Traits vs Bloodline

I understand that the best breeding would be to breed a dog with a particularly outstanding trait/s to another dog of the same blood that possess those same traits. But if I have two dogs with the same traits that I desire but are not related in any way, what are my chances that they will pass those traits onto their off springs if breed them to each other? Would I have a better chance of my future pups possessing those traits if I were to breed that dog back to another dog of his bloodline but don't possess those traits?

I'm leaning more towards that the two unrelated dogs with the desired traits that they will pass those traits onto my future pups. The only issue is that I don't really know the background of the family members from both dogs very well.

Im not a breeder but i think that background is the most important aspect in your question. Cause what if it's only one or one of very few dog(s) from that litter/family with those traits?

PBC,I was taught that if two dogs have the traits that you are looking for, you need to try them and see if the blood "nicks". If so, you can linebreed on the offspring by breeding the offspring to grandparents, uncles/aunts, cousins, etc. Breeding is trial and error in some cases and it takes years to perfect it. Try what you have and see what you get. Keep all of the pups and cull them. You might have something. There are dogs that have been bred in the past that were outstanding in their own right but didn't produce well. If you know the bloodlines that you are using, you are on the right track.

There is zero ways to tell how that will turn out. You can breed unrelated dogs that have similar traits and get something way different than both parents. This is why line breeding is such an important tool. If it was this easy and this predictable there would be no reason to line breed in the first place because you could achieve desired results with just crossing dogs. You can get good dogs, but the traits will not be predictable.

Always wanted the trait to be the bloodline, for example I want Bolio dog that is a head riding dog with quick mouth and natural strength. Not a 15 min barnstormer only hitting the backend. When I look for "bloodlines" I want the traits of the dog that bloodline was built around. Not that out of norm don't happen but if it's built around certain dogs that what you get more often than not.. I think it depends exactly what traits you are talking about, if they have certain style or attitude chances you might get it but you can't just count their attitude or traits you have to find out what each littermates and half siblings are doing as well to get accurate picture.

Not a breeder but I will chime in. It will be just about impossible to tell what will happen or what you will get. If these dogs are both solidly built around their own bloodline, a 50/50 breeding, and each dog carries the traits of his predominant bloodline, there can be some commonality. Out of the offspring you can choose what you are looking for, choose which parent is carrying/throwing what you like best and in turn breed in that direction. In time the percentages will get higher and consistency will develop.

If both parents have the same traits, but carry multiple unrelated lines within themselves you might get those traits , but in figuring which of the multiple lines involved is the producer of these traits and breeding in that direction for consistency will prove to be difficult.

With that said, and this all being theory and opinion, the only way to find out is breed the dogs. Ask yourself if this is what I willing to feed and work with to see? If the answer is yes, then it is a no-brainer from there. Best of luck. EWO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pit Bull Committed

I understand that the best breeding would be to breed a dog with a particularly outstanding trait/s to another dog of the same blood that possess those same traits.

---

You understand wrong.

For example, taking some random dog (that is a chest dog) and just breeding it to a relative, who "just happens to be" a head dog is NOT the way to consistently get head dogs.
And breeding her to some relative who is NOT a head dog really isn't the way to get head dogs ...

Now, if you breed her to some strange dog who "is" a head dog (but you know nothing about his background), then all you're doing here is playing guessing-games.

The BEST breeding is TWO dogs that BOTH possess the desired trait of being a head dog, that ARE related by BOTH being down from THE SAME FOUNDATION DOG that likewise had/produces this trait :idea:

That, and only that, is how you can enjoy consistent success at getting what you want :idea:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pit Bull Committed

But if I have two dogs with the same traits that I desire but are not related in any way, what are my chances that they will pass those traits onto their off springs if breed them to each other?

---

The chances are directly proportional to BOTH dogs being consistent representatives of that style/trait ... as opposed to being "flukes" ...

Consistency is everything ... "flukes" are next to nothing ... breeding-wise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pit Bull Committed

Would I have a better chance of my future pups possessing those traits if I were to breed that dog back to another dog of his bloodline but don't possess those traits?

---

No again. Why are you trying to do EVERYTHING BUT make the best decision?
You and 99% of everyone else who will never make it off the ground as a breeder?
Do you realize there is a reason WHY most people never make it off the ground as breeders???
THEIR CHOICES-SELECTION!

The best decision isn't breeding two unrelated dogs that "happen" to have some trait.
The best decision isn't breeding two related dogs that DON'T have that trait.

The best decision is breeding two RELATED dogs ... that HAVE that trait ... which is an EXPECTED trait from the line ... all linebred on some fabulous dog who HAD/THREW that trait.

No wonder so many people call breeding a "crapshoot" ... or why they think everyone has "zero" chance of knowing what they'll get ... they SET THEMSELVES UP to get a 0% chance :confused:

Me? I *knew* was getting fast, slick, athletic, highly-intelligent head dogs in every damned litter I produced, because I set the breeding up to produce them.
It's not rocket science folks; it's basic, ordinary horse sense ... that doesn't seem to be so basic or ordinary with a lot of people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pit Bull Committed

I'm leaning more towards that the two unrelated dogs with the desired traits that they will pass those traits onto my future pups. The only issue is that I don't really know the background of the family members from both dogs very well.

---

Well, then, expect to fail. If you set yourself up to fail, then you surely will. Why on earth would you breed to something that you know nothing about, genetically?
That is wasting 2 years of your life feeding a bunch of question-marks.

Have you ever considered the reality that there are more than just "those two dogs" to breed to :idea:

I mean, seriously, how can you expect to breed "the best dogs in the world" by playing guessing games and by not insisting on the standards of selection necessary to make sure you produce them?

Me, I didn't make any breedings unless I KNEW I would be producing the best GD dogs on the planet, that would BEAT anything their weight they faced, wherever they got off the plane, or would DIE TRYING ...

No, I didn't get that "every time" ... but I was damned close ... because they did win 87% of the time ... and "won or lost game" 92% of the time ... regardless of where they were in the world ... or whose hands they were in ... and I don't think anyone on earth will top those percentages.

So if you don't have that level of confidence in what you're breeding, and aren't that sure of what you'll be producing, then you shouldn't be making the breeding.

That is my honest opinion, and experience, in breeding dogs for specific traits.

Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CA Jack

You understand wrong.

For example, taking some random dog (that is a chest dog) and just breeding it to a relative, who "just happens to be" a head dog is NOT the way to consistently get head dogs.
And breeding her to some relative who is NOT a head dog really isn't the way to get head dogs ...

Now, if you breed her to some strange dog who "is" a head dog (but you know nothing about his background), then all you're doing here is playing guessing-games.

The BEST breeding is TWO dogs that BOTH possess the desired trait of being a head dog, that ARE related by BOTH being down from THE SAME FOUNDATION DOG that likewise had/produces this trait :idea:

That, and only that, is how you can enjoy consistent success at getting what you want :idea:




:hatsoff:
The chances are directly proportional to BOTH dogs being consistent representatives of that style/trait ... as opposed to being "flukes" ...

Consistency is everything ... "flukes" are next to nothing ... breeding-wise.





No again. Why are you trying to do EVERYTHING BUT make the best decision?
You and 99% of everyone else who will never make it off the ground as a breeder?
Do you realize there is a reason WHY most people never make it off the ground as breeders???
THEIR CHOICES-SELECTION!

The best decision isn't breeding two unrelated dogs that "happen" to have some trait.
The best decision isn't breeding two related dogs that DON'T have that trait.

The best decision is breeding two RELATED dogs ... that HAVE that trait ... which is an EXPECTED trait from the line ... all linebred on some fabulous dog who HAD/THREW that trait.

No wonder so many people call breeding a "crapshoot" ... or why they think everyone has "zero" chance of knowing what they'll get ... they SET THEMSELVES UP to get a 0% chance :confused:

Me? I *knew* was getting fast, slick, athletic, highly-intelligent head dogs in every damned litter I produced, because I set the breeding up to produce them.
It's not rocket science folks; it's basic, ordinary horse sense ... that doesn't seem to be so basic or ordinary with a lot of people.





Well, then, expect to fail. If you set yourself up to fail, then you surely will. Why on earth would you breed to something that you know nothing about, genetically?
That is wasting 2 years of your life feeding a bunch of question-marks.

Have you ever considered the reality that there are more than just "those two dogs" to breed to :idea:

I mean, seriously, how can you expect to breed "the best dogs in the world" by playing guessing games and by not insisting on the standards of selection necessary to make sure you produce them?

Me, I didn't make any breedings unless I KNEW I would be producing the best GD dogs on the planet, that would BEAT anything their weight they faced, wherever they got off the plane, or would DIE TRYING ...

No, I didn't get that "every time" ... but I was damned close ... because they did win 87% of the time ... and "won or lost game" 92% of the time ... regardless of where they were in the world ... or whose hands they were in ... and I don't think anyone on earth will top those percentages.

So if you don't have that level of confidence in what you're breeding, and aren't that sure of what you'll be producing, then you shouldn't be making the breeding.

That is my honest opinion, and experience, in breeding dogs for specific traits.

Jack

---

:hatsoff:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by evolutionkennels

:hatsoff:

---

:)

Why haven't you post this article of yours on the site yet. My favorite quote when it comes to this subject.

Quote:

---

Genetic Re-Direction can only be achieved when you have a clean-bred family of dogs, and it can only be achieved by an intelligent person with *both* a good eye for a dog AND a solid knowledge of the gene pool he is working with. Right out of the gate, this would eliminate 95% of all dogmen from qualifying as breeding managers. They have neither the bloodline, the eye, nor the intelligence to manage a gene pool effectively. Thus I believe that 95% of all dogmen should not breed dogs, they should just get small yards, and drive the race car, but not attempt to manufacture one.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nut

Why haven't you post this article of yours on the site yet. My favorite quote when it comes to this subject.

---

Thank you ... I believe it is on this website: The Art of Breeding Dogs :mrgreen:

Cheers,

Jack

Good post Jack.


Another good article by Indian Sonny. I personally think it is one of the best of all time. Think i posted it in the right place.
http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum...3802#post23802

Oops. Well, thats all someone has to read. But then we wouldn't have any more threads to open.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteelyDan

Good post Jack.
Another good article by Indian Sonny. I personally think it is one of the best of all time. Think i posted it in the right place.
http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum...3802#post23802

---

Thank you.

And, yes, I have read that article and think it's a pretty good little piece. While not really getting into methods, or pulling up the hood to get into details, in principle (spirit) it is 100% right on.

Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nut

Oops. Well, thats all someone has to read. But then we wouldn't have any more threads to open.

---

LOL, well, you'd be surprised good sir.

You can put the best information possible out there for people ... and 60% of them are too lazy to read it :shocked:

Of the remaining 40% who do read it, 30% won't understand (or follow) it :confused:

Which goes back to the 10% who actually do take the time to read it, who actually have the faculties to understand it, and then really take to heart the principles and follow them in their breeding practices :idea:

Which brings us back to another great article, by another great old-timer, "Room at the Top," by Ozzie Stevens ...

Jack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CA Jack

You understand wrong.

For example, taking some random dog (that is a chest dog) and just breeding it to a relative, who "just happens to be" a head dog is NOT the way to consistently get head dogs.
And breeding her to some relative who is NOT a head dog really isn't the way to get head dogs ...

Now, if you breed her to some strange dog who "is" a head dog (but you know nothing about his background), then all you're doing here is playing guessing-games.

The BEST breeding is TWO dogs that BOTH possess the desired trait of being a head dog, that ARE related by BOTH being down from THE SAME FOUNDATION DOG that likewise had/produces this trait :idea:

That, and only that, is how you can enjoy consistent success at getting what you want :idea:





The chances are directly proportional to BOTH dogs being consistent representatives of that style/trait ... as opposed to being "flukes" ...

Consistency is everything ... "flukes" are next to nothing ... breeding-wise.





No again. Why are you trying to do EVERYTHING BUT make the best decision?
You and 99% of everyone else who will never make it off the ground as a breeder?
Do you realize there is a reason WHY most people never make it off the ground as breeders???
THEIR CHOICES-SELECTION!

The best decision isn't breeding two unrelated dogs that "happen" to have some trait.
The best decision isn't breeding two related dogs that DON'T have that trait.

The best decision is breeding two RELATED dogs ... that HAVE that trait ... which is an EXPECTED trait from the line ... all linebred on some fabulous dog who HAD/THREW that trait.

No wonder so many people call breeding a "crapshoot" ... or why they think everyone has "zero" chance of knowing what they'll get ... they SET THEMSELVES UP to get a 0% chance :confused:

Me? I *knew* was getting fast, slick, athletic, highly-intelligent head dogs in every damned litter I produced, because I set the breeding up to produce them.
It's not rocket science folks; it's basic, ordinary horse sense ... that doesn't seem to be so basic or ordinary with a lot of people.





Well, then, expect to fail. If you set yourself up to fail, then you surely will. Why on earth would you breed to something that you know nothing about, genetically?
That is wasting 2 years of your life feeding a bunch of question-marks.

Have you ever considered the reality that there are more than just "those two dogs" to breed to :idea:

I mean, seriously, how can you expect to breed "the best dogs in the world" by playing guessing games and by not insisting on the standards of selection necessary to make sure you produce them?

Me, I didn't make any breedings unless I KNEW I would be producing the best GD dogs on the planet, that would BEAT anything their weight they faced, wherever they got off the plane, or would DIE TRYING ...

No, I didn't get that "every time" ... but I was damned close ... because they did win 87% of the time ... and "won or lost game" 92% of the time ... regardless of where they were in the world ... or whose hands they were in ... and I don't think anyone on earth will top those percentages.

So if you don't have that level of confidence in what you're breeding, and aren't that sure of what you'll be producing, then you shouldn't be making the breeding.

That is my honest opinion, and experience, in breeding dogs for specific traits.

Jack

---

Well said Jack! I'm still in the learning process. Yes, I've read all of your breeding articles and understood very well how you did your breedings. My apology, I guess in this thread I was trying to ask which would be the better breeding beside the "ultimate best breeding"...Which was...to breed two dogs that are off the same blood/parents but only one of them possess the desired traits/style or to breed two dogs that are not related but possess the desire traits/style without any real knowledge of the dogs behind them? I guess the answer is neither one is better than the other? Traits and bloodline are equally important? Again the title of this thread is "Trait vs. Bloodline", so I'm just saying to me, I would rather breed two unrelated dogs with the same traits than two related dogs but only one of them possess the desirable traits. Afterall all bloodlines of canines were created through desirable traits not just because they were from the same family bloodline. The ultimate goal is to have both but that wasn't the question here. Thanks!

P.s. I've posted on another thread that I'm still in search of that special dog with that special trait that I'm looking for so just fyi I'm not trying to breed anything as of this moment. I only have a few puppies that I acquired on my yard right now. I know framed my initial post like i was making a breeding but I'm not. Just thought it'll be nice to hear what others would prefer traits or bloodline. Again, I apologize if the breeding examples I gave wasn't clear or the best examples. ;) Also something I'm still learning to be better at on your forum here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EWO

Not a breeder but I will chime in. It will be just about impossible to tell what will happen or what you will get. If these dogs are both solidly built around their own bloodline, a 50/50 breeding, and each dog carries the traits of his predominant bloodline, there can be some commonality. Out of the offspring you can choose what you are looking for, choose which parent is carrying/throwing what you like best and in turn breed in that direction. In time the percentages will get higher and consistency will develop.

If both parents have the same traits, but carry multiple unrelated lines within themselves you might get those traits , but in figuring which of the multiple lines involved is the producer of these traits and breeding in that direction for consistency will prove to be difficult.

With that said, and this all being theory and opinion, the only way to find out is breed the dogs. Ask yourself if this is what I willing to feed and work with to see? If the answer is yes, then it is a no-brainer from there. Best of luck. EWO

---

I agree with you here.

It's a rough crowd PBC! :lol:

Really dude, I mean you have CA Jack, Evolution Kennels, Randy Fox, and a whole bunch of other good dogmen AND women on here who actually have shown and bred winners, champions, grand champions, ROM and POR dogs, and done it for decades. I was in the dogs beginning in the 80's, 90's 00's, and am still here hanging by a thread in the 10's, but I am a veritable nobody and don't claim to be. My dogs on the other hand have proven their worth to those who know what's up.

If I were a guy in your shoes today like I was in the 80's, I'd be wearing out the God Damned keyboard or telephone out trying to get dogs from any of these people. I say that because that is what I did, and the dogs I have now are closely related to dogs I had in the 80's, and directly descended from a bitch I acquired in 1990. The good news is there is hope for you! I wasted 10 years or so being a dumbass too, EVEN though I did take that good first step. It is well within the power of anyone on this site to be a top notch dogman in a matter of a couple of few years. The biggest variable is assimilating the information from the opportunity and privilege it is to be in a place where this much good information is shared freely, or for the nominal price of subscription. I have seen guys come around and ask these same questions since I got on the internet in 1996. Most of them didn't even get as far as good answers. You are well past that already, now put them to use.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFX

It's a rough crowd PBC! :lol:

Really dude, I mean you have CA Jack, Evolution Kennels, Randy Fox, and a whole bunch of other good dogmen AND women on here who actually have shown and bred winners, champions, grand champions, ROM and POR dogs, and done it for decades. I was in the dogs beginning in the 80's, 90's 00's, and am still here hanging by a thread in the 10's, but I am a veritable nobody and don't claim to be. My dogs on the other hand have proven their worth to those who know what's up.

If I were a guy in your shoes today like I was in the 80's, I'd be wearing out the God Damned keyboard or telephone out trying to get dogs from any of these people. I say that because that is what I did, and the dogs I have now are closely related to dogs I had in the 80's, and directly descended from a bitch I acquired in 1990. The good news is there is hope for you! I wasted 10 years or so being a dumbass too, EVEN though I did take that good first step. It is well within the power of anyone on this site to be a top notch dogman in a matter of a couple of few years. The biggest variable is assimilating the information from the opportunity and privilege it is to be in a place where this much good information is shared freely, or for the nominal price of subscription. I have seen guys come around and ask these same questions since I got on the internet in 1996. Most of them didn't even get as far as good answers. You are well past that already, now put them to use.;)

---

:) Thanks for shedding some light for me TFX! I couldn't agree with you more. The fellas on here are very helpful and informational in each and every way. Certainly will take advantage of them! ;)