Breeding Dogs With Structural Defects

[Officially Retired]

I would say that in an ideal world breeding dogs with no structural defects or genetic defects would be the best way to go so as not to continue having dogs coming out with those defects in the future.The fact that we still have them means that past breeders either didnt care or didnt notice the defect and try to cull it out in the first place, so that it would be less of a problem or infact virtually irradicated from a certain breeders line of dogs.The show or cur dog fraternity have done this very well , with breeds that had problems with hip dysplasia amongs other defects, and rather than breeding a dog just becasue in all other regards it was a good prospect or could have won some ribbons before the problem was noticeable , they cull them , or at least the serious show breeders do and infact you see peds with the negative hip dysplasia x rays and other fault free tests from these breeders showing prospective buyers of their pups or other breeders wanting a stud from their stud dog that that dogs at least do not carry the faults that serious show breeders regard as unacceptable .

It is easier to cull for structural defects in conformation breeding, because conformation is the name of the game. So of course you're going to cull based on conformation.

It is not quite so simple in breeding for match dogs, because you're breeding for truly outstanding ability ... which includes NON-physical aptitudes like INTELLIGENCE, INNER METTLE, and WILLPOWER ... all of which contribute immeasurably to greatness ... and therefore truly outstanding dogs won't always have perfect conformation ... while dogs with perfect conformation won't always be great.

Many structurally-perfect dogs can't take it, are slow, stupid, and/or suck ass in some way ... while many highly-intelligent, authentically-tough, and truly great dogs have certain conformation defects ... and since the ability to win is the name of THIS game ... conformation needs to take a back seat to these outstanding abilities when an either/or choice has to be made in a particular animal.

The problem within the apbt fraternity is the fact that there is less attention paid to these type of problems as outlined in other posts, such as faulty hocks or kness etc which becasue a dog was game was overlooked and bred ,which in the long run if you dont try to cull or at least not breed in those dogs with severe structural faults then inevitably they will continue to appear .The thinking should be a little different , instead of worrying that your game dog that has some faults wil be lost to the breeding program and therefore you loose a special dog , is to think that if the dog dropped dead today the world of apbts wouldnt just collapse because that dog died or wasnt bred into the genepool, because then you would look for a specimen that didnt carry the defects and who was also a good game dog to breed instead of the defective dog.

There is a difference between "good and game" and truly outstanding

If a truly outstanding dog with bad knees gets bred ... the bad knees may continue to appear ... but (if he's bred correctly) so too will the truly outstanding ability

Also, if he's bred correctly, the truly outstanding ability can continuously be retained while the bad knees get bred out (or minimized)

We panic and make silly deicsions based on the idea that that dog is a once in a lifetime specimen and even if its blind deaf and crippled and if we dont breed him we will never see another like him again , which is hogwash .Where there has been one there will be another good dog , the history of this breed is littered with good game fult free dogs so why do we think that we cant breed another one that doesnt carry faults?

Actually, I believe you have everything bass-ackwards.

Again, the first thing you have backwards is confusing "good" for GREAT (or truly outstanding in certain respects).

The second thing you have backwards is the guy who kills a truly outstanding (or even a good) dog ... over a mere structural defect ... is the one who's panicking and making stupid decisions, whereas the man who keeps the dog, appreciates its strengths, and analyzes if the defects can be bridged, is the one who's remaining calm and not throwing out the baby with the bathwater

I know an Old Man who has more experience than most on this board. He had the pleasure of being involved with two of the greatest head dogs that ever lived: Ch Robert T (9xW, 1xL) and his son Ch Robert T Jr. (4xW). The elder was a 9xW ... who beat 2 Grand Champions and 2 Champions ... but who finally lost as a 9 year old dog. The younger was a 4xW who stopped four 4xWs from making Grand Champion ... when the dog had no teeth. In their primes both Robert Ts were untouchable head dogs that beat some of the baddest dogs in the country, making them look absolutely helpless and stupid in the process.

The Old Man never bred to Ch Robert T Jr. because he had "mangy feet"

He too, like you, thought that you had to breed dogs "with no defects" ... and, though he did not cull Ch Robert T Jr, he never bred to him because he didn't want more dogs with mangy feet

The hilarious (actually, sad) thing was this Old Man always and continually told stories about Robert T Jr., over and over and over again, particularly when Ch Robert T Jr went all the way from Tennessee to California to beat Indian Sonny and Danny Burton's SDJ Cover Dog, Ch Indian Bootlegger (4xW). Over and over, Indian Sonny used to brag in the SDJ that, "Boot, off the chain, silenced so-and-so." Or that, "Boot, in condition, beat the fabulous so-and-so."

The Old Man tried to get these proud fellows to bet $75,000 on their fearsome, killing 4xW ... back in 1990 ... but they only could scrape up $18,000. The Old Man was pissed, but flew out to CA anyway. There were even some funny things going on with the scale, and Ch Indian Bootlegger was so much bigger than Ch Robert T Jr. it looked like a rat and a mouse ... and Boot piledrove Robert T Jr. on the release and shook him like a rag doll.

But when Robert T Jr glopped onto that head, and pulled Bootlegger out, that my friend was the beginning of the end ... and after about 50 straight minutes Robert T of having his ear, and turning all the skull/flesh around it into soup ... the great, SDJ Cover Dog Indian Bootlegger began to sing like a puppy with his tail caught in the door ... and refused to come out of his corner back into the Ace Head Dog that was Robert T. Jr.

Danny Burton had a lot of disparaging remarks to make about the toothless Robert T (that would actually smile on command to show he had no cutters ... and Robert T even did for the crowd afterward, aggravating the losers even more when they saw that the great Bootlegger had quit to a dog with no cutters )

Yet despite telling this story, over and over again to me and everybody else, the Old Man never bred to this great head dog all because he had a tendency to get mange on his feet

The Old Man actually said to me, "Jack, I would sell everything I own--all 5 of my properties--to be able to get my 2 dogs back ... because, with those dogs, I could win it all back and then some."

Yet the thought never dawned on the Old Man that he COULD have kept that ability alive by forming a linebreeding program around the Robert Ts. None of the dogs he did breed to could kiss their ass in ability and intelligence. They may have been "good and game" winners, but they were not true Aces with outstanding ability. That man actually let this otherworldly intelligence and style slip through his fingers over a minor "genetic defect" ... and there really is nothing else to say but that it was a stupid decision. To sit there and say you'd give away all that you've amassed in life for a dog (who has mangy feet) ... because of his true greatness in other ways ... and yet not to breed him to perpetuate these unique traits in his pups ... is simply retarded IMO. I personally would be happy to have "mangy feet" on my dogs, if they also had that kind of pit ability!

And this kind of thinking disorder is WHY this man never actually bred any of the great dogs he had, he bought them all, because he simply couldn't get his priorities straight as a breeder.
And I guarantee you that, if this is the way you think, you won't either, because you will ultimately let true greatness slip away over a minor genetic defect also.

I for one would never do what a supposed great breeder like gary hammonds has done for 40 years ,and thats breed deaf dogs ,of which there is no good reason to do especially when like hammonds you keep a large yard of similarly bred dogs to choose from , that is just bad breeding practice and very lazy to say the least, and should never be sold to others to breed into there line which he has done , even if i was begged for a dog like that to breed from another breeder i would not sell it to them, i would infact cull dogs with any deafness/ heart defects or blindness without hesitation,

I can't comment on what Hammonds does/doesn't do, because I don't have any first hand knowledge. What I can say is that if these dogs you're talking about are "just dogs" with defects, then I agree with you.

I am speaking about breeding to TRULY EXCELLENT dogs with minor defects ... not breeding ordinary dogs with glaring defects ... and a person has to have the intelligence to recognize the difference

the other defects like hocks etc , depending on how obvious and how much they affect the abilty of the animal to move freely as there are varying degrees of severity would then be a choice each breeder knowing their line if they could breed that individual back into the line without making the problems any worse than it already is, but my way would be to not use even those dogs that showed minor strucural defects where possible if i had another dog of similar quality that didnt show those defects, but to breed dogs with severe defects and certainly dogs who are deaf /heart or blind defects is just bad breeding practice and i dont care how good the dog is ,

We pretty much agree here.

Again, it all has to do with #3 in my article The 5 Keys to Success, which is understanding the dog's job.
It is not a match dog's job to be "structurally perfect"; it is only his job to have the ability and intelligence to dominate a fight and kick ass.
If the dog truly excels at his job, and has some minor defect which doesn't interfere, then who cares? The dog's job is the main goal.
But if the defect limits the dog, to where he sucks at his job, then (I agree) don't breed to that dog.

if you bred him you can breed another and hopefully if you dont keep adding in defects which no serious breeder in thier breeding program of any breed of animal be it cows horses etc will do and theres a good reason why , and the sooner the apbt fraternity starts thiking like that the sooner we wont be having to talk about what the obvious thing to do is when an animal with genetic defects pops up, and thats CULL IT .

I totally disagree here.

I think MOST people suck at breeding dogs, pretty much all the way around.
I think MOST people don't truly understand what it takes to be a truly excellent dog.
I think MOST people, who call themselves "good breeders," follow what you say ... and try to minimize "structural defects".

It is my conviction that truly great breeders aren't trying to breed "faultless dogs" ... they're trying to MAXIMIZE some truly key trait(s) they saw in 1 or more special individual(s) ... and they continuously interbreed the dogs down from these special animals in the never-ending effort to retain/reproduce those truly World Class Abilities indefinitely

Jack


.