Genetic traits

agree with science being the reason in theory, no doubt there. But Mr. Hollingsworth or Mr. Boyles were not scientist nor were they researchers in a sense. Just like you mentioned with your Deloach dogs. I doubt you discovered the black ones had low percentages by using a microscope or a DNA analysis. I agree the dog is what it is from conception but there are no genetic markers for the attributes the original poster was posting about.
I do not doubt science. I have a science background and work in a lab every day. Science is an absolute based on known factors, factors that can be proven. Science plays a part in determining sex and color I have no doubt there. The genetic code can be traced to determine it is a canine first, and can go further to identify a family/line right down to the individual. But, science can't be used to determine what a dog will throw when bred to the next dog for one reason, and one reason only, and that is the final decisions are subjective. My game may not be your game and my mouth may not be your mouth. Science itself can't be moved or mutated to fit an opinion. US1

 

Since the days of what I call the Mayfield cultists, passels of people have believed in what they call "breeding backward". This, to me, is absurd. Some call it "chasing dead dogs". I basically agree.
It is impossible to breed backward. Why? With every new generation of dogs, genetic configurations change It's unavoidable. No matter how you breed these dogs, you are breeding what is resultant, and that is a FORWARD experience and outcome.
Any references to wolves, for example is as moot and non applicable as it gets. All of the wild dog instincts are what these dogs have actually been bred AWAY from, in lieu of a man made intensity called WILL. Prey drive, alphas, survival instincts et al, have all faded for the sake of dedication to the will we seek in these dogs Selective breeding has created what these dogs now are, and the continuance of same is what should and will keep them forever distinct in their genetic make up and flow.
Each new generation of these dogs should be based on LIKELIHOODS and PROBABILITIES, based on the knowledge of where it apparently came from, and that is the individuals themselves, along with those directly around and behind them. A solid nucleus of dogs.
Can you breed to replicate an ancient dog? A Dibo? A Black Widow? No. What one CAN do is key on any certain dog within a mere few generations to gain not it's replication, but it's INFLUENCE in the gene pool.
This is feasible yet in itself, merely playing your likelihoods. Breeding "backward" amounts only to chasing your tail.
Science itself is not THE TRUTH. Science is IN SEARCH OF the truth. Any thoughts of breeding backward is to me, both impossible, and counterproductive, given these dogs were purposely bred by trait AWAY from it's ancient ancestors, on purpose, to be what they are now, NOT what they were that we bred away from.
My breeding philosophy has always been "Solid x solid equal solid, at least in better likelihood.
Calculate your likelihoods IN THE PRESENT, to include recent dogs around and directly behind the dogs you have. The truth truly is in the pudding. So is the future. A true understanding of why things result as they do, based on the above criteria, will serve you better realism, understanding the reasons behind your likelihoods, and a better perspective for the future.

 

i think we are pretty much saying the same thing...just in a different light...I believe your dogs are good dogs because you have made good decisions over time based on what you have seen...but i do not think there is a microscope involved...it is data collection, observation, hypothesis, experiments and proof/dis-proof. that is science in a nut shell. I too believe the dog is what he is going to be at conception but i do not believe one could take 6 week old puppy A and 6 week old puppy B do any type of sampling and predict with any certainty that either of those dogs will work out, nor if they were bred together the future litters would be successful. even if science advances that far i doubt it would be used in our community anyway.
and i agree it does not take a Phd to see what is working and what is not over time. successful breeders swing more toward artists than scientists...mostly because science works best in black and white and art uses shades of gray....US1

 

Well said, and I agree. Yes, we are saying the same yet with varied breakdown of it. Same logic Good posts, slim.

 

Good analogy, btw, slim. I like the "shades of gray" analogy. Also, TY Sadie.

 

I just believe, and my opinion happens to be, breeding dogs is far more of an art than anything itself. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Do I understand that science is the underlying factor? Absolutely. Can science be used when there are so many unknown variables in breeding dogs? Not to any certainty. The human eye has to become the microscope like suggested earlier. But the human eye can have cataracts, near sightedness, poor peripherial vision and even poor depth perception. What I see is not always what the next guy sees. I like the B. Brockton's posts. His posts suggests he has time in the dogs. I like that. Do I think I could go buy two of his dogs, breed them and be at his level with his dogs immediately. I have pretty good odds the first time because of his hard work and efforts created those two dogs. But from that point forward I doubt there would be a parallel of successes. The reason being is he has more history with the dogs, and I may make some of the same mistakes he made 15 years ago. He has some trial and error experimentation over time, maybe that can be seen as science. I may see something in those black dogs he did not. Maybe those black dogs were missing what my dogs could provide. The variables explode exponentially when two different people are using the same set of dogs. Basically because we all do not see the same things as beautiful. To some people beauty is a chin scraping scratch, to others extreme talent and ability mean the most and others are happy with a freak mouth who may be a 40 minute cur and some don't care about anything but the W. And the only thing in common with all these thought processes is the APBT. And those four letters carry variables that may go deeper than infinity. US1

 

I agree. When dogs change yards they can be looked at in a completely different light. I can not definitively say where the science stops and the art starts or vice-versa. I guess it ain't rocket science but it is not Michaelangelo, Raphael, or Da Vinci either..LOL Somewhere between the two. And if it were all locked down with certainty everyone would use redboy dogs or eli dogs or whatever dogs. They would all be one color and we would all do the keep the same way. And all the matches would go down to four hour draws with two dead game dogs. But when we factor in man and his individuality (dumb, stupid, ignorant, hard headed, blind to facts, lazy, greedy, etc..etc..) it makes the game what is today, good and bad. US1

 

I agree that line breeding is not chasing dead dogs. But line breeding paper vs. traits is chasing dead dogs. If I bred, owned and raised the first four or five generations of the dogs in a certain dogs pedigree. I can tell you about each one and why each was bred to that particular dog. With that knowledge I can do any number of breeding patterns based on knowledge. I can do a father-daughter. I can do a half-brother/half-sister breeding. I can do a uncle-niece breeding. All those based on what I have seen and what I know. If I were to go buy a female and decide she is to be bred and I pick a dog in her pedigree because it is a line breeding then I am chasing something I know nothing about.
This is where the idea of breeding dogs being a gamble or a shot in the dark derives from. If a person does not have personal knowledge and experience with the dogs in the pedigree then yes, regardless of what the pedigree says, it is a shot in the dark. The reason the big names made are known as breeders and producers is that they bred and used their own dogs for multiple generations, but had the eye to recognize a piece of the puzzle that was owned by another. They mixed that piece in and in time they knew what they had and a pretty good idea of what they would get when dog A was bred to dog B.
I think a lot of times people get hung up on a certain word and forget about how that word applies to a certain dog or a certain principle. Line breeding is effective with base knowledge, as well as inbreeding or out-crossing. Champion carries a lot of weight except when it is a fake title or they were cherry picked. It takes a ton of time and effort, close to a decade to get the name of those mentioned above. That is another reason the number of 20 year dog men is low and dwindling, and the number of 2 year guys explodes every year. US1