Bulldog Breeds Forums banner
1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
807 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Sometimes it seems that every second person that is buying a dog then becomes
a breeder. So obviously the more customers I have for training the more “breeders” I am exposed to.

With all this exposure I am amazed at some of the things these “breeders” come up with. Show breeders for years have felt they could predict a ten week old puppies future with a few tests and their “knowing eye”. While the poor Walker and Bluetick hound breeders had to wait a year or maybe two to find out if their dogs would hunt.

Todays “breeders” of PP, sport and for some reason giant breeds seem to have a lot of breeders who own two or three dogs and produce a few litters a year. They claim to be into performance, not show, but they all have the ability to do what the show breeders do, not the established working breeders.

They can predict the future with a wide variety of “tests”. I was told yesterday of a breeder that kills pups if they raise their hackles while growing up. Seems that is a genetic sign of an unstable temperament! Another kills pups that get car sick, seems motion sickness is a sure sign of ??? some kind of genetic fault.

Now, I am not a breeder, though I have had a few females dogs bred. But my breeding experience is like the hobbyist dog trainer that has a club that gets together on weekends. So I am limited in answering breeding questions with any authority. But as many new dog owners seem to be coming to the K9PRO SPORTS board everyday, and as our first goal is education, this seems to be a worthy topic for discussion. So if it were me, and I wanted to be a breeder, I would go to a person that has a proven track record with breeding and get my education. For those of you that can't I'll write what I found out.

Dave Thompson was in the Quarter horse business, is a highly respected American Bulldog breeder, and for our purposes was also a winning Greyhound breeder. That's right Greyhounds! Why Greyhounds you ask?

Because even more than **** hounds they are a breed raised for performance. And they are raised in a very successful way. This is a breed whose form must follow function and that function is proven on the track, not with human hype and BS. They are also a breed with a lot of money to be made (another bad word to IE breeders I am told)

Because there is so much money to be made breeders are held to a very accountable system that keeps the field level for all, and that improves the chance of success for the better and sometimes luckier breeders. So following is a very brief description of the breeding system of the most successful performance breed around today.

I asked Dave at what age he would test and cull (kill) puppies his answer was “Why on earth would you do that?” He said you can't test something until it is developed and culling a pup could cost you your future champion, but only the future has that answer.

So how do you get your pups to that future? And how do you test when you get there?

Dave said that all pups are raised in either a three hundred or five hundred foot pen. The size of the pen is required by the Association and must be recorded for future buyers to know.


This size pen gives the pups room for activity while growing and activity seems to be to greyhounds what socialization is to PP dogs.
Exercise and activity is encouraged until the pups reach a minimum of one year and sometimes one and a half years of age. They are then sent to a trainer for 90-180 days. Without the training the dogs potential can never be realized.

It is only at this point that a “test” is given the young dog, and that test is pretty straightforward. Can they run? But to pronounce the dog unworthy before they have the chance to develop physically and then have those abilities brought to their full potential, with training, could be an expensive mistake.

Now this seems to make sense and in fact agrees with what most scientists have to say in the old debate between “Nature vs Nurture” what influences an intelligent mammal more, genetics or their education?

With the mapping of the various genomes of mammals most scientists seem to agree we are affected on about a 60/40% basis. That is 60% is learned, acquired, or trained and 40% is genetic. And that genetic part includes the physical side of the animal, size, coat, muscle, etc., so a major part of what a successful animal becomes is based on the training it receives.

This seems to back up the Greyhound system that waits for a training program to be completed before any dogs are judged. And since we are dealing with one of the few large breeds that seems to be structurally sound, this system seems to be worth copying.

So if you are getting a performance pup from a breeder that can tell you what it will turn out to be? Well you might just look for a true performance breeder because that breeder is applying “showdog” tests to your working dog.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
807 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
Just wanted to get peoples opnions on this post. I know how I feel about it but Im going wait and see what other have to say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
807 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Lisa said:
Who wrote that article?

I give you one guess!
















Butch wrote it, Im thinking we are going to stop working with him and move over to PSA, for many reasons if you care to know you can pm me.
 

·
Agent Squint
Joined
·
3,627 Posts
It was a little hard to follow, but I understood and got the jist of what he was trying to say:

"You can't judge young pups, unless they have OBVIOUS genetic problems, so unless this is the case, don't cull. Give them the chance to develop to their full potential through top-notch training. Then decide if they're able to be worked or should just be found a nice family-pet home."

Someone correct me if I'm wrong...

~S
 

·
Agent Squint
Joined
·
4,225 Posts
Not read what it said, but just wanted to randomly add that I have always stayed away from breeders as their dogs are far more untempermental, unlike the crossbreeds and mutts you can get from the byb, they tend to live longer and do best at any training.



Was that just too random? :oops:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
807 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
Amocat00 said:
It was a little hard to follow, but I understood and got the jist of what he was trying to say:

"You can't judge young pups, unless they have OBVIOUS genetic problems, so unless this is the case, don't cull. Give them the chance to develop to their full potential through top-notch training. Then decide if they're able to be worked or should just be found a nice family-pet home."

Someone correct me if I'm wrong...

~S

That is what he is saying for the most part.
 

·
Agent Squint
Joined
·
3,627 Posts
RED said:
Amocat00 said:
It was a little hard to follow, but I understood and got the jist of what he was trying to say:

"You can't judge young pups, unless they have OBVIOUS genetic problems, so unless this is the case, don't cull. Give them the chance to develop to their full potential through top-notch training. Then decide if they're able to be worked or should just be found a nice family-pet home."

Someone correct me if I'm wrong...

~S

That is what he is saying for the most part.
So, do you disagree with that theory?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
807 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Amocat00 said:
RED said:
Amocat00 said:
It was a little hard to follow, but I understood and got the jist of what he was trying to say:

"You can't judge young pups, unless they have OBVIOUS genetic problems, so unless this is the case, don't cull. Give them the chance to develop to their full potential through top-notch training. Then decide if they're able to be worked or should just be found a nice family-pet home."

Someone correct me if I'm wrong...

~S

That is what he is saying for the most part.
So, do you disagree with that theory?
I think there is some truth to what he said, I mean you never really know a dog until its old enough to work and mature. But if you had dogs with obvious genetic problems that would make for a bad companion then culling should be an option.
 

·
Agent Squint
Joined
·
3,627 Posts
RED said:
Amocat00 said:
RED said:
Amocat00 said:
It was a little hard to follow, but I understood and got the jist of what he was trying to say:

"You can't judge young pups, unless they have OBVIOUS genetic problems, so unless this is the case, don't cull. Give them the chance to develop to their full potential through top-notch training. Then decide if they're able to be worked or should just be found a nice family-pet home."

Someone correct me if I'm wrong...

~S

That is what he is saying for the most part.
So, do you disagree with that theory?
I think there is some truth to what he said, I mean you never really know a dog until its old enough to work and mature. But if you had dogs with obvious genetic problems that would make for a bad companion then culling should be an option.
I agree 100%. But, that's what I think he was trying to say, as you can see in my quote above. Unless an obvious genetic defect is present, give the pup a chance to mature, learn, and prove itself worthy. THEN place in home as pet or continue to work. I just thought it took a little bit of deep thought to understand the whole thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
807 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
Amocat00 said:
RED said:
Amocat00 said:
RED said:
Amocat00 said:
It was a little hard to follow, but I understood and got the jist of what he was trying to say:

"You can't judge young pups, unless they have OBVIOUS genetic problems, so unless this is the case, don't cull. Give them the chance to develop to their full potential through top-notch training. Then decide if they're able to be worked or should just be found a nice family-pet home."

Someone correct me if I'm wrong...

~S

That is what he is saying for the most part.
So, do you disagree with that theory?
I think there is some truth to what he said, I mean you never really know a dog until its old enough to work and mature. But if you had dogs with obvious genetic problems that would make for a bad companion then culling should be an option.
I agree 100%. But, that's what I think he was trying to say, as you can see in my quote above. Unless an obvious genetic defect is present, give the pup a chance to mature, learn, and prove itself worthy. THEN place in home as pet or continue to work. I just thought it took a little bit of deep thought to understand the whole thing.
He also told me if he walked out on the field and shot off his gun and it scared the piss out of chassis she may never come back around enough to work again. He suggested start off small with snap caps, you know the ones you throw on the ground as a kid, and slowly introduce loud gun shots.
 

·
Agent Squint
Joined
·
3,627 Posts
RED said:
Amocat00 said:
RED said:
Amocat00 said:
RED said:
Amocat00 said:
It was a little hard to follow, but I understood and got the jist of what he was trying to say:

"You can't judge young pups, unless they have OBVIOUS genetic problems, so unless this is the case, don't cull. Give them the chance to develop to their full potential through top-notch training. Then decide if they're able to be worked or should just be found a nice family-pet home."

Someone correct me if I'm wrong...

~S

That is what he is saying for the most part.
So, do you disagree with that theory?
I think there is some truth to what he said, I mean you never really know a dog until its old enough to work and mature. But if you had dogs with obvious genetic problems that would make for a bad companion then culling should be an option.
I agree 100%. But, that's what I think he was trying to say, as you can see in my quote above. Unless an obvious genetic defect is present, give the pup a chance to mature, learn, and prove itself worthy. THEN place in home as pet or continue to work. I just thought it took a little bit of deep thought to understand the whole thing.
He also told me if he walked out on the field and shot off his gun and it scared the piss out of chassis she may never come back around enough to work again. He suggested start off small with snap caps, you know the ones you throw on the ground as a kid, and slowly introduce loud gun shots.
I totally agree. Someone...I'm not sure who ( :wink: ) said they would shoot a .22 in their house when the pups were still fairly young and cull any that showed bad nerves toward the gun shot. I tend to disagree with that one...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,849 Posts
I ALWAYS shot off a .22 starter pistol around my youngins (8 weeks) i DONT start small then go higher, thats condtioning. I have never had any problems yet that made a pup go crazy, they usually Stand up and look around very confidently.
Temperment and Nerve is genetic and its there. Good breeding does not require condtioning in my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
203 Posts
So what is a hunter supposed to do ? My husbands co-worker has bird dogs, his last puppy was out hunting with him at 10 weeks old. They start of with a .22 very early on and at 10 weeks old the puppies are around a 12 gauge. No problem. And any dog that can't take that is obviously not going to be a hunting dog and I'm pretty sure he would cull them in one way or another. How long would it take to get a noise sensitive dog to get used to a loud gun like that, I'm pretty sure that just about impossible. The less noise sensitivity the better the nerves of the dog. You can condition a dog, but why would you want to breed one that has a problem with the noise if there are plenty that don't ?
My two youngest did the TT not to long ago, and they had never heard a .22 before, no problem.
They fail dogs that have an obvious problem with loud noises, wonder why ??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,671 Posts
I agree with Tia and Mrs. Cooper. If you have to condition a dog by starting with a cap gun your dog has a problem! Of course not all noise sensitivity warrants euthanization (depends on the severity) but by no means should a dog who has to be conditioned to gunshot be used in a breeding program!! Sure, some dogs can just be "leary" of gunshot and get over the problem through enough conditioning, some even well enough to title in pp or sport, but why perpetuate the problem by breeding that back into the gene pool? There are enough dogs out there with weak nerve why add to it?

This is one reason why I have a problem with so many people breeding. People don't understand what good nerve is. Strong dogs don't need conditioning and it should be the strong dogs that are used in breeding programs not the weaker ones that need help. Especially when you are dealing with WORKING BREEDS!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
807 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
After researching this topic, I can understand what most are saying. I cant wait to try out chassis on the field with a gun shot. I would like to see how she reacts, when its time to start working it seems she goes to a whole new level of consentration. She obeys her commands real crisp, I think it might rattle her for a second but when she realized that the decoy was still in front of her she would be back on her game ready to bite. I will know soon enough, since we are moving on to a more serious club,to train PSA and see what she is really made of. If she fails and cant recover from alot of pressure, thats ok I will still love her to death and continue to work with her in the ring, if anything she has a blast doing it and its a great work out. Torco is starting to love the sack work now that he has all his adult teeth, I cant wait for him to get older. :D


Anybody that would like to respond to that thread I have the link right here, they welcome any and all opnions.
http://amazingforums.com/forum2/K9PROSPORT/610.html
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top