I don't think you have to do it all to be a good dog man as long as one is honest about what he does/has done and openly acknowledges what he has not. I know a guy who did dogs thru the 70's and 80's that never bred but a handful of dogs and his percentages were maybe .500 or slightly better. He bought dogs, bred a few, had some placed with him but what was a constant was there was always 8-10-12 dogs that were open to the world. He matched into some of the 'names' of his era and did really well.

As a dog man he was an exceptional conditioner and handler. He acknowledged the fact he had no desires to breed, create or sustain a line. Puppies were a hassle and brood dogs were a waste of chain spaces. I do not think that choice takes away from 'dog man' status.

I am a believer in that it takes all kinds to make the game go around. Some that do some and some that do it all and those that fall in between. Tons of great dogs are based from a yard/breeder who never did squat in the box. We need those guys. There a ton of dogs who did the box work at one camp but then was a prolific producer in another camp. We need them too. Some camps do it all. They hold their place as well.

I do agree with Jack that the Hardcore interview is a great piece. I think one should do as much as they can with their dogs, should do everything they can to be the best that they can in their particular situation and should be self sustaining when at all possible. EWO