Picking from litter based on color?

[FrostyPaws]

Jack, I know you didn't mean for it to be mean, and I didn't take it as such. I'm good with facts, even if they are leveled at my ineptitude at breeding dogs the first half of my time in dogs. I was a dumbass, what can I say. I guess in regards to my "all these years" statement, I should've clarified it as the time with Frosty.

And no, on the point of genetic management, I don't have the time nor the experience put in as you or other people that have been breeding dogs throughout their time in dogs. I don't have any shame about saying that. The first half was showing. The second half was breeding and showing. The breeding was remedial at best, as you said, until I got a dog like Frosty.

I've always believed in high percentage litters. I just don't believe in them near as often as others, but that's just a point that we'll always agree to disagree on. And while my attitude has changed somewhat on dogs and junk, I still think most dogs produce a high amount of junky, shit dogs. Obviously, that isn't the case with all, and that was a well learned lesson over the years.

And you're exactly right. No one can ever understand the reality of prepotent dogs until they have one. People can THINK they have one; they can PROCLAIM they have one, but when you ACTUALLY have one then EVERYONE will notice. It won't just be me, you, and our collective mothers. The small fraternity of dog owners gets even smaller when it comes to people that show, and they will take notice of what's coming down the pike. Prepotent dogs make a name for themselves. We're just the lucky people that own and allow that greatness to shine through if we, as the manager of the dog, do our job correctly.

I agree fully there's a lot more to learn. I've only just begun to chip off some of the ice. And to what you've said, I already have dogs that are better than Ray in regards to what he was and what I've been trying to accomplish yard wise. I think people, in general, lose sight of the fact that dogs are a "big picture" scenario instead of "right now" one if they're going to have any success in either field of dogs. For the first years of my dog life, I was of the "right now" scenario, and slowly, the light clicked on. But in regards to the thread and selection/color, I would defer to what Jack says as it's something he's had to do for years, and he's always done it with success.

[Officially Retired]

Jack, I know you didn't mean for it to be mean, and I didn't take it as such. I'm good with facts, even if they are leveled at my ineptitude at breeding dogs the first half of my time in dogs. I was a dumbass, what can I say. I guess in regards to my "all these years" statement, I should've clarified it as the time with Frosty.

Well, most people aren't as realistic in their dealing with facts, which is why I prefaced my statements with "I am not trying to be mean."

In the same fashion as you, I have no problem accepting the fact I was a dumbass in my calling weight/conditioning dogs for the first 10+ years of my owning them, so we all have our strengths and weaknesses ... and we can all learn and improve if we get exposed to the right people and are willing to listen.

And no, on the point of genetic management, I don't have the time nor the experience put in as you or other people that have been breeding dogs throughout their time in dogs. I don't have any shame about saying that. The first half was showing. The second half was breeding and showing. The breeding was remedial at best, as you said, until I got a dog like Frosty.

A prepotent stud is a gift, but the benefits of that gift can be tossed away by genetic mismanagement, so it is good that you got the dog when you were at a point to have the perspective to make good choices with him.

I've always believed in high percentage litters. I just don't believe in them near as often as others, but that's just a point that we'll always agree to disagree on. And while my attitude has changed somewhat on dogs and junk, I still think most dogs produce a high amount of junky, shit dogs. Obviously, that isn't the case with all, and that was a well learned lesson over the years.

I absolutely agree most dogs produce shitty dogs, which is why you couldn't give me most dogs.

However, some dogs (and the lines built around them) produce a preponderance of worthy dogs, and will continue to do so as long as the selection/genetic management is there behind them.

And you're exactly right. No one can ever understand the reality of prepotent dogs until they have one. People can THINK they have one; they can PROCLAIM they have one, but when you ACTUALLY have one then EVERYONE will notice. It won't just be me, you, and our collective mothers. The small fraternity of dog owners gets even smaller when it comes to people that show, and they will take notice of what's coming down the pike. Prepotent dogs make a name for themselves. We're just the lucky people that own and allow that greatness to shine through if we, as the manager of the dog, do our job correctly.

Mmmm, while we agree that people can't understand prepotency unless they experience it, I disagree that all prepotent dogs "make a name for themselves." Dogs are prepotent (or they're not) regardless if anyone takes notice. For example, the dogs you have down from Frosty have exceeded the dogs you have down from other studs, as evaluated in your private yard, and this fact would hold true whether anyone "knows about it" or not. So I have to disagree with the idea that prepotency is dependent on "people knowing about it." A dog is either prepotent, or it is not prepotent, regardless of the general consensus (or knowledge) of the fraternity at large.

Now, whether the general public believes a dog is prepotent is something else again, and naturally the show arena is what shines a light on "private claims" versus "public proof" as to a given dog's prepotency. And you're right about that, insofar as dogs that get shown off a particular stud, the results of these shows either publicly verify a stud dog's prepotency, or they refute the claims, based upon the results that get repeated over time.

However, that said, if you had a small circle of friends (all of whom had Frosty dogs), and all of these people gave you feedback and were in complete agreement that these dogs blow away your other previous dogs, that reality may not be "common knowledge" in the fraternity at large, but it doesn't change the fact one bit that Frosty dogs have repeatedly and consistently proven to be better than your other dogs.

So, as you said, because the crackdown on shows is becoming more widespread, the number of people really showing dogs now is becoming more and more scarce ... so people who want to maintain the integrity of their bloodlines are simply evaluating them privately, through their small circles of friends, which is still a valid way to evaluate a stud dog's (or brood bitch's) prepotency.

I agree fully there's a lot more to learn. I've only just begun to chip off some of the ice.

As do we all. Even just 6 years ago, I made a super-tight preservational breeding that I felt was "too tight" to be performance dogs ... and every dog in the litter was match quality, one of whom made Champion, another of whom was a 2xW who lost his 3rd game while sick. Thus my own assumption that my own breeding was going to be "too tight" to produce performers was blown to pieces.

And, over the years, I have seen so many of the assumptions many of us make (myself included) get blown to pieces with the ultimate factual realities, that I believe what MOST people think and say about "breeding dogs" in general is nothing but the "parroting" they repeat of some other bird-brain's squawk that they heard. And, since then, my inbred Silverback dogs have proven to be THE most consistently-powerful animals I have ever bred, so I have completely changed my mind on the whole idea of "too tight," and there are a ton of truly great dogs that are highly inbred. The truth is, most people really don't know what they're talking about in regards to breeding dogs.

As someone who has actually bred DEEPER into my own line of dogs than 99.99% of any APBT breeder who has ever lived, I now go forward with not just an open mind to learn as I go, but with the absolute conviction that I can maintain the quality in my little family of dogs for as long as I want to, provided I keep "what I want in a dog" clearly in mind, and that I perpetually select for those traits in the individuals I choose to carry forth with. It really is as simple as that.

And to what you've said, I already have dogs that are better than Ray in regards to what he was and what I've been trying to accomplish yard wise.

That is a great sign in the worth of your developing bloodline

I think people, in general, lose sight of the fact that dogs are a "big picture" scenario instead of "right now" one if they're going to have any success in either field of dogs. For the first years of my dog life, I was of the "right now" scenario, and slowly, the light clicked on.

I think people lose sight of the fact GENETIC MANAGAMENT for ATHLETIC EXCELLENCE is the "big picture" to breeding dogs.

Pedigree-wise, they think it's a "crapshoot" to toss a bunch of random genes together to "see what happens" ... and, traits-wise, most people believe all you have to do is "gut check" your dogs and breed the ones "that scratch." And thus they have BOTH aspects of what it takes to breed good dogs bass-ackwards. Truly consistent genetic management involves isolating key genes, through close breedings, not randomly introducing wildcards and variables. And regarding gameness, sure gameness is important and the driving force behind everything, but I can think of plenty of extremely game dogs that aren't worth a quarter as match dogs, and couldn't produce a World Class Dog regardless of how they got bred.

So it takes a whole lot more than "beating dogs up and breeding the ones that scratch" to be successful as a breeder. I spent the first half of my breeding career breeding for nothing but gameness ... but my win record as a breeder was only about 57%. It was only when I also started selecting for style, world class stamina, the ability NOT to get touched while effectively staying in control ... and where I started getting rid of dogs that chose to hit spots which left them vulnerable ... that my win percentage began to skyrocket on up into the mid-80th percentile. My dogs now still show extreme gameness for the most part, as reliably and consistently as ever before, but they just DO BETTER in there now, and that is simply because I select for better traits than just a punching bag that will go back for more.

But in regards to the thread and selection/color, I would defer to what Jack says as it's something he's had to do for years, and he's always done it with success.

Getting back to the topic, lol, as I mentioned traits are always more important than color ... and if a person has (or develops) an eye for athleticism in a pup, an eye for proper stance/balance/movement, an eye for alertness and intelligence in its expression ... and if he really does KNOW the key dog in that pup's genetic background that it's linebred upon ... he will EASILY be able to select the right pups out of that litter to carry forward with. You can just see it in them, whether they have "the essence" of that key dog in them or not. The pups that don't have that same essence might still be good pups in their own way, but the pups that have "the stamp" of that key foundation dog they're linebred on are pretty obvious IMO ... and, yes, oftentimes "color" plays a role in that evaluation. But not always!

Like I said, most of the highest-ability Poncho dogs were buckskin with a black spot on the tail, and all of the finishers off Silverback have been either seal or chocolate like he is, but again I expect some deviations from this at some point. I don't want to make it seem like color is the "only" thing I look for ... nor that pups of different colors can't be good ... but if I have a seal pup off Silverback, who moves like he does, who has that "look" that he does, who eats savagely and regurges like does, etc., that's the one I am keeping ... and if I do a heavy Poncho breeding, and I see a buckskin pup with a white blaze, who also has a black spot on its tail, and if it has the devious way of climbing fences and getting "out" of cages, and looks at me with deep "human-like" eyes and intelligence that Poncho did, etc. ... that is the one I am keeping.

No, this is not as sure a way of selecting as is actually rolling the dogs out as adults, but in 23 years of keeping and selling dogs, simply "seeing" the traits of my key dogs in my pups, and selecting those pups that carry those traits, has almost never been proven wrong come time to find out for sure.

Jack