Hard Culling or Genetic Re-Direction by CA Jack

Hard Culling or Genetic Re-Direction

We all know that the prevailing credo in our sport is to “cull hard” in order to succeed in our breeding efforts. Or at least we think we know that this is the best way to do things. But is this really the case? Is it really true that “hard culling” for 100% dead gameness is the “best practice” to create an all-around athlete who is designed to win fights that (statistically) average :45 in duration (at least 75% of the time)? Does anything positive in our breeding programs come about, at all, by the ruthless culling of “all dogs that quit,” regardless of their pedigree and regardless of the other strengths and weaknesses they may have as athletes? Or, in point of fact, does hard culling do nothing but limit our genetic options with the available dogs of the line that we have chosen?

Now then, this opening paragraph should not make idiots automatically a$$ume the polar opposite, either, that I am advocating, “It’s OK to breed any old dog to any old dog, regardless of how shitty it is,” because that is not what I am saying here either. I want to clarify this because there are so many Simple Simons in this sport, and Simple Simons can only run with extremes. And as such they either a$$ume one extreme or the other to be “the law” they must follow or reject. It is extremely hard for simple people to think in degrees, or in various shades of color, and so to make things easier for themselves, Simple Simons paint their world “black or white” to eliminate the chore of thinking from their available options. Thus a dog either “is” or “isn’t” game, there is no *degree* of anything, and so there are no other factors or set of factors to consider which might clutter or confuse their limited minds. Therefore, to such limited fools, a dogman either “breeds curs” or he “does not breed curs,” regardless of the man’s record, win/loss ratio, etc.

But I am hoping most of the people here have an intellect beyond this annoyingly-shallow one I described. I am hoping that you can consider the possibility that “hard culling” is NOT the best breeding principle to follow, while at the same time not committing to the polar-opposite stupidity of a$$uming I am thus giving you a carte blanche “OK” to breed any old piece of shit to any other piece of shit. What I am trying to say is that neither practice is “Best Practice.” What I am trying to say is there are many, many complex factors to wade through when making a breeding decision, and whether a dog might be some degree less than 100% DG is not the only consideration.

My question is, if you are working with an established family of already-proven-game dogs, on average, is “hard culling” the best way to continue to yield the most favorable breeding results in your ongoing effort to manage that family? Or is Genetic Re-Direction the best way? Is evaluating the sum total of each dog’s overall physical strengths and weaknesses, as well as his pedigree strengths and weaknesses, the best way to reach a competent breeding decision? I ask this, because if every dogman who has ever lived followed the standard black & white directive to a “T” ... and they religiously culled “all curs” hard, as some fanciers suggest that they should be, then the following dogs would never have existed:


* Any dog down from Red Boy, since his daddy quit.

* Any dog down from BullySon or Eli Jr., since the former quit, the latter turned from a down dog, and the daddy to both of them quit.

* Any dog down from Crenshaw’s Honeybunch, since she quit, her daddy quit, and her mama’s daddy quit.

* Any dog down from Finley’s Bo, since he quit.

* Any dog down from Patrick’s Red Baby, since her mama quit.

* Any dog down from Boyles’ Dirty Mary, since Red Baby’s mama quit.

* Any dog down from Patrick’s Tater, since his daddy quit.

* Any dog down from STP’s GR CH Buck, since his mama quit.


I could go on and on, but are you getting the picture yet? Strictly-speaking, “hard culling” would have eliminated the possibility of every dog on all of our yards from ever existing. And if you want to be really hard in your “selectivity,” then hard culling would include “untested stock” as well, because the dogmatic credo of hardcore idiots is to “Never breed untested stock.” Thus you would have to throw all of the dogs down from Hollingsworth’s stock out the window as well, since Lady In Red was never “fully-tested.”

So I ask, therefore, is anyone ready to stand up and say, “Yes!” that none of these great dogs should have ever existed? Is there anyone who really believes that, if such rigid inflexibility of practice were ruthlessly-followed, that the dog game would be better off? If so, since there *are* some people who in fact follow this practice, can anyone stand up and name any dog that has ever lived who is more important than these dogs I listed above, AND who is a result of at least 4-straight generations of this kind of ruthless culling, top and bottom?

I’ll bet you can’t ... I will bet that you can’t name ONE super-important dog, historically, where you can go back 4 straight generations and not show me at least one cur or untested animal.

Sure, you can show me some pedigrees of some “game dogs,” where there is not one cur to be found, but the trouble is the specimen you’re showing me isn’t a world-changing, important dog. Sure again, you can name another super-important dog to add to my list above ... but the trouble is he will have a flaw in his pedigree. So you see, ruthless culling for gameness alone can’t possibly be the best way in which to breed dogs or manage a gene pool, otherwise this practice should yield the most favorable and productive results.

So what I am getting at, therefore, is that it is my expert opinion (and I’ve bred enough good dogs to qualify as an expert in breeding) that “hard culling” is the prevailing mindset in our sport ONLY because the prevailing mental capacity of its participants is rock-stupid. The simple truth is, most people in our sport are imbeciles, and as such they can only think in terms of “black or white.” This absolute fact is exacerbated by the aura of “machismo” the permeates our sport, precisely because it centers around fighting. A dog who shows any “weakness,” at any point in his life is to be burned at the stake and hanged. It makes no difference how talented, fast, long-winded, stylistically-superior, or how well the dog is bred off of great and pre-potent dogs ... a dog is either “game” or “cur” ... etc., etc.

This of course is completely stupid, to anyone with any imagination or capacity to think, because the fact of the matter is EVERY dog has some sort of a weakness, and EVERY dog can be made to quit under the right kind of tribulation or circumstance. Therefore, if what I just said here is true (and I assure you that it is), how do we try to breed the best dogs, then?

Our first step in breeding better dogs is to realize that there are infinite degrees of gameness, there are infinite degrees of intelligence, there are infinite degrees of stamina, there are infinite degrees of durability, there are infinite degrees of mouth, etc., etc., etc., and this multi-faceted complexity concerning ALL the traits required to win is simply beyond the comprehension of most of the imbeciles in our sport. And so to “simplify” everything for themselves, the masses of simple-minded fools in our sport just say a dog is “game or cur” as their bottom-line assessment of any dog’s performance, regardless of how long the dog went, or against what odds, or how old it was, etc., etc. ... and so these fools just reduce the entire fighting process into either “He stood” or “He scratched.”

And if this isn’t totally-idiotic, absolutely brain-dead, and unimaginative stupidity as a “method of evaluation,” then I don’t know what is.

The fact is, almost every dogman on the planet reduces the myriad of moves, countermoves, punishment taken, punishment received, wonderful savvy displayed, extreme stamina suffered through, level of opposition faced, degree of shock set-in, etc. ... all down to the simple-minded question, “Was the dog ‘game or cur’?” ... and if this totally short-sighted reduction question doesn’t boil down to an answer of “Yes,” then the dog is viewed as not having any value whatsoever, and it is to be “culled.” And thus literally have hundreds of thousands of legitimately-good to great dogs (and producers) been killed and “culled hard” for not being 100% dead game, under any circumstances, and thus the same stupid story repeated over and over and over again.

And so I ask, has this absolutely stupid practice helped our breed or has it hurt our breed?

Have there been “hard-culled” bitches more important than Honeybunch and Red Baby? I ask because these bitches are directly off of curs. Can you name *one* hard-tested bitch, off of all 100% game lineage for 4 generations, who has been more important than Honeybunch or Red Baby, historically?

Have there been “hard-culled” stud dogs than more important than Bo, Redboy, GR CH Buck, etc.? I ask because these stud dogs are either curs, or directly off of curs, I ask can you name *one* hard-tested stud dog, off of all 100% game lineage for 4 generations, who has been more important historically than Bo, Redboy, GR CH Buck, etc?

I doubt that very much.

Therefore, the question you need to ask yourself is, “Is hard culling really the stamp of someone with ‘high standards,’ or in point of fact is hard culling really the stamp of someone who lacks imagination?” I submit the ruthless culler is the stamp of the latter. I submit that the pathos of “hard culling” is simply the pathos of your typical, stupid, one-way, unimaginative idiot dogman who simply cannot think on anything but the most basic and primitive level, and I submit that such a dogman will never really have much of a breeding record to go with his “hard culling” philosophy.

Again, as relayed in a discussion I was having with BolognaHead on another thread, even in my own yard my “best blood” hasn’t always produced the best dogs. Or, stated in the reverse, many times my weakest-bred dogs (gameness-wise and percentage-wise) have produced my best performers.

And do you know how this is possible? By GENETIC RE-DIRECTION.

It is my absolute opinion, hell it isn’t an opinion it is an empirical fact, that Genetic Re-Direction is the best method for producing winning dogs. Stacking-up piles of dead dogs, and breeding only to the dogs that “don’t quit” is the stupidest way to breed dogs.

However, Genetic Re-Direction can only be achieved when you have a clean-bred family of dogs, and it can only be achieved by an intelligent person with *both* a good eye for a dog AND a solid knowledge of the gene pool he is working with. Right out of the gate, this would eliminate 95% of all dogmen from qualifying as breeding managers. They have neither the bloodline, the eye, nor the intelligence to manage a gene pool effectively. Thus I believe that 95% of all dogmen should not breed dogs, they should just get small yards and “drive the race car,” but not attempt to manufacture one.

But for a person who can think in terms beyond “black or white,” and who has a nice group of clean-bred individual dogs, all of whom are reasonably-game and superior long-distance athletes, then that person is in a position to continually produce a higher-level of animal than his bumbling competitors. Because while his competitors are in the hit-n-miss business of trying to manage “what to expect” out of the mix-bred shit on their yards, that they randomly toss together (based only on “whether the dog will scratch,” and not on a condensed style and streamlined traits) ... the intelligent dogman will KNOW what to expect from his linebred dogs, their streamlined style, and he will have a much greater control of how to direct his set gene pool for the following generations.

 

Let me give you an example of how I genetically re-directed my initial efforts from terrible to World Class. The very first adult game dog I bought was Hollingsworth’s Truman. Here I had an ultra clean-bred dog, off of an all-game litter, to start out with as a stud dog. Being a greenhorn, I managed to fukk everything up, but I still managed to salvage some small aspect of this animal. Here is Truman’s pedigree:

................. Crum’s CARIBOU
........... Hollingsworth’s SABER
................. Patrick’s LADY IN RED
... Hollingsworth’s TRUMAN
................. Patrick’s LITTLE TATER
........... Patrick’s LADY IN RED
................. Anderson’ ROSE

Now, again, Truman was a DG dog, and he was out of an all-game litter. He was also ѕ bred on Lady In Red, and if I had a lick of sense when I got him I never would have matched him, but I would have used him as a stud dog ONLY. However, like many green idiots, I had to ”prove something” instead of preserve what I had. However, I did buy (what I believed to be) a key bitch to breed Truman to:

................. INDIAN BOLIO
........... EL DOS BITS CORTARO
................. Patrick’s DAISY
... Patrick’s RIO
................. Patrick’s LITTLE TATER
........... Patrick’s CHERYL TIEGS
................. Patrick’s TESSY (ѕ sis to CH Hammer)

If you have eyes to see, you will notice that Rio’s mama and Truman’s mama were both sired by Little Tater, making them Ѕ sisters ... as well as Ѕ sisters to STP’s GR CH Buck. Now at the time, I thought that Rio would be ”the best bitch ever,” because she was ѕ Bolio on top by way of El Dos Bits, but little did I know at the time that El Dos Bits was a cur, his mama was a cur, and his mama’s mama was a cur. Therefore, what I did by adding Rio’s blood to Truman’s blood was dump a huge load of CUR SHIT into my pedigrees. And the results of this mating prove this fact, as 5 out of 6 individuals quit.

One of the bitches I had out of this litter was Little Bootie, who had a fairly good mouth, a decent face style, and pretty good air. She was no ace, but she went a good, hard :30 in a war with DOTHM’s bitch Mallie, and so I bred Little Bootie to her cousin Poncho, and this breeding produced a significant upgrade in Wild Red Rose. Unfortunately, Little Bootie herself later quit, but this is what her daughter Rosey was bred like:

................. Mason’s CH HAMMER
........... Vise-Grip’s PONCHO
................. Hollingsworth’s MISS TRINX
... Vise-Grip’s WILD RED ROSE
................. Hollingsworth’s TRUMAN
........... Vise-Grip’s LITTLE BOOTIE
................. Patrick’s RIO

So, as you can see, I genetically re-directed my two first breeding efforts by doubling-up on the game Truman and his game sister Trinx, who were out of all-game litters, and adding more deep gameness with CH Hamer. Where I had made the mistake of breeding the game Truman to the lousy Rio (who was loaded with cur shit) ... and thus I got mostly cur shit in my own litter ... by contrast I had bred Truman’s sister Trinx to the deeply-game and pit savvy CH Hammer. And where my Truman/Rio litter was a mostly-shit litter of low-talent curs, my Hammer/Trinx litter was an all-game litter of outstanding individuals. By mixing these two breedings together, I (to borrow BolognaHead’s phrase) ”pushed the turd down in the punch bowl” by rendering Rio and Dos Bits an insignificant part of the pedigree.

Now, a lot of people would have culled Rio and they would have culled Little Bootie, but I had over $4000 wrapped-up in both Truman and Rio, and I knew that Truman was game and that while Rio’s daddy had a pedigree full of shit, I also that Rio’s mama Cheryl Tiegs was an awesome bitch, she was a Ѕ sister to Lady In Red, furthermore Tiegie’s mama was a ѕ sister to CH Hammer as well!

So, with this genetic analysis in mind, I naturally bred Little Bootie to Poncho, precisely to keep the level of my Hollingsworth blood intact, as well as to bring forward the strong Cheryl Tiegs blood, which was related to both Lady In Red as well as to CH Hammer. And what do you think happened when I did this? Whollah! A fukken damned good litter is what happened.

And, once again I secured for myself pure linebred excellence. And that is all I did. In fact here is another breeding that was made with Rosey, by Leon, in keeping with this philosophy:

................. Vise-Grip’s PONCHO
........... Vise-Grip’s THUNDER
................. Vise-Grip’s RED SONJA
... Vise-Grip’s SASSY
................. Vise-Grip’s PONCHO
........... Vise-Grip’s WILD RED ROSE
................. Vise-Grip’s LITTLE BOOTIE

And here again, we have a wonderful litter of deeply-game individuals and proven producers: Rico Suave, Rhino, Igor, Sassy, Razor, and Thunder Rose were produced. All of these dogs were structurally-perfecto (except Igor), but even he was beautiful, in his own way, and he certainly was 100% DG game! Now, Thunder Rose did eventually quit, but once again the pathos of ownership stupidity played a factor in this. Regardless of this possible flaw, Thunder Rose was as beautiful a bitch as ever lived, and she was a rough-ass dog who stopped two daughters of RTK’s Crash and was a damned good animal. Unfortunately, she was culled by the third-world primate who bought her, and it is no one’s loss but his own, because her sisters Sassy and Razor are producing world-class, skull-crushing head and face dogs ... and Thunder Rose was the finest bitch of the three of them.

So who do you think is prospering more as a dogman? The ”hard core culler,” who killed the wonderful Thunder Rose, 2 days after he bought her and drug her fukking ass when she still had no idea where she was or who he was ... or do you think the owners of her sister Razor are prospering more, by simply breeding this exclusive gene pool to yet another son of Poncho, as well as myself for breeding Sassy? Do you think that this third-world, knuckle-dragging idiot is profiting more by being a ”hard culler” and killing Thunder Rose ... than are Desert Kennels and myself by being ”genetic breeders” and creating still more superb dogs with her sisters? Who, really, is better off? Do you think this third-world, knuckle-dragging ”hard-culling” idiot has produced dogs the quality of CH Miagi (4xW), CH Pearce (3xW), Jasper (2xW, 1xL G-1:10), V.I.P. (1xW) with the bitches he did keep? I doubt that very much.

In fact, I doubt that any ”hard-culling” idiot has EVER produced dogs of this quality. The fact of the matter is, this fool is still floundering around in some ”barrio” somewhere, doing the same stupid shit, over and over again, and 20 years from now he will still be a clueless idiot with nothing to show for his years of stupid decision-making.

But what he *will* do is tell all who will listen how ”hard core” he is as a dogman. He can brag about how his ”high standards” prompted him to cull the best bitch in Razor and Sassy’s litter, yet what he *won’t* do is ever point to a bitch of his own that produced as well.

Folks, this ”hard-culling” mindset is the pathos of the stupid, when you are dealing with generation-after-generation of family-bred stock of a high average-quality, and especially after you have spent a lot of money on obtaining this stock. In fact, I myself am living proof that, with proper genetic management and re-direction, you can once again yield dogs from failed initial efforts that are every bit as good as the best dogs on the face of this earth, and that are better than every other scatter-bred piece of shit out there.

Folks, family breeding is where it’s at, and constant, knowledgeable genetic re-direction is what is TRULY required to keep the quality there ... *not* killing off any specimen you come across that isn’t ”100% dead game.” Again, it would simply stagger the mind to think of all of the wonderful, high-quality, clean-bred dogs out there who have been senselessly-killed by ignorant miscreant idiots ... because they fell short a tad of 100% game ... and especially after being fed shit feed, after not being allowed to mature fully, and after not being acclimated to their situations. It would simply stagger the mind. I mean, the flagrant wasting of untold numbers of individuals that could have been simply awesome performers and producers, had they just gone into the right hands, and/or had they just been bred in the right direction. I mean, it would simply stagger the mind.

As an example, here is how this kind of flagrant (and combined) stupidity on the part of The Mason and Mr. Nice Guy killed off the genetic potential of this priceless bitch:

................. INDIAN BOLIO
........... Kincaid’s ROLO
................. Kincaid’s CH PRINCESS
... Mason’s AURORA
................. Patrick’s BULL BOY BOB, ROM
........... Patrick’s SPEEDY
................. Patrick’s RED BABY, ROM

These two fools killed Aurora, for quitting a match at 7 years of age, after they mainlined her with solu-delta cortef ten minutes before the deal. Here was a bitch that had killed everything in :40 or less in her prime, off of a 2-hour sire (and ѕ Bolio) in Rolo, off of Little Tater’s sister Speedy, another stone killer. This bitch was as well-bred as anything alive, she just had the misfortune in being owned by total idiots in The Mason and Mr. Nice Guy, who again matched her at 7 years of age, mainlined her with a system-altering drug, and then were so insecure that they ”couldn’t keep her” in front of their peers when she quit, totally lost in space, before the crowd. I was a young dogman then, but I was man enough not to give a damn what anyone thought, and I was smart enough to recognize the human stupidity in the equation when I saw it. I begged these two fools to let me keep Aurora, imploring with them that she was too valuable to cull, and that it was their own idiocy that resulted in the quit.

But did they listen? No. They culled this exquisite blood from the face of the earth, wanting to be ”hard core” in front of their peers and to be viewed as ”real dogmen.” Did anything positive come from the death of Aurora? Nope, not a GD thing. Does anyone think that it might have been wiser to have given Aurora (Rolo/Speedy) to me, where I would have promptly bred her to Bolio Jr. (BBB/Speedy), to preserve the key blood of Speedy (just as I bred Charlie Boy to Coca Cola to preserve the key blood of her son, Bolio Jr.)? Is there anyone reading this thread who is FUKKING STUPID ENOUGH to believe that the death of Aurora was ”more positive” for the breed, and for the bloodline, than would my taking her instead ... and then breeding her to Bolio Jr., Poncho, Stormbringer, etc.?

Wow, I still get hot over thinking about this ... even 12 years later ... at all of the possibilities that were dashed into oblivion because Aurora happened to be born into the hands of "hard-culling" idiots, instead of into the hands of a Genetic Artist.

Anyway, I have learned long ago that I can’t control what anyone else does, and neither can you control the decisions of others, but what you *can* do is CONTROL YOURSELF and your own decisions. Therefore, when you decide what to do with the quality blood you invest in, make sure that you are not an idiot who is wiping quality blood off the face of this earth by ”hard culling,” but instead make sure that you are an intelligent individual who perpetually-manages the gene pool in the right direction. You can do this by getting to know your bloodline well, and by forever-making positive breeding decisions with it.

Remember, there is not one great dog who has ever lived that has come into existence through ”hard culling.” Culling dogs only gets rid of dogs, it doesn’t create them. The fact of the matter is *every* great dog and great producer who has ever lived came into existence because of a BREEDING DECISION.

By California Jack

 

Nice one, nice one. Thanks.

 

nice post, but do a search, its been posted before i know cause i posted it along with a shit load of other stuff with it lol...

 

take a look, some of it may interest you:cool:
starting @ post #29

http://www.game-dog.com/forums/showthread.php?t=22549&page=2

 

I always try to search before I post anything but didn't come across your post. I do have the other parts you posted though.

 

I like how cali jack quentions and insults the intelligence of people that would disagree with his breeding practices...

 

i think he is mostly correct imo Floyd B stated much of the same in a article on culling and breeding.

 

nice read thanks for posting

 

While I agree with alot of what Jack says in this article. I will also disagree with alot also. I have about 15 years experience with this breed and not at a novice level. When you first start out as a green horn, you will fuck shit up so bad, you will look retarded. Then after about 7 or 8 years you start to know alittle about what your doing. After the 12 year mark you know a hell of alot more. I am still learning. Some super important lessons i have learned about breeding is this 1.) Be freakin' patient!!!! 2.) Breeding best to best is so over rated 3.) Don't breed untested dogs and use all those stupid this dog and that dog weren't tested and produced this excuse 4.) if both male and female can't hunt for :45 minutes against top competition get them fixed and don't breed them. There is alot more lessons but i feel those are some super important ones.

 

2.) Breeding best to best is so over rated


This is just a question, no disrespect intended, but why do you say this WD?

 

There is quite a few reasons. You have to factor in alot more then something merely being the best. For example, If you have a female that is super hard mouth, average ability, and is only pit game. What do you breed her to? It depends on what you want to add to the offspring but there is more to it then that. You have to examine her pedigree and really look at how she is bred. Is she line bred? 50/50 out cross? scatterbred? how many times is so and so in her pedigree? Because that will tell you who they were trying to get her to act like. What is the pedigree on the male that you might breed her to? You have to ask all these same pedigree questions about him. Does she have a history of throwing certain traits in her offspring and does the male have a history of throwing certain traits in his offspring? The questions can go on and on. This is why breeding is so much harder then just picking a good male and a good female and sticking them together. This is why fast lane kennels will always have fast lane dogs because they know how to breed. Average Joe will always have average Joe dogs because he has no clue what he is looking at, let alone, how to breed. Breeding is the most complicated aspect of the dog game. It is really even much more complicated them I am putting it. I am just trying to give you a glimpse of what I am talking about. I hope this helps you out and you sort of get what I am saying.

 

Thanks Wardog, it is a little more clear now.

 

It's like when CA-Jacks says it's not just black and white. Breeding best to best is making something black and white. There so much more to it then that.

 

See Jack thought he was going to change the way the game was and should be.His dog quit and he breed him.So to me this artical is to fool newbees that the old way this game was founded on is wrong and his way is the right way.He has alot of wrong info
""* Any dog down from BullySon or Eli Jr., since the former quit, the latter turned from a down dog, and the daddy to both of them quit.

* Any dog down from Crenshaw’s Honeybunch, since she quit, her daddy quit, and her mama’s daddy quit.

* Any dog down from Finley’s Bo, since he quit.

Ok if you known or talked to some stand up old timers bullyson eli jr arent breed the way there papers say..also after bullyson quit he was never bred again.Second Honey Bunch never quit she was never started on her first roll.he also goes into how people ruin dogs because they dont know what there doing that statement is what someone dont know what there talking about.Ok Ive seen this alot that CH Bo quit.Has anyone ever read the match report?Now I know this will piss some people off but mountman ref'ed that match and those that know how jealous of the jeep line.years later after turning in the match report he started with the cur stuff but he allso said rascal wasnt a cur..hmmm guess if you had a yard full of rascal stuff would change your out look on him.
But anyway jack stuff is an ok read but should be taking with a grain of salt.He has his opinion on things which is fine.But it is not the allmighty truth.Ive read jacks stuff and I know a few people that jack got his info from.I now a personal friend that talked with jack about feeding raw.less then a year later jack was the flag holder for raw after years of telling people his kibble was the best you can buy.Well my buddy was surpirsed when he read jacks raw artical he told me it was about the same that he had told jack.lets not get into the keeps cause most know about that.mosty is books are common knowlegde anyone with a few years should know.But really hes about the money and taking others work changing a few words to make it your own aint right.and writing half truths about things he knows nothing about is wrong also just to make a point on what he did was right.In my opinon breeding curs will throw dogs but that cur gene is still there.best to best doesnt work all the time either.but I would rather take my chances with out the cur.Yes all dogs will cur they say.But the ones that quit cause of nothing on top lil punishsment wont cut it here.I dont care if he was the next coming the game was around long before me and who am I to change it.

 

"By "breeding the best to the best," employing a certain degree of inbreeding, considerable culling, and selection for "superior" qualities, one could develop a bloodline superior in certain respects to the original base stock."

 

when you try to breed best to best you can end up with a pile of shit just cause 2 dogs are champs dont mean there kiddos will click or be anything like the parents

 

and dont forget the fact that he goes outta his way to put down the people that started the line he ran cause they culled..he should praise them not hate on them.but t hen he would haveto admit there did better then him

 

Curs and cold dogs have and can be used in breeding programs. There would be no chinaman without "the old cur in the woods" wood's trouble. This may also explain the controversy surrounding chinamans most famous offspring. The cur gene is in all of these dogs, don't believe me go get some old journals and I bet there are dogs from your favorite line quitting. Dog breeding is as much an art as it is a science. If there were stonecold rules it would have been perfected long ago. Sometimes a hunch is better than all the ped studying in the world. I think it was carver who was asked why he stuck two suspect dogs togther and he replied I thought it would produce good dogs. Not dismissing anyone opinion just giving my take.