Chasing Dead Dogs

I'd like to get some opinions on breeding to chase a dead dog. Inbreeding to the point where a dog that has been gone over a decade, can be counted over and over with zero outs.

How harmful is this practice and when does it get to the point when you have to let this dog go and look to the future. Many of us are quick to go to the source and breed to the father of a GRCH instead of the GRCH itself.

I'll start:

Personally, I like a pretty pedigree as much as the next ped jockey but think after maybe 3 or 4 gens its time to let sleeping dogs lie. A lot of this depends on the line itself but if the quest towards getting "so-and-so" x number of times in one ped starts to produce sub-par offspring then the point has been completely missed and you're now peddling a name into the dirt for $$$.

Its not so bad to look to the offspring instead of going back into the old stuff. If you can't trust this great dog's offspring to carry the torch and produce as good (if not better) then, again, its pointless to continue inbreeding on a great dog who can't continue on his legacy.

I've realized this during hound searching that trying to find breeders that are "recreating" some dog that is now compost, instead of working to better that dog, will ultimately end in disappointment and a large waste of time. These dogs are no longer what they once were and just a shell with nice paperwork.

I'm not some experienced breeder so my experienced is limited. Take what I say with a grain of salt, my opinion isn't worth much, just how I feel at the time. Would love to hear what you've got to say.

 

That is proably one of the best post I have read on here...the dog makes the ped not the ped makes the dog.

 

that's an excellent post naustroms!

I totally agree that if you're breeding of lets say, frozen semen and you just can't produce what that dog once produced or can't continue to use the offspring in your breeding program to better the dogs, you are waisting time/space and money.

breeders should focus on the outcome of their offspring, more than their dogs papers. IMO if you want to be in the game, you have to breed to better the dogs, and by using the same sire over and over, the breeder only proves to not know enough about dogs to establish his own, decent breeding program or doesn't want to take time to really study the dogs on his yard and their peds etc.

if the sire doesn't produce anything worth using in your breeding program, than really, why would people continue using him, even if his offspring looks good on paper?
if that's the case, you're definately NOT breeding to improve the breed, nor your own yard/stock.

that's the exact reason I won't be breeding anytime soon.
anybody can breed dogs that look good on paper.
all you got to know is a few popular old time dogs like Jeep, Nigerino, Bullyson, etc and you can breed pretty papered to other pretty papered dogs all day long.
but it takes a very knowledgable person to breed dogs that are really worth something.
breeding dogs LOOKS simple, but it's a very long process of carefully selecting your dogs, analizing their peds and looking what dog could compliment the faults or lacks the other dog has etc...

so really, if you've not been in the breed for years and years and have years of experience, or a VERY good mentor, please stay away from breeding these dogs

 

Excellent post! I believe that we need to look at the dogs in front of us today. Most times with the dogs we have today, we don't even really know if the dog is even bred the way the papers say! I think a dog should be bred off of what IT has done, not just because he/she has an allstar ped. Before all of these high powered peds and registries came about, the old guys bred good dog to good dog. Maybe we should get back to looking at the performance of the dog to decide IF it could possibly produce a performance dog.

 

i was reminded by a very knowledgable man of this maybe a month age...breeding programs are meant to go forward, striving to achieve better dogs....i admit, i got caught up in a pedigree, and it took a man i respect to show me i was in the wrong

 

We've all been guilty at one time or other when starting out looking at pretty peds and chasing ch, gr ch dogs and dogs that have been dead for decades .For me dead dogs are DEAD and some are that far back in the peds that they might as well not be there.For me which ever way your dogs are wheather tight on a paticular family or bred tight on two families or even a battle cross ( i dont like the words scatter bred to me a scatter bred dog reminds me of a mixed breed) as long as the dogs in the first three generations top and bottom are all proven i tink you' just enhanced your percentage of getting a good pup,but thats just me ...

 

I guess its all in what you consider a pretty pedigree...what i look for in a pedigree isnt exactly what other people look for... personaly i give two shits about what line an animal comes from(although there are lines i like) as long as an animal comes from consistantly hard tested animals whom have proven their worth in the fast lane. I mainly look at the first 2 gen when considering if i like the dog....i look at what they have done as a performance animal what they are producinging in their offspring and what their parents produced and what they were bred to produce their best animals...

loose line breeding focusing on consistant high quality hunting animals is what i consider a "pretty pedigree" and yes that is important to me...

 

this came from someone i respect very much. he said dont breed to dead dogs. you have to move forward, know one knew eli was going to be eli

 

Its about time some one post this:cool:

 

YUP well put:cool:

 

Good breeders can bred on one dead dog. I think it is hard to do, but it can be done. You just have to avoid going to tight. A prime example is the Eli line and it's many different variations. They have pretty peds with the same name over and over again, but I bet people are still using it a good bit. It can also go bad quickly. Tight breeding is good for locking in traits you want to keep. Some of the better studs of recent history tightly bred. They had good stud careers because they consistanly added a specific trait that was lacking in some lines. In recent history people were lining up to get some tight redboy blood to add to their yard.

 

This really helped me out. I'm reading and studying everyday.

 

isnt that how it works? so many people try to reproduce "that certain dog" but accidently producing a freak while doing it, im sure whoever bred mayday was originally trying to create something else but got this great dog on accident, took it, & ran with it.
maybe not tho!
it just makes sense.

 

Wow Naus, that's about the best clarification of the point of breeding I've read in a long long time. Nothing to add here. Props.

 

It is like an oldtimer once told me. " why bother with frozen semen? If he was producing worth a shit you should be able to find some of their offspring to use."

 

Thats an easy one lol lets use Mayday although he has thrown a couple very good dogs production wise none of em was him if i had the chance to breed to Barracuda, Lukane, Haunch, or frozen seman off of Mayday i'm goin with the big daddy lol!!!

 

Floyd B says

breeding untested dogs doesnt take anything away from a dog that will produce anyways if he/she is genetically programed to throw it

the same with breeding a bitch in her first heat, they all have the ability to produce and will do so regardless of age or proven ability..


wise words from the godfather and yes this is straight from his mouth

-----------

dogs are born producers or not

 

and whos gonna argue with that man?

 

lol minorT. the other side of the coin is it only takes 3 generation to turn a apbt into a german shephard. floyd must have been sipping on some cough serup when he said that.

 

Now there is some logic for you! Feynman would call that sum over histories. THe only person thinking on this thread. I invite anyone to disagree with the aforementioned post......