EAST TEXAS HOG DOGGERS FORUM

but first...breeding for color can be easy most of the time...

breeding 2 black dogs can produce all black if one dog inherited both genes for black...but if both black dogs have one parent as a red dog then they both carry a red color gene but because the black gene is dominant the pup will be black...if the pup comes out red then he/she had to inherit a red gene from each parent...so this is easy enough...

this is my personal theory about hunting traits...I believe that hunting traits are a basket of genes that are passed on as one...or maybe a multiple of genes...but a dog can have lots of hunt and not much nose or even not having the ability to find game...that is why there are so many variables like...hunting too close and some dogs ranging too far...it gets  complicated because we are trying to breed for better nose, bay style, range style, ability to find/stop, the willingness to go at it alone etc...etc...then there are issues with too cold a nose or not cold enough, too open, does not bark enough at the bay etc...etc...I also believe that one can keep breeding for certain traits and after a while they can become too extreme like too much hunt and too much grit...and the dog can stroke out or will need a vest to keep him alive... 

Rueben, you are pretty much right on, on the color with black being dominant over all other colors & yes both parents must carry a recessive gene for a particular color other then black.
  What makes breeding so diversified is the fact that everybody likes different traits & breeds for different characteristics.
  For me, a dog cannot have to cold a nose or be to fast. Anytime I get outrun I think, have to have more speed, but a dog can only run as fast as his nose & terrain will let him. As for color, I dont care what color a dog is, as long as it is brindle. >:D ;D

Lotta folks breed dogs that run a lot. I like dogs that find hogs a lot.

Heck yeah

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using Tapatalk

They can find and run 50 in a day, but if they can't stop and then catch them, they ain't worth a piss, at least in my opinion ;)

  For me, a dog cannot have to cold a nose or be to fast. Anytime I get outrun I think, have to have more speed, but a dog can only run as fast as his nose & terrain will let him. As for color, I dont care what color they are. 

[/quote]

I agree with must have the nose to use the speed.  Nose in winding, or running a track. The ability to run the track with head out extended like a sprinter, not down in the dirt.  Speed stops more hogs than bite, in my opinion.  Sure wish I could pick and choose which genes I wanted to pass forward, and which genes I wanted to leave behind.  If this was possible I would breed some brindle ring neck, Long legged, flop eared, deep chested, 45lb dogs that could fly, and had the best stock dog baying instincts known. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

All genetic traits are passed on in exactly the same manner, be it color or nose or speed or ear length. What makes certain utility traits so difficult, such as how a dog uses his nose for trailing . . is that they are controlled by gene clusters and not just a single gene. I always picture the lottery ball drawings where a numbered ball drops into each slot. Each of those slots represents or determines a different aspect of trailing. But one slot may be more important than others. Say you have 9 slots and they all line up exactly as you want . . you get the perfect dog. Or maybe they all line up ideally except for the 3rd slot . . and you're dog is pretty close to perfect. But if the 7th slot is off by even a hair . . that slot may affect all of the other slots or be a multiplier of other slots . . and your dog refuses to trail at all or just stands on his head and bawls. Then factor in our almost complete inability to see the slots or know which one affects which others . . and it's a crap shoot, only with approximately 230,000 dice.

Also . . there is no breed of hunting dog on the planet that wasn't created by mixing other breeds or types. So they're all carrying a bunch of excess baggage that is just lying back there waiting to pop up. One family of dogs may produce speed demons due to a specific combination of genes that has been bred until it is almost pure for that trait, while another family produces super fast members for an entirely different reason or combination of traits. Breeding best to best from one family to the other may not produce anything of even average speed.

And even in traits as seemingly simple as color there's more than meets the eye. There are a number of different types of brindle and several different genetically heritable whites. For instance, in many lines of dogs you'll see white feet or white points or ringnecks etc. that are a holdover from cross breeding to dogs with excessive white on them, most often Walkers. But in other dogs or lines of dogs, you may get white points on feet and neck and nose that are actually not genetically white. Those appear white because the birth cycle is out of whack and the feet, neck, chest and nose are the last places on the pup's body to receive color and they were born before it happened. They look white and in a sense . . they are white . . but what you really see is an absence of color.

For all of those reasons I don't believe there is or ever has been a "master breeder" of working animals. There are gentlemen who were lucky enough to receive some good stock and struggle to maintain it for a period of time. There have been some intelligent, hard working hunters who produced a number of top dogs. But until we have genetic maps and the ability to program what our dogs or milk cows or racehorses inherit . . . the best way to produce the most GREAT dogs is to produce the most dogs. And the best way to do that is to have a large number of hunters breeding and evaluating multiple examples within a controlled or semi-controlled population of an established family of dogs.

Or, maybe I'm completely wrong about all of it.

Reatj  you might wanna a little of my July blood in your dogs lol

Sent from my USCC-C6721 using Tapatalk

Barlow...you are a genius...  :)

when we don't know what to do we do what we know what to do...and that is test the pups for natural ability and breed the best to the best within a family and after a few generations breed more to the one that produces...

Barlow you sure are easier to understand on paper, than when hunting & your sucking air trying to keep up!   Very we'll worded Barlow, I don't have such a way with words.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No argument here. Easier for an old smoker to type a marathon than run one. Or maybe I just wasn't bred for speed.  ;)

Lol
I spit my tea out laughing

Barlow...on the Kemmer dogs I once bred a yellow dog of another breed to a yellow kemmer and all 9 or 10 pups were a brindle color...Robert Kemmer himself told be that was what I was going to produce and he was right...J. Richard McDuffie was breeding a new line of dogs and he called the colors before the pups were born and because of the Kemmer I believed he was going to be wrong...The thing about color is that some pups might be born with very light brindling and then turn a solid color as they age and folks think the dog is red but in reality the dog is brindle...same with the leopard color and others including sable...and then we have the fawn colored dogs that are called yellow in the bmc dog and the same color in the great dane and there it is fawn and the same exact color in the mastiff it is called apricot and so on...

in breeding I believe that we can keep improving the hunt in a good line of dogs including grit, nose, speed, ability to find game and stick or as some call it bottom...I saw that in my own back yard...

I believed that and still do and one day I read something that caught my minds eye and I thought on it a while and then I developed a theory based on that knowledge...what I read was the talk of a well known fact of one of the herding breeds...that the hair keeps getting longer every generation and that after a time they have to breed a short coated dog to bring the coat back to a desirable length...and so I see hunting traits as the same...the difference between me and the next breeder might be his standard as to what a hunting do should be and that might be totally different than my idea of a top hunting dog...I used to spend months and months and a year or two trying to decide who should be bred because I was that picky and there was lots of testing on my part to see what kind of heart a dog had as well as speed, swimming, natural ability to range out, winding, trailing, slashing and cutting to find the exit tracks etc...etc...to me that is way more fun than just a good hunt...I already bred this type of dog now I am thinking of a different style of dog that can basically do the same but a little more stopping power...that might hurt some on hunting sense including nose...baby steps in that direction because have to plan better for retirement...breeding good dogs to me means keeping the mistakes to a minimum and only the very best should produce once the line is started...BREEDING FOR NATURAL ABILITY...and that means just that...natural ability begets more natural ability...if a person is serious about breeding great dogs that is how it should be done...

long ago this breeder of thorough bred horses wrote a letter and gave me a copy and he mentioned that predicting color in horses wasn't that hard but in a nutshell he said it was not the same with dogs...He actually got me started with a pretty good pack of mt curs...first time in the woods the spent the night because I couldn't catch them in a cut over running a hog...he had some pretty good dogs and I was lucky to have them...I give him the credit for having pretty good dogs...

I do appreciate you on this site because you are knowledgeable in all aspects of hunting dogs...

like you said but in different words...hunting traits are a basket of different genes and some show stronger for whatever reason than others so one must interpret that accurately to breed better dogs...just like a leopard colored dog it could be almost solid black with very little leoparding and it's sibling could be almost totally leopard colored and so it is with hunting traits...strictly my opinion... 

"only the very best should produce once the line is started...BREEDING FOR NATURAL ABILITY...and that means just that...natural ability begets more natural ability"

Have you ever seen a great hunting dog that was a sorry reproducer? Do you ask yourself why? Or wonder why so few NBA or NFL Hall of Famers have children who are as good as the parent?

I really don't have that much experience other than what I have read on great dogs that don't reproduce and I am sure there are lots of reasons...using common sense one can rationalize and in my mind when we have scatter bred dogs one will get scatterbred pups and it can also mean getting all culls when bred to the wrong female...

and an average dog from a long line of great hunting dogs should be able to produce a higher percentage of good dogs as that once in a lifetime dog that does not have good breeding behind it...

we then have to consider if certain desirable traits are dominant or recessive because that should play an important roll in the outcome...but because I don't know the answers to this then the only thing left to do is use what knowledge we have...and for me it is best to the best within a family...there needs to be a certain amount of turn over before we can decide that the line is purified enough that one can actually consider a dominant male or female that we can focus on in concentrating the line off of...once that happens then we should slow the generation turn over down so that we do not breed oneself into a corner right away...or getting to the point when one has to introduce new blood which in my mind will open a can of worms...one can not make mistakes when it comes to selecting pups...otherwise that generation will have to be repeated...just my thoughts on the subject and what I believe is the right way for me...

Barlow---Reuben   When/how does one decide enough, of certain traits is enough?  Are we always trying to improve traits, or just maintain them?  By improving traits I am saying within the family, not going outside.  By staying within the family, we are multiplying the good, and the bad.  One may not be able to see the bad or much of it, but at some time they will show up and having multiplied, just like the good traits.   I guess I'm wanting a secrete recipe that doesn't exist, multiplying the only good and loosing the bad.   


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't think this is the case at all.  By "staying within the family" or "breeding closely" or "linebreeding" whatever someone chooses to call it, the goal is narrowing the gene pool so that the progeny expresses more of the desirable traits (that are already present).  In my opinion, traits cannot be ADDED without an outcross....you CAN however breed away from certain undesirables essentially eliminating them from the pool.

I've said it many times, but the goal of close breeding practices should be consistency and the attempt at reproducing a certain dog within the ped.

I'm with Bryant on the consistency thing. I don't think inbreeding or line breeding multiply or magnify traits. They just multiply the frequency of occurrence of a given trait (how often it shows up). And they're enhanced by good selection . . . keeping the desired and culling the undesired. You limit the genetic variance and then there are fewer possibilities. Keep your breeding pool at the higher end of the performance spectrum and you will produce more usable dogs. Produce good numbers of usable dogs and occasionally a freakishly good one will appear.

With color or ear length we not only see the result we are getting, but we see how even in a tightly bred family it may vary in shade, etc from one dog to the next.

With utility traits like trailing ability you only ever get to view the overall product and not the blueprint. Terms like "cold-nosed" are not helpful because it gives the impression that one dog is smelling things the others are not . . in an attempt to make an enormously complex system seem simpler. For the most part . . any dog can smell what any other dog can smell. What differs is their reaction to scent. This reaction is what we are trying to manage in a controlled breeding program and it is determined by things like length of the nasal passages, density of the nearly microscopic membranes that pick up scent particles, dopamine and endorphin transmitters in the brain, etc. If my family of dogs produce more adrenalin at the first hint of hog scent they may be willing to work harder to line out an old track whereas your dogs smell the same scent but aren't excited by it. It takes more scent and much fresher scent to get yours interested so the 12 hour old track doesn't even phase them. Unfortunately . . while my dogs are excited by and willing to try and line out an old track . . they have shorter nasal passages and fewer membranes with which to pick up the scent . . therefore they have to walk along taking in great, big whiffs of the target scent in order to follow it. The perfect dog has all of these factors I mentioned (and maybe as many as 200 others) in exactly the right dosage. But once in a great while perfect dogs are born . . or nearly perfect, anyway. And most often . . just when someone thru hard work, patience and an iron will gets the trailing thing all worked out . . either they or someone else decides to add grit by crossing in some pitbull or add speed by adding some greyhound . . or he decides an outcross is needed to another family from the same breed because good old uncle Zebediah told him not to breed too close.

And here's the real X-factor. A dog's performance in the woods is an absolutely horrible indicator of his potential for performance in the breeding shed. Performance and reproductive quality are NOT directly connected. Good dogs can produce worthless pups and worthless hunters can produce world class pups. More often than not . . the best reproducer from a given litter is not the dog who is the best performer. If for a dog to be perfect in the woods it is equal to lightning striking twice in the same spot, the same is true for what it takes for a dog to be a prepotent reproducer. So . . for a dog to be a great hunter and a great breeder it would require the equivalent of lightning striking the same spot four or five times. For practical purposes nobody wants to keep and breed poor performers and breed multiple litters from them to evaluate their reproductive worth. So we're all killing off our best chances at reproducing the best litters. And for as long as hunters are wowed by seeing greats like "Old Never Lie" and "John Doe's Champion" in a pedigree . . we are working parallel to our goal rather than making strides toward it.

I don't think we're ever gonna be able to mass produce outstanding dogs . . and I don't know any shortcuts to get there, but I will say that 'the 5 steps forward and 1.3 million steps back program' that random crossbreeding represents . . is definitely not the answer for engineering consistency.

And I will be happy to accept 2 cents for these thoughts via paypal.

Barlow you are an excellent writer and really know your dogs...I do agree with most of what you said as well as what Bryant said...I agree that the dogs sense of smell is about the same in all dogs and that the biggest difference in how they use it has more to do with genetics...some dogs prefer to wind while other want to follow every track while others use a combination of both...

line breeding or family breeding will produce consistency as well as uniformity if that is what we choose to do as it should be...we just prioritize in what order we will choose...like I said before...having many culls in a litter has more to do with peoples lack of knowledge and experience as well as the level of perfection we expect from ourselves as breeders among other things...

I also believe that when a line of dogs has been produced and they all look the same and hunt about the same then it is harder to improve on that line of dogs simply because the genetic make up is similar in the bloodline...but I also believe that it can be improved but at a slower rate for that reason...like you said in an earlier post certain traits are a cluster of genes and I say those can be purified and "purified" meaning better selection from observation and testing which equals to improvement...the cream rises to the top...take 2 dogs from a tight bred litter that hunt almost equally to each other in performance and both are considered to be top dogs and then take them for a long run and see who has the heart to dig deep from within and outruns his almost identical twin brother and the same said dog is a stronger swimmer as well...so which dog do you breed???and lets say on the gyps one starts several months earlier than her sister and she was baying tight in the thick palmettoes and you hear her yelp and you see her going flying through the air and 15 seconds later she is right back in the hogs face baying her heart out...if we are breeding for gritty tight baying dogs that want a hog bad then we start looking at these finer details so that we can continue to improve on the line of dogs...so yes...linebred dogs can be improved upon we just have to look harder to find what we want in our dogs...and we should get better dogs with each generation and when we reach that point of tired blood then introduction of another line of dogs should be brought in very carefully to improve hybrid vigor and nothing else unless we are looking for an improvement of a certain trait...

the more that the dogs are scatter bred the bigger the opportunity for improvement and not as much for a well bred line of dogs...we just have to look harder...purifying simply means to better select for improvement and at the very least not lose what has already been gained...

a dog that hunts pretty hard and hunts and ranges 2-3 hundred yards and circles to the left and comes back and does the same to the right and takes a track from that radius or winds from there is a good dog in my eyes and we keep 2 pups from that dog one of the pups does exactly the same as the sire when hunting and that pup is a good young hunting dog...but his brother ranges from 3 to 4 hundred yards and hunts at a faster pace and seems to strike first...he has the knack for knowing where to find a hog...so which pup would we use for the next breeding??? I reckon if we want a close ranging dog then you pick the first one mentioned...the gene pool is almost the same but one has improved if we like the second pup better...or stayed the same if we like  the first pup...some people want one style and others the other...generation after generation one can improve on a line of dogs if we do our homework...at some point in time we reach a plateau just like anything else like the 4 minute mile for example...once it was broken it dropped on down and records are meant to be broken but we reach a point when we are splitting hairs...the top 5 miles of today are slightly faster than the milers of 30 years ago...just saying without looking at stats...but all ten milers just mentioned are way faster than the average miler athlete of today...so it is with the dogs...

a long line of good dogs that has taken many years to produce can be brought down with one outcross just because quite a few of the hunting traits are recessive and because they are paired up similarly one from each parent through selection and close family relations these traits appear to be dominant and they are...dominant recessive...but when that outcross was introduced the new dog might be carrying dominant genes for the opposite traits...traits that are paired as double dominant or possibly dominant recessive which will then be displayed because of their dominance...and because they are the opposite of the good traits then these traits we do not want...and because the well bred dogs genes are dominant recessive that means that only one can be passed from each parent...when that happens then the dominant genes will be displayed simply because they are dominant...that opens a can of worms...getting 80 to 100 percent good dogs from the well bred line of dogs just dropped to less than 50 percent and some pups might not look like either dog when grown...that is just about the way I see it...not saying I am right but this is definitely what I believe...



 

Good thing you can breath while typing lol

many times we hear that the brother to the world champion is a better producer even though he is an average dog...the lesser dog may be an average hunting dog...so how many times can we breed these type of dogs before we lose performance in a line of dogs???once in a while is not a bad thing but practicing that on too regular of a basis and I just don't see how those types of breeding's will hold up...

I once lost the female I planned to breed and I had culled one earlier and the reason for culling was because she was too small and a light blonde color which I didn't like...She probably weighed 32 pounds but she was well bred from excellent dogs...She hunted hard and was a good strike dog and she started rolling out at 4 months on her own...I sent her to a friend and then I got her back because I needed a female to breed...bred her back to her grandsire and the smallest female she produced was 45 pounds and one of the best females I had...so breeding like that when one is backed in a corner is the right thing to do...it is by far the best thing to do rather than to bring a great female from a line that has no relations whatsoever...my belief is that we should stay away from that type of breeding when we can...

talking/hunting dogs...my favorite subject...  :D it's great having multiple discussions and everyone has their own opinions...that's what makes the world go round and round...  :)

Reuben you said what I was trying to about improving traits within a line. I'm sure glad all of you'll are better with words than I am.  Good discussion gentlemen. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Selection within a line of Terriers will never produce a Bluetick hound. If it ain't in them you can only put it in them by going outside and getting more . . and with that comes the threat of losing everything you have.

If the dog is a better reproducer it's a better reproducer. There is no connection between hunting performance and reproductive quality. NONE. Therefore it doesn't matter if Sally wasn't as good a hunter as Sadie. What she passes on to her offspring is what she passes on to her offspring. Period. End of story. A dog's performance in the woods is what proves his parents' reproductive quality. It DOES NOT prove his own reproductive quality. The pedigrees that come from UKC or AKC etc would do better to indicate how many champion pups a dog threw rather than how many titles he won. If a litter of pups from two average dogs contains 7 out of 8 above average pups . . I would line breed on the parents as they are the ones who are proven to produce quality. Or look at it this way . . if I wanted to produce a superstar athlete I would be knocking on the bedroom door of Michael Jordan's parents. Michael Jordan is beyond a doubt a superstar . . . but how many NBA greats has he sired?

Now that man has a way with words    Lol

Barlow,
 So what you are saying is that if "spot" is a superstar dog, gaining a littermate is ok but gaining the sire or momma dog of spot would be the better of the two? makes sense. It seems most breed young dogs out of the litter from the great dogs. Why not go back to the dogs who produced the one great dog.
 

Barlow...you might be 100 percent right...but like I have said in the past as you have...sometimes a once in a lifetime dog is produced from  average dogs and  the sire or dam could actually be a cull...I wouldn't waste my time with that once in a lifetime dog...because I have to look beyond that if I am wanting a dog that can also produce a high percentage of quality offspring...

we really can't compare dogs with humans for several reasons I can think of right off the top of my head that I think are important...one is that dogs have a more diversified genetic base than humans...and another is that the average woman produces 1 child per pregnancy and a dog can have an average of 8 or so pups per litter...and generally we as humans don't breed on purpose with our parents and grandparents to produce better offspring...but I am sure the slaves were selected for breeding to improve their performance as you would any animal that was used for a purpose...such as better hunting and better working abilities...I do believe that genes can lie dormant just waiting to match up so they can express themselves...that is why I believe in improvement within a line without bringing in new blood...

having said that I do believe that cross breeding is most definitely the fastest way to improve a trait or to capture one that is lacking...and just like anything else...we must also have the ability to pick/select the right pups to carry on what one is trying to retain as a desirable and needed trait or traits for improvement in the bloodline...breeding correctly is one half and the other half is selecting the right dogs for breeding...we can't produce good dogs for long if we are weak in either area...

amen to that...

Amen to that

About 9 or 10 years ago Charles Gantte gave me a book on canine genetics called "The New Art of Breeding Better Dogs". I suggest it to anyone interested in this stuff but it is a bit complex in places and ultimately, the author, Kyle Onstott was a breeder of show dogs. I mention it because as you mentioned . . Onstott got interested in livestock breeding records and after years of research he found that the most extensive records ever kept on a breeding program were the plantation documents of slave breeding. Regardless of political incorrectness or crimes against humanity . . . slaves were among the most valuable assets of that period and their owners kept very detailed histories of their slaves and the results of the "crosses" they made. Onstott spent years going over the information contained within and used it and some of their methods as a basis for not only his dog breeding but the dog breeding book as well. In fact . . he got so wrapped up in the slave records that they inspired him to write novels loosely based on slave life such as . .

"Master of Falconhurst"

(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l246/tomorrowisle/onst1.jpg) (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/tomorrowisle/media/onst1.jpg.html)

or "Mandingo" that was later made into a movie . .

(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l246/tomorrowisle/Mandingo_movie_poster.jpg) (http://s98.photobucket.com/user/tomorrowisle/media/Mandingo_movie_poster.jpg.html)

And if you really want a lesson on line breeding . . go directly to Charles Gantte of Dandridge, Tennessee. He's been breeding the same strain of bear bred Plotts since the 1950s without a single outcross. All of the perhaps thousands of dogs produced from his line go back to five individual crosses within the early registration or pre-registration Plotts. Regardless of what anyone may find good or bad within his strain . . it's all a matter of taste or opinion. The fact that he still produces healthy animals without immunity or sterility issues is a testament to his abilities as a breeder. I'm just a rookie with a spell checker on his google box.

As much as we can all theorize, there is still the factor of pure luck that plays into the game.  As Barlow has mentioned prior, this is the reason that 100% cull-free litters of performance dogs will never be mass produced.

As has also been discussed above, many "breeders" (using the term loosely here) don't pay near enough attention to prepotency.  No one would argue with the idea of breeding the best of each consecutive litter, but I will agree that performace in the field doesn't necessarily equate to performance in the whelping box.  A long line of well bred dogs has a percentage of luck factored into the breedings in addition to all the knowledge of the breeder.

Owning a sure-enough bang up hunting dog that has been proven as a producer is a pretty rare thing.  Having a female as I describe, is like having won the lottery in my opinion (as I believe the female has a greater influency on the progeny....but that's an entirely different topic).

The pedigrees that come from UKC or AKC etc would do better to indicate how many champion pups a dog threw rather than how many titles he won.

  actually barlow the ukc now does this , each set of papers show's how many pups a sire and dame have had [ at the time the papers were issued ] and it breaks them down as to how many titled pups are out there in the world . it is a very good program and it is  no if's and's or but's as to weather a  high powered stud dogs is prepotent and gyp's as well  . statistics don't lie .

  this is a good discussion and good for the young uns to read , and like I've tried telling folks for years .  even that best to best first time breeding is still a crap shoot and should be considered as such   lol  .

I'm glad they finally see it my way. HA. Thank you. I didn't know that. Been a while since I looked at a set but it always seemed like such an obvious thing to include.

...as long as they're honest about them.

Great read guys! Don't stop now... Yall keep breaking it down. I like the fact that all of you seem to stick to the fact that if your "line"/"family" of dogs do what you want them to do ie: looks, build, bottom, nose, grit, ect then keep it in the family. I think this is perfect. Once you have daughter, dame, and granddame of similar blood then you have the ability to produce some seriously good dogs if the sire is the same potent hog dog producing fool. If "he" isn't then why would you breed him in the first place? I mean you have to find out, and there is only one way to do that... but no need in breeding him again if his offspring isn't up to par. But what is the ideal cross? And does it matter? Father/daughter, aunt/nephew, uncle/niece, or even brother/sister. I mean depending on how many dogs you you have you have to start with you have to outcross eventually right? There is such thing as too tight... As someone said, tired genepool.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

Ryan, several old timers I've talked to have said 1/2 brother 1/2 sister crosses have produced some of their best dogs.

I made a 1/2 brother 1/2 sister breeding once with some game bred bulldogs. Worked out nice from what I was told. I've done 2 breeding to the same male dane/pit with plans for another. Bred them back to each other for generations if all works out.

Dang Barlow about the time i finally decide who I'm going to breed my gyp to, you put some info out that I had not previously considered.   I wish she would go ahead and come in so I can bred her,  the two options are driving me crazy, trying to pick, weighing out the odds

Jody ,
  Breed both !  ;D



   

Both gyps, to my male? Both males to one gyp?  Both males to both gyps?   
Thanks for the help!   I was going with my male, now Barlow threw the whole Tiger Wood thing out their!   I think I'm just going to go the simple way, and raise a pair from both males, from both females. 
Haha!!!!!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Jody, there is only ONE proper way to breed dogs. Since you're my friend I'll explain it to you. What you want to do is put the male behind the female and then he sort of climbs up . . and, well . . it goes on from there. Any more questions you'll have to ask Marci.  ;)

Lol

The definition of prepotency in a dog or bloodline means just that...breed that dog to a high percentage of females and you will get a high percentage of offspring that carry the dominant studs traits and will win on the track as expected for a high percentage of the offspring...We breed that same stud to a Bassett hound gyp and I reckon we will not have any offspring from that cross that can compete on the race track...

Breeding standard Airedale terriers will never produce a bluetick hound but one can produce an Airedale that hunts more like a hound...The standard Airedale was created from a combination of breeds which consisted of the smaller terriers and the Otter Hound...One can select and breed smaller Airedales and they will start to act more like the original smaller terriers used for creating the breed...and we can also breed the larger type Airedales which will start to express longer bodies and longer ears...This is because we are selecting for those traits and what will happen is that those traits we are now seeing are traits from the otter hound and those traits will now be displayed...because there will be more Otter hound traits they will act more like otter hounds...but who in their right mind will want to take the long road???I am not an expert in this but I have owned both types...especially if there are no others that would want to help in doing this...

One thing we all have heard or read is that all dogs come from the wolf and that includes from the weiner dog to the great dane and all breeds in between...so how could that happen if it weren't for intense selective breeding programs???We all know this didn't happen over a few generations...

If I wanted a bluetick hound I would get one...and even within a breed there can be big variations in size, color, hunt and grit among other traits so one can breed for a certain type of bluetick hound and still have a registered bluetick hound...

there are plenty of articles on breeding depression, some call it tired blood...to me that means that the bloodlines genetic make up is not as diversified because there are too many genes that are alike...some say that it should not cause problems if the selection process was done correctly...that might be true but unlikely...but in nature mother nature does not make mistakes...if a species can not adapt then it will become extinct...so only the strong survive to breed another day and this insures the well being of a species...

in the wild the coyote probably has been doing some family breeding and one needs to look deeper to visualize what has been happening...all coyotes in a certain location look alike because of the family relations...they have developed mentally, instinctively and physically as to what they are today...Mother Nature does not make mistakes when it comes to the selection of breeding specimens in a species...the offspring of the coyote will have to meet a minimum requirement to live and reproduce...if a pup can not survive the intestinal worms it will be taken out of the gene pool and those that don't have a resistance to parvo/distemper and other diseases won't live to reproduce...and when grown most species in the wild that pass on their genes had to be dominant to breed and that is part of the selection process...but we as dog breeders want to make sure all pups survive and we inoculate and worm the pups and do all we can to increase the survival rate and that begets more of the same...

a strain that is known for certain strengths or traits within a breed...and those are traits are those that deviate from the average specimen of that breed...happened because someone bred for those traits and had the know how to retain them...

Nice try! I've read that before. Are you quoting MacDuffie or Carnathan? The multiple question marks??? remind me of Howard Carnathan.

But seriously . . Is your point that you can start with two average dogs . . linebreed into infinity and improve them into world-beaters? Or are you saying that inbreeding leads to something called "tired blood" and will make them worse?

Carnathan...I read his stories but he didn't have much to offer...MacDuffie...he must of had a photographic memory because he quoted others beautifully and he did have some good material...he did make some mistakes when he said what color of dogs he would have when her developed the Camus curs...it would have been alright if he would have owned up to it...people with photographic memories usually aren't original thinkers...he did write something that I thought was in his favor...that some great hunting dogs tend to be laid back until the tailgate drops...

???... just an easy way for me to write on account my English skills suck...  :)

breeding dogs from an average line will mainly produce average dogs but we can slowly breed up or breed down...that is all I am saying...

We all have different beliefs/ideas and theories...and I think it is a great thing...  8)

Barlow, Just a little trivia but Archie Manning was the super stud of the NFL having produced two Super Bowl QB's in Peyton & Eli. They all say the youngest son Cooper was the best but he developed a disease that retired him from foot ball.
  I also believe in looking at the parents who have produced the phenoms of the hunting world & that is your best chance, but it is also not a hundred percent that they can repeat it. Genetics are funny & dont always produce the same but I still think that is your best chance.
  I think in order to produce great hunting dogs, you better have great hunting dogs in the pedigree. Can you get great hunting dogs by breeding two unrelated dogs? Of course, it happens all the time. Can you maintain great hunting dogs over 3 generations? Sometimes but probably not too consistently. This is where linebreeding on the better dogs increases your odds of maintaining what you have. Does it work all the time? No, but for me it has produced a lot of better then average dogs to great dogs.
  In all breeding, there are a lot of traits that are easy to lose. Grit, speed, endurance, nose, etc., etc.
  The main problem in breeding hunting dogs is everybody has different traits that they think are important. Some people do not like a cold nose dog & some do not like a rangy dog. Everybody has their preference. What is a great dog to some, might be a cull to somebody else & that is why we have such variation, even in the same breeds.

Great stuff on here fellas good points by all   Just makes me wonder about most of the dogs out there couldn't of had this much thought put in them and yet some are great some are terrible I guess I just don't see the difference in good or great or maybe I just don't have a clue lol

There are lots of guys out there who've been breeding dogs, breeding good dogs and the occasional great one for many years . . way more than me. But this is a favorite subject of mine and I like to hear anybody's thoughts or methods. I've never been afraid to admit it if I find out I'm wrong or if somebody comes up with something better.

I was thinking about Archie Manning when I brought up Michael Jordan. Old Archie was that rare dog who shines on the field and in the shed. They certainly do happen. But I'd like to take a peek at his wife's pedigree . . I wouldn't be surprised if it turned out she was Johnny Unitas' half sister. Or Archie's cousin, lol.

Bud Lyon told me once about he and a friend hauling a big, blue Von Plott bred bitch to Wisconsin during bear season to breed to someone's Butch & Jill male. Turned out this male super dog had been injured and left at home so they bred the bitch to his brother who wasn't quite as good and had never been bred to. I guess one Butch n Jill dog is as good as the next, right? Anyway . . every pup from the litter made a solid dog or better. They got so excited thinking about how good they woulda been if old so and so hadn't been on the injured reserve list that a year or two later they took her and bred her to the male they intended to the first time. And every pup turned out to be a dud. As the story goes . . in the meantime this bitch had died or been killed or run over or something. Disgusted with themselves because they'd gotten greedy or overly ambitious and not just repeated the cross that worked . . they took a full sister of the now deceased, one time good reproducer and bred her to the first male they'd bred to because it was clearly him that was spreading the bear dog magic. And it didn't produce a single usable dog. That story kind of sums it up I think.

Dang Barlow you sure tell it in a way that makes realize I better get used to culls.  I just been super lucky so far and had limited numbers of culls, not because I'm easily satisfied

Thanks JP...breeding better dogs requires lots of thought and a constant evaluation of the dogs to be bred or not...  ???

Barlow, Archie Manning has been brought up before and immediately my thoughts were the same then as now as yours were this time as well...the wife should have been mentioned and should of carried just as much importance as the sire...I liked Joe Montana and just maybe his juices didn't flow unless the woman was short with a small waste line, thick legs and big boobs...  ;) if that is the case then he was at a disadvantage in the breeding arena for producing great quarterbacks...  ;D

I went back to one of my earlier posts and after reading it I see where it didn't make sense in a section of what I wrote and it has to do with Archie Mannings example but I was using the greyhound for the example...

There is a top of the line greyhound stud dog that has won all the prizes a great dog can win on the track...he also is proven as a prepotent breeder when bred to other high quality females that have won in the past...besides having a great pedigree he throws a higher than average percentile of pups that go on to be winners on the track...

Now breed that great prepotent stud dog to the top 5 bassett hound gyps and see how many of the offspring make champions on the track...Prepotency is a great thing when used correctly...if one is to improve on a breed we have to be very critical in how we select to breed better hunting dogs or whatever it is we are into...

it is like that old saying...I would rather breed to a second rate dog from a long line of great hunting dogs than to a great hunting dog from a long line of average to below average dogs...

Cajun...I agree with you statement about your dogs are great dogs for you...but they would be a poachers worst nightmare...When I first started breeding the mt cur I bred for heart, early starting dogs with grit and nose...and the ability to wind long range and hunt to find game quickly...the few that got some of my dogs didn't know hogs ran that far or long because they had short range dogs...another used one of the dogs to strike off the boat but wouldn't turn him out...only the catchy short range dogs were turned out...there are many reasons why we will have a wide variation when it comes to hunting dogs whether it is coon hunting or hog hunting...

Barlow you know that anyone who has 1/2 a brain will want to use the best we can have to start a breeding program...But to answer your question my answer is yes...we can breed better dogs fro average hunting dogs but who in their right mind wants to start there?????  ??? :)

the more the dogs are the same the harder it would be to improve them...but in my mind most dogs have slight variations in their gene pool so when they are bred and they produce 8 pups that look alike then we can use our knowledge and through that and testing as pups and in the field one can slect those pups that ineret the slight variations that we see as an improvement...but that is splitting hairs and that can be saved until one has about topped out in their line if they have already bred many generations...

Barlow...keep it coming...  8) :)

When I was a young fella my pe paw and uncle did all that planning and evaluation that y'all speak of and let me tell ya they had some dang good coon dogs. And my other uncle was in to English pointers so I seen that to and I totally get the system with out some people being this fanatic we wouldnt have what we do. I truely beleave chance and luck play a bigger roll than most fellas want to beleave these are living animal not cars just saying.