THE IMPORTANCE OF A BOND BETWEEN MAN & DOG (Yes / No)

[Officially Retired]

There is a thread about this topic on PedsOnline, to which I have devoted too much of my attention already, so I felt I would make this a poll on here.

How many of you believe that a bond is one of the many intangibles to success ... that a dogman can stack in his dog's favor ... or who, through negligence, can stack against his dog?

How many of you believe a dog is what it is ... and that a bond has nothing to do with success?

If you have strong feelings/beliefs one way or the other, why?

Jack

[R2L]

I have always thought it was very important. But in time i got to know successful kennels who keep their yards miles from home, just come to feed once a day and for the rest they do nothing with them. Just bring them to school 1/2/3 times. The only real bond that can be developed is within the keep then. Well i find it easy to bond with a dog fast, but does one form a true bond with a dog within 8/9 weeks?

[Officially Retired]

IMO, a bond is an intangible that can be vital in some dogs, not so vital in others, but that will never hurt a dog.

Just like calling a weight right, depending on how talented your dog is (and how talented his opponent is), pegging the exact weight right may prove to be vital ... not so vital ... or make no difference whatsoever. But it will never hurt your dog to get his weight exactly right ... and yet not doing so can ruin him. This is why both of these are "intangibles" to my way of thinking, because their effect can vary, but making sure these elements are in place is always good for a dog a never bad.

If a pit dog is a fighting dog, and as such it has a collection of traits, then (aside from speed, timing, reflexes, coordination, natural wind, stamina, mouth, etc.) there is the key trait of DESIRE in a combat dog that fuels the rest of everything. Certainly, we all want that desire to come from the dog's genetics, no question about it, but we cannot ignore the fact that part of what makes a dog "a dog" is LOYALTY ... and that loyalty is where trying to maximize the bond comes into play. A dog may be "naturally" loyal, sure, but that loyalty can be increased (or decreased), based on the amount of time/love an owner spends with his dog ... just the same as any other natural trait can be increased/decreased through dedicated effort (or lack thereof).

This subject is huge, and open to a wide variety of interpretation and thought, but I for one think that the effort to form a bond is the "cherry on top" that distinguishes great from good dogmen. A dogman maybe "technically proficient," but (while he may have a lot of solid dogs) if he's not bonding with his dogs, I believe a truly great dog will forever be elusive to him ...

Jack

[tasoschatz]

I do feel, that no matter what, a bond between a coach and his athlete, will produce better training conditions, so I am all for it.

[OGDOGG]

I gotta agree with Jack on this one. There's only so much you could do for a dog. It's in their genes to scratch or not.

[gabbagabbahey]

i ran a pup on for a yr 5/2yr ago & he was the housedog for that yr. Brought up with the family,gr-daughters etc & was as he should be. I passed him on for his next chapter in life & the new owner died earlier in the yr. His daughter took him on for several month & couldnt cope with exercising him,with having a wee baby.
I brought him here on the promise that he would stay until i found a perfect home,as rumour had it that he was available & i didnt want him getting in the wrong hands. He has never left my side. I turn,he turns. I go upstairs to the jimmy. He follows & lies outside. My shadow is all i can explain.
I truly got the feeling & still do,that everytime i go out of sight,he feels i won't come back. Just like his last owner. I have slept downstairs on a 2 seater sofa (i am over 6ft hehe) in the spare room with him every night. I am still having a wee
problem of him being at ease to go in the
backyard without me to relieve himself,but he is
improving,albeit slowly. Other than all this,the
dog is all what i would expect.
Bond.............for sure this dog had a bond with his
previous owner & that man must have had
likewise. I just get the impression this dog has
really took it hard & i have to give him a wee bit
credit for his loyalty. Time & patience too.
Sorry for going on but i thought he deserved a
mention on the thread.
Back to the thread,i think it is imperative.
I can understand a wee problem with bonding
when you have a large yard & i would not know
where to start !!
Regardless of whose dog it was. If i was putting
him through a keep then for sure i would want to
forge a bond.
Personally i do forge a bond with my dogs & i
wouldnt have it anything else. If i didn't have a
bond then i would not see a reason in having that
dog. Not one for letting him on my lap or fussing
over them. Long as you look after that pup/adult
& treat,care & feed them then a high majority of
them will worship what few hairs you have on
your head.

[Dogman]

A bond is a emotion. Although dogs can sense emotion only humans can comprehend and control it to the fullest. In animals emotion reverts back into a animals INSTINCTS because its all genetically bred into them.

I do not consider love intangible. Love does not affect the dog in his performance , its just that the dog seems to love you that's it as a dogs concept of love is very limited.

Things like calling the right weight and feed etc. is what I call intangibles as they are scientific facts that have been proven to actually affect/enhance a dogs physical performance to some degree.

Plus what does everyone consider a BOND? To me a bond is when you take in and care for and raise that dog and treat it properly , that's a bond right there. Even if you spend only 5 min. a day with each dog when feeding or picking up dog shit and giving him a good pat on his head that's enough bond right there IMO. Unless some of you feel you need to cuddle with a dog for hours at a time to accomplish that bond? LOL

[bolero]

it depends on how close of a bond u have. will a bond make a dog scratch sometimes i beleive in certain dogs yes. what i beleive a bond can definitely do is make the dog fight harder and help in times of need i beleive a bond can can help in a situation of your dog being on the bottom and him seeing u there and you are talking him through it and get him to his feet a bond will also help relax certain dogs in those situations so they do not panic. believe me my dog no know and trust me and they definitely form trust in their owners and that trust can and does help them through situations

[Officially Retired]

I gotta agree with Jack on this one. There's only so much you could do for a dog. It's in their genes to scratch or not.

Not sure we totally agree ... because it's also in their genes to form a bond, and the effort to maximize this effect is part of the raising/grooming process IMO :idea:

[Officially Retired]

A bond is a emotion. Although dogs can sense emotion only humans can comprehend and control it to the fullest. In animals emotion reverts back into a animals INSTINCTS because its all genetically bred into them.

We humans have our emotions/instincts bred into us as well ... and psychiatric institutions all over the world prove that very few humans can really control their emotions well at all either ...




I do not consider love intangible. Love does not affect the dog in his performance , its just that the dog seems to love you that's it as a dogs concept of love is very limited.

We fundamentally disagree. There is nothing on earth more "intangible" than love and the formation of a bond. And if you don't think "how you feel" that day can affect your performance, then your beliefs are in polar opposition to most coaches/athletic experts on earth.




Things like calling the right weight and feed etc. is what I call intangibles as they are scientific facts that have been proven to actually affect/enhance a dogs physical performance to some degree.


Your understanding of the word "intangible" needs revision. Scientific facts are not intangibles. Intangible means "there, but hard to quantify," while a scientific fact is absolutely certain and unambiguous.




Plus what does everyone consider a BOND? To me a bond is when you take in and care for and raise that dog and treat it properly , that's a bond right there. Even if you spend only 5 min. a day with each dog when feeding or picking up dog shit and giving him a good pat on his head that's enough bond right there IMO. Unless some of you feel you need to cuddle with a dog for hours at a time to accomplish that bond? LOL

The bond a man gets from tossing food at his dog is the bare minimal, at best. It is the lazy man's bond.

The bond a man gets from hand-raising his dogs from puppyhood, from schooling and socializing them, from basic training so the dog learns to "pay attention" when the man points to something, to (in many cases) sleeping with that man ... is going to be FAR greater than the bond a man receives from an idiot/unsocialized dog who just gets food thrown at it and put on a mill.

Jack

[Dogman]

I dont know how to quote so I will answer your questions accordingly.


The humans who cant comprehend and control there emotions are in a mental institute or in Jail. Not sure what that reply had to do with what I said, either you aint reading my post good or you just aint getting what I am trying to say.


Expert Coaches and athletes, they are talking about HUMANS and NOT dogs/animals. Unless you are comparing a dogs intelligence to that of humans? If so that is so absurd and sounds like one of them AR comprehension right there.


Yeah maybe I worded it wrong but I am sure the majority of the people that read it understood what I was trying to say. Let me clarify it more for those who did NOT understand it, calling the right weight and feeding good feed is scientific facts that actually help and enhance the dogs physical performance but its still a intangible because it does not mean the dog will win or succeed in his particular task.Get it now?

Lazy mans bond? If you work 8-12hrs a day 5-6 days a week and you have 20-30 dogs , how much time can you spend bonding with each dog?

In many cases sleeping with that man are you serious?

[skipper]

For me it comes easy. I just love dogs, and spending time with dogs. Not bonding isn't a possibility if you're standing on my yard. If it has something to do with success, I have to say yes. Some dogs are just insane and super confident in every situation. you could have Ronald Mcdonald handle him. But some dogs gain massively from a great bond with their owner. Jmho I think it's positive for all dogs. Even if it´s just very little for some.

[Officially Retired]

For me it comes easy. I just love dogs, and spending time with dogs. Not bonding isn't a possibility if you're standing on my yard. If it has something to do with success, I have to say yes. Some dogs are just insane and super confident in every situation. you could have Ronald Mcdonald handle him. But some dogs gain massively from a great bond with their owner. Jmho I think it's positive for all dogs. Even if it´s just very little for some.


I like reading your opinions and views on just about everything, Skipper, and this here is no exception.

Jack

[Officially Retired]

it depends on how close of a bond u have. will a bond make a dog scratch sometimes i beleive in certain dogs yes. what i beleive a bond can definitely do is make the dog fight harder and help in times of need i beleive a bond can can help in a situation of your dog being on the bottom and him seeing u there and you are talking him through it and get him to his feet a bond will also help relax certain dogs in those situations so they do not panic. believe me my dog no know and trust me and they definitely form trust in their owners and that trust can and does help them through situations


Very good points here.

Again, I reiterate that having a bond with a dog will never hurt it ... it will almost invariably help it "somewhat" ... and, in a few cases, it will prove vital.

Really, IMO forming a bond with a dog is part of a dogman's job ... and those dogmen who refuse (or can't be bothered with) forming a bond with their dogs either 1) don't really like dogs that much or 2) are afraid to get their own feelings hurt, if the dog doesn't make the grade genetically.

However, in a real bulldog, having that extra "cherry on top" of having the dog also be socialized and totally in-tune with the owner, is the cutting edge between "dog user" and dog man ... a dog man loves his dogs, he enjoys spending that extra time with them, and he demonstrates this love of his dogs by trying to get close to them, so that they're a team in there. By contrast, a dog user is essentially a person who conditions dogs to be in top shape, and he bets on the outcome of his deals, but (either through disregard or fear of disappointment) he will neither put in the extra time to develop a bond nor will he allow himself to get close to the dog as an individual. So he will simply use his dogs for their intended purpose, but never try to take it beyond that.

Jack

PS: I also notice that, as of this writing, it's a landslide where 21 people either think a bond is vital (or has some bearing) on success, whereas only 3 do not. That is a 7-1 ratio so far.

[skipper]

I like reading your opinions and views on just about everything, Skipper, and this here is no exception.

Jack

Thank you Sir!

[bolero]

jack i feel that some people dont form a dond because they are not man enought to admit they will actually see th dog as more than livestock and are afraid of having an emotional attachment with there dogs because they might end up actually giving a shit.

[Officially Retired]

So far it's a landslide ... 24-3 (8-1 or 89%) believe that a forming a bond with your dog has at least some effect on success ...

Jack

PS: I agree with you Bolero. The rest are simply incapable of giving a shit.

[FrostyPaws]

I guess I'll finally get in this conversation for a piece or two.

First I'd like to say that bonds are not VITAL to success. As I've said many times, I do think they can play a part in a small number of dogs, but overall, it's not vital to success.

I would like to say that I know, over the years, there have been some dogs I've bonded with, but there have been countless others I have not. I can't sit here and honestly say that I've ever felt like it made a difference or not. So this nonsense about not being man enough along with whatever other hogwash was said in that particular vein is just that, nonsense. I've cried over dogs that have never won when they died. I've cried over dogs that did win and passed on. Hell, I've cried at pretty much everything at one point or another, because I'm the exact opposite of what bolero says. I'm about the most emotional person I know in regards to most everything.

I will only talk about what I've seen personally. I've known a lot of men in my time in dogs that never developed any kind of bond with their dogs aside from whatever is formed by feeding/taking care of them. One of the owners of Hunter Red never did anything for his dogs but feed, work, and put them back out. His litters of pups were born on the chain spot. The dogs were a means to an end. He won a lot more than he lost. He bred some dogs that went on to form their own line of dogs, and he is but one example of many I can think of that didn't go out of their way to form any bond, and it was never vital to his success.

Most of the dogs I've used over the years are such nutters that bonds simply aren't something you form with them. You could spend all day, every day, with Smiley and she wouldn't care who you were when it came time to do her thing. I know because I did, and she won without me being there with someone she barely knew. Maybe it's the type of dog I have; I don't know. I have never seen a bond make a dog scratch when it normally wouldn't have. I've seen men use their house dogs, hell, I saw one man use his SON'S dog, with his son there, and it made zero difference.

I certainly don't fault someone who attempts to do everything within their power to have an edge, I just have never seen that type of "edge" factor into play. Or maybe it did factor in and no one knew. Either way, it made no difference in the outcome of the contest.

One time, many years ago, I owned a dog that wouldn't do anything in a box without me being there. She wouldn't start; she wouldn't run; she wouldn't do anything. She was a one owner dog, and I was the one owner. In the end, she still quit in under 40 minutes.

So yes, bonds are an intangible thing that are hard to quantify so there's no way to accurately say, in fact, that it helps at all. I disagree with the pole in that it's vital to success, as I stated earlier, when it's simply not vital at all.

[bolero]

frosty i said some it was not a blanket statement. and i also do not think u need to sleep or cuddle with a dog to dond with it i actually beleive giving the dog everything it needs to to thrive as in good food good housing clean water and good exercise is all that is needed to bond with a dog simply taking a walk with the dog is bonding no need for talking or anything dogs can sense when someone genuinely has there best interest at heart. but another fact is that many dogmen including the ones that most love and including a man i highly respect to a point tend to look at these dogs as livestock and nothing more they are simply there to fight and i know of some ppl that have shot a dog because it stepped in crap and then jumped on them to me that is ridiculous and cruel and i have said as much to that man. so whle some care about these dogs for what they are some only care what they can do and when they can no longer do that they dont care about them

[FrostyPaws]

My bad for showing my lack of reading skills today, Bolero.

[bolero]

My bad for showing my lack of reading skills today, Bolero.

lol no worries i know u r a straight up dude

[FarmersChoice]

well i guess ill post on this i have seen frosty argue this before on chatroom convos but my feeling to this is kinda tossed up but never the less the answer to this poll is a matter of opinion i will say two the best dogs i can think of were treated like royalty dbl gr ch tornado and gr ch queen of hearts as well as a male i can remember ch ostevens homer all three treated like kings and queens and are 3 of the best ever now i will also say there are many more greats out there that probably had minimal or way less attention and did just as good my feeling on anything you yourself feels helps you then it can only hurt or help you either way there is no way to prove this will or will not help to have a great bond i will say i like having a bond with mine and every dog is valued here and i do my best to make sure my dogs have excersize good feed but i also enjoy working them do i over love my dogs i dont think so but i do spend alot time with my mutts and i personally feel this has helped but no way to prove it right or wrong many ppl have diffrent opinions on what makes there dogs better or helps but this is one opinion i dont think can be proved one way or the other in the []

[Officially Retired]

frosty i said some it was not a blanket statement. and i also do not think u need to sleep or cuddle with a dog to dond with it i actually beleive giving the dog everything it needs to to thrive as in good food good housing clean water and good exercise is all that is needed to bond with a dog simply taking a walk with the dog is bonding no need for talking or anything dogs can sense when someone genuinely has there best interest at heart. but another fact is that many dogmen including the ones that most love and including a man i highly respect to a point tend to look at these dogs as livestock and nothing more they are simply there to fight and i know of some ppl that have shot a dog because it stepped in crap and then jumped on them to me that is ridiculous and cruel and i have said as much to that man. so whle some care about these dogs for what they are some only care what they can do and when they can no longer do that they dont care about them

Exactly.

And because dogs can sense whether someone genuinely has their interests at heart, they will simply be better served in their job by being cared for genuinely by their owners than they will being treated like shit.

Nothing wrong with treating dogs as livestock, insofar as providing optimal care goes, as this only brings the best results. Still, truly good dogs have intelligence and bonding instincts way beyond mere livestock, and as such they will thrive and do better overall when given more than just basic care.

Plus, as you mentioned, other benefits (such as sending a dog in) are also better able to be employed as well when the necessary time/training is put it.

Jack

[Officially Retired]

I guess I'll finally get in this conversation for a piece or two.
First I'd like to say that bonds are not VITAL to success. As I've said many times, I do think they can play a part in a small number of dogs, but overall, it's not vital to success.


My own vote is that a bond may (or may not) have an impact on success. I can think of certain dogs that didn't give a damn whose hands they were in, they were going out there to kick ass regardless. I can think of other dogs who, even in the hands of the most loving of owners, were going to quit (if the going got rough) regardless. However, between these two extremes, I can also think of several dogs who, in one man's hands, would NOT perform at the same level as they would when in their true owner's hands ... and these particular dogs were absolutely outstanding animals too, not average. Thus I think the formation of a bond is helpful to the best and most intelligent of GAME dogs ... while a bond is not really necessary for GAME dogs that aren't too bright.




I would like to say that I know, over the years, there have been some dogs I've bonded with, but there have been countless others I have not. I can't sit here and honestly say that I've ever felt like it made a difference or not. So this nonsense about not being man enough along with whatever other hogwash was said in that particular vein is just that, nonsense. I've cried over dogs that have never won when they died. I've cried over dogs that did win and passed on. Hell, I've cried at pretty much everything at one point or another, because I'm the exact opposite of what bolero says. I'm about the most emotional person I know in regards to most everything.

I am not sure if you 'having' emotions has to do with your will to extend those emotions/effort towards a bond. I actually think the emotions of making the effort to bond, only to be disappointed later, is one of the primary reasons many owners stop trying to get attached to their dogs--it hurts when you get attached to the wrong dog ...




I will only talk about what I've seen personally. I've known a lot of men in my time in dogs that never developed any kind of bond with their dogs aside from whatever is formed by feeding/taking care of them. One of the owners of Hunter Red never did anything for his dogs but feed, work, and put them back out. His litters of pups were born on the chain spot. The dogs were a means to an end. He won a lot more than he lost. He bred some dogs that went on to form their own line of dogs, and he is but one example of many I can think of that didn't go out of their way to form any bond, and it was never vital to his success.

I think I know the person of whom you are speaking. And I agree that people can "win matches" without forming a bond with their dogs ... but it seems like an awful lot of the greatest dogs have someone do more than just throw food at them and work them. I think people who just throw food at their dogs, and fight them, seldom (if ever) have a truly great dog. I think in order to maximize a dog's potential, it's natural intelligence and affection for people need to be developed also.




Most of the dogs I've used over the years are such nutters that bonds simply aren't something you form with them. You could spend all day, every day, with Smiley and she wouldn't care who you were when it came time to do her thing. I know because I did, and she won without me being there with someone she barely knew. Maybe it's the type of dog I have; I don't know. I have never seen a bond make a dog scratch when it normally wouldn't have. I've seen men use their house dogs, hell, I saw one man use his SON'S dog, with his son there, and it made zero difference.

We both know an old man who does not form a bond with his dogs. And, in point of fact, his dogs (likewise) were "nutters" ... those were the only kinds of dog who could make it on his loveless yard. But the flipside is, most of that man's dogs were nothing special ... just extremely game retards with no intelligence (for the most part). Every single great dog that man had was bred by someone else and BOUGHT by him at pitside ... he never had a truly great dog that he bred, raised, and groomed himself. Why? Because forming a bond and socializing a dog is part of what it (usually) takes for a dog to be truly great IMO.




I certainly don't fault someone who attempts to do everything within their power to have an edge, I just have never seen that type of "edge" factor into play. Or maybe it did factor in and no one knew. Either way, it made no difference in the outcome of the contest.

There is no doubt IMO that forming a bond and socializing with the right dog will give a person an edge ... whereas forming a bond with and socializing the wrong dog can break your heart.

As a side note, it is a contradiction to say, "Or maybe it did factor in and no one knew. Either way, it made no difference in the outcome of the contest." Logically-speaking, if a bond factored in, then it made a difference :idea:




One time, many years ago, I owned a dog that wouldn't do anything in a box without me being there. She wouldn't start; she wouldn't run; she wouldn't do anything. She was a one owner dog, and I was the one owner. In the end, she still quit in under 40 minutes.

Well, the way I see it is that your bond with that dog made 40 minutes' worth of difference ... so just imagine what a bond with a truly great dog could do :idea:



So yes, bonds are an intangible thing that are hard to quantify so there's no way to accurately say, in fact, that it helps at all. I disagree with the pole in that it's vital to success, as I stated earlier, when it's simply not vital at all.

Well, you're entitled to be a member of The 1% Club ... and I agree that a bond is an intangible factor.

I myself am a member of The 24% Club in this case ... as I agree that a bond is not 'always' vital ... but I do think it sure as hell can be ... if bestowed upon the right dog ... and if he ever gets deep in the trenches with his equal, who does not have such a bond, or visa versa.

That said, because the effort to form a bond will never hurt any dog, and can only help it, that it can only be considered "best practice" to attempt to form a bond with any combat dog. Again, the trouble is, IMO, that because the effort to form such a bond may well in fact hurt the owner ... if his dog doesn't do well ...that many people stop taking the time and making the effort to do so ... because they are the ones who don't want to be hurt in the end (either that, or because they don't really have the capacity to form a bond themselves).

Jack

[FrostyPaws]

My own vote is that a bond may (or may not) have an impact on success. I can think of certain dogs that didn't give a damn whose hands they were in, they were going out there to kick ass regardless. I can think of other dogs who, even in the hands of the most loving of owners, were going to quit (if the going got rough) regardless. However, between these two extremes, I can also think of several dogs who, in one man's hands, would NOT perform at the same level as they would when in their true owner's hands ... and these particular dogs were absolutely outstanding animals too, not average. Thus I think the formation of a bond is helpful to the best and most intelligent of GAME dogs ... while a bond is not really necessary for GAME dogs that aren't too bright.

Dogs that can win in anyone's hands are not an extreme, rather, that is a very common thing for a greater majority of dogs.






I am not sure if you 'having' emotions has to do with your will to extend those emotions/effort towards a bond. I actually think the emotions of making the effort to bond, only to be disappointed later, is one of the primary reasons many owners stop trying to get attached to their dogs--it hurts when you get attached to the wrong dog ...

I'm not disappointed in a dog that I deem to be worth a match, whether win or lose. Would I be disappointed in a loss? Hell yeah, but I'm not disappointed in the dog. I chose that dog, and that dog gave everything he had at that particular time. Unfortunately, whether the dog quit or shows honest or whatever the case may be, I'm convinced the dog gave it's all.






I think I know the person of whom you are speaking. And I agree that people can "win matches" without forming a bond with their dogs ... but it seems like an awful lot of the greatest dogs have someone do more than just throw food at them and work them. I think people who just throw food at their dogs, and fight them, seldom (if ever) have a truly great dog. I think in order to maximize a dog's potential, it's natural intelligence and affection for people need to be developed also.

It's possible you know of who I speak, but I only used the one individual as an example. I've known more men that way than the other way, and one group doesn't win more than the other. The man that wins the most is the man that takes the correct dog to the box. Without us knowing about all the "greatest" dogs and what bond they did or didn't have, we can't make that determination.






We both know an old man who does not form a bond with his dogs. And, in point of fact, his dogs (likewise) were "nutters" ... those were the only kinds of dog who could make it on his loveless yard. But the flipside is, most of that man's dogs were nothing special ... just extremely game retards with no intelligence (for the most part). Every single great dog that man had was bred by someone else and BOUGHT by him at pitside ... he never had a truly great dog that he bred, raised, and groomed himself. Why? Because forming a bond and socializing a dog is part of what it (usually) takes for a dog to be truly great IMO.

My definition of nutters aren't dogs without any intelligence. They are simply nutty dogs attitude wise. I don't know why he never had a truly great dog. Maybe he lacked the ability to create those types of dogs through breeding practices along with whatever other reasons there are.






There is no doubt IMO that forming a bond and socializing with the right dog will give a person an edge ... whereas forming a bond with and socializing the wrong dog can break your heart.

Bonding with the right dog can break your heart just as much as bonding with the wrong one. I think it may give an edge in a very small amount of dogs.




As a side note, it is a contradiction to say, "Or maybe it did factor in and no one knew. Either way, it made no difference in the outcome of the contest." Logically-speaking, if a bond factored in, then it made a difference :idea:

If the process of matching dogs is winning, and the bonded dog didn't win, then it didn't make any difference in the outcome of the contest.




Well, the way I see it is that your bond with that dog made 40 minutes' worth of difference ... so just imagine what a bond with a truly great dog could do :idea:

I can think of bonds I had with dogs when I seriously believed in all of that, and the dogs were simply better than their opponents. I don't NOT love the dogs I feed. I simply don't believe that is going to make any significant difference in the outcome of things, and I've never seen anything to make think differently.




Well, you're entitled to be a member of The 1% Club ... and I agree that a bond is an intangible factor.

I myself am a member of The 24% Club in this case ... as I agree that a bond is not 'always' vital ... but I do think it sure as hell can be ... if bestowed upon the right dog ... and if he ever gets deep in the trenches with his equal, who does not have such a bond, or visa versa.

That could very well be true, but again, it's simply something I've never seen play out that way between two equal dogs with things hanging in the balance.




That said, because the effort to form a bond will never hurt any dog, and can only help it, that it can only be considered "best practice" to attempt to form a bond with any combat dog. Again, the trouble is, IMO, that because the effort to form such a bond may well in fact hurt the owner ... if his dog doesn't do well ...that many people stop taking the time and making the effort to do so ... because they are the ones who don't want to be hurt in the end (either that, or because they don't really have the capacity to form a bond themselves).

I think the best practice is to take legitimate combat dogs to do perform in combat. I think you're right in your assessment of some people and their feelings for the most part. I also think there are plenty of people who don't allow their feelings to be hurt, for whatever reason, and are more successful than those who do. I agree that a bond doesn't hurt one thing, but in the end, the ability to choose the best dog for the show is what makes the winner a lot more times than not.

[Officially Retired]

Dogs that can win in anyone's hands are not an extreme, rather, that is a very common thing for a greater majority of dogs.

I believe the exact opposite.

Actually, the most common dogs of all are dogs that can't win in anyone's hands ...

The second most common thing are dogs that can win so long as they're in the best of hands ... or dogs that can win with one camp ... but when they get sold, get put in a different keep etc., then suddenly they lose ...

In fact, one of the greatest (and therefore hardest and most UNcommon of) things any dog can overcome is winning a Championship with 3 different men, fed 3 different ways, and put through 3 different keeps ... that is always considered rare, and a testimony to the dog, rather than any special dogman. Fact.



I'm not disappointed in a dog that I deem to be worth a match, whether win or lose. Would I be disappointed in a loss? Hell yeah, but I'm not disappointed in the dog. I chose that dog, and that dog gave everything he had at that particular time. Unfortunately, whether the dog quit or shows honest or whatever the case may be, I'm convinced the dog gave it's all.

Well, it is therefore arguable that "any" dog gives its all at that particular time, any time it is shown. The question thus becomes could the dog have given more under different circumstances? I firmly believe that certain dogs *will* give more for certain owners. In fact, you yourself admitted this when your own dog went :40 for you but wouldn't fight a minute for anyone else.




It's possible you know of who I speak, but I only used the one individual as an example. I've known more men that way than the other way, and one group doesn't win more than the other. The man that wins the most is the man that takes the correct dog to the box. Without us knowing about all the "greatest" dogs and what bond they did or didn't have, we can't make that determination.

I agree with this.




My definition of nutters aren't dogs without any intelligence. They are simply nutty dogs attitude wise. I don't know why he never had a truly great dog. Maybe he lacked the ability to create those types of dogs through breeding practices along with whatever other reasons there are.

I personally saw dogs on his yard that could have been good, had they been worked with, but were so shy and spooky when taken off the chain they never had a chance to acclimate. Had they been worked with as pups, and built more confidence in general, they could have been really good dogs. I would say most completely nutty dogs tend more towards the stupid side than the smart side. That is my experience anyway, and I have always bred for intelligence in dogs. Other lines might be different, but that sure is true of my own. Intensity is one thing, but all-out raving lunatics are usually stupid dogs IMO (though many can be extremely game).




Bonding with the right dog can break your heart just as much as bonding with the wrong one. I think it may give an edge in a very small amount of dogs.

True on the first part, but I think bonding does give an edge to any dog ... it's just that some dogs suck so bad it still won't make a difference ... but they still were better dogs than they would have been without the bond.




If the process of matching dogs is winning, and the bonded dog didn't win, then it didn't make any difference in the outcome of the contest.

The process of matching dogs is trying to win ... and "Best Practice" is doing everything within one's power to get that win ... but the reality is losing is exactly as equal a part of matching dogs as is winning.

So, sure, if the bond didn't help get the win, then it didn't help with winning. This is a tautology. Hell, the same can be said for getting the weight right: if getting the weight right didn't help with winning, then it didn't make any difference as to the outcome of the contest. Again, this is a tautology. (A is A)

Yet are you prepared to say getting the weight right isn't ALWAYS a good thing to do (i.e., Best Practice), regardless of winning or losing? Just because a dog didn't win doesn't mean it isn't ALWAYS best practice to get the weight right, so you have no point here. The point you are missing is, just like with getting the weight right, in some cases the bond will help the dog to get the win ... and it is ALWAYS best practice to form a bond same as it is ALWAYS best practice to get the weight right.



I can think of bonds I had with dogs when I seriously believed in all of that, and the dogs were simply better than their opponents. I don't NOT love the dogs I feed. I simply don't believe that is going to make any significant difference in the outcome of things, and I've never seen anything to make think differently.

We will just have to disagree here then.




That could very well be true, but again, it's simply something I've never seen play out that way between two equal dogs with things hanging in the balance.

I have seen it make a huge difference ... and most of the dogmen I have talked to, who had really great dogs, did form a bond with those animals.




I think the best practice is to take legitimate combat dogs to do perform in combat. I think you're right in your assessment of some people and their feelings for the most part. I also think there are plenty of people who don't allow their feelings to be hurt, for whatever reason, and are more successful than those who do. I agree that a bond doesn't hurt one thing, but in the end, the ability to choose the best dog for the show is what makes the winner a lot more times than not.

I absolutely agree that having a good eye for a good dog is the most important thing of all ... and I agree that a bond will not make a great dog out of a bum. However, like getting the weight right, forming a bond with the dog gives the animal its best chance ... within whatever genetic limitations it has ... and within whatever capabilities its opponent has. And, therefore, taking the time to bond with a match dog will always be "Best Practice" ... every bit as much as calling the weight right, etc.

Jack

[R2L]

How do you feel about if dogs feel their owners. Feel their trust in them before you release, ect
Some say a dog is like his owner. Would a man with a big fighting heart have better/more game dogs.

[Officially Retired]

How do you feel about if dogs feel their owners. Feel their trust in them before you release, ect
Some say a dog is like his owner. Would a man with a big fighting heart have better/more game dogs.

I think "being in tune" is part of the bond ...

Regarding a "fighting heart," I think this comes in a lot of flavors :)

Some people are very quarrelsome and aggressive, but they're not actually very game, and I think some people are pretty peaceful in general ... but if you cross them bad enough they'll fight fiercely if they have to. And dogs are the same way. So, yes, I think people tend to choose dogs that have traits they admire.

LOL, in fact, I have said this for years, "Stupid-aggressive people like stupid-aggressive dogs ... and intelligent/cagey people like intelligent/cagey dogs.":lol:

Regarding fighting experience, it is actually in my book that I think an owner actually fighting himself, and actually knowing what it's like, will only help him understand his dogs better.

Cheers,

Jack

[R2L]

tried to start bonding with a dog who's never been pet before. now he is becoming an anoying attention whore.

his kennel is 30 cm from my house and the basterd hears my every move.

[bolero]

the truth is frosty and jack are both right. we can all sit here and name kennels that have done both and been successfull. but i will say this i beleive those large kennels that simply feed clean and condition are successfull despite the no bonding due to the fact that they have an abundance of individuals to choose from whe u got 30 plus dogs and u are a good conditioner handler and breeder u are going to get some good ones no matter what but i am a firm beleiver in small yards having better quality and percentages 6 dogs max and friends with similar blood that also keep thaat much and u exchange dogs and breedings can be the best chpoice

[bolero]

the truth is frosty and jack are both right. we can all sit here and name kennels that have done both and been successfull. but i will say this i beleive those large kennels that simply feed clean and condition are successfull despite the no bonding due to the fact that they have an abundance of individuals to choose from whe u got 30 plus dogs and u are a good conditioner handler and breeder u are going to get some good ones no matter what but i am a firm beleiver in small yards having better quality and percentages 6 dogs max and friends with similar blood that also keep thaat much and u exchange dogs and breedings can be the best chpoice

[bolero]

the thing is this a dog that was never bonded with does not lknow anything else but once that dog gets that bond see who he choses to go with the man who did not bond or did not bond. example frosty sdaid thaat dogs caan change hands and do fine. well that could possibly be that the man who owned the dog did nothing witth them. then this dog switched hands and goes to a man who puts him through a keep and that is a very bog bond u spend months with this dog say in day out sometimes the dog stays in the house that is the onlybond that dog has and that dog prob feels very close to the conditioner now take that dog and put him in three different hands owner to conditioner to different handle that could fuck a dog up

[FrostyPaws]

Bolero, I'm going to sidetrack for a second in regards to quality. The size of one man's yard doesn't determine the quality of that yard. The MAN determines the quality regardless of yard size. While an individual with 30+ dogs does have a numbers advantage over a man of 6, that doesn't mean the man with 30+ dogs is going to keep sub part quality dogs simply because he has a larger yard. It doesn't mean the man with 6 dogs is going to have better dogs because the yard is smaller.

Quality is determined by the owner.

In regards to everything else, it's something that we will have to agree to disagree on.

[pig mad]

I cant see how you can have great success without a bond i have a mates dog here now that we are meant to use next year it had never even been for a walk i try to get it to play with a bit of hide and it runs away how am i meant to work with that i tried to bath it a week ago and it started doing backflips on the chain i locked it away out of fear it was gonna bite me this thing is a night mare to look after fair enough if another gets out same time its on and it gos well but bites you when you break em off its a cunt of a dog and i put it down to he done nothing but left it on chain for few years now im meant to help it win but being fully green myself i see nothing but a bad day coming in the near futur for both of us unless it starts to trust me..

[FrostyPaws]

Pig Mad, that has more to do with your mate being a shitty owner than any type of bond. There is a huge different between being a shitty owner of dogs and not bonding with every dog you own. I'm not big on bonding with dogs, as I've stated, but I don't have dogs like that. My young dogs will all work whatever apparatus I put them on. They're not shy of people, though some are wary of strangers. I treat my dogs with the care they deserve.

[bolero]

a man with thirty plus dogs simply does not have enough time in the day to exercise and spend time with each dog. not saying hee keeps dogs of a lesser quality what i meant was the yards u said u seen where the owners just throw food at the dog and have had great dogs i was saying they have great dogs due to share numbers and them being good dogmen. which is why bonding may not have an effect on these dogs

[FarmersChoice]

well i see people think that the bond means alot but no way like i said before to really determine a definitive answer it comes down to a matter of ones experiences like i said previously comes down to a matter of ones opinion at the end of the day feed what dogs you like spend what ever time you like with your dogs just because you see a method work for one individual doesnt mean that will work or wont work on the next do what works for you and sometimes better to keep that to yourself because in these dogs when u go seeking for opinions your gonna find alot them you may not agree with some might even offend you so if you think a bond is something detrimental top winning or having better dogs then more power to you .

[pig mad]

I know what your saying i do think he kept this dog wrong its like a wild dingo in temprement i sit out there for half hour each morning trying to gsin its trust or as i see it trying to bond with the dog i need it to want to hang out with me if that means im not a dogman cause i cant work a dog with out being mates with a dog or does that make me a dogman cause none of my dogs are like that who knows but i do know having a dog like this in my yard is a nuicanse...

[OGDOGG]

I cant see how you can have great success without a bond i have a mates dog here now that we are meant to use next year it had never even been for a walk i try to get it to play with a bit of hide and it runs away how am i meant to work with that i tried to bath it a week ago and it started doing backflips on the chain i locked it away out of fear it was gonna bite me this thing is a night mare to look after fair enough if another gets out same time its on and it gos well but bites you when you break em off its a cunt of a dog and i put it down to he done nothing but left it on chain for few years now im meant to help it win but being fully green myself i see nothing but a bad day coming in the near futur for both of us unless it starts to trust me..
Sounds like you got your hands full. I have a Champion dog on my yard that started out similar to that dog you're talking about. My old partner used to own her and he sent her to me at the start of her career, to work on her. She was the hardest dog to work with. She needed to trust that person to work with him. Well once she got cranked up she knew what she was born to do. Outside the box she got along with any dog but once you face her off she knew what time it was. That bitch is a stone cold killer and it didn't matter who had her she knew what her job was.
But like I said when she was young she needed that bond to get cranked up.
I have dogs that needs to bond to perform for me and dogs who could care less if there's a bond or not(all they care about is getting fed):lol: it doesn't hurt to create a bond though. But I think as long as I keep them in top health and treat them right, that's a good enough bond. I shouldn't have to sleep with them for them to perform better. They will quit when they face an ace or they will die trying. Either way it's all part of the game and there's no right or wrong answer. That's why I chose the middle

[pig mad]

Yeah she knows her job thats for sure hopefully she turns out good as yours did..

[turkd3000]

I dont know how to quote so I will answer your questions accordingly.


The humans who cant comprehend and control there emotions are in a mental institute or in Jail. Not sure what that reply had to do with what I said, either you aint reading my post good or you just aint getting what I am trying to say.


Expert Coaches and athletes, they are talking about HUMANS and NOT dogs/animals. Unless you are comparing a dogs intelligence to that of humans? If so that is so absurd and sounds like one of them AR comprehension right there.


Yeah maybe I worded it wrong but I am sure the majority of the people that read it understood what I was trying to say. Let me clarify it more for those who did NOT understand it, calling the right weight and feeding good feed is scientific facts that actually help and enhance the dogs physical performance but its still a intangible because it does not mean the dog will win or succeed in his particular task.Get it now?

Lazy mans bond? If you work 8-12hrs a day 5-6 days a week and you have 20-30 dogs , how much time can you spend bonding with each dog?

In many cases sleeping with that man are you serious?

i agree with you dogman, no dog will ever get in bed with me, just to form a bond ?...smh.i'm sure there are better ways to form a bond with a hound without gettn' in bed with it...lol

[QCKLime]

Anyone who's never cuddled with their bulldogs don't know what they're missing. Do you HAVE to cuddle with a dog to form a bond? Of course not. But it sure doesn't hurt, not to mention, they're soft and furry and keep your feet warm -- what's not to love?

[Officially Retired]

I dont know how to quote so I will answer your questions accordingly.

I guess I missed this post here, but there are many things that you apparently don't know how to do ... like heed a previous warning for your mouth ... and like figure out a dog's chain weight ... or get the point.

So let's have at it then.




The humans who cant comprehend and control there emotions are in a mental institute or in Jail.

And there are millions of people in jail, and millions of people in mental institutions, and there are BILLIONS who are "free" but who still do not have complete control of their emotions. No one does.




Not sure what that reply had to do with what I said, either you aint reading my post good or you just aint getting what I am trying to say.

Since you want to be so insolent, let me clarify that you ain't talkin' English too good pal ... and generally, if you don't understand the language well enough to use its words correctly, then you're probably not going to be able to understand the finer points those words are designed to convey either.

It is not "I" who don't understand what you're trying to say, it is you who do not understand what I am trying to say.




Expert Coaches and athletes, they are talking about HUMANS and NOT dogs/animals. Unless you are comparing a dogs intelligence to that of humans? If so that is so absurd and sounds like one of them AR comprehension right there.

I realize we are talking about dogs, genius. What you can't seem to fathom is the fact dogs do have emotions and they do have intelligence. What you fail to comprehend is that, just because dogs do not have these traits at the level of a human, doesn't mean dogs do not possess any emotions or intelligence at all. They have plenty of both and are among the highest-rated non-human animals.

Finally, this is the second time you tried to call me an AR person, and you're consistently trying to be a wiseass, getting into name-calling, etc., and you're taking this topic to a lower level, which I will not put up with.





Yeah maybe I worded it wrong but I am sure the majority of the people that read it understood what I was trying to say. Let me clarify it more for those who did NOT understand it, calling the right weight and feeding good feed is scientific facts that actually help and enhance the dogs physical performance but its still a intangible because it does not mean the dog will win or succeed in his particular task.Get it now?

You didn't "clarify" anything, actually, you just repeated the same ignorance as before.

First of all, there is no "science" involved in getting the weight right (if you disagree, then by all means please show me the published research from accredited universities demonstrating the "science" of getting a dog's pit weight right). I am sincere on this: please show me one single body of "science" that has ever been conducted on getting the weight right that universally applies to all dogs or humans--or admit there is no such science.

Now that we cleared the air of your ignorant usage of the word "science," in point of fact there is actually A MOUNTAIN of science demonstrating the emotions/reactions/intelligence that dogs have. In fact, many of the great foundational HUMAN psychologists, from Pavlov to Skinner, conducted much of their theoretical exercises on DOGS because of their similarity in emotions/reactions to us humans. In fact, have you ever asked yourself why DOGS (not goats, not sheep, not cats, nor any other kind of animal) are used BY POLICE to find drugs, to apprehend criminals, etc.? Because dogs are smart, they can learn, and they ARE LOYAL ... and these traits can be capitalized on by an intelligent fancier ... while they are ignored by the more typical dolt-like fancier.

ALL of these traits are considered "intangibles" for this reason ... they "are there" but they cannot be quantified exactly.





Lazy mans bond? If you work 8-12hrs a day 5-6 days a week and you have 20-30 dogs , how much time can you spend bonding with each dog?


Have you ever considered the possibility that you don't have enough time to adequately care for that many dogs, other than feed and clean-up?





In many cases sleeping with that man are you serious?

Yes I am.

And, in point of fact, James Crenshaw and other top dogmen (mind you, that's top dogmen, not wise-ass nobodies ;) ) also slept with their charges ... and there are many top fanciers who will agree that this is one of the best ways to bond with any dog. Absolutely.

Jack

[skipper]

When in keep my dog (if it's one) lives inside the house and sleeps in my bed the whole keep.

[Officially Retired]

When in keep my dog (if it's one) lives inside the house and sleeps in my bed the whole keep.

How did I guess this would be the case? :)

[skipper]

LOL, this is also the absolute best way to have constant oversight over your dog. Dogs tend to get insane when there are rest days and they start working on their own, digging or running all day. This won't happen if you have him by your side.

[Black Hand]

Some animals do not need anything but food and water lol.
There have been some dogs that have been down right neglected not just emotionally but I mean really neglected. Parasites, not being fed, etc.Animals that still proved to be great even though they were neglected and their owners idea of bringing one in properly was starving them down! I think its all individual based and dogs on both end of the spectrum can be equally successful. So in return of you not going that extra mile could mean you having to cull what couldve been everything you ever wanted in an animal.

[skipper]

If you ever had a shy dog you would know the importance of a bond. As i said earlier some dogs are just so confident you only have to feed and properly condtition him. But the bond you can form with a shy dog is amazing. You can take a dog that never would be able to step in the woods with and turn it into a dog that will do everything you ask for. Some people don't bother with shy dogs, but some of the best dogs i've had the pleasure of owning were shy dogs that needed that extra time and effort to turn em around. Let me tell you it was well worth it.

[Black Hand]

I dont like to deal with shy dogs simply because of the mind state.
I like a dog to think he is gods gift to this world.

[skipper]

And I agree with you on your second statement. However, I like to give all dogs the opportunity to fully bloom out.

[Officially Retired]

Some animals do not need anything but food and water lol.
There have been some dogs that have been down right neglected not just emotionally but I mean really neglected. Parasites, not being fed, etc.Animals that still proved to be great even though they were neglected and their owners idea of bringing one in properly was starving them down!

There is a major difference between what a dog needs to achieve its best performance and what it "can get away with" and still win ...

Every dog craves attention from its owner, and every dog needs basic care in order to perform at its best ... but some dogs are so good genetically that they can still "get away with" not having these needs met and yet still defeat average dogs.




I think its all individual based and dogs on both end of the spectrum can be equally successful.

I disagree that someone who totally neglects his dogs will be "equally successful" as a man of the same technical savvy and eye, who gives his dogs everything they need.

No way that works out on a large scale.




So in return of you not going that extra mile could mean you having to cull what couldve been everything you ever wanted in an animal.

Agreed.




I dont like to deal with shy dogs simply because of the mind state.

Very few dogs, worked properly as pups all the way into adulthood, are truly shy. (I realize a small few are shy, regardless).

Overall, most shy dogs are dogs that have simply been neglected by negligent owners, who don't bother to socialize their young dogs.





I like a dog to think he is gods gift to this world.

Agreed. I think a true bulldog is not a shy animal at all, but a fearless and confident animal. But even a fearless and confident animal still does better when fully-socialized and when having a good bond with his owner.

Mohammed Ali was a great athlete and a great fighter. Maybe he could whip 99% of all men alive, even if he didn't train, wasn't at his best weight, wasn't fed the best food, and didn't have Angelo Dundee in his corner. But when he faced the very best in the world, then he damned sure benefited from having all his duckies in a row in these critical "intangible" categories :idea:

By the same token, Sugar Ray Leonard could have whipped most of his opponents with any trainer, but when he was losing to Hearns in the 13th round of their first fight, again the key element of a World Class trainer with whom he had a great relationship fired Leonard up enough to take it to Hearns in the 14th and have the fight stopped.

So yeah, when you're talking about superior bulldogs genetically, sure they can whip average dogs without too much else besides food and water ... same as the greatest boxers ever can (and have) whipped average palookas ... but when any fighter (man or dog) faces another truly elite fighter, then "the intangibles" are going to kick in more-and-more ... who is at their very best weight, who has trained the hardest, who has been eating the most optimal diet, who is hydrated optimally for the long haul, who truly has a good bond with their trainer and can be revitalized and pumped-up in the corner, etc., etc.

If anyone remembers the difference in commitment, energy, and drive in Mike Tyson (when he had Cus D'Amato and Jimmy Jacobs in his corner, men he deeply admired and with whom he totally bonded) ... and the POS Tyson became when those men died and were replaced by brainless puppets ... the difference in Tyson's realized potential was literally night and day :idea:

Jack

[skipper]

In my experience shyness has nothing to do with quality. Sure they need more work. Have seen plenty of "I own the world" kind of bulldogs getting beaten by what people consider a time wasting shy dog. I totally understand why people don't like shy dogs. It's not a trait I consider a good thing either. But some dogs are just born with low self esteem. I have had it, and mine were absolutely not neglected. Some blood are more known for it's shyness. It's just a bit more work with socialisation.

[Officially Retired]

In my experience shyness has nothing to do with quality. Sure they need more work. Have seen plenty of "I own the world" kind of bulldogs getting beaten by what people consider a time wasting shy dog. I totally understand why people don't like shy dogs. It's not a trait I consider a good thing either. But some dogs are just born with low self esteem. I have had it, and mine were absolutely not neglected. Some blood are more known for it's shyness. It's just a bit more work with socialisation.

I agree, it does tend to be a bloodline thing, but I have seen plenty of shy dogs (with people) who lost their shyness as soon as they saw another dog ...

However, dogs that can get spooked while in the box are eggshells that can be broken ...

Jack

[skipper]

Thats true. Some dogs are just too shy. As with everything else there are degrees of shyness. My point is that in the right hands a shy dog that otherwise maybe would be culled gets to show the qualities it possess. Which should be every dogmens goal, to bring the best out of every damn dog you get.

[Officially Retired]

Thats true. Some dogs are just too shy. As with everything else there are degrees of shyness. My point is that in the right hands a shy dog that otherwise maybe would be culled gets to show the qualities it possess. Which should be every dogmens goal, to bring the best out of every damn dog you get.

There is a paradox of truth here: 1) on the one hand, the best dogmen are those who are able to bring out the best in every dog ... and intuitively "know" how to handle each one as a unique animal ... while the common idiot will ruin many dogs and can only do will with a "fool-proof" dog. And yet the flipside to this is the fact 2) the best DOGS are those who don't necessarily need kid gloves to do well, their very metal hardiness makes them able to overcome a variety of ownership inequities, and NOT be wholly dependent on being in "top hands" to do well.

As a breeder, I strive to make my dogs "foolproof" ... dogs that are confident no matter what, dogs that can go along time with or without a good keep, etc. I have had a couple of truly badass dogs that were later sold, but did not acclimate to their new owners well, and things didn't turn out so well ... and I personally feel more confident sending a dog that really could give a shit about his environment, he just (as Black Hand says) thinks he owns the world that he's standing on, regardless of whose hands he's in.

Jack

[skipper]

Very true. Most dogmen blame the dogs for their lack of accomplishments. It never occurs to them that it might be their fault their dogs never turn out. The dogs get sent back to their breeder with the words they are garbage dogs. The breeder are still able to win into top comp with the very same dogs. This is why it is so important that you know what you are working with.

[Officially Retired]

Very true. Most dogmen blame the dogs for their lack of accomplishments. It never occurs to them that it might be their fault their dogs never turn out. The dogs get sent back to their breeder with the words they are garbage dogs. The breeder are still able to win into top comp with the very same dogs. This is why it is so important that you know what you are working with.

Good post.

[BlackHeartWarrior]

I Vote for a bond with ones athlete opposed to having a chain brain