If I may be allowed to put my "breeder input here," seeing as I have actually bred winning dogs for two decades ... and interestingly enough most of these winners were bred by using dogs (and combinations of dogs) that were never shown ... and yet the dogs produced from these breedings have repeatedly and consistently beat the bolts off dogs that were "sired by Champions"Originally Posted by drz
Excellent response, I'd be curious to see what philosophies are applied by others who run different lines or strains.That is an excellent question. All I have ever looked for as a bare minimum are dogs that will stay. That is the only way I can really identify a "good litter". From there I try to select the brood stock from the high end of a good litter, and preferably by breeding the show dogs that can take a keep, and win or survive a show. Too many dogs that look good at home show something far different when going through the whole process of being exhibited.
and preferably by breeding the show dogs that can take a keep, and win or survive a show. Too many dogs that look good at home show something far different when going through the whole process of being exhibited.
Now that would make a great thread on it's own, because in my opinion too many breeders are not putting their winning dogs back into their programs. It's as if the show itself isn't being used to elevate breeding programs.... it would be my opinion that too many people talk about breeding theories without actually having a successful, multi-generational breeding program of their own.
I do believe there is some truth to the matter of dogs that look good at home, but don't win out on the track, but alot of times a dog not looking good on the track is due to human error and is not the dog's fault (i.e., the dog might be over-worked, drugged-up with dex etc. before the deal, not brought in at the best weight, fallen victim to foul play somewhere along the line, etc.) It is here where learning the details from credible sources helps the breeder decide what to think about the situation ... and sometimes the breeder may learn that the losing dog simply didn't cut it.
That said, I absolutely do believe what TFX said, namely that the breeder should breed back to "the high end" of his litters; what I disagree with is the idea that the dog who "won a show" necessarily represents that "high end." Sometimes that is the case, but sometimes the dog who won "out there" is merely what the breeder sold ... while the best dog in that litter might just be the one the breeder kept
Furthermore, even in cases were a particular dog that won really is the best out of the bunch in his litter, that doesn't necessarily mean the dog will out-produce similar dogs the breeder himself already has (nor does it even mean that said winner is even a better dog than other dogs the breeder still has at home). That is the assumption too many people make, but it is by no means necessarily even close to the the truth. The truth is, if most of the dogs in any given litter were also good, all those good dogs did while they were "out there" being good is prove to the breeder that what he's breeding back at home is still going strong.
To my way of thinking, a really good breeder is not the guy who produces "a" good dog ... or "a" good litter ... he is the guy who actually knows how to produce top-shelf dogs all the time ... while the average dogman comes and goes from this earth without ever producing a single notable animal. I believe this is why so many dogmen find the ability to produce winners "such a great mystery," and is also why they desperately try to follow "only winners" ... and to breed only to them ... because essentially they're bandwagon-jumpers ... and they do this because they lack the confidence to breed winners at home with what they've got.
Honestly, IMHO, breeding superior dogs really is as simple as this: 1) know what a good dog really is; 2) make sure you've got legitimately-good dogs at home; 3) use only legitimately-good dogs in your program that come from good, high-percentage litters & families; 4) and then learn to manage those good genetics properly through proven breeding techniques. And that really is all there is to it.
This is not some "theory" I have as to what people "should" be doing, while I sit here scratching my head trying to figure out how to breed a winner. It is simply what I have been doing and proving with the same basic family ... and have been doing for a longer time than 99.99% of anyone breeding dogs today. 99.99% of people feeding dogs today are NOT looking at the sum and substance of 20+ years of their own breedings: they're either looking at a dog somebody else bred, or that is sired/whelped by a dog somebody else bred. And the minority of dogmen who actually have produced winning dogs for decades, continuously using dogs of their own breedings, will agree with me. In fact, drz, I think even TFX himself sees it both ways, as the stud he is advertising has not been hooked (to the best of my knowledge), nor was his other well-known, excellent producing stud dog Homer III. Dogs can simply be really good dogs, and really good producers, regardless if they are matched or not.
Jack
Reply With Quote