Breeding dogs of Yesteryear or of the Future ?

Now I have never bred a dog in the 10 years or so that I have been following these dogs. But I have noticed the tendency in other dogmen to concentrate on dogs from the past like jeep, red boy, jocko, eli - etc etc.

Of course we all have our preferences in what blood we like but I believe every generation forward should be better than what it came from, therefore todays dogs should be better than yesteryears right? I would like to hear all your views on this.

 

Most of those, who talk alot about their Jeep-/ Mayday-/ Chinaman-/ Red Boy-/ Boyles-/ etc. dogs and how nice they are bred, aren't active. But however they seem to know, what "good dogs" they got, with a "strong" bite (which was tested with a bait toy or something else *lol*).

In fact, nice bred confirmation champions will not sire game dogs with ability, that is in my opinion why the breeders of confirmation dogs needs to appeal to best-quality old school dogs.

But dogs, who proved itsselfs, doesn't need other dogs to refer to. There are alot of dogs outside, who are still living and nevertheless established an own line of dogs, but those were active and not nice-looking confirmation dogs.

 

Let me tel you one thing to think about for some time, if breeding game dogs of today produces beter dogs then yesterday why do we Line and inbreed on dogs of the past!!!! .......................

 

to magnify those disireable traits and hopefully amplify them 3x in theyre offspring.

just my 2 cents

 

Hey Limey, some time ago you had written something about family breeding that really stuck in my head. You talked about certain traits and looks within a family and how if one is breeding toward one particular dog they should concentrate on the dogs of that family that had the same style and looks...etc.
I was wondering if you still had that around and if you do would you be kind enough to post it again for us.

*it wasn't your pelican brief it was something else you wrote before.

As far as line breeding and inbreeding I don't think you can "amplify" any traits. All you can hope to do is to make certain traits more consistent and by outcrossing to other families create dogs that have a new blend of traits that work in their favor. I also think that inbreeding is a powerful tool one can use to weed out the faults and lock in the good traits and create prepotent producers.

 

Gringo pistolero had it perhaps anything to do with reducing geneticel variation!!!!!,
ore about trowback dogs ..

 

That's the question I am posing. I see many circles running their present day stock based on dogs that lived 25+ years ago.
The reason I always believed we line and inbreed on past dogs or any dogs for that matter is to give a program direction depending on the particular desired traits. And once those traits are harnessed a newer and improved animal/s could be chosen to take the program forward. Instead of basing a line off that same dogs forefathers that died 25+years ago..

 

I think people breed on long dead dogs because it gives them an idea of what to expect. Let's take jeep for example. Long dead, but he produced dogs that could also produce. You can linebreed jeep by using his good descendants (tab, rock, smiley, etc). Another example would be the Eli dogs. Eli came up missing some forty yrs ago, but his blood still runs strong today. Just because someone is basing a line on dead dogs it does not mean they are not making a breeding based upon the two dogs in front of them.

 

I agree with you Slim I really like it your replays keep with the good work!

 

in my opinion it has alot to do with the law as well..internet doggers dont know about modern day Gr. Champions or ROM dogs...and those that should know do..thats why people with no real knowledge of the breed or dogs of today focus on paper instead potential...I like my dogs bred off historic dogs just fine , but if i ever breed im gonna know what im breeding and how it hunts and i couldnt care less if anybody wants anything off my stock...things are different nowadays..back in the day if a dog was performing and destroying everything across the box from it in the fast lane it was talked about and feared and everybody and there momma wanted something off of it..nowadays if a dogs on the hunt its a well kept secret and for good reason..so if it performs and could kill its ancestors whether they be Chinaman,RB,Jocko, Jeep, Homer or Eli himself nobody outside of his owners circle will ever know...thats why i keep my nose clean and dont include myself any illegal activity... the oceans different nowadays and we have to adapt to keep our head above the water..its sink or swim son and im a surviver.

 

I like that reply, and also think its true. I'm one to believe there is a formula to breeding these dogs, I've been laughed at, made fun of, criticised and the list goes on, but there is one thing I haven't been, and thats deterred from my goal. Everyone has to start somewhere, whether thats with such and suchs line or with so a so's CH. I just keep in mind where I started and that I have to be honest with myself from that point on.

 

Thanks for all the input so far. The reason I raise this point is because this mindset of focusing breedings around particular dogs that lived 30+ yrs ago directly effects the quality of bulldogs that are being produced today.

For example If I had dogs based heavily on the Frisco/Lee Ling strain of Ch Chinaman dogs then I would not focus on breeding 'Ch Chinaman' dogs anymore but Frisco/Lee Ling dogs. The reason being that these dogs are now far removed and have established themselves and should, or at least I would expect them to be far better then Ch Chinaman was in both performance and producing capability.

After all the reason to breed is to produce better bulldogs and he was bred many times to females of various lines and successfully gained ROM status so I would expect this to run true and there to be indeed dogs out there down from him that are better than he was. Therefore still calling them and breeding them as 'Ch Chinaman' dogs is innacurate and indicates regression, the same applies with all the other lines today...

And also I dont agree with the sayings that so and so a dog 'Was just a freak' and that they 'only come up once in a lifetime if your lucky' to justify breeding a line around it even if it was alive 30+ yrs ago. I believe that good dogs are the result of good breeding and nurturing practices. And I believe a lot of the commercially recognised pit dog greats were yes good dogs in their own rights but with good publicity behind them...

I guess this has all come about with me seeing how folks classify the way their dogs are bred and it bothers me because imo these are details that should be paid attention to in order to produce bulldogs...

 

1.) people are more familar with old dogs bc of posted stories and such
2.) you know what ur gettin out of older lines bc just about everything has been tried 100 times with the good ones
3.) its takes awhile for people find out how well a dog produces and b4 he is considered a great dog he might be 10-15 years old
4.) people keep their good dogs to themselfs bc they are watching, so maybe you don't know that the neighbors dog in the backyard will be what everyones line is based on 10 or 15 years from now