Field Conformation vs Show Conformation.

cjhills · Post by **cjhills** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 9:23 pm

So, what was your point. Some of us still don't think trial dogs are necessarily the highest level.
Dr. Stan Haug once told me, way back in the land before time, that most judges didn't have a clue what they were looking for. I don't know if that is true because I don't know what they are looking for either. But at least at that time I thought he was quite knowledgable.
I do have a question. If these dogs handle so good at 1,000 yds why do the need scouts................Cj

cjhills · Post by **cjhills** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 9:27 pm

birddogger wrote:
Not everybody thinks that what trial dogs do is performing at the highest level. You still are relying on someone elses opinion of what is great....................Cj
I have decided to stay out of this one so far, but I have to agree with this.

Charlie

Don't do that you are going to ruin my reputation..................Cj

Post by **ezzy333** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 9:38 pm

I have to agree with you too. It is just one of the things you can look at.

Ezzy

Elkhunter · Post by **Elkhunter** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 10:13 pm

cjhills wrote:So, what was your point. Some of us still don't think trial dogs are necessarily the highest level.
Dr. Stan Haug once told me, way back in the land before time, that most judges didn't have a clue what they were looking for. I don't know if that is true because I don't know what they are looking for either. But at least at that time I thought he was quite knowledgable.
I do have a question. If these dogs handle so good at 1,000 yds why do the need scouts................Cj

Ignorance. On why scouts are needed at trials.

birddog1968 · Post by **birddog1968** » Sun Mar 09, 2014 11:05 pm

Ever look for a dog for 30 min or more only to find it on point in a hedge row or ditch ? Ya know before trackers...... Funny thought I clicked the conformation thread

jetjockey · Post by **jetjockey** » Mon Mar 10, 2014 5:58 am

ezzy333 wrote:
jetjockey wrote:
ezzy333 wrote:Ted, Have no idea what closed tests you are talking about but I have never seen one. And I think the point is true that the dogs with titles are the dogs that are owned by someone that spent the time and money to put the titles on them and there is no guarantee they were the best of the litter and your results pretty much agree with that. It is also why I have never found it necessary to breed to trial dogs as there are many dogs out there that are just as good but have been in someone's back yard all of their lives. We all like to make fun of the backyard breeder and talk up the need to breed to trial dogs and it just ain't so as you pointed out. Breeding to titled dogs is a good idea if you have not had the chance to see the dog in person but the ultimate choice is to spend some time behind the dog in the field and see what the dog has as well as looks like. And it might be a Fc or it might be the next door neighbors pet hunting dog.

Ezzy
Maybe. But how do you know they are just as good if they haven't gone to the line to prove it? It's one thing to say they are just as good, it's another thing to prove it. Do I believe there are many great dogs out there that never got the chance to show how great they are? Absolutely. But when hunting, your not asking the dog to perform to the highest level. Can a hunting dog handle a 1hr brace at the speed required to win a trial? Can it run in temps that stress the dog and still handle it mentally? Can it take the pressure required to become fully broke and rock solid on point, and not lose intensity? There is many other examples that a trial dog has to prove in order to win, that your regular hunting dog doesn't have to. It's a little disengenuous to say your breeding dogs just as good, without proving it. Because you simply do not know until you ask the dog to perform at the highest level. And hunting doesn't ask that of a dog.

The difference is the test I want to see is the dog hunting birds and I don't need someone else's opinion when I have the ability to judge what I want. Trials may prove the best trial dog but I want to go the next step and prove the best hunting dog.

Ezzy

What's the difference? Aren't trial dogs also hunting dogs? How do you tell the difference between them?

cjhills · Post by **cjhills** » Mon Mar 10, 2014 6:13 am

Elkhunter wrote:
cjhills wrote:So, what was your point. Some of us still don't think trial dogs are necessarily the highest level.
Dr. Stan Haug once told me, way back in the land before time, that most judges didn't have a clue what they were looking for. I don't know if that is true because I don't know what they are looking for either. But at least at that time I thought he was quite knowledgable.
I do have a question. If these dogs handle so good at 1,000 yds why do the need scouts................Cj
Ignorance. On why scouts are needed at trials.

Exactly. Here is your chance. Do not insult me ,Educate me. That's what this forum is for. Why can't the handler on a horse keep up with the dog....................Cj

fuzznut · Post by **fuzznut** » Mon Mar 10, 2014 6:21 am

CJ, it's been explained over and over and over again, please go and read the AA discussion. No one has to agree, but why continue to argue about it?

This discussion is about conformation, is there any way we can keep it on track? Take this argument/discussion to a different thread please.

cjhills · Post by **cjhills** » Mon Mar 10, 2014 7:19 am

fuzznut wrote:CJ, it's been explained over and over and over again, please go and read the AA discussion. No one has to agree, but why continue to argue about it?

This discussion is about conformation, is there any way we can keep it on track? Take this argument/discussion to a different thread please.

Sorry, sometimes the natural flow of conversation leads us off track.......................Cj

markj · Post by **markj** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:57 am

Yes, they need to have both. I have a FT bred female I got awhile back. She is a lot smaller than the one I have out of a DC. The line breeding will make a smaller dog IMHO.

dan v · Post by **dan v** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 11:56 am

markj wrote:Yes, they need to have both. I have a FT bred female I got awhile back. She is a lot smaller than the one I have out of a DC. The line breeding will make a smaller dog IMHO.

Linebreeding trends a smaller dog? What if I select larger individuals to line breed?

markj · Post by **markj** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:25 pm

Linebreeding trends a smaller dog? What if I select larger individuals to line breed?

Call Bob Merkel and ask him. or do some research. I can post the ped

dan v · Post by **dan v** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 1:40 pm

I don't give a whit about the pedigree. It's the assertion you make about linebreeding makes for smaller dogs. Inbred depression can be traced to a bunch of things but I've never seen reduced size being one one of them. Reduction in litter size, reduction in fertility being the most common.

markj · Post by **markj** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 3:18 pm

It's the assertion you make about linebreeding makes for smaller dogs.

Best do yer research then. It does make smaller dogs over a long time, generation after generation with no outcrosses. The ped was to show you how she was bred, gen to gen.

Gotta outcross every so often.

There are some good books out there on this. Go look,

dan v · Post by **dan v** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 4:02 pm

markj wrote:
It's the assertion you make about linebreeding makes for smaller dogs.
Best do yer research then. It does make smaller dogs over a long time, generation after generation with no outcrosses. The ped was to show you how she was bred, gen to gen.

Gotta outcross every so often.

There are some good books out there on this. Go look,

You're the one telling me to look....give a place to start....cite a publication.

Vonzeppelinkennels · Post by **Vonzeppelinkennels** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 4:28 pm

My question is what's wrong with smaller dogs. I likem on the smaller side as long as they still are with in the standards.Most of the show dogs are on the bigger side & some even over sized.

Oh & all my dogs but one started with Dogs from Bob Merkel's Wrenegade Kennels.

Post by **ezzy333** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 4:37 pm

Wyndancer wrote:I don't give a whit about the pedigree. It's the assertion you make about linebreeding makes for smaller dogs. Inbred depression can be traced to a bunch of things but I've never seen reduced size being one one of them. Reduction in litter size, reduction in fertility being the most common.

I won't comment about dogs because I have can not show you evidence since in most cases dogs haven't been bred that closely. But I most other animals I have experience with size does tend to get smaller with inbreeding. Now that all comes back when you outcross those individuals. For a matter of fact that is what I look for in good breeding stock are the inbred individuals that I pretty well know what characteristics they are carrying and then cross with another inbred line to produce the performers that we all want.

I am not sure where the inbreeding will eventually lead you but I do know they have lines of white mice that have not had any new blood introduced for years and years till today they are all basically identical. and their health is fine. I am sure that we are all too reluctant to do the inbreeding we should.

Ezzy

ACooper · Post by **ACooper** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 8:35 pm

I have heard on multiple occasions that tight line breeding will eventually result in smaller dogs, I don't know if it's true or not, and I can't currently remember where I read it, as I never thought much about it. But I will see if I can find it

Vonzeppelinkennels · Post by **Vonzeppelinkennels** » Tue Mar 11, 2014 9:07 pm

Back when I was showing Dobes I had a friend that thought just the opposite & I believe he read it some where.Theory was they got bigger by nature because it's easier for bigger dogs to have pups,

There was a Dobe Kennel back then by the name of King Dobes they were know for producing BIG Dobes.

markj · Post by **markj** » Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:12 am

You're the one telling me to look....give a place to start....cite a publication.

WyndancerRank: 5X Champion Posts: 1094Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:33 pmLocation: Central MN

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/inbreeding.htm

Inbreeding is the mating together of closely related dogs, for example ... Laboratory animal suppliers depend on this to create uniform strains of animal which ... Extreme inbreeding affects their reproductive success with small litter sizes and ...

Simple google search will reap you many benifits.

markj · Post by **markj** » Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:15 am

Oh & all my dogs but one started with Dogs from Bob Merkel's Wrenegade Kennels.

And Bob will tell you the dogs get smaller from tight line breeding

he has the pics to show it too.

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/pedigree-dogs-exposed/

for a different look at breeding issues.

Inbreeding is the mating together of closely related dogs, for example mother/son, father/daughter and sibling/sibling matings. For breeders, it is a useful way of fixing traits in a breed—the pedigrees of some exhibition dogs show that many of their forebears are closely related. For example, there is a famous cat by the name of Fan Tee Cee (shown in the 1960s and 1970s) who has appeared in more and more Siamese pedigrees, sometimes several times in a single pedigree, as breeders were anxious to make their lines more typey. Superb specimens are always much sought-after for stud services or offspring (unless they have already been neutered!), having won the approval of show judges.

However, inbreeding holds potential problems. The limited gene pool caused by continued inbreeding means that deleterious genes become widespread and the breed loses vigor. Laboratory animal suppliers depend on this to create uniform strains of animal which are immuno-depressed or breed true for a particular disorder, e.g. epilepsy. Such animals are so inbred as to be genetically identical (clones!), a situation normally only seen in identical twins. Similarly, a controlled amount of inbreeding can be used to fix desirable traits in farm livestock, e.g. milk yield, lean/fat ratios, rate of growth, etc.

SCT · Post by **SCT** » Wed Mar 12, 2014 8:38 am

My pointers are from a line of fairly tightly bred dogs and I can see the benefits of it. However, if you take it too far like Ezzy's example of the white mice, the lack of genetic diversity could cause problems. Look at the cheetah or Fijian (Fiji) peregrine falcon, they are in trouble of going extinct because of prolonged inbreeding. I don't know if they are smaller than their ancestors though.

KwikIrish · Post by **KwikIrish** » Wed Mar 12, 2014 9:52 am

markj wrote:
You're the one telling me to look....give a place to start....cite a publication.

WyndancerRank: 5X Champion Posts: 1094Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 1:33 pmLocation: Central MN

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/inbreeding.htm

Inbreeding is the mating together of closely related dogs, for example ... Laboratory animal suppliers depend on this to create uniform strains of animal which ... Extreme inbreeding affects their reproductive success with small litter sizes and ...
Simple google search will reap you many benifits.

Nowhere in that article does it say (or even imply) that linebreeding/inbreeding leads to smaller dogs. I think you've mistaken the term, "small litter sizes" for the size of the individual dogs, whereas it is actually referring to the number of puppies in the litter.

DonF · Post by **DonF** » Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:31 am

cjhills wrote:So, what was your point. Some of us still don't think trial dogs are necessarily the highest level.
Dr. Stan Haug once told me, way back in the land before time, that most judges didn't have a clue what they were looking for. I don't know if that is true because I don't know what they are looking for either. But at least at that time I thought he was quite knowledgable.
I do have a question. If these dogs handle so good at 1,000 yds why do the need scouts................Cj

I used to love judging but would not judge an AA. Field trial standards used to say the AA dog had to handle reasonably well, they didn't and I suspect they still don't. Scouts I can see. if the dog slips over a rise or into cover you can't see him, send a scout. I think the one that should have a scout though is the judges. Rules in AA years ago seemed to be made up as they went along. It was desirable to have the dog on one bird and then disappear for the rest of the brace. Leave's the fogs performance to speculation. Gun Dog I could live with but a lot of the judge's back then only looked for reasons to pick the dog up. Which ever dog's stayed down were placer's. I used to love watching the gun dogs but there wasn't much to see on the AA course.

Post by **ezzy333** » Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:27 pm

DonF wrote:
cjhills wrote:So, what was your point. Some of us still don't think trial dogs are necessarily the highest level.
Dr. Stan Haug once told me, way back in the land before time, that most judges didn't have a clue what they were looking for. I don't know if that is true because I don't know what they are looking for either. But at least at that time I thought he was quite knowledgable.
I do have a question. If these dogs handle so good at 1,000 yds why do the need scouts................Cj
I used to love judging but would not judge an AA. Field trial standards used to say the AA dog had to handle reasonably well, they didn't and I suspect they still don't. Scouts I can see. if the dog slips over a rise or into cover you can't see him, send a scout. I think the one that should have a scout though is the judges. Rules in AA years ago seemed to be made up as they went along. It was desirable to have the dog on one bird and then disappear for the rest of the brace. Leave's the fogs performance to speculation. Gun Dog I could live with but a lot of the judge's back then only looked for reasons to pick the dog up. Which ever dog's stayed down were placer's. I used to love watching the gun dogs but there wasn't much to see on the AA course.

Amen

QuailHollow · Post by **QuailHollow** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 7:36 am

I've crossed those boundaries quite a few times, and have made friends on neither side doing so. It does get lonely, but folks in other breeds have been supportive.

SRB · Post by **SRB** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 9:00 am

jetjockey wrote:
ezzy333 wrote:Ted, Have no idea what closed tests you are talking about but I have never seen one. And I think the point is true that the dogs with titles are the dogs that are owned by someone that spent the time and money to put the titles on them and there is no guarantee they were the best of the litter and your results pretty much agree with that. It is also why I have never found it necessary to breed to trial dogs as there are many dogs out there that are just as good but have been in someone's back yard all of their lives. We all like to make fun of the backyard breeder and talk up the need to breed to trial dogs and it just ain't so as you pointed out. Breeding to titled dogs is a good idea if you have not had the chance to see the dog in person but the ultimate choice is to spend some time behind the dog in the field and see what the dog has as well as looks like. And it might be a Fc or it might be the next door neighbors pet hunting dog.

Ezzy
Maybe. But how do you know they are just as good if they haven't gone to the line to prove it? It's one thing to say they are just as good, it's another thing to prove it. Do I believe there are many great dogs out there that never got the chance to show how great they are? Absolutely. But when hunting, your not asking the dog to perform to the highest level. Can a hunting dog handle a 1hr brace at the speed required to win a trial? Can it run in temps that stress the dog and still handle it mentally? Can it take the pressure required to become fully broke and rock solid on point, and not lose intensity? There is many other examples that a trial dog has to prove in order to win, that your regular hunting dog doesn't have to. It's a little disengenuous to say your breeding dogs just as good, without proving it. Because you simply do not know until you ask the dog to perform at the highest level. And hunting doesn't ask that of a dog.

Perhaps a more macro view will help. What you are describing above is a selection process. Trials select one in many, especially over the course of several events. Of course, selection is most fundamental element in any breeding program. An individual looking to produce hunting dogs could apply the same degree of selectivity. However, we should answer the questions below to determine what percentage of breeders practice highly selective breeding without the presence of competition.

1. What is the average number of females evaluated for each female kept for breeding purposes. There is really no way around this core concept. By definition you can’t be breeding one in many if you are not evaluating “many” to find the one.

2. selection - How many hunting dog breeders with 4-6 dogs are using their own stud. What are the odds that one of the two males owned by the breeder is the very best choice for that particular female?

3. How many hunting dog breeders are breaking every dog the breed to advanced standards (for pointing dogs steady to wing and shot) to identify the animals with superior training characteristics?

Soarer31 · Post by **Soarer31** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:12 pm

I believe that field and show conformation - standard should be one of the same , having said that , I'm training a show quality pointer at the moment and finding it as a bit of a challenge

SCT · Post by **SCT** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 9:26 pm

Here's a little different angle on conformation. This is a simple drawing to compare the conformation of two full sisters. These are field bred pointers. If you look closely you can see subtle differences in their conformation. These two females, have a different stance, shown here as their natural pose.

Both girls are fast on the ground, but guess which one has the smoother gate, and which dog has a more animated gate.

mactrout · Post by **mactrout** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 9:37 pm

Top illustration has slightly better rear angulation and probably moves a bit better.

Post by **ezzy333** » Sun Mar 16, 2014 10:02 pm

Top one is better front and rear =smoothest while the bottom would tend to bring her front paws higher due to the straighter shoulders. What I call paddleing.

Ezzy

Trekmoor · Post by **Trekmoor** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:20 am

I know very little about conformation but of those two dogs I'd prefer to own the one at the top of the two illustrations. It "covers more ground" in it's stance and it's legs just look better placed on the ground to me in relation to it's body. Sorry but I just don't know how to explain this any better.

Bill T.

SCT · Post by **SCT** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:56 am

Here's another part of the puzzle. This is a drawing I did of one of the girls on point....which one is it, top or bottom??

cjhills · Post by **cjhills** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:26 am

My guess bottom.

mountaindogs · Post by **mountaindogs** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 9:29 am

IMHO that drawing is an improvement on both

Better front, better rear, better tail set... But that's not my breed and the other drawings are not as detailed.

Post by **ezzy333** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:01 am

I would guess it is the bottom one but you really can't tell as it is a drawing and not the real thing. That is not a knock on the drawing as it is excellent.

Ezzy

birddog1968 · Post by **birddog1968** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:15 am

Thought i had a better picture of the other dog....NM ....

Post by **slistoe** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 10:23 am

SCT wrote:Here's another part of the puzzle. This is a drawing I did of one of the girls on point....which one is it, top or bottom??

I don't really know about the dogs, but that is a seriously good drawing.

RoostersMom · Post by **RoostersMom** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 11:19 am

p.s. me too. Love your drawings.

fuzznut · Post by **fuzznut** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 11:22 am

I like the bottom dog better, balanced front and back. And I like the bend of stifle in the bottom dog. The top dog has a roached top line.

A bit too square for my taste, but...

SCT · Post by **SCT** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 1:29 pm

Thanks for the drawing comments people.

The top dog is my 2 year old Kate and the bottom dog is my 3 year old Holly. You are all correct, the drawing is of Holly (bottom dog). Like I said before, both dogs have great ground speed. Surprising to some would would be the fact that Holly (bottom dog) has the smoothest gait. In fact she has the most fluid gait I've ever seen in a pointer (or any other dog for that matter). I believe she is slightly faster than Kate according to observations of my Garmin while running them, BUT, more importantly, Holly has endless bottom. I mean she will go and go and go and not show any wear. At the end of a high speed hour (depending on bird work usually 10-14 miles) she appears to just be warming up. When she's in tall cover you can hardly see her shoulder or head come up. She is smooooottthh. Kate, has a different gait and more fully extends when she runs, very stylish but more animated and I believe her gait is not as efficient as Holly's. Around the yard she (Kate) does a lot of hopping, but, she can really open up too. Watching them run at their top speed, together in the yard, you can't really tell a difference in their gate, but I would guess that Holly has more "pull" in her front end, which may be what Ezzy was defining as paddling. However, I have not noticed her front feet coming up. A high quality video of them galloping side by side would be very interesting to compare.

I will be breeding Kate to a male that has a conformation more like Holly's with a straight top line. We shall see what comes from the breeding, but likely some of both.

Bottom line is, I would love to see the fastest moving show pointer (Champion) run with Holly and see at the end of 1 or 2 or even 3 hours which one is holding up the best. I doubt Holly would do well on the bench because of her front and rear angles, but you should see her fly. She's not too shabby of a bird dog either.

Steve

SCT · Post by **SCT** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 1:49 pm

"A bit too square for my taste, but..."

Fuzznut, this comment comes from your show experience, right? Angles too shallow for your taste????? I'm not picking on you, just curious.

dan v · Post by **dan v** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 2:56 pm

fuzznut wrote:I like the bottom dog better, balanced front and back. And I like the bend of stifle in the bottom dog. The top dog has a roached top line.

A bit too square for my taste, but...

I like some arch over the loin.

fuzznut · Post by **fuzznut** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 7:26 pm

I like a dog with angles front and rear and that's why I chose the bottom dog. The top dog had no bend of stifle at all... to me that would limit their drive off the rear. More reach then drive off the rear.

I like a dog with a tad more length in the loin so they are supple without the back bending... their legs have plenty of room to move. My breed is ok for a smudge longer then tall,but I like a bit longer so they can stretch out on the run. I think that gives them that flow. Square dogs (I think) tend to pogo more, up and down motion because their legs don't have the room to move without interfering.

I love to watch dogs that float across the country- hate to watch dogs go up and down.. wasted movement.

Not sure it all makes sense when I write it out?

SCT · Post by **SCT** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:00 pm

I guess you mean the stifle joint?? Will this photo help? If you look closely the bend is the same in both dogs. Or at least very similar.

Here she is in motion..

birddog1968 · Post by **birddog1968** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:13 pm

I admit I don't know or even care to know a lot about right and wrong conformation. But I listen intently when discussions about it take place. Its funny tho the dog I've owned with the straightest shoulders and very little bend to the stifles and short coupled has been the fastest, fanciest dog, with the best endurance of about any dog I've ever owned. She is light on her feet and never seemed to ever tear up her feet. Which may lend credence to the idea its what's between their ears that drives them the most.

SCT · Post by **SCT** » Mon Mar 17, 2014 8:27 pm

Bird dog, you have just expressed what I've seen in Kate, pictured above. She runs harder every day when on long trips. Never had a limp or even shown signs of soreness, including feet. I was waiting for someone to bring up brains and/or heart. Difficult to tell what role they play in gait and locomotion, but probably to some extent.

Nutmeg247 · Post by **Nutmeg247** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 10:34 am

SCT wrote:Bird dog, you have just expressed what I've seen in Kate, pictured above. She runs harder every day when on long trips. Never had a limp or even shown signs of soreness, including feet. I was waiting for someone to bring up brains and/or heart. Difficult to tell what role they play in gait and locomotion, but probably to some extent.

As far as heart, I know you mean determination and grit. But, heart and lungs also play a key engine role, too.

I think a lot of the conformation discussion is talking about good running economy for long distances, versus in some cases maybe a dog who is more dynamic for short distances. (Interestingly, pointers aren't that fast relative to sprint sled dogs, for instance.) In terms of total performance, you have that running economy aspect of conformation, combined with a high VO2 max and light weight. It does make me wonder why show dogs aren't at least forced to meet a certain VO2 max threshold or at least some simple running test, even if they aren't expected to hunt, in cases of breeds where the dog is intended to have endurance as one key attribute. I guess part of the answer is likely that the conformation and sometimes coat of the dogs would have to change for them to do this, aside from the fact that it would be a hassle.

deseeker · Post by **deseeker** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:41 am

The britts have a lot of dogs that are good in both show & field. I'll list national open AA and the national amature AA. I'm sure I'll miss 1 or 2. :roll:

NFCs --DC Ru-Jem's A Touch Of Bourbon(2010), DC Shady's Tia Maria(2006), DC Microchips of Nutmeg(2002), DC Gambler's Ace In The Hole(1998), DC Markar's Jac's A Dan D(1996), DC Tomar's Ban-Dee Sam(1981), DC Cinnabar's AmiRoc deEdwards(1980), DC Perry's Rustic Prince(1978), DC Chipp Britt Jill(1975), DC Ban-Dee(1973 & 1974), DC Pacolet Cheyenne Sam(1971), DC Colorado's Yankee Timber(1967), DC Towsey(1959)

NAFCs --- DC MTB Caro Rita De Scipio(2012), DC Ojibwa's DLD Bandit(1993), DC Renegade's Kansas Kid(1992), DC Lobo's Cotton Candy(1988), DC Ban-Dee-Britt's Red Jinx(1985), DC Krissy's Kaptain Kay-Cee(1983), DC Hi Spirit Buck(1978 & 1981), DC Perry's Rustic Prince(1976), DC Hello Dolly Miss Kaer(1974 & 1975), DC Colorado's Jumping Gypsy(1972), DC Car-Lee O'Dee(1971), DC Gringo De Britt(1970).

There are also 4 duals that are either NGDFC Or NAGDFC

Post by **ezzy333** » Tue Mar 18, 2014 11:55 am

There really isn't a field and a show conformation as they are one and the same. We sometimes get a little off track and see it start to wonder a little but that happens when we have breeders who forget about breeding for the complete dog.

Ezzy