pedigree, that CH is a show champion in AKC but a field champion in AF/FDSB. Also keep in mind that some titles such as NSTRA champion or NAVHDA titles aren't going to show on many pedigrees. I wouldn't think too highly of strictly JH titled parents unless you can be assured of their abilities by other means.

As also previously stated, it is wise to see the parents work, particularly if they are not titled. Everybody with a bird dog will tell you what a great hunter that their dog is, it has a great nose, that it is a natural, etc. I have never heard anybody say "My hunting dog sucks but her pups are sure gonna be good ones."

There have been and will continue to be excellent bird dogs that come from untitled parents. If you do your homework and assure yourself of the parents abilities you can still end up with a fine dog, as I'm sure many members on here have done.

Best of luck to you.

Well after verifying the titles that are listed as my potential pups pedigree I see his mother's side is full of FC, AFC, SH, and GMPR. Father's side is a little lack luster for titles. Only the father and the father's grandfather have a GMPR.

We will see what happens tomorrow!

From your mention of GMPR titles, I take it you are looking for a pointing lab. Especially for pointing labs, I think that watching the dogs work is more important than titles. APLA tests are fairly new. I ran my lab in the CPR test when she was 9 mos and volunteered as a thrower in the GMPR tests. To be honest, I thought the standards were too low, especially for pointing. I saw plenty of dogs that appeared to have been trained to whoa on bird scent (extreme flagging on point, failing to relocate, etc.) still get titles, though many of the dogs did point very well. I would say the retrieving at the GMPR level is stringent enough. Many of the best pointing lab breeders and pointing labs don't bother running APLA trials, though an APLA trial would still be the best place for you to see lots of different dogs at once. You'll be much more confident in your decision once you get out and look at some dogs.

I would put more value on a dog that wins consistently. Championship titles are nice but some dogs get lucky and win 1. If I had a dog that had 30 plus field trial placements and no championship wins I would take a pup out of something like that.

Title's are good if you can't see the parent's. But I do shy away from show titles. MH title means little to me. I've seen them that barely get out of their own way.

madmurph wrote:I also would have to agree that field titles are important. I like to see Field Champion or the variants (AFC, NAFC, etc.) or Master Hunter titles no further back than grandparents in the AKC pedigree. Remember when looking at a pedigree, that CH is a show champion in AKC but a field champion in AF/FDSB. Also keep in mind that some titles such as NSTRA champion or NAVHDA titles aren't going to show on many pedigrees. I wouldn't think too highly of strictly JH titled parents unless you can be assured of their abilities by other means.

As also previously stated, it is wise to see the parents work, particularly if they are not titled. Everybody with a bird dog will tell you what a great hunter that their dog is, it has a great nose, that it is a natural, etc. I have never heard anybody say "My hunting dog sucks but her pups are sure gonna be good ones."

There have been and will continue to be excellent bird dogs that come from untitled parents. If you do your homework and assure yourself of the parents abilities you can still end up with a fine dog, as I'm sure many members on here have done.

Best of luck to you.

You might check and see if they are titled in HRC through UKC, also.

madmurph wrote:Also keep in mind that some titles such as NSTRA champion or NAVHDA titles aren't going to show on many pedigrees.

Alot of breeders these days have a database such as breedmate. Many will have all the titles earned by dogs in thier database. They can print pedigrees that have all titles earned by the dogs in that pedigree. I like to see titles such as FC,AFC, NFC, VC,DC, MH or a combined titles such as INT CH/ VC in the first 2 generations. Most of all I want to know if the dog is a real MC Coy wild bird dog. Not just another game player that looks good on planted birds.

Unless you have hunted behind the dogs and you know they have what it takes I would put a ton of emphasis on the titles. Plus a pedigree that you can light up in red for the first 3-4 generations is just awesome.
Ya I can tend to be a pedigree chaser.

Pedigrees can be important in helping make a decision. But, IMO, anything past grandparents doesn't do much for me. If the sire and dam and thier sire and dam don't have titles, then I don't look at the litter (unless there is some overwhelming reason I wanted a pup from a particular dog).

If you're looking at a pup to breed to your current dog, I wouldn't endorse that route anyway. I don't think you get the best breeding possible by limiting yourself to the 2 dogs you own. Buy the best bitch you can afford, trial her, title her, of course get health clearances..... and then breed her to the best dog you can afford the stud fee on - that's if he has all of the characteristics you're wanting. It's very likely that when your pup grows up, you'll see she lacks something (front end, head, back, etc.) - you want to breed to the dog that will complement her the most. That's just the way I'd do it. It is a red flag for me to buy from someone who just owns two dogs and has bred them out of convenience. I usually buy from a breeder that is really serious about improving the breed and has a "program" he is following - or at least a real vision for what he wants to produce.

Ms. Cage wrote:

madmurph wrote:Also keep in mind that some titles such as NSTRA champion or NAVHDA titles aren't going to show on many pedigrees.

Alot of breeders these days have a database such as breedmate. Many will have all the titles earned by dogs in thier database. They can print pedigrees that have all titles earned by the dogs in that pedigree. I like to see titles such as FC,AFC, NFC, VC,DC, MH or a combined titles such as INT CH/ VC in the first 2 generations. Most of all I want to know if the dog is a real MC Coy wild bird dog. Not just another game player that looks good on planted birds.

This is a very good comment. Especially the last part. This is just one thing if you do get to watch whatever dog you are looking at: watch how close dogs get to the bird when they establish a point. Sure that might elude to the training program of the owner. But if you see a dog twenty yards away establish their point its probably a good candidate to inquire about. The "nose knows" sometimes is no joke. I am first and foremost a hunter, and when I observe dogs, that is the first thing that catches my attention. The last observation I had done, I saw five dogs put in a field one at a time with a planted bird with no change in wind direction. I heard people comment "oooh look how nice that dog points." Problem was the dogs that were considered the "stylish" ones were practically over the bird. Only one out of the group stood out to me because he pointed the furthest away. To me, that is respectable style, and something that shouldn't be overlooked.

RoostersMom wrote: If you're looking at a pup to breed to your current dog, I wouldn't endorse that route anyway. I don't think you get the best breeding possible by limiting yourself to the 2 dogs you own.

Why not? What if the two dogs you own compliment one another better then any stud you have looked at? What then? Am I to still go with another persons stud because it's not one of my own dogs.....??

Sorry I just don't think that theory makes a whole lot of sense.

Sure, if your own two dogs compliment each other better than you could buy a breeding - then I'd say go for it. I'd bet very few folks would fall into that category. Of course it would be stupid to go with an outside dog if it wasn't better than what you owned.... but the chances of any joe public owning the two dogs that compliment each other the "best" would be slim, IMO.

If you're buying an untried puppy to breed to a current dog you own....now how in the heck do you know they'll compliment each other better than the studs available out there? There are so many nice studs out there, I think you limit yourself if you think you need to breed your two dogs together when there is so much available out there.

Well ya a puppy you are not going to know. But after you test them and they grow up. You'll see what you have. d it's not going to work then it's not going to work. I agree there are a lot of great studs out there. And a few are in our own back yards. To not broaden your horizon would just be bad on the person breeding, and to the breed. But if you have it you have it.

This whole argument is probably moot till we decide what is bettering the breed. I have never met but one or two people who really gave it much thought since what people breed for is something they like, A dog that can win a trial, a dog that can win a show, a dog that is a great pet, or a dog thsat is a great compapion. Many people don't even know what the breed standard is and don't care, some don't care about hunting, some don't pay much attention to health concerns and so on. And those who don't think like you do are the ones that need to be eliminated.

There is little corrilation between bettering the breed and bettering what you like in most cases. And even for those who want to better the breed, few have the time, location, money, or the will to do what it requires.

The answer, till we change the rules, is to find a dog that qualifies in fulfilling what you want in a dog and trying to get a pup out of those dogs. And then give it a great home and enjoy what it brings into your life.

I think titles are useful, but they only tell part of the story. HOW the dog earned the title is often a much more important part of the story.

There are dogs that have the exact same title but vary greatly in their skills and natural abilities. For example, let's say that 2 dogs both have a "FC" title in front of their names. One dog may have earned his title in All Age stakes and the other in Gun Dog stakes. Perhaps they are both All Age dogs, but one dog handles easily and is naturally cooperative. Meanwhile, the other one is a blackhearted "bleep" that almost always gets disqualified for spending too much time out of pocket. The blackhearted dog may have earned his "FC" title because he was entered in a huge number of trials; and in just a few of them, a skilled handler and scout were barely able to "hang on" to the dog long enough to finish the brace. Or perhaps one dog barely meets the standards on his best day and he got lucky because that day was when all of the better dogs were off a little. Meanwhile, the other dog is a major threat to win every time he runs.

You could go on and on with examples of dogs who are very different but have the same title. For me, this just emphasizes the value of watching a lot of dogs for yourself and building strong relationships with some of the people involved. A trusted "insider" who is willing to share information is a very valuable commodity. The trick is to have enough personal experience to recognize who can be trusted, who is more concerned with thier own self-interests, and who is just telling you what you want to hear.

Every Britt I have was from a NFC/DC male and a known dual quality female that I have seen in the field.

So I think both the titles and personal observation equally important.

Were I to buy a pup today, it would be from Jerry McGees' Chug and a DC female.

Neil wrote:Were I to buy a pup today, it would be from Jerry McGees' Chug and a DC female

Oh Puhleeeeze...what's Chug ever done?


I jest of course...I was braced with Jerry and Chug in the 2011 NAFC. I was only in my second year of trialing, and to be honest was extremely intimidated. Jerry and I got along fine in the brace and though Chug was getting along in years he had three finds and looked good doing it.

Everyone wants braggin rights and titles give some that. I say it shows how well the dog was trained and handeled, health is high there too cause the folks put the time and money into a trial dog take very good care of their dogs.

markj wrote:Everyone wants braggin rights and titles give some that. I say it shows how well the dog was trained and handeled, health is high there too cause the folks put the time and money into a trial dog take very good care of their dogs.

I have never seen a dog without great genetics trained and handled to a All-Age FC. And I am considered at least fair at both, if it is not there I can't manufacture it.

Have you ever put a title on a dog?

It is a major part of the descion of buying a dog or using a stud. I put the preference on know names versus FC.

Admittedly I'm very new to gun dogs (as well as this forum). I've been training and breeding K9's and personal protection dogs for the last several years. This is a topic that has always interested me. I know nothing about gun dog lines by any stretch, so I'm in no way claiming to be an expert. So with that being said, I've always placed great importance on genetics first and foremost. IMO, genetics have more to do with what a dog is. A pedigree just tells you what the dog should be, the dog tells you what it is. When I see any working dog that looks good on that particular day I always ask myself, "Is this dog a "made" dog?" In other words, how much of what I'm seeing is a product of the training and how much is genetic predispositon? I've always been of the mind that you can't put something into a dog it doesn't have. If a dog has no prey drive, you can't give it to them, IMO. In my experience, some dogs can get a title simply because it had a good day on it's 30th attempt. Titles all over the pedigree tell me the genetic potential is there. But if you buy a dog with that genetic potential and the dog just doesn't have it, all that red means nothing. IMO, you're training the dog to realize its full genetic potential toward a specific task. Sorry for the rambling and I apologize if I'm overstepping as a newbie to gundogs.

big swill wrote:Admittedly I'm very new to gun dogs (as well as this forum). I've been training and breeding K9's and personal protection dogs for the last several years. This is a topic that has always interested me. I know nothing about gun dog lines by any stretch, so I'm in no way claiming to be an expert. So with that being said, I've always placed great importance on genetics first and foremost. IMO, genetics have more to do with what a dog is. A pedigree just tells you what the dog should be, the dog tells you what it is. When I see any working dog that looks good on that particular day I always ask myself, "Is this dog a "made" dog?" In other words, how much of what I'm seeing is a product of the training and how much is genetic predispositon? I've always been of the mind that you can't put something into a dog it doesn't have. If a dog has no prey drive, you can't give it to them, IMO. In my experience, some dogs can get a title simply because it had a good day on it's 30th attempt. Titles all over the pedigree tell me the genetic potential is there. But if you buy a dog with that genetic potential and the dog just doesn't have it, all that red means nothing. IMO, you're training the dog to realize its full genetic potential toward a specific task. Sorry for the rambling and I apologize if I'm overstepping as a newbie to gundogs.

Your point is well taken, but what you are missing a dog does not get a title from one win in AKC events at least. It takes several wins to gain that title.

Ezzy

Big swill,

It's all a gamble. You can pair up the two top notch dogs in the country and they can throw sour pups. But by taking two dogs back by placements in the pedigrees your odds of making good genetics for the next generation are better IMO..

There is only so much you can do to " make" a dog. If they don't have some sort of prey drive you'll probably end up getting no where..

Like ezzy said you dont just go out in akc hunt test and pass in one day. The dogs has to have it on consecutive days. Tests like NAVHDA you can get a title in one day. But for the costs most people are only going to enter when they know the dog has what it takes and is ready and capable. Just my2cents.

My Preference is to see some kind of Testing/field titles in pedigree's. If i see the dogs personally or know the kennel well then it plays a little less in the equation for me. If i am bringing a pup in from somewhere and have never seen parents first hand then i have to put more emphasis on titles... I put alot of emphasis on opinions of dog people that i know in different arena's as well....

That's good info for a newb like me to have. I'm not at all familiar with AKC hunt tests, admittedly. The fact that you can't have a one day wonder and pass really appeals to me. That's one of the reasons I'm interested in getting into gundogs and out of protection dogs and trials. I really like the idea that the dog and the training is tested over more than one day. The more I learn about this the more it appeals to me. You folks may have to overlook me as I learn; coming from the part of the dog world I've been in titles mean nothing. It's nice to find a venue where the titles matter. Please bear with me.I'll get there I promise.

big swill wrote:The fact that you can't have a one day wonder and pass really appeals to me. That's one of the reasons I'm interested in getting into gundogs and out of protection dogs and trials. I really like the idea that the dog and the training is tested over more than one day.

IMO it's best to check test records of dogs that test in any of the venues. Dogs that do earn a title in one day usally have to pass multible tasks to aquire a Title. Many are far from one day wonders but well honed animals that can and do those same tasks on a daily basis. Dogs that compete or test in multible venues and earn their titles are dogs we like to see in a pedigree.

Titles tell you that somebody thought the dog was worth the time and expense, both of which are considerable, to put a title on him. To go from JH to MH takes 13 or 14 passes entry fees alone are about $800, if you pass every time. Few do. Total expenses will be several thousand dollars.
Titles greatly improve the odds of getting a pretty good dog if both parents have a good number of titles up close. It also gives you a pretty good handle on what the dog may be best at. While some well bred dogs are better than others, most have the potential to be pretty good. Cj

A title shows that the dog has proven itself in the field and was recognized for it. Doesn't mean that a dog can't be just as good or better even, but if you see titles in the pedigree at least you have something to go on. For me, not knowing much about my breed or having one before, I was definitely looking for red in the pedigree. Takes a lot of the guess work out (hopefully).

The short answer for me is yes unless I am very familiar with the sire and dam and the owner.

Charlie