Most dogmen that I know nowadays race for $1000 or less...but $5000 IMO sounds more like a duck. What are your thoughts???
Printable View
Most dogmen that I know nowadays race for $1000 or less...but $5000 IMO sounds more like a duck. What are your thoughts???
A lot of time goes into a keep. For some folks who are confident about their entry, the time invested needs to be "worth it" monetarily. Time is money. When I was younger, time or money didn't matter as much. I am out of dogs today, but hypothetically If I were going to take time away from my core business, my family, or my other interests and obligations for something like a keep, that something else needs to be worth the time invested. We've shown dogs for $100 and a bag of dog food, up to $5000, depending on circumstances and the interests of the other party. The dogs never knew the difference, and the size of the purse never changed the fact that they were conditioned dogs being exhibited, with an agreed upon purse, and a referee.
i wouldnt do it for no less than what i would sell my dog for. Thats always been my rule. If you coulndt buy my dog for no less than $5000 then why would i risk losing it for less. Just my 2cents
Sickboy, I like that!!!
I'm amazed at how because 5k seems a lot to one person and not to other that they are ducking. 1k isn't nothing to some, most pups cost that much.. If you think 5K is a lot then boy hate to know what you think of Ch Sweet Jones 7xw 1xl, couldn't even talk to them if you ain't have $375k.. Yes you read me right.. I mean if you can't get 2k for a dog you believe in then how can you get up 5k if your prized hound gets sick needs surgery or something..
Thats right, I see over seas like china bet over 100,000 us dollars and they aren't even that great of the dog. Plenty of dogmen will bet big bucks, so 5k is not ducking. I feel when you bet more than 5k and above than you just gotta to worry about the bs that comes along with it. Rub, cheating, guns and etc... It's not worth it. The crowd and people are different now. Most of people I know when I first started are all out.
:arrow:
It really depends on who's doing the betting, as different people have different-sized wallets.
$5,000 is a lot of money to "a working man," but to a self-made millionaire running a successful business $5K might seem like five cents and not be worth his time.
Unfortunately, many drug dealers have a lot of money too, but what they don't have (usually) is good sense nor do they usually run in good crowds. By engaging in high $$ deals with such crowds, you are potentially setting yourself up for some unwanted problems/attention by having large $$$ matches in cheap company like that.
On the other hand, there really are some highly-successful gentlemen in these dogs, and if you're doing large $$ deals with them, you usually won't have to worry about shenanigans.
So there are a lot of variables involved,
Jack
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
Let's just create a scenario...
1. The one who got offered $5000k is a single parent 1 income household with a small yard.
2. The one who made the offer had to borrow a crate to ship an 8 month old pup he could not handle...and the shipping was paid for in advance. And also couldn't afford to pay the DNA fees when he first received that same pup at 10 weeks old for free.
3. The one who made the offer also breeds untested dogs at 1 year old.
I know good people that ur not getting them into the box for less then $10 on it on first time out hounds. I dont think 5k is to much or ducking if that is what that person can afford to bet then its not to much. Ill give a scenerio of what i think is ducking. Two ch. both the same wieght one side calls out say 20k and thats all they can cover, the other side says well we want 25k or 30k. To me thats ducking when u get into that type of money and u dont do that because of 5 or 10k to me thats curring out! On another note money has no bearing on the caliber of hounds one may own cause ive seen really good ones go for 1k and ones i wouldnt take out for 1 let alonne 10 or 15k. If u love these hounds and how they perform then all u need is a bag of dog food for good compition. if u have money then it's better for the crowd if u know what i mean and there r dogmen who lost there lives over those big money crowds.
Totally agree! And the same can be said if one side can only cover $1000...but the other side throws the $5000!Quote:
Originally Posted by H.B.K.
Jack You said it all there . there's nothing worse than somebody else's heat !!Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
.
:arrow:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TownBizz
Yeah but u have o understand that there is a lot of work and time and money that goes into putting one in great shape and it's hard to find someone who is willing or wants to do all that for a 1000. And if someone is calling someone out for 1000 and the other side says 5000 thats not running to me. Like i said be4 it's running when ur up in the 20k or better and u still cant agree that means one is allways going to up the price to avoid what there scared of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TownBizz
Well, as with anything else, each case is different.
There are some people who really don't think it is worth their time going through all the hassle/effort/risk of competing for less than "x" $$$ ... and then there are jackoffs who try to sound "fastlane" by pricing themselves out of the risk of competing. If you feel this person is of the latter variety, then just don't waste any more of your time dealing with them.
Back when I was competing, even though I was green, I still would never have wasted my time with someone like you described; I tried to go into the best competition I could, but it was never for more than $500. Of course, that was almost 20 years ago, but the guys I went into were all excellent, veteran dogmen that you didn't need to worry about a rub or any kind of BS like that with, but who knew how to bring Champion-level dogs and beat the best with them.
Jack
.
500-5000 is all the same lane. It's not hard to come up with $5000. A "working man" should be making atleast $600 a week. Save your money and make sacrifices otherwise don't race at all.
Do what you have todo you dont need the purse up front. Give yourself 8-10 weeks. Fall behind on a few bills of you have to then when your charge pulls through take those winnings and get the lights turned back on. And if shit doesn't go the way you thought then you figure out what you're gonna do next. Don't bitch and complain.
up to 50 k is not uncommon. i personally think up to 3 is just fine. dogs should come first place, plus the glory and achievement you worked hard for is worth a lot more then cash
:arrow:
Do this if you want to get yourself into problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by BulldogConnection
Quote:
Originally Posted by R2L
I agree, this is totally irresponsible and bad advice.
Betting money you can't afford to lose might be fine if you're 25 and live by yourself, with no one else depending on you (and if you want to run the risk of developing some seriously bad habits) ... but if you're older and, hopefully, with better sense than to think like this, allowing yourself to fall behind on your financial obligations just to do some dogs shows a serious thinking disorder and total lack of responsibility. This kind of mindset is typical of people who get desperate and cheat, is when their entire livelihood is riding on a dog deal, and they will "do anything" to win. There is no fun in competing like that, and there is no "good times" to be had with people who have seriously poor judgment like that.
Making a $5000 bet with a man who makes $150,000 a year can be fun.
Making a $5,000 bet with a group of guys who pooled their extra money together to make it happy can be fun.
But making a $5000 bet with a guy who's missed his mortgage payment, whose kids are hungry, and whose lights are turned out ... who has everything he's got riding on the outcome of a dog deal isn't "fun" at all ... it is feeding the gambling disorder of an irresponsible derelict ... and if things start to go bad for that man's dog, you can bet your ass he will not show anything close to "good sportsmanship" and pick up ... and things might get even uglier than that if he loses both his dogs and his money over the deal.
So, no disrespect to anyone, but that is about the furthest thing from a sensible opinion that has been posted to date IMO.
Jack
.
You could say that about even getting involved with these dogs in the first place. Now my advice would be either save your money or stay out of matters you that can get you into trouble in the first place. But if you want to play above your pay grade sacrifices have to be made. If you can't afford to eat at a 4 or 5 star restaurant then don't go. Don't cry about how it's not fair the menu is too expensive. Go over to to Applebee's and eat some decent food on a budget. Or you could stop going to Applebee's every weekend and save that $$$. Then after a little while go see what that 4 star restaurant is all about. Maybe you realize that's not your scene and you wasted a lot of money or maybe you find out the meal was worth the price tag. Or hell maybe you decide it was good and if you could afford it you'd go more often but Applebee's tastes just fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by R2L
I agree with a lot of that but when I say fall behind on a few bills I don't mean take food out of your kids mouths but I suppose I did leave that open to however the reader saw the situation. Maybe they go late on the phone bill or cable doesn't get paid that month. Neither of these is ideal and if you have to struggle to make the purse then what's the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
However if someone is going to be picking up just because "things start to go bad" then he'd be better off not doing dogs at all. Things are going to start going bad at one point or another. It's not all just a walk through a flower patch. Everyone has their own ideas on when to pick up and when to leave em down but IMO when you fully believe there is no way to win then you pick up. Picking up just because the going gets tough is goin to get expensive and pretty pointless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BulldogConnection
Well, I think getting late on any bills to do a dog deal is irresponsible. I am not saying I have always been responsible, LOL, but as I get older I realize how foolish I was when I was younger.
I agree with your thoughts on picking up, you're there to win not molly-coddle your dog, and it's a tough sport. But, if there's no way to win, it's time to exercise good sportsmanship and go home clean ... but the man who's "desperate" for the money isn't going to think like that ... whereas the man who's comfortable either way is going to be the better sport in most cases.
I don't think anyone should "bet the farm" on any dog (or bet what he cannot afford to lose); I just don't think that's responsible nor the pathway to good results & happy endings.
Naturally, you have the right to feel different.
Jack
.
some of the best shows Ive seen have been for500-1500 and always good sportsmanship
Sign of the times. These are the ways of these days and times. I read this yesterday and had a reply then but I said to my self "self look at it from all perspectives". And I did and the song remains the same. There is the mindset of if you can't pay the cost, then you can't be the boss. Our thing , if you take time to do the knowledge. Is full of the haves and have nots. From the days of moonshine to narcotics, it's always tipped the scale in a direction that only a handful came out a race a car that has been tuned up with the greatest of commitment. My thinking on this is, I thought it was an agreement between two parties to find the truth.
In some cases it seems to limit the pool of contenders, they just don't have the resources. And I hear those of you that are saying, they had no reason being there to start with. I don't fully agree with that premise. I can site far too many examples where as money from the street had a TRUE competitor have to say thanks but no thanks. All the while knowing who owned the truth. Cause when it's all said and done, it's about the competition. Right.
Alot of working people cant afford 5k . But when the crowd that school with fimd out that ypu want to hook a nice one that they have seen, the money gets.high and then you can go into the same. In my opinion i think thats why when you go into people that go into the deep water thats why thee money might get high .havent read all the post ,so sory if i wrote the same thing as someone else. Also having people back you should be a compliment to.you and your hound. And it will improve your yard. Because you will travel to other stateswih people that also have backing (quality stock). Ps i will do it for dog food ;) lol.
Well, I think it is hard for anyone to say what "it's all about" that covers everybody's opinion. I have known people who think it's "all about winning," to the extent that they would actually cheat to get there. I have known dozens of people who would leave a dog down to get there too, sacrificing the life of their game dog just for the $$. As an example, when the old man's 8xW Gr Ch Doolie was dying to Gr Ch Melonhead there were people in the crowd telling him to pick up, and the old man actually said, "I need the money more than I need the dog." Finally, the owner of Melonhead told the old man he'd pay him to pick up, because even he didn't want to see a great, DG, 8xW dog get killed when he just couldn't win. So trying to say what "it's all about" simply can't cover all the bases for everybody, because too many people think differently and have different values.Quote:
Originally Posted by thefoodchain
Yes, the above-described demonstrates the fastest of fast-lane matches. Truly, even the Buck / Sandman match wasn't as big a deal as the Melonhead / Doolie match (dog-wise), it just got written about more because STP and Rebel were more flamboyant, but in the end it was a 6xW versus a 5xW with Buck and Sandman, not a (then) 12xW versus an 8xW in Melonhead and Doolie. In fact, the old man never reported a single match in his life. In his direct words to me he said, "Jack, I don't want fame, and I don't want publicity, all I want is the money."
Now, if it were me, I would have wanted my Grand Champion more than the money, and I would gladly kiss the money goodbye to make damned sure I took my Grand Champion home alive. To my way of thinking, a person who is willing to let his friend's life slip away right before his eyes, all over a "win" or "$$" has lost his humanity somewhere along the line. I like winning too, and I do like money also, but what I like most of all is to be able to live with myself when I shut the lights off. However, if it was an $80,000 bet it wouldn't be quite as easy to kiss that amount goodbye as it would $2500. Would the money make the dogs better? Nope. The winner was going to be the winner, regardless of the amount bet. However, the lower bet would make the sportsmanship better, where people can stand to lose and pick up like a good sport, versus a super-high bet where (even though he knows he has the losing dog), the owner still won't pick up out of some "lightning-in-a-bottle" hope that the other dog just stands there and his own dog still somehow wins.
So, to me, it's "all about" having the best dogs, and conducting myself with good sportsmanship, and being in an environment of surrounding people who are not likely to bring-in the law. To someone else, it might be all about "winning and getting that money," regardless of the costs, and they might enjoy the company of people who are much more likely to get popped, due to their mentality and lifestyle.
It would be my own opinion that, ideally, in a sport about dogs, that "dog quality" should come first ... but, after careful study of the general natures of dogmen over the course of 2 decades, the reality seems to be that MOST people put "some other value" ahead of the actual dogs involved, for one reason or another.
Jack
.
In fairness to the comment about a man losing humanity, while I realize this was only your opinion. To some people the dogs aren't looked at as "friends" being sent to slaughter. They are tools or livestock. Working animals they own in order to fulfill a task, in some cases to make money. A real man will take great care of his tools and livestock providing them with the proper care and handling them with respect but at the end of the day they are still only an outlet or avenue to a means for him. A dog left down to win money is a dog being given absolutely every chance possible to fulfill its task for its owner. As long as that dog wants to be there then I don't think it's cruel. Cruel being a word that's very subjective. Can something like that be hard to watch? Sure, but many things in this life are.
While I'm not advocating any sort of behavior or saying its how I go about things I am able and try as much as possible to look at both sides. Playing devils advocate.
That is a good post, BC.
However, I am not talking about "cruelty," I am talking about value, and where a man's ultimate values get placed.
First of all, I agree/disagree that cruelty is subjective. Yes, cruelty is subjective insofar as what may be cruel for one dog is not cruel to another. If a pit bull is killing a poodle, for example, the affair is subjectively cruel for the poodle, and subjectively enjoyable for the pit bull, and any observer with an IQ over 80 can see this objectively. In the same way, regarding the presence or absence of cruelty in our sport, if one pit bull is curring-out, and not wanting to be there, then yes the affair becomes cruel for him, but not for the other dog. However, when the losing dog is DG, and still wants to be there even though he is dying, then I agree there is no cruelty at all to let him die in there ... but what there IS is a lack of value for the life of a DG dog in the owner. To me, this is the big issue here!
Therefore, and logically-speaking, it would be my opinion that any man who values a "win" (or "the money") over the life of his DG dog, logically places greater value on winning/money than his dog, and so cannot properly be called a "dog man" in the trenches, when the life/death of his dog is on the line. Instead, because he places more value on the winning/$$ than preserving the life of his DG dog, such a man is more properly called a GAMBLER, who is using dogs as his tools. His ultimate value isn't in his dogs, it's in the winning/$$$.
By contrast, and (really) by definition, the DOGman places his highest value in his dogs first, not second, and doesn't look at his DG dog as a "disposable item" ... but rather as an example of the ultimate goal in this breed to be salvaged and perpetuated, not merely discarded for a bet or a buck.
Jack
.
Valid opinions.
You are right in that what's cruel to one may be perfectly acceptable to another. There are many people that believe actively doing dogs is cruel behavior while others do not. Certain people view Captial Punishment as a cruel practice however many are fine with its use. What's cruel or crude behavior to me may not have the same effect on you regardless of mental capacity. There are some subjects that seem to share the same view across the board but as a whole cruelty is very subjective and takes many factors of a persons background and upbringing into account.
Some people might not want or care to hold the title of dogman. Or even be labeled a gambler as there are many gamblers who don't own a dog, drive a car or ever touched a horse in real life. Being a gambler doesnt have to be a discredit to character. Someone can make bets on a dog but never show one themselves because they dont hve the resolve to actvely participate in the sport. There isn't even a real need to label them at all. They might just be a man, or woman, with a dog.
Again not arguing your opinion or saying its wrong. Just playing off it.
Excellent points, all of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by BulldogConnection
As someone with a degree in ethical theory, the key to defining "cruelty" is not based on my opinion, or your opinion, but in fact the perspective of the participant.
For example, an actual dogfight is neutral, and there are only two perspectives that matter: those of the individual dogs. One dog may enjoy it, and one dog may be terrified of it, and thus there is both cruelty and enjoyment in the same neutral dogfight. The whole idea behind the Cajun Rules is actually to eliminate cruelty and to reward gameness (fighting enjoyment). The first "sign" of a dog not wanting to be there is called a turn. The first sign of a dog not wanting to continue (standing the line) and the fight is OVER. Thus, again, the entire point of our sport is to prevent cruelty, by stopping the contest when one dog no longer wants to be there, and by rewarding gameness, in cherishing and awarding the win to those dogs who never stop WANTING to fight.
I do agree, some people are so irrational that they cannot see this in our sport, and will hate it regardless of the facts as I stated them. But it also swings the other way, namely that some people have absolutely no regard for life at all, and do not place any value on the actual dogs involved, only the win/lose aspect, which (instead of being an excess of emotion over "poor doggies") is an utter lack of emotional attachment to the dogs at all. And IMO, excess in either direction is undesirable.
______________________________
______________________________
I think being a hardcore gambler is always a character disorder, and most psychologists see it as such. Gambling is essentially the desire to "get a lot" without any real effort, by chance, and which (especially when lives are on the line) almost always yields detrimental results. Now, my own brother is a professional poker player, and has studied it mathematically, and actually can calculate his odds and count cards, because of his incredible intellect, but he does it for purely academic reasons and never bets "his whole earnings" on any bet. He just does it as an intellectual game, a pastime, but never to excess--even though statistically he wins FAR mare than he loses, and that is at a very high level of play.Quote:
Originally Posted by BulldogConnection
Regarding labels, I think they are important, but I agree they can be misused. For example, if someone stole a dog from you, and took your money also, I am pretty sure you would label them "a thief," and I also am pretty sure you wouldn't detach yourself emotionally and just call him "a man who wanted my money." Labels can be either praise, neutral, or pejorative in nature ... and generating these sentiments can be important for perspective: warning people of bad natures and encouraging people of good natures.
And, to my way of thinking, any man who values a win more than life itself cannot entirely be trusted, because his values are upside-down according to the way I see the world. Because most of the people I know who have values like this have other questionable value systems as well, as almost invariably they will "cross the line" in other key and ways that show a disregard for others, to get what they want, if you study their behavior closely.
Jack
live stock or not if you spend time with them to bond and you have any humanity to bond at all you will get some attachment. i got one dog who sleeps with me and spends all day with me could he get hurt ya could he die ya, but i will not let him unnecissary punishment. when you leave one down to die you turn a sport into a slaughter. i take pride in everything i won from a tv to a dog and i respect all my possesions i want the best but if it is not i still take good care of it. these dogs can not survive without us and rely on and trust us and to break that trust is not what a man does they are loyal so we should be loyal. when your animal is giving its all and can give no more do the right thing and take case of him or her. and the worse thing is how ppl treat curs a cur can not help who he is no more than an ace can help who he is, treat them all with respect, do the right thing and cull but do it properly
Your definition of gambling (given the right individual, and the right game or sport) is flawed, even by your own statements about your brother. I'm sure he would disagree that he doesn't put in "any real effort, by chance" when he is playing poker. If he bet "his whole earnings", it wouldn't change his odds and he would still "statistically win FAR more than he loses" wouldn't he? The very definition of "professional poker player", means they can make a profession out of it. Dogs are no different than poker in my humble opinion. There is a reason why guys like the old man, STP, Rebel, Crenshaw, Fat Bill, Mayfield, Tudor, etc won at such high percentages while others flounder. They proved repeatedly that winning for them was not "by chance". They had a better eye for a dog, knew how to raise them, knew how to school them, knew how to pick the right weight, knew how to condition them, knew how to feed properly,and knew how to provide proper after care in order to repeat the process all over again. I would also suggest that this required them putting in a whole lot of real effort. I'm sure you're going to let me have, be kind :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
Quote:
Originally Posted by bolero
Great post.
Actually, your own definition of gambling is flawed, but I do get your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Tudor
First of all, nowhere did I state my brother put in "no effort" into learning the game of poker, so it is important in any discussion to stick to what is actually said, and not to make "strawman" arguments about what in fact was never said. What I actually said was my brother was a professional player, meaning that he enters money tournaments, but he is not an excessive gambler, which means he does not risk "everything he has" on his bets. In other words, there is a difference between a sensible bet and a true gambler and risk-taker.
I would disagree, because dogs are living, breathing creatures ... who feel pain and who have VALUE as entities when they're showing extreme gameness ... whereas a deck of playing cards has no intrinsic worth in-and-of itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Tudor
First of all, please don't mention the old man's name on this forum again. I promised him 8 years ago I would never mention his name online, and I will not let it be mentioned on my forum either. It is called respecting a man's wishes and keeping your word, so I ask that you please respect these wishes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Tudor
Secondly, again, you made up this whole idea about "not putting forth effort," so you're attributing things to me that I never said.
Third, you are likewise confusing talent, an eye, and acquired skills ... for gambling it all on a bet. There are some people who have no talent and no eye, there are some people who have great talent and a great eye, but neither of these necessarily has anything to do with the will to leave a dog down to die over a bet. As an example of this clear distinction, I remember reading in Fat Bill's mag about the talented STP matching his Revenge dog into the talented Ozzie Stevens' Cholly Boy dog, and when Revenge fell far enough behind that his life was in danger, STP showed class and picked him up. These were talented men at the top of their game, but yet they did not bet so much as to conduct themselves in anything less than a first class, sportsmanlike manner. So, in point of fact, this is where your argument gets refuted. Both of these men had talent, an eye, and had a bet ... but STP did not let his dog die needlessly, when it was clear he could not win.
Jack
PS: Was I kind enough for you? :mrgreen:
[quote=CA Jack]Actually, your own definition of gambling is flawed, but I do get your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by "Earl Tudor":1t56fktn
First of all, nowhere did I state my brother put in "no effort" into learning the game of poker, so it is important in any discussion to stick to what is actually said, and not to make "strawman" arguments about what in fact was never said. What I actually said was my brother was a professional player, meaning that he enters money tournaments, but he is not an excessive gambler, which means he does not risk "everything he has" on his bets. In other words, there is a difference between a sensible bet and a true gambler and risk-taker.
I would disagree, because dogs are living, breathing creatures ... who feel pain and who have VALUE as entities when they're dead game ... whereas playing cards have no intrinsic worth in-and-of themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Tudor
First of all, please don't mention the old man's name on this forum again. I promised him 8 years ago I would never mention his name online, and I will not let it be mentioned on my forum either. It is called respecting a man's wishes and keeping your word.Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Tudor
Secondly, again, you made up this whole idea about "not putting forth effort," so you're attributing things to me that I never said.
Third, you are likewise confusing talent, an eye, and acquired skills ... for gambling it all on a bet. There are some people who have no talent and no eye, there are some people who have great talent and a great eye, but neither of these necessarily has anything to do with the will to leave a dog down to die. For example, I remember reading in Fat Bill's mag about the talented STP matching his Revenge dog into the talented Ozzie Stevens' Cholly Boy dog, and when Revenge fell far enough behind that his life was in danger, STP showed class and picked him up. So, in point of fact, this is where your argument gets refuted. Both of these men had talent, an eye, and had a bet ... but STP did not let his dog die needlessly, when it was clear he could not win.
Jack
PS: Was I kind enough for you? :mrgreen:[/quote:1t56fktn]
Sorry, I must have misread your point of view, I was basing my argument on your statement of
I also was unaware that the oldmans name was taboo, my bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by CA Jack
Okay, I stand refuted on that point, you're right I did imply that. But that was about true GAMBLERS not someone like my brother.Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Tudor
For example, the gambling old man to whom I am referring never really conditioned his dogs, he just put them on 15' chains on the side of the hill ... and paid a man to walk them for miles ... he actually never exhibited any real effort of his own. But he sure did have an eye for a dog, the money to buy what he wanted, and the ability to call the right weight.
No problem, you had no way to know :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Earl Tudor
Cheers,
Jack
.
A better way to put what you are referring to is more of an irresponsible gambler or maybe a problem/compulsive gambler. Your brother is a TRUE gambler by definition because he bets money on the outcome of an event with varying odds. He may be a more calculated gambler than others but a gambler none the less. This is a situation where, as mentioned before, labeling can be usefull and maybe even necessary if only for clarity. All gamblers don't exhibit the qualities you see as less than. Some are controlled and calculated; others emotional and unconventional. And everything in between. But I'd go as far as to say ALL want to win.
This train has gotten a bit off track though...
Its a duck 5000 not for the working man I'm a one man team the most I do is 3000.00 I work hard for my money I talked to a. Guy the other day and said he wanted to go for 10000.00 I said u must be crazy lmfao so I called him back vto call his bluff and told him let's do it he said no. That he wants to go in to a. Ch. What a clown ppl that beat to much r ducking go in to a real dog kennel u know how us small kennels r we have no room for junk we we go out we bring a bulldog fuck tghe money just cull hard and get it done and be a good sport and stop hiding behind the money curs lol
owners of ch pan recently challenged ch rhino for a rematch , max bet 50 000 euro
best believe they dont hide behind money