Bad Habits

[SteelyDan]

What kind of bad habits will you put up with or not put up with?

Hole diggers? House chewers? Chain fighters? Dogs who run themselves down to nothing constantly?


Are these bad habits something that is hereditary for your dogs? or a learned behavior? or just a fluke?

I have a few with bad habits. Some were had habits that i despised enough to cull. Chain fighters left toothless before they ever saw maturity, a habit i didnt care to invest anymore time in. Possible to ruin dogs for years to come if left unchecked.

[CrazyRed]

I agree with you on the chain fighters, it's one of worst habits to have because as stated no teeth before maturity, most other things I can put up with but that is one I don't like at all..

[Officially Retired]

I agree, I don't like a chain fighter or a rock-chewer ... however, I disagree with culling because of it (depending on the dog).

My Icon (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=3887) dog lost all his teeth by 6 months of age, and yet he would whip 99% of any dog alive his weight.
His relative Gr Ch Zukill (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=7526) won 6x without a cutter in his head.
Ch Robert T Jr. (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=36301) stopped four 4xWs from making Grand Champion (including Indian Sonny's SDJ Cover Dog Ch Bootlegger (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=36302)), and Robert T also did that without a cutter in his head.

So I absolutely don't agree with culling dogs for this.
I think a fair assessment of the dog's performance abilities, as an adult, should always be made before any culling decision is made.

Jack

[loot]

I agree, I don't like a chain fighter or a rock-chewer ... however, I disagree with culling because of it (depending on the dog).

My Icon (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=3887) dog lost all his teeth by 6 months of age, and yet he would whip 99% of any dog alive his weight.
His relative Gr Ch Zukill (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=7526) won 6x without a cutter in his head.
Ch Robert T Jr. (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=36301) stopped four 4xWs from making Grand Champion (including Indian Sonny's SDJ Cover Dog Ch Bootlegger (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=36302)), also without a cutter in his head.

So I absolutely don't agree with culling dogs for this.
I think a fair assessment of the dog's performance abilities, as an adult, should always be made before any culling decision is made.

Jack

Agree whole heartedly

[S_B]

Dogs with nasty habits can make for a whole yard of nasty habits. I knew a dogman who culled dogs for dumping over their waters. Whether or not I agree is not important, my opinion has no place on another mans pursuit to happiness.

We've been lucky in that we've never had any chain fighters, not to many hole diggers, and with wood houses not to many chewers. As soon as a bad habit shows up, we try to break it offering other outlets of energy.


@SteelyDan Bolio dogs are known to dig and fight their chains!

[SteelyDan]

I've noticed that SB. With a certain cross at least. The one I gave up on cared for nothing but that chain. I could care less about chewing houses. Easily repaired. Digging holes, dirt is free.

I've seen dogs learn chain fighting n leaving that around to perpetuate itself through genetics or a learned behavior is not going to occupy my time while I wait for one of those chain fighters to be an exception like Jack listed.

[S_B]

Right on @ SteelyDan, as far as dirt being free. Not so much when you break an ankle in one of them holes! LOL

[Officially Retired]

Dogs with nasty habits can make for a whole yard of nasty habits.

That can be true in some cases.




I knew a dogman who culled dogs for dumping over their waters. Whether or not I agree is not important, my opinion has no place on another mans pursuit to happiness.


Mmmm, I disagree. There are many things that are "important" besides one man's utterly-selfish devotion to "himself" and what pleases him.

This could potentially open-up a whole can of "off-topic" worms, but I for one do not believe that "only man" is entitled to be happy on his property. I believe that, if a man is going to keep animals, he has a responsibility to keep them in a good state of health, conditions, etc.

But, without even touching these issues, functionally-speaking (and by that I mean, selecting for the best dogs) I can still suggest that MANY dogs that are, in fact, the problem dogs turn out to be the smartest dogs on the yard :idea:

At least on my own yard, the ones that created the most problems very often just wanted to be with me ... and would throw a perpetual FIT (knocking shit over, digging holes, hanging from trees screaming, etc.) ... until I paid attention to them. If I took them off the chain and brought them inside, they were quiet and content as church mice. Poncho himself was one such dog, as was Diamond Girl, Icon, etc.

To me, it was clear as day these dogs just wanted to be with me, and ran around all day, destroying shit, simply because they could NOT be with me. It would be hard for me to want to kill a dog that just wants to be with me ... and almost always they were my very gamest dogs.





We've been lucky in that we've never had any chain fighters, not to many hole diggers, and with wood houses not to many chewers. As soon as a bad habit shows up, we try to break it offering other outlets of energy.


I think that is the best solution, trying to offer constructive outlets of energy ... like a springpole by the chainspot, etc.

Jack

[Officially Retired]

I've seen dogs learn chain fighting n leaving that around to perpetuate itself through genetics or a learned behavior is not going to occupy my time while I wait for one of those chain fighters to be an exception like Jack listed.

Two things:

1) Sometimes those determined chain-fighters are determined in other areas as well ... more often than you might think ... for if they have the intelligence to know that "the chain" is what is confining them ... and relentlessly attack it ... they often have intelligence and are unrelenting in other areas as well :idea:

and

2) Wouldn't a much more compassionate/intelligent solution for such a problem dog be placing it in an above-ground pen as opposed to executing it?

Jack

[Wise]

Some of these dogs just come out down right stupid so they do stupid shit. Others develop these habits out of stressfull situations to them. Some like it on chain and belong there, some like it inside and belong there.
Keep in mind that we all actually like the not so normal dogs anyway, i mean that is if you like those that scream to be released! That aint normal! Lol

[Officially Retired]

Some of these dogs just come out down right stupid so they do stupid shit. Others develop these habits out of stressfull situations to them. Some like it on chain and belong there, some like it inside and belong there.
Keep in mind that we all actually like the not so normal dogs anyway, i mean that is if you like those that scream to be released! That aint normal! Lol

I disagree that it's "stupid" ... Wise.

I do agree that it is an intense reaction to the stress of confinement, however.

Re-read what I said.

Jack

[Officially Retired]

Just to add a punctuation mark:

If you decided to tie 2 people up to a chain by the neck, which one do you think would be the best overall fighter and human being?


1) The guy who sat there, dull-eyed and docile, never understanding why he couldn't go anywhere, and who never tried to get off the chain?;

or

2) The guy who knew that chain was holding him back, and who yanked all-day, all-night at the chain ... trying to break it any way he could ... never stopping in his effort to destroy that chain and get off it?

Which guy do you call "stupid" ... and which guy do you think has more "spirit"?

To me, some dogmen show that they don't really know much about dogs at all ... or much else for that matter.

Jack

[Wise]

I disagree with the dog vs human analogy. Most of the dogs i've seen on chain dont really mind all that much and there could be more than a few reasons why one is trying to get off his chain.
And as far as your little endzone spike goes, i signed up to your site for entertainment purposes not to kiss ass or back up all your know it all posts with a hat tip. So, you know what they say about opinions....

[SteelyDan]

The reason you gave for a dog to fight his chain is just one reason. Ive found some dogs are just destructive to everything they can touch, call it the stress of confinement or whatever. Outlets detour nothing for some. When they didnt have a chain they chewed a pen.

From what i have seen here, these few chain fighters that cant be detoured are more often than not unexceptional or some flat out dont start. So what may have been true with your dogs is not the case with these. Some call these dogs chain curs or chain bad asses. They act real willing until the hammer drops.

If it was the case that my more exceptional dogs were chain fighters on a consistent basis id have to breed far far away from that, which means culling. Why would someone stack the odds against their future dogs by incorporating that into a breeding program?

[Officially Retired]

I disagree with the dog vs human analogy.

Why? Because it doesn't suit your baseless statements?

Funny how human psychology is literally based on dog psychology ... but I guess the facts of life don't concern you much.

We actually agree in a couple of respects, but not so much on others.




Most of the dogs i've seen on chain dont really mind all that much and there could be more than a few reasons why one is trying to get off his chain.

I agree, most of the dogs don't seem to mind so much, mine too. But that has nothing to do with what I said.

I said that many, if not most, of the chain-fighters (hole-diggers, balistic tree-hangers, etc.), or problem dogs in general, seem to have an inordinate amount of drive/intelligence ... and are NOT content just sitting there on the chain, like well-fed cattle.





And as far as your little endzone spike goes, i signed up to your site for entertainment purposes not to kiss ass or back up all your know it all posts with a hat tip.

Not sure what you mean by my endzone spike, but I don't need you to "back up" my posts, nor do I need you to kiss my ass either.

But it would help you live up to your chosen handle if you would give examples, and attempt to back up your statements with facts, instead of just posting mindless, cursword-filled one-liners.





So, you know what they say about opinions....

Yeah, and it's also true that some are kept cleaner and smell better than others, lol

Jack

[Officially Retired]

The reason you gave for a dog to fight his chain is just one reason. Ive found some dogs are just destructive to everything they can touch, call it the stress of confinement or whatever. Outlets detour nothing for some. When they didnt have a chain they chewed a pen.

I've had those too ...

But I still think they're uncommonly driven dogs, usually.




From what i have seen here, these few chain fighters that cant be detoured are more often than not unexceptional or some flat out dont start. So what may have been true with your dogs is not the case with these. Some call these dogs chain curs or chain bad asses. They act real willing until the hammer drops.

Interesting point.




If it was the case that my more exceptional dogs were chain fighters on a consistent basis id have to breed far far away from that, which means culling. Why would someone stack the odds against their future dogs by incorporating that into a breeding program?

I agree it is a pain in the ass for a breeding program. But whoever said raising highly-spirited performance dogs was going to be easy :lol:

I've had some ordinary palookas that were hole-diggers, that's for sure, and I've had some amazingly-talented dogs that were pretty good on the chain. Silverback, for example, never chewed a thing: died as an old man with a PERFECT set of cutters.

So there are always exceptions to every rule I suppose ...

Still, your points conceded, I renew my statements that the most ordinary dogs are generally "ordinary" in every other way as well ... and that THE most spirited, intelligent dogs are almost always DEFIANT ASSHOLES in some way ... they refuse to accept being in cages, they refuse to accept anything but what THEY want to do ... and that is part of an Alpha-Dog's make-up IMO :idea:

Poncho wouldn't accept being "just another dog on the yard." He would bark all-day, every-day, until I chained him up to the rafters on my PORCH and gave him a couch to lay on. Only when he was in the #1 spot, and right next to the house, would he shut up and lay there content. He could never be in a crate or a cage either: would eat his way out every time. Same thing with being loose in a bedroom. If I left, he would try to eat his way out of the room and come find me.

I couldn't even turn him loose in a backyard ... he would run to the wall and try to jump over and get the dogs on the other side. He knew walls separated properties and that there were DOGS on the other side of them. I could "punish him" a thousand times, but he could care less. He wanted to do what HE wanted to do, and that is all there was to it. It was all EGO and DRIVE and there was no way anyone was going to dominate "his" spirit.

Only when he was sick and dying did he ever mellow out at all ... and then not by much.

Jack

[FrostyPaws]

At one time, I kept chain fighters around, determined to see if all this nonsense was worth the time required to fool with dogs with such barrier issues. Invariably, down to a dog, none of them were ever worth the wait as a mature adult.

One of my stud dogs, who is now gone, seemed to produce at least one chain fighter in each litter. None of them were ever worth a plug nickel, and the last one was 10 months old and not a tooth in his head. Needless to say, he had to go elsewhere. I never found that to be anything remotely like what Jack says in regards to dogs wanting to be with me. Those dogs would barely stop long enough to eat. They weren't interested in me. So while Jack's dogs may have been requesting his attention, the ones I had were never interested in such things.

The best dogs I've had came in all shapes and sizes. Some messed with everything without destroying anything. Some were just chill on their chains. They come in all shapes and sizes, but not one dog I ever raised to maturity that fought the chain ever amounted to anything. So, whenever I see that pop up here and there, those dogs have basically signed their ticket off my yard.

One last thing. I don't necessarily agree that being a defiant asshole is part of an alpha dog's makeup as most of the dogs I've had that were classified as such never messed with anything. I've had the few that did, but they've always been in the minority.

Good topic Dan.

[Officially Retired]

Interesting that you made a study of it Frosty ...

I must admit, the specific characteristic of chain-fighting has never been a problem for me ... but dogs going nuts (running, digging, rock-chewing/root-pulling, barking constantly) ... have always wound up being some of my best.

Some of my very mellow dogs have been talented and game too, but most of my very best have been very animated (and often entertaining) out there on the chain :lol:

And, almost down to the last, they were absolutely angels inside the house ... very content to "be with their human" ...

However, about 50% of those ultimately were intolerable inside ... because they'd "go nuts" when I left, inside this time, and (well) I think yall can picture how that looked when I got back :lol:

Jack

[S_B]

@ Frosty,
I have to agree at least from my experience. Seems to me those dogs who seek to destroy shit are somewhat anxious or maybe insecure even

@ Jack,

I believe you are putting a human emotion onto an animal when the truth is we really have no clue why they do the things they do, right?

[Officially Retired]

@ Jack,
I believe you are putting a human emotion onto an animal when the truth is we really have no clue why they do the things they do, right?

I totally disagree.
First of all, I never said dogs have "human" emotions; in point of fact dogs have dog emotions.
But they *do* have emotions.

I absolutely don't believe emotions are uniquely human.
In fact, I believe there are plenty of "clues" as to how a dog is feeling emotionally ... and why they do certain things ... unless a person is clueless.

Are you saying you can't tell when a dog is happy? Sad? Pissed off? Guilty? Nervous? Etc.?
Got news for ya: those are emotions :idea:

If you can't see these things in a dog, I truly believe you're clueless.
If you can see these things in a dog, then you also believe that basic emotions are NOT uniquely human ... AND that there are, in fact, CLUES EVERYWHERE to be seen as to what's going on in a dog's emotional state.

Jack

[S_B]

@ Jack,

Of course I can recognize basic emotions a dog has. But saying they are destructive because they want to be with you is placing your emotions onto what you believe that dog is feeling.

Not the same as seeing a dog wag his tail when he sees you, or the ones you described above.

[Officially Retired]

@ Jack,
Of course I can recognize basic emotions a dog has. But saying they are destructive because they want to be with you is placing your emotions onto what you believe that dog is feeling.
Not the same as seeing a dog wag his tail when he sees you, or the ones you described above.

You actually are the one saying I said things that I didn't.

First you say I am giving dogs "human" emotions, when I didn't (there's no need as they have dog emotions).

Now you're saying that I believe my conclusion is "the same" as a dog wagging its tail, but I didn't say that either :)

My conclusion does not have to be "the same" in order to be accurate. If I have a dog that is a barking, hole-digging freak outside ... but is calm and doting when brought inside ... I can form the very realistic deduction that the animal just wanted to be indoors with me.

You can disagree with my conclusion, but I am neither ascribing "my" emotions to the animal, nor do I have "no reason" to conclude what I've concluded. Quite frankly, I have every reason to believe as I do and no reason to believe any differently.

Jack

[FrostyPaws]

I will say that none of ours were ever intolerable in the house. There was the usual barking and hell-raising when they saw one of the house dogs, but short of that, nothing. If we crated the house dogs away from the visitors, the visitors would run the house with no issues and would act like they'd been inside forever.

When the chain dogs would come in at various times, they were always content just to be inside, even if in a crate. Not one of them ever chewed out of a crate to be free if we were gone.

[Nut]

Sure they want attention. I have one who always pies in his doghouse when i put straw in. So i put a blanket in there and now he pies outside. But, when i take one of the other dogs for a walk he would drag his blanket out of the doghouse. He won't for another reason, lol. 100% a form of protest.

[Officially Retired]

My little Amazon (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=222) bitch is extremely loyal, and is a massive protester--vocally--fortunately without being physically destructive.

If I so much as touch my keys, Amazon runs to the door "looking at me" to see when WE are going for a ride :lol:

If I leave without her, she will bark continuously ... from the moment I close the door behind me ... to the moment I return (neighbors say that can be in excess of 3-4 hours :lol:).

If I do take Amazon with me, she will be forever fighting me to "sit on my lap" ... and she is gamer about saying, "Yes," to that idea than I am to saying, "No." :lol:

And THE MOMENT my tires hit the entrance way of a store, and I slow down, she will start to go apeshit and will begin her yodel (wa-wa-wa-wa!), as if she sees a dog on the other side, and will really go apeshit once I pull to a stop.
It is almost a life-and-death fight for me to be able to get out of the car and NOT have her dive out of the car with me ...
And she screams so loud, once I'm out, that everyone within 200 feet looks our way, and all I can do is laugh and shake my head and say, "She wants to be with her daddy," to which most folks laugh back.

Now "The Diamond Girl Triplets" (Little D (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=2748), Dirty Diamond (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=678), and Diamond Girl (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=679)) would also experience a deep desire to be with me ... and, rather than just "yodel" when I left, they would ALL pretty much wreck stuff in the house, and couldn't really be kept inside. Of the 3 of them, Dirty Diamond was the most tolerable, but all of them would chew, dig, ruin dog houses ... eat, chew, or obsessively lick the inside of a crate ... yet all of them were quiet as church mice inside if I was home ... but they didn't handle "when I left" very well :lol:

Amazon is a pain in the ass, noise-wise, but she doesn't destroy anything.

Jack

[wrknapbt]

I can deal with a lot from a hound but I do not like a house killer or a chain fighter. I had this one dog who was very very well bred. He would kill a dog house with no problem. So to stop him I got some stuff from the feed store made for horses to spray on his house and I would spray it once a week. But this same dog would bark all the time, fight his chain and if he had a bone or food in his crate you could forget getting him out until he was ready or he would try and eat your arse up. I can't have that with my kids around so I had to see if he was worth the trouble. He turned out to be a screaming CUR.

[S_B]

Are you saying you can't tell when a dog is happy? Sad? Pissed off? Guilty? Nervous? Etc.?
Got news for ya: those are emotions :idea:

Jack since this thread isn't about animal emotions per say, we will have to debate this on another thread. :)

But as far as a dog being driven because they destroy their hardware in pursuit of "freeing" themselves from a chain as you say is, well, kind of silly in my opinion.

And I can't be convinced that an animal who relentlessly chews on hard metal chain links breaking all of their teeth which they need for survival is smart. That is the complete opposite as I see it. (I know dogs can survive without teeth) But in the wild, how many predators are toothless and thriving :question:


I do have very spirited dogs who are very animated and demand my attention though, but without the self destructive behavior.

I just see no point in keeping these self destructive dogs around, it's a waste of money and sanity for me personally. But take no issue with those who enjoy those types of dogs, different strokes for different folks.

S_B

[almonddust]

You kids should play nice or somebody is gonna start crying.

[Officially Retired]

Jack since this thread isn't about animal emotions per say, we will have to debate this on another thread. :)


Okay :)





But as far as a dog being driven because they destroy their hardware in pursuit of "freeing" themselves from a chain as you say is, well, kind of silly in my opinion.


Why is it silly? I have seen dogs lift their chain up off a nail that it was hooked on.

Is it silly to say the dog freed itself there too, or is it sillier to deny the obvious?





And I can't be convinced that an animal who relentlessly chews on hard metal chain links breaking all of their teeth which they need for survival is smart. That is the complete opposite as I see it. (I know dogs can survive without teeth) But in the wild, how many predators are toothless and thriving :question:

Again, you blur so many things in your own thinking, it's hard to carry on a discussion.

I don't think dogs think that far into the future. I think dogs have basic, simple thoughts ... not complex ones.

Dogs have a basic want to be free ... or ... they have a basic want to be with their owner.

But I don't think dogs ever consider the long-term ramifications of repeated hole-digging, or root-tugging, on their teeth :lol:




I do have very spirited dogs who are very animated and demand my attention though, but without the self destructive behavior.


Most of mine are like that too.





I just see no point in keeping these self destructive dogs around, it's a waste of money and sanity for me personally. But take no issue with those who enjoy those types of dogs, different strokes for different folks.
S_B

Hold on, I never said I "enjoyed" that type of dog ... far from it.

I too prefer tractable, low-maintenance dogs.
Silverback, for example, was a great keeper: never chewed a damned thing.
Never shit or pissed in the house. Never ate out of the trash can. Never chewed up shoes or anything else.

BY FAR, I wish all of my dogs were like Silverback (in a lot of other ways besides being a great companion and house dog ;)) ... but what I am saying is I would not **kill** a dog who's destructive without first giving him a fair shake as an adult. Frosty said he did that, gave them a fair shake, which is the way it should be.

I don't know how this basic, simple premise got confounded into "I prefer hard-keepers," but that is far from what I said. One guy said he'd get rid of dogs with no teeth ... and I pointed out some incredibly bad-ass dogs with no teeth ... to AGAIN stress the point of NOT making decisions based on "teeth" ... or how hard they are to keep ... but on the merit of the dog.

This topic is about hard keepers.
My point is that hard keepers are sometimes GREAT dogs.
Everyone wants to come on here and say, "All their hard keepers weren't shit," well okay then, maybe so.
Or maybe they never really gave those dogs a truly fair shake ...

Regardless, bottom line is I've named some pretty badass dogs that WERE hard keepers and WERE freaking awesome dogs. Maybe my Icon dog was never matched, but Zukill and Robert T Jr. certainly were ... and the owner of Robert T Jr. called my Icon dog "Baby Robert T," so I assure you he was a helluva dog. Not sure how many of you have had 6xWinners that killed everything in under an hour, or 4xWs who beat four 4xWs (like Zuk and T Jr.), so these dogs were surely worth keeping in spite of not having teeth. That was my point.

IMO anyone who culls for anything other than performance is making questionable decisions.
At that point "an enjoyable yard" becomes a priority over unbiased analysis of the animals on that yard, which then opens-up a Pandora's Box of "what are we breeding for, then?"

Of course, as you pointed out, that is any man's prerogative on his own yard.
I have gladly sold some pretty annoying dogs myself. Sold, not killed.

MY point is, I would never shoot and kill a dog over its being annoying.
I would allow him to mature and give him a fair shake as an adult, before I ever made such a decision.

That is a far cry from saying I "prefer" annoying-ass dogs ... what I said was that some of my very best dogs were pretty fucking annoying :lol:

Jack

[S_B]

Ok Jack, now we agree on this, but my decision to not perpetuate a yard full of hole digging, house chewing chain fighters still stands.

I just simply stead clear of lines with those traits, no matter how great they may be. And I never said one wouldn't be allowed to mature before culling. And also as you stated, culling can also mean removing from your yard by selling that problem child to someone else, who doesn't mind keeping a dog like that.

Just like I stay away from lines of turning dogs, cold dogs and those killer "hard mouthed" dogs.


S_B

[Pit Bull Committed]

I too would stay clear of dogs with bad habits. Even though there are many great dogs with bad habits there are also many great dogs without the bad habits. I see no correlation between bad habits and great performance or intelligence.

I see no intelligence in a dog solely basing on s/he fighting his/her chain 24/7 for life. An intelligent dog would probably fight his/her chain for the first few hours when first put on a chain but would quickly realize that they can't escape and calm down.

I see no intelligence in a dog solely basing on them pissing in their own water or eating their own poop. An intelligent dog imo would not drink their own piss and avoid stepping on their own shit.

[Officially Retired]

Ok Jack, now we agree on this, but my decision to not perpetuate a yard full of hole digging, house chewing chain fighters still stands.


Okay, your yard, your decisions have to stand 8)




I just simply stead clear of lines with those traits, no matter how great they may be.

Mmm, that's what I have a problem with. Of course, again, your yard; your rules.
But when you steer away from a great dog, and aim your breedings toward "easy-keepers," you are no longer breeding based on performance but on some other criteria :idea:

That reminds me or Robert T Jr's owner ... he never bred to Robert T because he had "mangy feet" and didn't want pups with "mangy feet" ...
Yet in the same breath he said he would sell all 5 of his properties to get Robert T Jr (and another dog named Leroy) back ... because he could win all of that back, and more, with those two animals.

So I asked him why he didn't breed to Robert T and the above was the answer :embarrassed:
It made no sense to me!
Here this old man would gladly sell 5 properties to get THE DOG Robert T Jr. back (mangy feet and all) ... and yet he didn't possess the sense to LINEBREED on Robert T to capture and harness his exceptional head-fighting genetics ... which it was clear he had, not just based on his own awesome record, but his sire (the Original Robert T) was the greatest head dog of all time!

Honestly, makes no freakin sense to me. Dude wanted "that ability" ... and yet he did not *hang onto* that ability by BREEDING FOR IT.
Okay, mangy feet is not something anyone wants, but I would gladly overlook mangy feet (or upgrade my feeding practices to prevent it) to HANG ONTO extra-ordinary pit ability.
This guy's belief system was WHY he always had to BUY his best dogs, and never was able to BREED them himself: he was not selecting for greatness, but for something that had nothing to do with greatness.

And I am making the exact same statement here: if you breed *away* from a truly superior animal ... over "yard habits" ... then you're no longer breeding for performance IMO.
Sure, get rid of an average palooka, if he digs or chain-fights, but if the dog is a great dog, only a person doomed to mediocrity will get rid of an ace over his yard habits.




And I never said one wouldn't be allowed to mature before culling. And also as you stated, culling can also mean removing from your yard by selling that problem child to someone else, who doesn't mind keeping a dog like that.

Agreed.





Just like I stay away from lines of turning dogs, cold dogs and those killer "hard mouthed" dogs.
S_B

Staying away from turning or cold dogs is not the same thing. Not by a longshot. Turning is very often the sign of shit in the tank, and cold is useless.
I would possibly try breeding to a cold dog (if it was truly cold and not a rank cur, and by truly cold I mean a dog that wags its tail to a killing, not one who's screaming and afraid of it), but I can't stand the sight of a turn and would never breed to a turning dog either. No way.

Hard mouth is a good trait, and as long as everything else was there, is an asset IMO.

In short, I try to breed for WINNING TRAITS not "chain habits" or anything else that has nothing to do with winning.

Jack

[No Quarter Kennel]

Just to add a punctuation mark:

If you decided to tie 2 people up to a chain by the neck, which one do you think would be the best overall fighter and human being?


1) The guy who sat there, dull-eyed and docile, never understanding why he couldn't go anywhere, and who never tried to get off the chain?;

or

2) The guy who knew that chain was holding him back, and who yanked all-day, all-night at the chain ... trying to break it any way he could ... never stopping in his effort to destroy that chain and get off it?

Which guy do you call "stupid" ... and which guy do you think has more "spirit"?

To me, some dogmen show that they don't really know much about dogs at all ... or much else for that matter.

Jack

We've seen "intelligence" tied to gameness and ability, numerous times. MANY folks here agree with that.
In your example above, I would believe the MORE INTELLIGENT human is the one that knows, he cannot escaped a chain around his neck,,,,,,not by his own abilities anyways.
Just basing my opinion on the information given and not any assumptions.

[Officially Retired]

We've seen "intelligence" tied to gameness and ability, numerous times. MANY folks here agree with that.
In your example above, I would believe the MORE INTELLIGENT human is the one that knows, he cannot escaped a chain around his neck,,,,,,not by his own abilities anyways.
Just basing my opinion on the information given and not any assumptions.

So you're saying the gamest, most intelligent men in Alcatraz prison were the ones who "knew" they couldn't escape ... and sat around accepting their fate ... rather than the few who relentlessly tried and finally figured out how to do so?

I absolutely disagree.

I guess you think the gamest, smartest dog are also the ones who "know they can't win" ... and stop trying too? Again, I absolutely disagree.

The gamest, smartest ones are the ones who never stop trying and always figure some "way" to do what they want to do.

[Officially Retired]

My Icon dog not only was smarter than any dog on my yard in the pit, but if he ran some toy off his chain ... and couldn't get it with his front feet ... he'd turn around and try (many times successfully) to get it with his back feet.

I'd say only 1 in 500 dogs will think to "reach" with their back feet too.

Jack

[S_B]

So you're saying the gamest, most intelligent men in Alcatraz prison were the ones who "knew" they couldn't escape ... and sat around accepting their fate ... rather than the few who relentlessly tried and finally figured out how to do so?

I absolutely disagree.

I won't compare human intelligence to that of a dog. There have been studies and theories, but bottom line, it is all educated guessing. I mean, why are we breeding them, and caring for them, if they are as intelligent as us, they'd take care of those basics things themselves. That's what they do in the wild, humans have stepped in to harness what they are selecting for.


Jack, I never saw Robert T, heard about the dog, but if he was really that bad M'fer, and had the nasty habits, which I have stated that I personally do not like. I would not breed to that dog. (mangy feet are no issue, that can be cured) There are other bad M'fers I'd be selecting for. Ones that don't destroy everything, I agree it is cunning sometimes the things these dogs do to their environment.

But I would be selecting dogs that are cunning when it counts, when faced with a real problem and ones that think on their feet in a jam. Those are the truly special animals in my book.

[FrostyPaws]

I must say this. If ANY of the chain fighting dogs I had were like a Robert T, I would just accept my fate, keep the dog, breed him and see what goes where. None of mine were Robert T. Hell, they probably weren't a hair on Robert T's nuts. :)

Ultimately, I would go with performance over habits if it were a chain fighting or hole digging retard. I can fix hole digging with a concrete spot. I could fix the chain fighting with one of my pens. Either way, dogs such as Robert T, or any dog with such abilities, is worth dealing with to possibly harness what they are/were.

[CrazyRed]

I must say this. If ANY of the chain fighting dogs I had were like a Robert T, I would just accept my fate, keep the dog, breed him and see what goes where. None of mine were Robert T. Hell, they probably weren't a hair on Robert T's nuts. :)

Ultimately, I would go with performance over habits if it were a chain fighting or hole digging retard. I can fix hole digging with a concrete spot. I could fix the chain fighting with one of my pens. Either way, dogs such as Robert T, or any dog with such abilities, is worth dealing with to possibly harness what they are/were.

Yea I'd just have a yard of hole digging chain fighting fools lol

[Officially Retired]

I won't compare human intelligence to that of a dog. There have been studies and theories, but bottom line, it is all educated guessing. I mean, why are we breeding them, and caring for them, if they are as intelligent as us, they'd take care of those basics things themselves. That's what they do in the wild, humans have stepped in to harness what they are selecting for.

Again, it's hard to keep a discussion on track with you, because you say things that were never said.

I never said dogs were "as intelligent as humans," so why do you complicate the discussion by adding BS to it?

Dogs *do* have some intelligence, and (just like some people are smarter than others) some dogs are smarter than others ... so I don't know why we can't agree on this simple FACT.

Do you think all dogs have ZERO intelligence? I hope not.
Do you think all dogs have the exact same level of intelligence? I hope not.
Or, do you have the basic sense to realize some dogs ARE smarter than others? I hope so :)




Jack, I never saw Robert T, heard about the dog, but if he was really that bad M'fer, and had the nasty habits, which I have stated that I personally do not like. I would not breed to that dog. (mangy feet are no issue, that can be cured) There are other bad M'fers I'd be selecting for. Ones that don't destroy everything, I agree it is cunning sometimes the things these dogs do to their environment.

Well, then here is were we disagree in a nutshell: I *would* be breeding to Robert T.
If the Old Man (who's been in the fastest of fast lanes since the 1960s) has never seen a head dog as good as Robert T Jr. (except for his father, the Original Robert T), then we're not talking about "a genetic fluke" we're talking about an ACE who passed on his ACE characteristics into a son ... which is made all the more remarkable because the original Robert T wasn't bred all that much :idea:

There is no dog you know of "who doesn't destroy the environment" ... who beat four 4xWs ... and whose daddy beat two Grand Champions and two Champions ... plus 5 other dogs.

The absolute key to having THE BEST performance dogs is breeding to (and harnessing genetically) THE BEST performance characteristics ... not to breed to the dogs on your yard that are "the most convenient" to raise :idea:

Now, if a man is lucky and gets all of that in one dog, great.
But if a particular dog is absolutely excellent ... I mean truly superior ... but he has some flaws, or annoying tendencies, then IF you're a performance breeder you have to bite the bullet and breed to that ace ... because the moment you don't, you are NOT breeding for the best dogs, you're breeding for your own personal preferences of conduct.





But I would be selecting dogs that are cunning when it counts, when faced with a real problem and ones that think on their feet in a jam. Those are the truly special animals in my book.

LOL, mine too. But there aren't too many dogs that could "think on their feet" and outsmart some of the baddest dogs who ever lived, more so than Robert T and Robert T Jr. ... who beat 6 Champions and 2 Grand Champions between the father/son team.

I seriously doubt too many father/son dogs you know can make that statement ... and I for one would just about give my left nut to have those 2 dogs on my yard, along with a couple of my foundation bitches, because I know I would have hurt a lot of people's feelings with their pups :lol:

Jack

[Officially Retired]

I must say this. If ANY of the chain fighting dogs I had were like a Robert T, I would just accept my fate, keep the dog, breed him and see what goes where. None of mine were Robert T. Hell, they probably weren't a hair on Robert T's nuts. :)

Ultimately, I would go with performance over habits if it were a chain fighting or hole digging retard. I can fix hole digging with a concrete spot. I could fix the chain fighting with one of my pens. Either way, dogs such as Robert T, or any dog with such abilities, is worth dealing with to possibly harness what they are/were.


That is pretty much my point.

No one wants to deal with difficult bullshit. That's a given.
But we are, after all, raising these dogs to beat anything their weight they face AND to have an indominable spirit.
And sometimes that "indominable spirit" and the relentless desire to "have their way" is going to be a pain in the ass to deal with :lol:

The point is, if a particular dog has exceptional ability, but is a PITA to deal with, you don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
You breed towards "elite ability" FIRST and let all other considerations fall second.
The moment someone breeds for "nice chain manners" (or coat color, nose color, conformation, "no mangy feet" ... or whatever other BS you want to put here) ... then they're no longer breeding for performance.
Some other consideration becomes the goal.

The Old Man is a great example.
He must have told "Robert T stories" to me a thousand times. He loved that dog, idolized that dog.
Yet he made breeding decisions to other dogs ... because of "mangy feet" ... and was left to scratch his head and wonder "why" he never found that kind of ability again :embarrassed:

This simple reason is he didn't breed for it, and consequently he didn't get it.

It honestly doesn't get any more basic than that.

Jack

[EWO]

I think people often mislead themselves by not having a true mission statement. You know, the line of shit companies put out there to remind themselves of what they should be doing, and should have been doing all along. The dog game is no different. If a guy's mission statement is to win matches and his mindset is solely on winning matches then the bad habit dogs (on percentages they are of no value to him, understanding there are exceptions to the rule, but those exceptions are few and far between). On the other hand if a guy wants to breed his dogs to win matches then that very same bad habit dog can be a vital point to the program.

An analogy would be jumping from line to line every time a dog wins or loses. People with an intelligent plan, stick to that plan and bad habit dogs can be a huge asset to that plan going forward.

Are they easy to own? Nope. Hence the name, hard keepers. Are they of value?. Absolutely. If his only bad habit is a bad chain habit, yet he demonstrates and performs well, he is of value going forward, maybe not on show night, but most definitely in getting the next one to the show. EWO

[CrazyRed]

That reminds me or Robert T Jr's owner ... he never bred to Robert T because he had "mangy feet" and didn't want pups with "mangy feet" ...
Yet in the same breath he said he would sell all 5 of his properties to get Robert T Jr (and another dog named Leroy) back ... because he could win all of that back, and more, with those two animals.

So I asked him why he didn't breed to Robert T and the above was the answer :embarrassed:
It made no sense to me!
Here this old man would gladly sell 5 properties to get THE DOG Robert T Jr. back (mangy feet and all) ... and yet he didn't possess the sense to LINEBREED on Robert T to capture and harness his exceptional head-fighting genetics ... which it was clear he had, not just based on his own awesome record, but his sire (the Original Robert T) was the greatest head dog of all time!

Honestly, makes no freakin sense to me. Dude wanted "that ability" ... and yet he did not *hang onto* that ability by BREEDING FOR IT.
Okay, mangy feet is not something anyone wants, but I would gladly overlook mangy feet (or upgrade my feeding practices to prevent it) to HANG ONTO extra-ordinary pit ability.
This guy's belief system was WHY he always had to BUY his best dogs, and never was able to BREED them himself: he was not selecting for greatness, but for something that had nothing to do with greatness.


Jack

I know the gentleman was a private individual and kept what he bred and used what he bred, and for the life of me I never knew or understood why Robert T didn't have at least 100 offspring, hell I wonder still, why wasn't Tornado, her mother her offspring and more not bred to Robert T or T Jr... Man what a helluva accomplishment that father & son combo had...

[Officially Retired]

I know the gentleman was a private individual and kept what he bred and used what he bred, and for the life of me I never knew or understood why Robert T didn't have at least 100 offspring, hell I wonder still, why wasn't Tornado, her mother her offspring and more not bred to Robert T or T Jr... Man what a helluva accomplishment that father & son combo had...

Yeah, neither of them was really a breeder, especially The Old Man.

I believe K.A. actually did breed both Tornado and the original Robert T. Maybe even T. Jr. too.
I know Allen bought the Carver's Bob Tail dog who sired him.

Oh, and I wouldn't call The Old Man a gentleman :lol:

But, yeah, at one time The Old Man had the original Robert T, Tornado, and Robert T Jr. on his yard ... musta been a good feeling to look out there and see that ... 23 wins (and no telling how much $$ won) between 3 dogs :shocked:

Jack

.

[Officially Retired]

I think people often mislead themselves by not having a true mission statement. You know, the line of shit companies put out there to remind themselves of what they should be doing, and should have been doing all along. The dog game is no different.

Awesome point EWO.

Absolutely, one should have a mission statement: a clearly-defined goal as to what one is breeding their dogs to do, exactly.




If a guy's mission statement is to win matches and his mindset is solely on winning matches then the bad habit dogs (on percentages they are of no value to him, understanding there are exceptions to the rule, but those exceptions are few and far between). On the other hand if a guy wants to breed his dogs to win matches then that very same bad habit dog can be a vital point to the program.

I know what you're saying, but have to disagree a bit.

Zukill won 6, and killed all 6 dogs in under an hour. Most dogs with teeth can't do that, let alone without.
Robert T Jr. beat four 4xWs ... with no teeth ... again most dogs with teeth can't do that.

I am not talking about keeping a dog that is just "game" who's a problem dog, but one that is truly outstanding.
A dog with truly AWESOME talent is a dog with truly awesome talent ... and he will almost always win no matter what.
These are the ones to "bite the bullet" over and deal with their problems (if any).

Such are ALWAYS more valuable than mediocre dogs that "can win" (but there's nothing truly awesome or excellent about the animal).





An analogy would be jumping from line to line every time a dog wins or loses. People with an intelligent plan, stick to that plan and bad habit dogs can be a huge asset to that plan going forward.


Agreed. Stick with what you've got, if it's truly excellent. Keep trying to raise the bar by KEEPING the truly excellent genes ... but try to breed around any faults.
For example, breeding Robert T to a daughter who has no mange ... then keeping the pups that have his style and also have no mange.

However, if the cards fell that the best dog in the litter had mangy feet also ... then I'd have a yard full of mangy-footed ace head dogs ... rather than "nicely-footed" average palookas :lol:





Are they easy to own? Nope. Hence the name, hard keepers. Are they of value?. Absolutely. If his only bad habit is a bad chain habit, yet he demonstrates and performs well, he is of value going forward, maybe not on show night, but most definitely in getting the next one to the show. EWO

The toothless dogs I mentioned did BOTH ... they performed better on show night than 99.9999999% of any dogs that ever were shown AND (if they would have been bred correctly) could have carried on that ability into posterity.

Unfortunately, too many people DON'T know how to breed dogs, DON'T really have "a mission statement" clearly-defined in their head, and they turn a literal Godsend of a dog into a "passing fluke" either by not breeding them at all ... or by not specifically making it their "mission" to keep those great traits alive.

Finally, it's not even just about "winning" ... it's how WELL and DECISIVELY you win :idea:

As the old Porsche ad says, "It's not how fast you go; it's how well you go fast."

Jack

.

[EWO]

Agreed. The post had some generalities to it without a lot of specific details. In our area Rufus won six matches with basically flat teeth and hard gums. He produced his fair share of dogs, and some of them in turn produced some good dogs. It happens. But going into that first one with no teeth does not leave one with the warm fuzzies. After the first and second that 'no-teeth' murderer is not only a dog man's dream but a betting man's dream.

Just basing this on my opinion I would say there have been a lot of dogs that were culled early because of bad habits, and a smaller percentage could have made it on show night, and maybe even a larger percentage would have produced dogs (with good habits) that performed down the road.

Some people can't think past the first roll, much less show night a couple of years from now or a lifetime of production. Some have to have it right now, and right now has to easy, with as little self-input as possible. I think that is why lots of bad habit dogs do not get the same shake his easy kept counter part gets.

If I have a three-legged, one-eyed, flat tooth monster that can get it done some one would have to show me that I made the wrong decision. I would not make the 'wrong' decision (culling) because he was hard to keep. EWO

[Officially Retired]

Another great post EWO ...

[BKNGAME]

I ws reading this post late Monday night & came home Tuesday to my a 14 month old pup having destroyed the privacy fence going for stray dog on other side. He has since been attempting to chew on concrete water bowls, house, etc. This just started Tuesday, March 11, 2014 what would be your next step?

[Officially Retired]

I ws reading this post late Monday night & came home Tuesday to my a 14 month old pup having destroyed the privacy fence going for stray dog on other side. He has since been attempting to chew on concrete water bowls, house, etc. This just started Tuesday, March 11, 2014 what would be your next step?

ROTFLMAO!

I would keep him and base my yard on him ... a true, obnoxious, determined bulldog in the making :)

Jack

Oh, and I would definitely not chain him next to a fence again :lol:

[EWO]

I had a heavy Skull bred male once that had bad habits. Lets just say he rented his wood house by the day. It was of no use on the second day and by the third day its only purpose would be kindling. He went after concrete bowls, houses, chains, rocks, whatever. I ended up with him in a 10X10 pen with a car tire. He fought that tire relentlessly, maybe 16-18 hours per day, sometimes all thru the night. As long as the tire was there the dog houses and the concrete bowl were safe. (granted a 10X10 is not recommended for most bulldogs, but with the tire in there he had no desire to go anywhere).

A few years later I visited a yard and we were talking dogs and this guy had my dog's littermate brother. He was a digger. This dog was on a 8ft or so chain, the chain was stretched and tight, and all you could hear was barking and digging, but no dog. He was completely out of sight. He had a hole that was at least 4, maybe five feet deep. Half of the axle was exposed. The guy had welded re-bar to the axle and poured concrete around the axle, maybe 8" in diameter of concrete. The dog dug a hole so deep the first axle just turned over into the hole with him.

So it happens. On a side note I have always wondered why more of the bad habit/hard kept dogs did not die from swallowing barrels, wood, rocks and roots. I am sure some do but one would think the tract could only hold and pass so much plastic, wood or rocks.

Like Jack said, I would make sure that determined guy gets every chance any other dog would. EWO

[Eliman]

I agree with jack on this one every hound i have had who would fight his chain seamed to have above average intelligence. Pen climbers aswell ones who would scale a 10x10 llke a rock wall all of them turned out to be very smart both traits a pain but i will never cull one for it. I have a Gyp off a Skull dog who would dig holes so big they had to use a backhoe to fill them in now that was a sight to see, she is a easy keeper aswell as her offspring i just don't see culling a hound for these pet peeves. jMO

[S_B]

LOL, mine too. But there aren't too many dogs that could "think on their feet" and outsmart some of the baddest dogs who ever lived, more so than Robert T and Robert T Jr. ... who beat 6 Champions and 2 Grand Champions between the father/son team.

I seriously doubt too many father/son dogs you know can make that statement ... and I for one would just about give my left nut to have those 2 dogs on my yard, along with a couple of my foundation bitches, because I know I would have hurt a lot of people's feelings with their pups :lol:

Jack

:) You are correct on that Jack!

I made a few phone calls to some folks who knew that blood pretty well. Mostly they all said Robert T was a good dog, but nothing extraordinary. One said GR CH Angus would have destroyed him if they had met. One said, who saw him while he was a great dog, he was no where near the baddest who ever lived.

And a good head dog really doesn't use their cutters as much as they use their molars. ;)


S_B

[Officially Retired]

:) You are correct on that Jack!


I never doubted that for a second :)





I made a few phone calls to some folks who knew that blood pretty well. Mostly they all said Robert T was a good dog, but nothing extraordinary. One said GR CH Angus would have destroyed him if they had met. One said, who saw him while he was a great dog, he was no where near the baddest who ever lived.

Opinions are like assholes, only some stink more than others. The fact is, none of the people you called had dogs that could kiss Robert T's ass accomplishments-wise (or Zukill's for that matter).

Another fact is every dog that BOTH Robert Ts beat were better dogs (and fought for more money) than anyone whom you called ever had also :idea:

Indian Bootlegger, for example, was a devastating "killed everything" dog (cover of the Journal / talked about nationwide) that was backed by the Indian and Danny Burton, both of whom have seen/done more than anyone you called also. But Robert T. Jr. stopped that dog cold without a cutter in his head. Spotted him weight too.

Now, Zukill was a badass dog, but no one said anything about the Robert Ts being "badass" dogs ...
But the Robert T's damned sure STOPPED more "badass" dogs ... by riding them out into frustration ... than any dog you have ever petted in your life.

Like your clueless friends, Danny Burton (after he and the Indian lost with Bootlegger) told the old man that Robert T was "a cur-fighting head dog" ... and the Old Man asked, "Do you have anything his weight?", to which there was silence on Burton's end, seeing as he and the Indian just got cleaned out after watching the baddest dog between them quit to Robert T.

I don't know anything about Angus, but I know he wasn't any better than any of the 6 Champions and 2 Grand Champions both Robert Ts beat ... nor did he win as many fights, nor beat as many Champions as T Sr. ... including the 4xW Ch Gomez dog. Ch Gomez had killed all 4 dogs in :40 or less ... and was considered a "2-bite gut dog" ... if he got back there twice, you were dead. Men like Strothers (of Gr Ch Luther fame) and Hargrove (of Gr Ch Rufus/Outlaw fame) told The Old Man there was "no way" Robert T Sr. could beat the Ch Gomez dog. The Old Man asked ... "How much do you want to bet?" ;)

That fight went 3:10 ... and Ch Gomez got back there a time or two ... but Robert T never relinquished his control ... and finally, at 3:10, Gomez took the count with a head the size of a pumpkin, shaking his blood/fluid-filled head in a state of confusion and exhaustion.

I personally wouldn't trade a hair off of Robert T's ass for Angus, and Angus will never have the record of Robert T, nor did he produce a single dog with the record of Ch Robert T Jr.

But you can think what you want. I have always said, and believed, that stupid-aggressive people like stupid-aggressive dogs.
And there was a mile-long waiting list of people with "badass dogs" looking to beat T and T Jr. ... the "ear-fighting curs" ... but they all went home scratching their heads and stitching up their wallets.





And a good head dog really doesn't use their cutters as much as they use their molars. ;)
S_B

Thanks for the lesson on what "a good head dog" does ... I've only been breeding them for 24 years :lol:

Also, Zukill wasn't a head dog, but he killed 6 in under an hour ... with no cutters either ... any ideas as to why?

Jack


.

[S_B]

Opinions are like assholes, only some stink more than others

Agreed


The fact is, none of the people you called had dogs that could kiss Robert T's ass accomplishments-wise (or Zukill's for that matter).

That is not a fact, only your opinion Sir. And one in which you can not substantiate as you do not know who I called.


Another fact is every dog that BOTH Robert Ts beat were better dogs (and fought for more money) than anyone whom you called ever had also :idea:

Another of your opinions. Fact is all the men I called have had CH's & GR CH's and over 200 years worth of experience in dogs between them, some of which fought for as much or more than the Robert T's. To say for a fact that none of the dogs they had between them were better can not be said with certainty.



I personally wouldn't trade a hair off of Robert T's ass for Angus

Nor would I want to convince you otherwise. We all are passionate about the truly great warriors that have graced the pit walls.




But you can think what you want. I have always said, and believed, that stupid-aggressive people like stupid-aggressive dogs.

I have never said what I personally thought about the Robert T's, I only reported back what was told to me by 5 different men, two of which saw the dog (Robert T). The stories were pretty much consistent though I will say that. So could jealousy have played a role in their answers I do not know, but of the 5 men, none ran together. And they each have good or even great dogs they are known for.

I can't stand stupid aggressive dogs, or dogs with bad habits! LOL But couple the two aforementioned behaviors with a badass dog, and I will make the exception. :cheers:






Thanks for the lesson on what "a good head dog" does ... I've only been breeding them for 24 years :lol:

You bet Sir! haha


Also, Zukill wasn't a head dog, but he killed 6 in under an hour ... any ideas as to why?

Jack

Actually no idea, as I don't know anything about the dog, but I'm up for that lesson! :D


Oh, and I've petted some pretty badass dogs!

S_B

[S_B]

My apologies to Steely for getting off topic, I think we can all agree for the most part that while dogs with nasty habits are not ideal. We would all make exceptions on the ones that would truly contribute positives in the gameness and performance department. And we would incorporate them into our breeding program with those attributes more so than not for being asshole to keep.

Great topic and answers by everyone BTW!

S_B

[No Quarter Kennel]

So you're saying the gamest, most intelligent men in Alcatraz prison were the ones who "knew" they couldn't escape ... and sat around accepting their fate ... rather than the few who relentlessly tried and finally figured out how to do so?

I absolutely disagree.

I guess you think the gamest, smartest dog are also the ones who "know they can't win" ... and stop trying too? Again, I absolutely disagree.

The gamest, smartest ones are the ones who never stop trying and always figure some "way" to do what they want to do.

I was talking specifically about your example or analogy. The two men chained around the neck. I was commenting that the one that knows and understands he cannot break free of that situation with what is provided in your example, is the smarter or more intelligent human. Never suggested the "gamest, smartest dogs are also the ones who "know they can't win" so there's nothing for you to disagree with me there. You and I would have been on the same page on that one.

My old man teaches a cognitive intervention class in the state prison system here in Texas. The ones who KNOW and UNDERSTAND the situation and system they are in, are the ones who thrive and succeed. Those who buck that system are the ones, one way or another, are culled in some fashion or another. Either they end up with more time, less privileges, isolation, etc. I offer this b/c you used Alcatraz as an example. The only thing I would ask about the Alcatraz example is, did any of the escapees actually survive? If not, how smart where they? Does committing unintentional suicide equate to more intelligence than the men who never tried to escape? I'm not sure. I don't judge in this way b/c in this situation, I cannot say what I would do without BEING in that situation. Does it show more spirit? Maybe, maybe not. Who's gamer? The man who lives in Alcatraz the remainder of his life, or the guy who escapes and dies? Lots of things to consider and also why I don't think too many comparisons can be made b/t man and animal.

I guess to add to this thread or topic, I hate dogs that are a pain in the ass. Especially when I am feeding more than 10 dogs. I've fed enough good dogs and bad dogs to not have tolerance for them and to also know, I can feed, keep and have a good time with a quality dog that is not a problem. Had I never fed a "good" dog before and the only one I had was a dog that is always wrecking shit, I guess I would keep him. But not any more. If a dog is a barker, water bowl fighter, dog house fighter, extreme digger, etc., Then I will sure enough remove that dog one way or another.

The LG blood is a blood known for certain things. Like a lot of lines are, of course. LG was known for, or at least had/has a reputation for culling pretty hard. It shows in the females in his line. If a bitch did not do a good job of whelping and raising pups, she was a goner. Over the years, this has developed a line that throws extremely maternal females. Bitches that whelp and raise practically every pup thus making life easier on the owner. I'm sure there were some good dogs lost along the way, but I'm also sure there were good dogs passed on as well.

To each their own when it comes to property in the USA.....in my opinion.

[Officially Retired]

Agreed

:cheers:




That is not a fact, only your opinion Sir. And one in which you can not substantiate as you do not know who I called.


Fair enough. Enlighten me then :idea:





Another of your opinions. Fact is all the men I called have had CH's & GR CH's and over 200 years worth of experience in dogs between them, some of which fought for as much or more than the Robert T's. To say for a fact that none of the dogs they had between them were better can not be said with certainty.

Fair enough. Enlighten me then :idea:

Just know that, a mere 4 people (who likewise had more than 200 years' collective experience), and WHOM I NAMED ... called the Robert T's "curs" because of their style ... seen them go with their own eyes ... bet against them with their money ... AND LOST :idea:

So I will continue to take your second- and third-hand (nameless) opinions with more than just "a" grain of salt :)




Nor would I want to convince you otherwise. We all are passionate about the truly great warriors that have graced the pit walls.


True. And you never could convince me otherwise.

Even Danny Burton forgot the words of his own, self-admitted idol (Earl Tudor): "I will take a good ear dog and WHIP most of these so-called 'fast track' dogs ..."

And Robert T and Robert T Jr. PROVED THIS ... they were the the best ear dogs that ever lived ... 6 Champions and 2 Grand Champions defeated between the two of them ... 13 wins total :idea:

And I will bet no two dogs any of the people you've talked to can touch this ;)




I have never said what I personally thought about the Robert T's, I only reported back what was told to me by 5 different men, two of which saw the dog (Robert T). The stories were pretty much consistent though I will say that. So could jealousy have played a role in their answers I do not know, but of the 5 men, none ran together. And they each have good or even great dogs they are known for.

See the last 2 responses I gave above ...

Fact is most "country boys" talk shit about ear dogs ... they want to see "FIGHT-IN" ... so they run their mouths at ear dogs ... but they too will have to pay The Piper when they face a good one.





I can't stand stupid aggressive dogs, or dogs with bad habits! LOL But couple the two aforementioned behaviors with a badass dog, and I will make the exception. :cheers:

LOL< fair enough :)





You bet Sir! haha


:)





Actually no idea, as I don't know anything about the dog, but I'm up for that lesson! :D


He liked the guts ... and the throat ... and would get whole mouthsful of each ... which only require pressure to kill ... not necessarily teeth 8)





Oh, and I've petted some pretty badass dogs!
S_B

Again, fair enough :cheers:

Jack

[No Quarter Kennel]

And for the record, yes, I have and will make concessions for exceptional dogs......but they have to be truly exceptional.
Fastest horse in the world will have concessions made for him bad habits as long as he's the fastest in the world and bringing home the money.

You can't put them all in a box.

[S_B]

Quote Originally Posted by CA JACK
Just know that, a mere 4 people (who likewise had more than 200 years' collective experience), and WHOM I NAMED ... called the Robert T's "curs" because of their style ... seen them go with their own eyes ... bet against them with their money ... AND LOST

So I will continue to take your second- and third-hand (nameless) opinions with more than just "a" grain of salt

Jack, I'm not going to name drop, two of those men saw the dog with their own eyes. One had stuff down from that dog, and even saw Bob, another was going to buy Bob from the breeder who also owned Ethyl, and suggested I call him as he is still alive and well today. ;)

[Officially Retired]

Okay, then I probably know them. Or know of them.

But you never did answer the part about, did any of them have two dogs that won 13x collectively ... or that beat 6 Champions and 2 Grand Champions?

Being old and having "an opinion" of a dog is one thing;
Having your opinion at any point = having/showing a more accomplished father/son duo is quite another ;)

Jack

[S_B]

Okay, then I probably know them. Or know of them.

But you never did answer the part about, did any of them have two dogs that won 13x collectively ... or that beat 6 Champions and 2 Grand Champions?

Being old and having "an opinion" of a dog is one thing;
Having your opinion at any point = having/showing a more accomplished father/son duo is quite another ;)

Jack

Ok, so off topic, I will try to answer this the best I can.

-Did any of them have 2 dogs that won collectively 13 times?
YEP! 1 of the 5 off the top of my head.

-Beating 6 CH's and 2 GR CH's?
Not that I can think of, but I respect their opinions just the same.

-Everyone has an opinion fact, and some of them are old fact, but not all of them!

S_B

[S_B]

:cheers:


And I will bet no two dogs any of the people you've talked to can touch this ;)

Jack

You would have lost part of that bet. :cheers:

[Officially Retired]

LOL, well, I can't debate "secrets" ... so I can't rebute your cat-n-mouse game.

Nobody has been compromised in what I have said ... and I have discussed known animals/people ... so unless you tell me who they are (in private if you want), this debate is getting silly.

But I highly doubt anyone you've talked to has had 2 dogs that have either won 13 times combined, or beaten 6 Champs/2 Grand Champs either.

Especially a father/son combo.

Jack

[S_B]

Not being baited into this conversation, there is a time and a place, and this is neither.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have a bitch who was a terrible dog house fighter, tore two wood houses down to toothpicks, chewed numerous plastic barrels and even took out a tree. At 14 months slipped her collar and killed her mother and proceeded to try and dismantle a male dog in the shoulder.

She would destroy much of what was put in front of her, including 3 one day.

Now, she lives in a metal barrel with a closeable k-9 kondo door, she doesn't mess with it other than licking the HELL out of it during any excitement. lol

But she has a gut full of who knows what, I will try to breed her, but I don't see there is much room for pups. A trip to the vet is in order to see if she is salvageable.

So, unless by some miracle, this bad habit bitch will contribute nothing more than the countless hours of trying to come up with shit she can not destroy.


S_B

[bigpopdog]

THE MAIN BLOODLINE THAT I DEAL WITH SOME OF THE DOGS DO SOME OF THESE "BAD HABITS", SHIT I DAMN NEAR LOST A DOG BECAUSE OF ROCK CHEWING (EVER SINCE THEN, THE ONLY WAY HE SEES THE GROUND IS WHEN I PUT A LEASH ON HIM AND WALK HIM). THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT I CAN'T STAND AS WELL BUT I BE DAMN IF I CULL THEM BECAUSE OF IT. BECAUSE CERTAIN THINGS THAT THEY DO, I HONESTLY BELIEVE IT'S BECAUSE OF HOW THEY'RE BRED, BECAUSE I'VE SEEN ALOT OF DOGS FROM THE LINE (BEFORE THEM) DO SOME OF THE SAME THINGS AND I'M QUITE SURE IT WAS THE SAME WAY BEFORE THEM, GOOD/GREAT DOGS TOO.. POINT IS I'M HAPPY WITH MORE IMPORTANT THINGS THAT THEY DO.

[FrostyPaws]

Dogs don't do things because of how they're bred. They do things due to their genetic propensity or learned behavior. How they're bred, persay, has nothing to do with it. I had one Boyles dog that had no teeth from chewing on rocks. He had his pet Kong Toy that he would set in his feed pan and eat around it. If he was being bred, the Kong Toy had to be removed from site or he wouldn't breed the bitch. All that silliness had nothing to do with how he was bred. None of the other Boyles dogs I ever had did any of that. None of the dogs off that particular stud did anything like that. It was just that one idiot who did things such as that.