Breeding Dogs With Structural Defects

[scratchin dog]

I would like everyone's thoughts on breeding to an animal that has the traits you are looking for yet also has one or more structural defects. Do you make the breeding knowing that these faults may be passed to the next generation? Or do you play it safe and breed to the solid, structurally sound animal that is throwing some nice prospects but is lacking in some of the key traits of the structurally defective animal.

[skipper]

I had the same dilemma you are in a while back. I ended up finding a dog with the same traits that were built perfect. I have a small yard and didnt feel comfortable having a big part of my yard comming from a dog with structural defects.

[tasoschatz]

Some long time breeders say that with hard culling you can breed out the defects. Are you up to it?

[R2L]

Depends what kind of defects we speaking of.

[Officially Retired]

Depends what kind of defects we speaking of.

Yes, describe in detail what the defects are.

[scratchin dog]

I have seen a lot of defects in certain lines. But some of the defects I am talking about are loose knees, slipped hocks (luxating hocks), knees turned out to the side, loose ankles. Most of these are not really debilitating but can in some instances affect performance. Should dogs like this be bred? Can we get and keep the good traits these dogs have while eventually getting rid of the bad or is there always the chance it could pop up again in future generations?

[scratchin dog]

I had the same dilemma you are in a while back. I ended up finding a dog with the same traits that were built perfect. I have a small yard and didnt feel comfortable having a big part of my yard comming from a dog with structural defects.


I think this is a big part of it. What a person feels comfortable with or what they feel is the right thing to do will have a large bearing on whether or not they make a breeding to a defective dog.

[scratchin dog]

Some long time breeders say that with hard culling you can breed out the defects. Are you up to it?

I don't have a problem with culling, but I don't think culling always means killing. They are simply not bred back into the line. But that's a whole other subject.

[skipper]

I think this is a big part of it. What a person feels comfortable with or what they feel is the right thing to do will have a large bearing on whether or not they make a breeding to a defective dog.


If it was a last of a bloodline for me and if i had a bigger yard i might consider it. But as it is right now i can't hve that itch on the back of my head.

[FrostyPaws]

A lot of times, just be the way most dogs are curs, that kind of thing takes care of itself. I think it also depends on whether or not you have an isolated case OR if there are other dogs behind yours that also had those particular defects. I've had a few dogs over the years with structural defects, but they were isolated cases so they were bred even with those defects as they were the type dogs I wanted. I didn't have those same defects pop up in the breeding or later on down the road, so I think you should examine all of it before making the decision.

[Officially Retired]

I have seen a lot of defects in certain lines. But some of the defects I am talking about are loose knees, slipped hocks (luxating hocks), knees turned out to the side, loose ankles. Most of these are not really debilitating but can in some instances affect performance. Should dogs like this be bred? Can we get and keep the good traits these dogs have while eventually getting rid of the bad or is there always the chance it could pop up again in future generations?

It depends on what your goals are :idea:

If your goal is "perfect conformation," then no.
If your goal is to produce "dogs that win more than they lose," then it depends.

What it "depends" on is whether that dog has any TRULY OUTSTANDING "other" traits that are uncommonly good :idea:

For example, my entire bloodline was based on Ch Hammer (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=4), who was a squat, ugly little thing with bad hips and bad stifles. But Ch Hammer had a level of gameness WAY beyond the average dog (as game as any Hollingsworth dog dreamed to be) ... and he was as tough (or tougher) than any Hollingsworth dog ... and he was also incredibly smart and pit savvy ... WAY beyond the average dog (and ANY Hollingsworth dog :lol:).

Ch Hammer was almost always "bottom dog" (because of his defects) ... but his strengths were so outstanding that they still carried him to victory 3x over "better built" dogs than he was. Ch Hammer was so tough, so game, and so slick that he would literally maneuver himself out of harm's way from the bottom, and he was so relentless that he would have his opponents trying to jump ... even though they were on top of him ... and Hammer would spring up off his back when they did and drag them back into the pit :lol:

Therefore, even though breeding to Ch Hammer hurt the 'conformation' of my Hollingsworth dogs, the level of gameness stayed true ... while the level of intelligence was dramatically increased ... and so consequently these dogs won more than pure Hollingsworth dogs did. My dogs have always been plagued with stifle issues, here and there, and yet they regularly still beat dogs that have better stifles than they do. Again, this is because they have other traits that are truly superior to most lines. Most dogs of most lines do not have the heart or intelligence that my dogs do. A smart game dog will almost always figure out a way to win, while a dumb not-so-game dog will find itself in a bad spot eventually, put there by his savvy superior, and when he is unable to figure a way out of it ... his lack of gameness will result in a 10-count. Been that way for 2 decades now :lol:

So, back to your dilemma: IF the dog(s) you're talking about have some other key, physical advantages over "the common dog" ... that you can depend on ... I would happily breed to them. Again, been doing this for years, and been beating dogs with "better stifles" for years :lol:

Because the GREATEST "malformation" in a bulldog is an improperly-developed heart or brain ;)

But if the dogs you're talking about are just average schmucks with good pedigrees, with nothing "extremely good" about them, then I wouldn't waste my time breeding them (good stifles or not). And that is performance-wise.

And if conformation is your main goal, then no, I wouldn't breed them either.

But if you have a dog like Robert T, or Icon, with "straight stifles" ... but that will out-hustle, out-maneuver, out-muscle, out-think, and totally whip anything its weight on other key traits ... then I wouldn't care what their stifles looked like ... because the proof is in the pudding :mrgreen:

Good luck!

Jack

[scratchin dog]

Thanks for the insight, Jack. I don't see this as an either-or situation. My goal is for conformation and performance, as I like a total package dog. This makes my decisions easier and yet harder at the same time. I think I will stick with my studs for now, and just be way more selective with other studs I have access to.

Thanks to those who have responded. If anyone else has anything to add to this topic, I would be happy to hear about their experiences.

[back2basics]

I'm not a the best contributor, but this article expresses some of what was stated by CA Jack and should be considered before culling a structurally faulted dog: http://www.ashgi.org/articles/breeding_bad_genes.htm
Some faults are polygenetic and the sire and dam are both equally responsible for the fault, which would mean more than a cull but to possibly not repeat the same breeding.

[projectx]

I would say that in an ideal world breeding dogs with no structural defects or genetic defects would be the best way to go so as not to continue having dogs coming out with those defects in the future.The fact that we still have them means that past breeders either didnt care or didnt notice the defect and try to cull it out in the first place, so that it would be less of a problem or infact virtually irradicated from a certain breeders line of dogs.The show or cur dog fraternity have done this very well , with breeds that had problems with hip dysplasia amongs other defects, and rather than breeding a dog just becasue in all other regards it was a good prospect or could have won some ribbons before the problem was noticeable , they cull them , or at least the serious show breeders do and infact you see peds with the negative hip dysplasia x rays and other fault free tests from these breeders showing prospective buyers of their pups or other breeders wanting a stud from their stud dog that that dogs at least do not carry the faults that serious show breeders regard as unacceptable .
The problem within the apbt fraternity is the fact that there is less attention paid to these type of problems as outlined in other posts, such as faulty hocks or kness etc which becasue a dog was game was overlooked and bred ,which in the long run if you dont try to cull or at least not breed in those dogs with severe structural faults then inevitably they will continue to appear .The thinking should be a little different , instead of worrying that your game dog that has some faults wil be lost to the breeding program and therefore you loose a special dog , is to think that if the dog dropped dead today the world of apbts wouldnt just collapse because that dog died or wasnt bred into the genepool, because then you would look for a specimen that didnt carry the defects and who was also a good game dog to breed instead of the defective dog.
We panic and make silly deicsions based on the idea that that dog is a once in a lifetime specimen and even if its blind deaf and crippled and if we dont breed him we will never see another like him again , which is hogwash .Where there has been one there will be another good dog , the history of this breed is littered with good game fult free dogs so why do we think that we cant breed another one that doesnt carry faults? I for one would never do what a supposed great breeder like gary hammonds has done for 40 years ,and thats breed deaf dogs ,of which there is no good reason to do especially when like hammonds you keep a large yard of similarly bred dogs to choose from , that is just bad breeding practice and very lazy to say the least, and should never be sold to others to breed into there line which he has done , even if i was begged for a dog like that to breed from another breeder i would not sell it to them, i would infact cull dogs with any deafness/ heart defects or blindness without hesitation, the other defects like hocks etc , depending on how obvious and how much they affect the abilty of the animal to move freely as there are varying degrees of severity would then be a choice each breeder knowing their line if they could breed that individual back into the line without making the problems any worse than it already is, but my way would be to not use even those dogs that showed minor strucural defects where possible if i had another dog of similar quality that didnt show those defects, but to breed dogs with severe defects and certainly dogs who are deaf /heart or blind defects is just bad breeding practice and i dont care how good the dog is , if you bred him you can breed another and hopefully if you dont keep adding in defects which no serious breeder in thier breeding program of any breed of animal be it cows horses etc will do and theres a good reason why , and the sooner the apbt fraternity starts thiking like that the sooner we wont be having to talk about what the obvious thing to do is when an animal with genetic defects pops up, and thats CULL IT .

[Officially Retired]

I would say that in an ideal world breeding dogs with no structural defects or genetic defects would be the best way to go so as not to continue having dogs coming out with those defects in the future.The fact that we still have them means that past breeders either didnt care or didnt notice the defect and try to cull it out in the first place, so that it would be less of a problem or infact virtually irradicated from a certain breeders line of dogs.The show or cur dog fraternity have done this very well , with breeds that had problems with hip dysplasia amongs other defects, and rather than breeding a dog just becasue in all other regards it was a good prospect or could have won some ribbons before the problem was noticeable , they cull them , or at least the serious show breeders do and infact you see peds with the negative hip dysplasia x rays and other fault free tests from these breeders showing prospective buyers of their pups or other breeders wanting a stud from their stud dog that that dogs at least do not carry the faults that serious show breeders regard as unacceptable .

It is easier to cull for structural defects in conformation breeding, because conformation is the name of the game. So of course you're going to cull based on conformation.

It is not quite so simple in breeding for match dogs, because you're breeding for truly outstanding ability ... which includes NON-physical aptitudes like INTELLIGENCE, INNER METTLE, and WILLPOWER ... all of which contribute immeasurably to greatness ... and therefore truly outstanding dogs won't always have perfect conformation ... while dogs with perfect conformation won't always be great.

Many structurally-perfect dogs can't take it, are slow, stupid, and/or suck ass in some way ... while many highly-intelligent, authentically-tough, and truly great dogs have certain conformation defects ... and since the ability to win is the name of THIS game ... conformation needs to take a back seat to these outstanding abilities when an either/or choice has to be made in a particular animal.





The problem within the apbt fraternity is the fact that there is less attention paid to these type of problems as outlined in other posts, such as faulty hocks or kness etc which becasue a dog was game was overlooked and bred ,which in the long run if you dont try to cull or at least not breed in those dogs with severe structural faults then inevitably they will continue to appear .The thinking should be a little different , instead of worrying that your game dog that has some faults wil be lost to the breeding program and therefore you loose a special dog , is to think that if the dog dropped dead today the world of apbts wouldnt just collapse because that dog died or wasnt bred into the genepool, because then you would look for a specimen that didnt carry the defects and who was also a good game dog to breed instead of the defective dog.

There is a difference between "good and game" and truly outstanding :idea:

If a truly outstanding dog with bad knees gets bred ... the bad knees may continue to appear ... but (if he's bred correctly) so too will the truly outstanding ability :idea:

Also, if he's bred correctly, the truly outstanding ability can continuously be retained while the bad knees get bred out (or minimized) :idea:





We panic and make silly deicsions based on the idea that that dog is a once in a lifetime specimen and even if its blind deaf and crippled and if we dont breed him we will never see another like him again , which is hogwash .Where there has been one there will be another good dog , the history of this breed is littered with good game fult free dogs so why do we think that we cant breed another one that doesnt carry faults?

Actually, I believe you have everything bass-ackwards.

Again, the first thing you have backwards is confusing "good" for GREAT (or truly outstanding in certain respects).

The second thing you have backwards is the guy who kills a truly outstanding (or even a good) dog ... over a mere structural defect ... is the one who's panicking and making stupid decisions, whereas the man who keeps the dog, appreciates its strengths, and analyzes if the defects can be bridged, is the one who's remaining calm and not throwing out the baby with the bathwater :idea:

I know an Old Man who has more experience than most on this board. He had the pleasure of being involved with two of the greatest head dogs that ever lived: Ch Robert T (9xW, 1xL) and his son Ch Robert T Jr. (4xW). The elder was a 9xW ... who beat 2 Grand Champions and 2 Champions ... but who finally lost as a 9 year old dog. The younger was a 4xW who stopped four 4xWs from making Grand Champion ... when the dog had no teeth. In their primes both Robert Ts were untouchable head dogs that beat some of the baddest dogs in the country, making them look absolutely helpless and stupid in the process.

The Old Man never bred to Ch Robert T Jr. because he had "mangy feet" :rolleyes:

He too, like you, thought that you had to breed dogs "with no defects" ... and, though he did not cull Ch Robert T Jr, he never bred to him because he didn't want more dogs with mangy feet :rolleyes:

The hilarious (actually, sad) thing was this Old Man always and continually told stories about Robert T Jr., over and over and over again, particularly when Ch Robert T Jr went all the way from Tennessee to California to beat Indian Sonny and Danny Burton's SDJ Cover Dog, Ch Indian Bootlegger (4xW). Over and over, Indian Sonny used to brag in the SDJ that, "Boot, off the chain, silenced so-and-so." Or that, "Boot, in condition, beat the fabulous so-and-so."

The Old Man tried to get these proud fellows to bet $75,000 on their fearsome, killing 4xW ... back in 1990 ... but they only could scrape up $18,000. The Old Man was pissed, but flew out to CA anyway. There were even some funny things going on with the scale, and Ch Indian Bootlegger was so much bigger than Ch Robert T Jr. it looked like a rat and a mouse ... and Boot piledrove Robert T Jr. on the release and shook him like a rag doll.

But when Robert T Jr glopped onto that head, and pulled Bootlegger out, that my friend was the beginning of the end ... and after about 50 straight minutes Robert T of having his ear, and turning all the skull/flesh around it into soup ... the great, SDJ Cover Dog Indian Bootlegger began to sing like a puppy with his tail caught in the door ... and refused to come out of his corner back into the Ace Head Dog that was Robert T. Jr.

Danny Burton had a lot of disparaging remarks to make about the toothless Robert T (that would actually smile on command to show he had no cutters ... and Robert T even did for the crowd afterward, aggravating the losers even more when they saw that the great Bootlegger had quit to a dog with no cutters :lol:)

Yet despite telling this story, over and over again to me and everybody else, the Old Man never bred to this great head dog all because he had a tendency to get mange on his feet :rolleyes:

The Old Man actually said to me, "Jack, I would sell everything I own--all 5 of my properties--to be able to get my 2 dogs back ... because, with those dogs, I could win it all back and then some."

Yet the thought never dawned on the Old Man that he COULD have kept that ability alive by forming a linebreeding program around the Robert Ts. None of the dogs he did breed to could kiss their ass in ability and intelligence. They may have been "good and game" winners, but they were not true Aces with outstanding ability. That man actually let this otherworldly intelligence and style slip through his fingers over a minor "genetic defect" ... and there really is nothing else to say but that it was a stupid decision. To sit there and say you'd give away all that you've amassed in life for a dog (who has mangy feet) ... because of his true greatness in other ways ... and yet not to breed him to perpetuate these unique traits in his pups ... is simply retarded IMO. I personally would be happy to have "mangy feet" on my dogs, if they also had that kind of pit ability!

And this kind of thinking disorder is WHY this man never actually bred any of the great dogs he had, he bought them all, because he simply couldn't get his priorities straight as a breeder.
And I guarantee you that, if this is the way you think, you won't either, because you will ultimately let true greatness slip away over a minor genetic defect also.





I for one would never do what a supposed great breeder like gary hammonds has done for 40 years ,and thats breed deaf dogs ,of which there is no good reason to do especially when like hammonds you keep a large yard of similarly bred dogs to choose from , that is just bad breeding practice and very lazy to say the least, and should never be sold to others to breed into there line which he has done , even if i was begged for a dog like that to breed from another breeder i would not sell it to them, i would infact cull dogs with any deafness/ heart defects or blindness without hesitation,

I can't comment on what Hammonds does/doesn't do, because I don't have any first hand knowledge. What I can say is that if these dogs you're talking about are "just dogs" with defects, then I agree with you.

I am speaking about breeding to TRULY EXCELLENT dogs with minor defects ... not breeding ordinary dogs with glaring defects ... and a person has to have the intelligence to recognize the difference :idea:





the other defects like hocks etc , depending on how obvious and how much they affect the abilty of the animal to move freely as there are varying degrees of severity would then be a choice each breeder knowing their line if they could breed that individual back into the line without making the problems any worse than it already is, but my way would be to not use even those dogs that showed minor strucural defects where possible if i had another dog of similar quality that didnt show those defects, but to breed dogs with severe defects and certainly dogs who are deaf /heart or blind defects is just bad breeding practice and i dont care how good the dog is ,

We pretty much agree here.

Again, it all has to do with #3 in my article The 5 Keys to Success (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/content.php?243), which is understanding the dog's job.
It is not a match dog's job to be "structurally perfect"; it is only his job to have the ability and intelligence to dominate a fight and kick ass.
If the dog truly excels at his job, and has some minor defect which doesn't interfere, then who cares? The dog's job is the main goal.
But if the defect limits the dog, to where he sucks at his job, then (I agree) don't breed to that dog.





if you bred him you can breed another and hopefully if you dont keep adding in defects which no serious breeder in thier breeding program of any breed of animal be it cows horses etc will do and theres a good reason why , and the sooner the apbt fraternity starts thiking like that the sooner we wont be having to talk about what the obvious thing to do is when an animal with genetic defects pops up, and thats CULL IT .

I totally disagree here.

I think MOST people suck at breeding dogs, pretty much all the way around.
I think MOST people don't truly understand what it takes to be a truly excellent dog.
I think MOST people, who call themselves "good breeders," follow what you say ... and try to minimize "structural defects".

It is my conviction that truly great breeders aren't trying to breed "faultless dogs" ... they're trying to MAXIMIZE some truly key trait(s) they saw in 1 or more special individual(s) ... and they continuously interbreed the dogs down from these special animals in the never-ending effort to retain/reproduce those truly World Class Abilities indefinitely :idea:

Jack


.

[No Quarter Kennel]

Projectx will try to discredit Hammonds every chance he gets. Amazing. Some people just have a hard on for certain folks.

RUFUS ROM - best producing Alligator dog, from any Alligator strain, of all time, with only 2 years of breeding - WAS DEAF!
Take him out of the lineage of all the dogs after him and analyze the Alligator Family then.

This is simply one example of a retarded way of thinking

[projectx]

Hi jack i agree that for the conformation guys or show breeders they have a more defined view of the breeding they need to do.I said that in an ideal world we would only breed dogs that met all the requirements , but as we dont live in the ideal world then at least minimizing what type and how severe any defects we breed in are ,be they structural or health type that we allow back in to the genepool is vital if we are to actualy minimize their appearance in future generations.
If i use your idea of an outstanding dog as opposed to a good dog, then that also depends on what any given person thinks is an outstanding dog , as that is very dependant through whos eyes were looking through, as we only have our own eyes,and they may have less expierience than another mans eyes ,and to one man a dog may seem outstanding but to another he may just be a good but average dog ,so this is all relative.
But lets for arguments sake say that we can all agree on what is an outstanding dog, a dog that was obviously an outstanding dog in the pit ,as we cannot say how outstanding he or she is as a porducer as we are deciding on whether or not to breed him or her as he or she has some defects which we would rather he or she didnt have , so i will assume that his or her outstandingness must be based on their pit quality in this instance.

Ok now that we have this outstanding dog be it male or female that we would like to breed but who has some defects , we have to look at what these defects might be, so lets say the defects are mild and not affecting the performance but are more asthetic rather than hinder the dog in any noticeable way , then the next thing is to look at why he or she is outstanding.
Is the dog outstanding because he or she comes from a line of similar dogs bred form a line that has produced dogs like that before , or is this dog a oneoff and from a line of dogs that are outcrossed and as such what is the likleyhood of this dog being able to produce more likehim or herself from such genes.

If the dog is from a line that hasnt had a record of quality dogs on a regualr basis , then i would not consider this dog as there is more chance of he or she not producing as well as he or she is themselves and as such i wouldnt bother .

On the other hand if the dog came from a line ,usually a family bred line that has a record of throwing good to occasionaly outstanding dogs, then the minor defect and maybe even a slightly more obvioius defect that may not affect peformance or a dogs phyisicall abilty to work or at least defend itself properly could be acceptable , and would be something that the breeder would hope to be able to try to breed out in the next generations , and only becasue this dog was such an outstanding dog in the first place .

The thing is that many people have bred dogs, infact most dogs that have had a defect ,be it mild or severe who were bred were not outstanding and some were outright curs , but were still bred, and most of the time the reason was because of how they were bred ,and when it goes well the answer is well look how great a producer he or she was ,and that is true in many lines infact all lines today they all have dogs from cur to outstanding and everything inbetween , but the fact that the breed didnt collapse overnight becasue a certain dog wasnt bred who had severe defects who then went on to produce well is not an excuse and very easy with hindsight, becasue there is always another dog that at any given time is just a outstanding ,as that again is always open to opinion as to which dog in any year is the best , there are so many out there any they dont all get to fight each other ,so theres always an option, it isnt the end of the world to not bred the defective dog.

The thing is we all like to breed close to home noramlly from our own yard if we have a family or line of dogs , and im sure that many times we overlook some defects becasue we dont think its such a problem and we like the dog we have andwant to breed rather than waste time and money breeding to another outstanding dog, but which doesnt have a minor defect, but when we talk about more serious and severe defects either structural and heatlh defects , then i think there has to be a much harder view taken as to why we must breed that defective dog before doing it .

I still say that if the dog is not a oneoff and is from a line that has a history or good to even great to outstanding dogs , then maybe the brother or half brother or sister that is defect free as far as you can tell is just as good a bet , as long as they have other good qualites, and of course if the sire of the origianl dog is around and didnt throw dog with defects as a rule ,then of course the sire is an option, but i agree its a difficult decision as there are many variables,and using hindsight is not really the ideal way to go and even when it works , it doesnt mean its the correct way to breed , and certainly shouldnt be done as a rule when other options can be used that if all things are even will stack the deck more in your favour in the race to breed better heathlier allround dogs , but im not saying its easy , even with the best laid plans it can and does go wrong , but if you breed severe structural faults in then expect to get more of the same out, so i think if we use the rule without the benefit of hindsight and seeing into the future after the event , then only breed dogs that by your opinion are not showing structural defects that are affecting the abilty of the dogs to work properly and that is not of the type that gets worse the older the dog gets, and the same applies to dogs with deafness /heart and blindness defects as these defects should never be breed back into a line , and of course by that fact i would not have the wonder of hindsight to know they may or may not have produced good dogs by ahving done so, i would have more faith in breeding as good or better but healthier dogs rather than breed in those types,as i belive if you breed in a family line then if this dogs is good but defective ,then others will follow who maybe are as good or even better but with less defects because of it.

[projectx]

Projectx will try to discredit Hammonds every chance he gets. Amazing. Some people just have a hard on for certain folks.

RUFUS ROM - best producing Alligator dog, from any Alligator strain, of all time, with only 2 years of breeding - WAS DEAF!
Take him out of the lineage of all the dogs after him and analyze the Alligator Family then.

This is simply one example of a retarded way of thinking

I dont have a hard on for gary at all , you dont like the message i give becasue you cant see past what you want to see ,and hindsight is a wonderfulll thing ,but you see we can only know whether a defective dog could have been a good producer or not if we breed him , and unless you have hindsight and see into the future ,thenbreeding him is taking a risk rather than good breeding practice and thank god its not the norm to bred deaf dogs among breeders with good breeding practices but you obviuosly are not one of them if you think its fine and dandy to do it as the norm like gary has done for 40 years, and you still say your not biased towards him lol.
As for using the luxury of hindsight by saying( look how good rufus produced and if you take him out of the lineage of dogs after him analyze the family then), its a riddiculous thing to say , because the dogs in the lineage after him wouldnt exist if he hadnt been bred to produce them in the first place , now whos got a retarded way of thinking.

[Officially Retired]

Hi jack i agree that for the conformation guys or show breeders they have a more defined view of the breeding they need to do.I said that in an ideal world we would only breed dogs that met all the requirements , but as we dont live in the ideal world then at least minimizing what type and how severe any defects we breed in are ,be they structural or health type that we allow back in to the genepool is vital if we are to actualy minimize their appearance in future generations.
If i use your idea of an outstanding dog as opposed to a good dog, then that also depends on what any given person thinks is an outstanding dog , as that is very dependant through whos eyes were looking through, as we only have our own eyes,and they may have less expierience than another mans eyes ,and to one man a dog may seem outstanding but to another he may just be a good but average dog ,so this is all relative.

This is all true. And it also has to do with aptitude as well as experience. I know many experienced dogmen who have never progressed in their thinking (or understanding of dogs/drugs/genetics) since about their 5th year in the game. I also now some whose opinion can be taken as gold.

Ultimately, as Bert Sorrells said, "The test of a dog is the show; the test of a family is time."

I am blessed with the ability to look back over 24 years of continuously breeding the same family, and producing dogs the routinely winning over 85% of the time all over the world, spanning over 500 wins with maybe 70 losses, to where I am absolutely confident I truly know what "outstanding" means. Many other successful breeders / dogmen do also ... but most people who feed dogs do NOT.





But lets for arguments sake say that we can all agree on what is an outstanding dog, a dog that was obviously an outstanding dog in the pit ,as we cannot say how outstanding he or she is as a porducer as we are deciding on whether or not to breed him or her as he or she has some defects which we would rather he or she didnt have , so i will assume that his or her outstandingness must be based on their pit quality in this instance.

That is correct.

And, here again, we can maximize our ability to predict whether the dog can produce or not by studying the percentages in his litter, his parents' litter, etc.

I did not "guess" that my dogs would produce, I specifically selected for it by making sure my foundation stock came from high-percentage backgrounds ...





Ok now that we have this outstanding dog be it male or female that we would like to breed but who has some defects , we have to look at what these defects might be, so lets say the defects are mild and not affecting the performance but are more asthetic rather than hinder the dog in any noticeable way , then the next thing is to look at why he or she is outstanding.
Is the dog outstanding because he or she comes from a line of similar dogs bred form a line that has produced dogs like that before , or is this dog a oneoff and from a line of dogs that are outcrossed and as such what is the likleyhood of this dog being able to produce more likehim or herself from such genes.

I agreed with this in the past, before I actually knew as much about breeding as I do now.

Back in 2000, I got rid of the game, inbred bitch Diamond Girl (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=679), precisely because I thought she was too structurally-defective to be an asset in an inbreeding program. The guy who bought her used her as an outcross, where she produced very well, and is actually behind some truly awesome animals.

I also kept the high-ability linebred Silverback (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=152), precisely because he was structurally fabulous and really had what it took to help correct a lot flaws in my line. And, sure, it is alot easier to breed Silverback and get athletes than Diamond Girl.

However, with what I know now, I would have kept Diamond Girl ... and bred these two together ... and kept the structurally-superior offspring ... because, YES, you can INbreed the faults out of your dogs by proper selection. What I have learned is basically the fact you actually have MORE control over the genes, through linebreeding, than you do by outcrossing.





If the dog is from a line that hasnt had a record of quality dogs on a regualr basis , then i would not consider this dog as there is more chance of he or she not producing as well as he or she is themselves and as such i wouldnt bother .


I agree with this 100%.





On the other hand if the dog came from a line ,usually a family bred line that has a record of throwing good to occasionaly outstanding dogs, then the minor defect and maybe even a slightly more obvioius defect that may not affect peformance or a dogs phyisicall abilty to work or at least defend itself properly could be acceptable , and would be something that the breeder would hope to be able to try to breed out in the next generations , and only becasue this dog was such an outstanding dog in the first place.

I agree with this too, which is pretty much what I have been saying.





The thing is that many people have bred dogs, infact most dogs that have had a defect ,be it mild or severe who were bred were not outstanding and some were outright curs , but were still bred, and most of the time the reason was because of how they were bred ,and when it goes well the answer is well look how great a producer he or she was ,and that is true in many lines infact all lines today they all have dogs from cur to outstanding and everything inbetween , but the fact that the breed didnt collapse overnight becasue a certain dog wasnt bred who had severe defects who then went on to produce well is not an excuse and very easy with hindsight, becasue there is always another dog that at any given time is just a outstanding ,as that again is always open to opinion as to which dog in any year is the best , there are so many out there any they dont all get to fight each other ,so theres always an option, it isnt the end of the world to not bred the defective dog.

I pretty much agree with this too.

The idea to strive for is EXCELLENCE.
And it is easy for a lot of folks (myself included) to get lost in "pedigrees" ... or "percentages of Dog X" ... and forget that what we're striving for is Performance Excellence :idea:

And, by and large, I agree that great conformation tends to promote performance excellence.
The trouble I have, as mentioned earlier, is that MENTAL factors play a huge part (if not the most important part) in performance excellence also :idea:
Things like INTELLIGENCE, METTLE, WILLPOWER, RESOLVE ... and even things like SPEED, TIMING, and REFLEXES (though physical, in a sense) have nothing to do with conformation, per se, but rather a quick mind :idea:

Therefore, I personally will never hold conformation as the most important standard in performance excellence, because it simply is not.

As long as I have at least decent conformation, with maybe some tolerable physical faults, but I keep my MENTAL toughness ... quickness and overall superiority intact ... I will continue to beat the competition almost 9 to 1 as I have been doing so for many years.

Now, if I can continue to do this, and keep the conformation good (as I have done), then of course I will do it. This is why I used U-Nhan-Rha (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=540) so much as a stud. This is why I used Silverback also. They were more than just good dogs, they had excellent conformation as well.

There is a difference between excellence and perfection. Excellence is a worthy and achievable goal; perfection (and the desire for perfection) is not. Perfectionism is more an insecurity and/or "can never be pleased" sense of dissatisfaction with everything which limits the ability to make a committed decision.





The thing is we all like to breed close to home noramlly from our own yard if we have a family or line of dogs , and im sure that many times we overlook some defects becasue we dont think its such a problem and we like the dog we have andwant to breed rather than waste time and money breeding to another outstanding dog, but which doesnt have a minor defect, but when we talk about more serious and severe defects either structural and heatlh defects , then i think there has to be a much harder view taken as to why we must breed that defective dog before doing it.

A person can always second-guess himself into paralysis as to "what to do?" with his dogs ... but I have always and happily bred to my own stuff ... and always and happily watched it kick ass.

I have bred to some outside studs too, and got some really good dogs by doing so, but my very best always came in-house.





I still say that if the dog is not a oneoff and is from a line that has a history or good to even great to outstanding dogs , then maybe the brother or half brother or sister that is defect free as far as you can tell is just as good a bet , as long as they have other good qualites, and of course if the sire of the origianl dog is around and didnt throw dog with defects as a rule ,then of course the sire is an option, but i agree its a difficult decision as there are many variables,and using hindsight is not really the ideal way to go and even when it works , it doesnt mean its the correct way to breed , and certainly shouldnt be done as a rule when other options can be used that if all things are even will stack the deck more in your favour in the race to breed better heathlier allround dogs , but im not saying its easy , even with the best laid plans it can and does go wrong , but if you breed severe structural faults in then expect to get more of the same out, so i think if we use the rule without the benefit of hindsight and seeing into the future after the event , then only breed dogs that by your opinion are not showing structural defects that are affecting the abilty of the dogs to work properly and that is not of the type that gets worse the older the dog gets, and the same applies to dogs with deafness /heart and blindness defects as these defects should never be breed back into a line , and of course by that fact i would not have the wonder of hindsight to know they may or may not have produced good dogs by ahving done so, i would have more faith in breeding as good or better but healthier dogs rather than breed in those types,as i belive if you breed in a family line then if this dogs is good but defective ,then others will follow who maybe are as good or even better but with less defects because of it.

I would not want to breed to any individual with heart defects. The heart affects the ability to breathe and exert yourself, so that is a losing proposition right there.

As for deafness, I have never experienced it, so I don't know, but if Hammonds' foundation dog was deaf, well so too was Boudreaux' foundation stud blind.
While this may sound like "The Island of Misfit Toys," the reality is both of these men have families of dogs that speak for themselves.
I personally wouldn't make such a dog my absolute foundation ... unless they had some key trait that was so absolutely incredible that I'd have to go through a thousand dogs to get another one like that.

I actually do have the benefit of hindsight into intensely line-/inbreeding my own line for over 20 years, never changing, and always sticking with what I've got. Not many people can actually make that statement. The Hammonds, Boudreauxs, Garners, Patricks, etc. are a dying breed, but I followed in their footsteps, and I did so long enough (and successfully enough) to know what the heck I am talking about on the subject of breeding dogs ... maintaining a family ... AND keeping them still capable of winning wherever they get off the plane.

And it is my absolute conviction that, while important, "perfect structure" needs to take a backseat to other, more important qualities in a bulldog. That doesn't mean structure isn't vital, it is. What it means is you can take a MINOR hit in structure, so long as you're getting a MAJOR benefit somewhere else. NO ONE CAN REASONABLY EXPECT ABSOLUTE PERFECTION, ACROSS THE BOARD, IN EVERY DOG THEY USE, FOREVER. It simply doesn't work that way.

The idea to keep in mind is performance excellence ... so if your dog isn't giving you something TRULY excellent (either speed, smarts, mouth, finish, gameness across the board in its litter), then you're essentially dealing with mediocrity or worse. A person shouldn't panic and get rid of a dog over a "fault" ... but in not having something truly excellent to distinguish itself.

In hindsight, Diamond Girl gave me truly excellent gameness, truly excellent percentages, and a never-ending desire to "figure out how" to beat that dog ... she just lacked certain physical tools to be successful. Again, in hindsight, I could have easily bred her to a truly awesome FAMILY-BRED athlete like Silverback, and kept the athletic offspring, and maintained all those truly excellent MENTAL traits my dogs have ... while improving Diamond Girl's physical limitations.

If a person has a truly superior bloodline, he can literally breed them for the rest of his life and keep them truly excellent.

Not "perfect";
Not "flawless";
Truly excellent.

Jack

[No Quarter Kennel]

I dont have a hard on for gary at all , you dont like the message i give becasue you cant see past what you want to see ,and hindsight is a wonderfulll thing ,but you see we can only know whether a defective dog could have been a good producer or not if we breed him , and unless you have hindsight and see into the future ,thenbreeding him is taking a risk rather than good breeding practice and thank god its not the norm to bred deaf dogs among breeders with good breeding practices but you obviuosly are not one of them if you think its fine and dandy to do it as the norm like gary has done for 40 years, and you still say your not biased towards him lol.
As for using the luxury of hindsight by saying( look how good rufus produced and if you take him out of the lineage of dogs after him analyze the family then), its a riddiculous thing to say , because the dogs in the lineage after him wouldnt exist if he hadnt been bred to produce them in the first place , now whos got a retarded way of thinking.

I dont have a hard on for gary at all , you dont like the message i give becasue you cant see past what you want to see ,and hindsight is a wonderfulll thing ,but you see we can only know whether a defective dog could have been a good producer or not if we breed him , and unless you have hindsight and see into the future ,thenbreeding him is taking a risk rather than good breeding practice and thank god its not the norm to bred deaf dogs among breeders with good breeding practices but you obviuosly are not one of them if you think its fine and dandy to do it as the norm like gary has done for 40 years, and you still say your not biased towards him lol.

No, the point was to contradict your perspective that a dog of great production capabilities shouldn't be bred b/c he's deaf. Don't know the circumstances, but since this guy, Hammonds, like him or not, has produced more quality animals than yourself, I'd have to say he knew something others may not have known since a "defective" dog produced so many great dogs.

As for using the luxury of hindsight by saying( look how good rufus produced and if you take him out of the lineage of dogs after him analyze the family then), its a riddiculous thing to say , because the dogs in the lineage after him wouldnt exist if he hadnt been bred to produce them in the first place , now whos got a retarded way of thinking.

That's exactly what I said.
I'm not kennel blind by any friends, dogs or anything else in my life. I'm not close minded. I pay attention to reality, truth and relevance. We'll just have to disagree and move on down the road. You rarely make much sense to me and I doubt you like me either, so I'll let it go.

Have a great Christmas.

[projectx]

Hi jack i would like to touch on your comment about following in the footsteps of men like garner /patrick/ hamonds and boudreaux , but i think that may need to be on a new thread as i would like to say something about them but for now i will just add that as for the rufus dog that gary used to breed with and you said that for you to breed to a deaf dog it would have to have been an outstanding dog and one that was a one in a thousand before you would even consider it .
Well in garys own interveiw he acknowledges that the deaf dogs in the aligator line come form rufus ,and that he himself thinks that it is a disadvantage for a dog to be deaf ,and that he wouldnt want to breed a line of deaf dogs , and that he gets one about every 50 or so dogs down from rufus , which means that every 7 litters approx he gets a deaf dog based on anything down from his rufus stock and that has been going on for 40 years and how many thousands of pupies has he bred in over 40 years with an average of one deaf one every in every50 ? thats a lot of deaf pups thats for sure , so wouldnt you think that rather than keep breeding and selling the deaf ones back into his own stock when they appear as he has done, that he might have thought it wise to cull them so as to at least take out the ones he can which would make more sense , and not only that but also not sell them to other breeders as brood stock regardless of whether they want them or not, as i would think any breeder worth his salt would want to make sure that they have a qualty control of their blood even if another breeder doesnt and as such refuse to sell them a deaf dog for breeding .
Rufus was around 7 years old when gary got him and was in no way an outstanding dog in the way you talked about for a dog who was carrying such a fault would have to be for you to even consider breeding to it , and not only that but he didnt know the dog was deaf when he bought it, so i can only assume the folks who sold him the dog the bennets either took him for a fool or thought that it was obvious rufus was deaf and gary should have noticed it, but gary himself says he had the dog a LONG TIME before he noticed rufus was deaf which leaves me lost for words and anything i say about that will be taken as trying to discredit gary , but that statement alone in his own interview tells me everything i need to know ,and im glad i dont wear glasses and if i ever do they wont be rose coloured thats for sure.

Now i know NQK likes to accuse me of trying to discredit gary every chance i get , which is not the case , im merely saying what i belive to be true about him in this case and i want to be fair ,so yes he has like many other men put out dogs from bad to outstanding, but if he himself doesnt think breeding deaf dogs is a good idea, and wouldnt want to breed a line of deaf dogs, then why has he done just that by the very fact that he hasnt culled them when they pop up but breeds them ,and also sells them on to others even to do the same with , which is not what i think an honest or good breeder would want to do especially if the brood dogs he sells are for his own line of dogs on another mans yard , thats even worse as your increasing the chances of more DEAF dogs.
So if anyone is discredting gary its gary himself , and whether NQK or anyone else who looks at gary through there rose coloured glases thinks thats good breeding practice after 40 years of doing it,then good luck to them .

[projectx]

I dont have a hard on for gary at all , you dont like the message i give becasue you cant see past what you want to see ,and hindsight is a wonderfulll thing ,but you see we can only know whether a defective dog could have been a good producer or not if we breed him , and unless you have hindsight and see into the future ,thenbreeding him is taking a risk rather than good breeding practice and thank god its not the norm to bred deaf dogs among breeders with good breeding practices but you obviuosly are not one of them if you think its fine and dandy to do it as the norm like gary has done for 40 years, and you still say your not biased towards him lol.

No, the point was to contradict your perspective that a dog of great production capabilities shouldn't be bred b/c he's deaf. Don't know the circumstances, but since this guy, Hammonds, like him or not, has produced more quality animals than yourself, I'd have to say he knew something others may not have known since a "defective" dog produced so many great dogs.

As for using the luxury of hindsight by saying( look how good rufus produced and if you take him out of the lineage of dogs after him analyze the family then), its a riddiculous thing to say , because the dogs in the lineage after him wouldnt exist if he hadnt been bred to produce them in the first place , now whos got a retarded way of thinking.

That's exactly what I said.
I'm not kennel blind by any friends, dogs or anything else in my life. I'm not close minded. I pay attention to reality, truth and relevance. We'll just have to disagree and move on down the road. You rarely make much sense to me and I doubt you like me either, so I'll let it go.

Have a great Christmas.

Nqk i dont have anything against you , so when you say its obvious that i dont like you , that can only be coming from you feeling like im attacking you becasue of your feelings about gary because you run his blood ,and as i told you before i understand that you feel like that, its human nature, but i dont dislike you at all so maybe you need to evaluate how obviuosly attached you are to not seeing reality becasue of your emotional attachment to gary or his dogs that you feed.
As for hindsight , well gary didnt even notice rufus was deaf , and he like many others breeders took a chance and bred to a dog that under normal circumstances wouldnt be bred and got lucky, and you can try to talk it any way you like, but unless gary knew rufus would produce like he did , which none can know not even gary (who cant even tell hes got a deaf dog infront of him ) and as rufus was not even an outstanding pit dog that was so out of this world that even jack said he might breed to a dog like that even with deafness, then what criterior did gary use for breeding the dog ? becasue rufus was not an outstanding dog , so it was a chance he took and he like many other men who have bred either defective dogs or dogs with a severe defect like deafness or in many cases a cur dog who produced out of the ass ,but at the time they bred those dogs they could only have known one thing for sure , and thats not that the dog was going to produce well for them but that they were breding a dog that was either carrying a fault like rufus was or another severe structural or health fault or that thier dog was a cur , that is the only sure thing they could have known and taken to the bank before they decided to breed that dog, so lets be honest and say that with looking at things after the event we could all bet on the winner , but luck plays a part in all breedings even the ones that have all the right qualities in place beforehand and very often even they dont prove any good either , but to start with one hand tied behind your back even if it turns out well is not the right way to do it even if you get lucky it doesnt mean its right it just means you got lucky so lets be honest and stop trying to make excuses like we would for our child when the teacher say your kid is causing trouble in class, and we always try to defend our kid even if we know hes a little tearaway and we know the teachers probably right ,but rather than face it we make excuses for them ,and 9 times out of ten thosoe kids pay you back by turning out just like they said he would a bad apple, but hey he was our little johnny so he can do no wrong right? wrong those rose cloured glasses atr it again.

[S_B]

One thing people should starting doing more of now a days is minding their own business, and concentrate more on what they themselves want to achieve and worry less about what others are achieving, or screwing up.


At the end of the day, it is to each his own, and doesn't concern anyone else but his own, so long as no harm is being done to another human being.

These dogs suffer more from jealous opinions and others slanderous comments against fellow dogmen, as well as the stock they choose to feed than any harm the H$U$, animal rights groups or the like can throw at them.

ProjectX, I'm sure you are a good dude, and I'm sure you feel justified about everything you feel. That is YOUR right, just as well as it is anyone else's right to the same.

The furr mommies with their pitties stick together better than any dogmen I ever saw, it's a damn shame.

[projectx]

One thing people should starting doing more of now a days is minding their own business, and concentrate more on what they themselves want to achieve and worry less about what others are achieving, or screwing up.


At the end of the day, it is to each his own, and doesn't concern anyone else but his own, so long as no harm is being done to another human being.

These dogs suffer more from jealous opinions and others slanderous comments against fellow dogmen, as well as the stock they choose to feed than any harm the H$U$, animal rights groups or the like can throw at them.

ProjectX, I'm sure you are a good dude, and I'm sure you feel justified about everything you feel. That is YOUR right, just as well as it is anyone else's right to the same.

The furr mommies with their pitties stick together better than any dogmen I ever saw, it's a damn shame.

Hi sb im sure your a nice guy to , but as you mentioned me in your post i will assume your mini rant was based on what i have said in my posts ,so i will reply to you directly.
You start your post by saying that we or I should mind our or my own buisness , but this is a forum about gamedogs and this is a thread about breeding dogs with defects it would be pretty useless forum if nobody ever psoted anything on it, so i assume before you made your post you read all the other posts includeding mine before making your post, but you yourself say nothing about the subject were talking about at all , so in that respect you have added nothing to the disscusion, which is a shame .

As for us dogmen not sticking toggether because if we say something like i have about another breeders breeding practices , it is somehow jealous or slanderous in your opinion, but i have at least tried in the most easy to understand way possible to explain why i think what i think about that ,and i think you need to look up what slander actually means before trying to accuse me of it, but maybe you are another one of those dogmen that wear rose coloured glasses when its concerning something they have an attachment to themselves.

What i feel is a real shame sb is that you would rather we say nothing even if it needs saying , and i suppose that includes talking about other subjects like ped faking which in your world unless i have misunderstood you we should all turn a blind eye to and never say anything about that either , now that is what i call a real shame and i will never stick toggether with a dogman like that , or any so called dogman who would happily decive the rest of us with their bullshit , so you are welcome to stand shoulder to shoulder with dogmen like that sb be my guest.

[Officially Retired]

Hi jack i would like to touch on your comment about following in the footsteps of men like garner /patrick/ hamonds and boudreaux , but i think that may need to be on a new thread as i would like to say something about them but for now i will just add that as for the rufus dog that gary used to breed with and you said that for you to breed to a deaf dog it would have to have been an outstanding dog and one that was a one in a thousand before you would even consider it .

Start such a thread if you like.

Just know that, by "following in their footsteps," I meant as a family bloodline breeder only.
There aren't many of these.
Very few people have started and perpetuated their own line.

My standards, preferences, and selection methods are entirely my own.





Well in garys own interveiw he acknowledges that the deaf dogs in the aligator line come form rufus ,and that he himself thinks that it is a disadvantage for a dog to be deaf ,and that he wouldnt want to breed a line of deaf dogs , and that he gets one about every 50 or so dogs down from rufus , which means that every 7 litters approx he gets a deaf dog based on anything down from his rufus stock and that has been going on for 40 years and how many thousands of pupies has he bred in over 40 years with an average of one deaf one every in every50 ? thats a lot of deaf pups thats for sure , so wouldnt you think that rather than keep breeding and selling the deaf ones back into his own stock when they appear as he has done, that he might have thought it wise to cull them so as to at least take out the ones he can which would make more sense , and not only that but also not sell them to other breeders as brood stock regardless of whether they want them or not, as i would think any breeder worth his salt would want to make sure that they have a qualty control of their blood even if another breeder doesnt and as such refuse to sell them a deaf dog for breeding .

1 in 50 = 2%.

A 2% error margin is considered very low.

No breeder, in the history of the world, gets a 0% error margin in what he breeds, defect-wise. No one.





Rufus was around 7 years old when gary got him and was in no way an outstanding dog in the way you talked about for a dog who was carrying such a fault would have to be for you to even consider breeding to it , and not only that but he didnt know the dog was deaf when he bought it, so i can only assume the folks who sold him the dog the bennets either took him for a fool or thought that it was obvious rufus was deaf and gary should have noticed it, but gary himself says he had the dog a LONG TIME before he noticed rufus was deaf which leaves me lost for words and anything i say about that will be taken as trying to discredit gary , but that statement alone in his own interview tells me everything i need to know ,and im glad i dont wear glasses and if i ever do they wont be rose coloured thats for sure.

Gary probably bred Rufus based on his pedigree, feeling that his blood was strong and that he could produce. Based on Rufus' production record, I would say Gary was correct in his assessment.

Maybe Gary never knew because he just kept Rufus on a chain and didn't interact with him much, I don't know. But I don't see the point in berating the man. He's been in the game a long time, taken the time to write great articles and books that have helped a lot of folks, and in fact is the source of my information on treating cancerous teats in bitches (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/content.php?162). So Gary has done a lot of good for the fraternity.

How about you? What positive things have you done for the fraternity?





Now i know NQK likes to accuse me of trying to discredit gary every chance i get , which is not the case , im merely saying what i belive to be true about him in this case and i want to be fair ,so yes he has like many other men put out dogs from bad to outstanding, but if he himself doesnt think breeding deaf dogs is a good idea, and wouldnt want to breed a line of deaf dogs, then why has he done just that by the very fact that he hasnt culled them when they pop up but breeds them ,and also sells them on to others even to do the same with , which is not what i think an honest or good breeder would want to do especially if the brood dogs he sells are for his own line of dogs on another mans yard , thats even worse as your increasing the chances of more DEAF dogs.
So if anyone is discredting gary its gary himself , and whether NQK or anyone else who looks at gary through there rose coloured glases thinks thats good breeding practice after 40 years of doing it,then good luck to them .

I disagree that you are not trying to discredit Gary. It is quite obvious that you are.

I have to agree that (based on this and other posts) you suffer from a boundary disorder and pretty much only post opinions/derisions of others, always in the negative, and always about what you feel "others" should do differently. I personally don't care what Gary does or doesn't do with his own dogs. Dogs are pretty much "happy campers" whether deaf, blind, or with mangy feet. Only we humans seem to feel sorry for ourselves (and every other creature on the planet) ... and only we humans suffer from the insanity of "not being satisfied" with what other people do. You seriously have a problem with meddling/obsessing with the habits/practices of others.

The fact is, Gary isn't hurting anybody or hurting any dogs. I could see getting upset if he were skinning dogs alive, or bludgeoning them to death, or committing some kind of atrocity over there on his yard. But he is not. He is just trying to breed game dogs and is maybe producing a few deaf dogs along the way. So what? His dogs have won a lot of dog deals, so it's not like he's breeding blue dogs or something.

Again, he has also contributed to Gamedog history through his books and writings, not to mention having a hand in producing the winningest male of modern history, Melonhead (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=27180).

I don't see the point in saying the same thing, over and over and over again, about his breeding deaf dogs occasionally. 2% is not a bad number, and there are worse traits a dog can have than being deaf.

I am seriously curious as to what positive contributions to the breed you have made, and if you ever have anything POSITIVE to say about anyone/anything?

Jack

.

[projectx]

Start such a thread if you like.

Just know that, by "following in their footsteps," I meant as a family bloodline breeder only.
There aren't many of these.
Very few people have started and perpetuated their own line.

My standards, preferences, and selection methods are entirely my own.





1 in 50 = 2%.

A 2% error margin is considered very low.

No breeder, in the history of the world, gets a 0% error margin in what he breeds, defect-wise. No one.





Gary probably bred Rufus based on his pedigree, feeling that his blood was strong and that he could produce. Based on Rufus' production record, I would say Gary was correct in his assessment.

Maybe Gary never knew because he just kept Rufus on a chain and didn't interact with him much, I don't know. But I don't see the point in berating the man. He's been in the game a long time, taken the time to write great articles and books that have helped a lot of folks, and in fact is the source of my information on treating cancerous teats in bitches (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/content.php?162). So Gary has done a lot of good for the fraternity.

How about you? What positive things have you done for the fraternity?





I disagree that you are not trying to discredit Gary. It is quite obvious that you are.

I have to agree that (based on this and other posts) you suffer from a boundary disorder and pretty much only post opinions/derisions of others, always in the negative, and always about what you feel "others" should do differently. I personally don't care what Gary does or doesn't do with his own dogs. Dogs are pretty much "happy campers" whether deaf, blind, or with mangy feet. Only we humans seem to feel sorry for ourselves (and every other creature on the planet) ... and only we humans suffer from the insanity of "not being satisfied" with what other people do. You seriously have a problem with meddling/obsessing with the habits/practices of others.

The fact is, Gary isn't hurting anybody or hurting any dogs. I could see getting upset if he were skinning dogs alive, or bludgeoning them to death, or committing some kind of atrocity over there on his yard. But he is not. He is just trying to breed game dogs and is maybe producing a few deaf dogs along the way. So what? His dogs have won a lot of dog deals, so it's not like he's breeding blue dogs or something.

Again, he has also contributed to Gamedog history through his books and writings, not to mention having a hand in producing the winningest male of modern history, Melonhead (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/bulldog_profile.php?dog_id=27180).

I don't see the point in saying the same thing, over and over and over again, about his breeding deaf dogs occasionally. 2% is not a bad number, and there are worse traits a dog can have than being deaf.

I am seriously curious as to what positive contributions to the breed you have made, and if you ever have anything POSITIVE to say about anyone/anything?

Jack

.

Jack to begin with , you feel that i make posts that are negative, well if i like others think something is wrong then the post unfortunately will probably come over as a negative post, as i think in a previous reply to one of my posts you and me were pretty much on the same page as far as when and why any of us would breed dogs with a serious or at least relatively serious defect , so its not that i dislike gary in particular, its just that sometimes even if like NQK and others who have a vested interest in garys line as they run it themselves, they cant bring themselves to ever admit or agree that the man who they got their dogs from could ever be wrong in certain things , and that their shit doesnt stink so to speak, which is why i always say that we should all take off our rose coloured glases as we have all at one time suffered from that same thing .

So yes i may sound negative if i feel something is wrong , and breeding to a non outstanding dog as you yourself said jack not once but many times over 40 years and having a line that is known for its DEAF dogs which gary himself says he would not want to do , but infact has done ,seems to be a stupid thing to do over and over again , and if its negative or as NQK likes to say that i am trying to discredit gary , well i think gary in this instance has done that himself , and jack just because you and me have had issues its like even when im right im wrong , but your last post sounds like a lets not say anything against gary eventhough you yourself said that ONLY IF A DOG (WHICH RUFUS WASNT ) WAS AN OUTSTANDING DOG AND A ONE IN A THOUSAND WHICH YOU COULNDT FIND AGAIN WOULD YOU EVER CONSIDER BREEDING TO A DEAF DOG , so even if you want to try and make me out to only be saying it to be negative towards gary , and now try to put up percentages and say oh well its only 2% to try and make it sound like its ok , when you yourself said that in over 20 years of breeding you have never had a deaf dog , so 2% may seem low when put like that , but the point is if gary had not bred them back in as he has done and under your own rules jack of when and only when you would ever do that ,why do you think that his continually breeding in dogs that are deaf and selling deaf dogs for breeding stock to others is a good thing to do and good breeding practice because your last post was i consider negative towards me for me just saying what you yourself agree with that you would only ever maybe under extreme circumstances breed to a deaf dog , but you would rather try to put me down and say im negative .

Yes gary has been around the dogs for many years ,and i have said that he has put out good dogs like many others have done but does that mean i or anyone else is not allowed to say anything that isnt all positive if it isnt ? are we to not say that a dog has a false ped when we think or know it has ? there is no rule where we msut only post when we have something positive to say , maybe its becasue there are many of those already and i never started the breeding dogs with structural faults thread to then go on to try to discredit gary , and infact if that was my objective i could start threads all day long and use them to do just that about anyone if i was trying to do it but im not .

Yes i found it funny that he didnt notice rufus was deaf , and again you tried to make it seem less funny or stupid by making excuses for him not noticing it, but considering NQK thinks that gary ( and yes this guru type bull way of thinking about our dogmen heros that he somehow had a super perception and thats why he bred rufus a deaf dog, as he knew being so perceptive and all knowing that he would produce well ) yet he didnt even notice not after a day but in his own words A LONG TIME later that he was deaf amde me laugh.So maybe as i say when were to close to someone or attached to them we put them on a pedastal and give them qualities they maybe dont have, and i found that not noticing rufus was deaf a good example of that , but human nature doesnt allow some people to see the obvious even when they see it , thats the rose coloured glases syndrome which i myself used to suffer from but not anymore .

Jack i agree with you about why gary probably decided to breed rufus knowing he was deaf , and as you said it was because he was bred well , and i said this in previuos posts were i feel that the reason most dogmen breed their defective dogs is for that reason mostly and as i said before when you ask them why or read stories of the same they always say WELL HE WAS BRED WELL ,so i understsand that but you then go on to say oh i dont care what gary or anyone else does with there dogs , etc etc , well im sure most of us dont care about what others do with there dogs, but as this is a forum with threads on various aspects of the dogs , i assume that the forum is there for a cross section of posts of which depending on the subject matter will be more black and white and others less so , but im sure that whehter the man who posts on what dog feed he thinks is the best comapred to what another man says he feeds his dogs with doesnt mean he gives a shit about what the other guy feeds , but he posts what he thinks is a good feed becasue he thinks it is , just like i posted about what i think is correct versus incorrect on this thread , that doesnt mean i care whether gary or any other breeder continually breeds a defect into their line or not, because just like the guy who uses what he thinks is a good feed and posts it on here its just another opinion for others whether emotionally attached to a particular line or dogman or not to take or leave as they like , im would hope theyb wouldnt continue doing it but thats upto them, just like im sure for you jack when you put out your info on meds and other very usefull info , you would like to think that some or maybe all who read it would gain some benefit from that info, but i bet you dont loose sleep over whether they take it on board or not, and i dont loose any thinking about what any other breeder is doing good or bad breeding practice, but just like you and me and thousands maybe millions of others out there who post on all subjects we do post it not becasue we want to meddle in what others are doing as you said , but because i like you and others tell it like we see it and thats it , if they agree or disagree thats fine , and im sure gary will continue to breed his deaf dogs just like i wouldnt so if every post or any post that critises one way of doing something is called meddling ,then every post could be considered meddliling, be it what we feed to how we house and breed our dogs to how we trian them etc etc etc , SO i will say it just to be clear , i DONT GIVE A FLYING RATS BEHIND IF ANYONE AGREES OR DISAGREES WITH MY OPINIONS AND I DONT CARE SO PLEASE DONT TRY TO SAY IM MEDDLING BY POINTING OUT WHAT I FEEL IS NOT IN THE INSTANCE OF CONTINUALLY BREEDING DEFECTIVE DOGS AS DEFINED BY YOU ALSO JACK A GOOD WAY OF BREEDING be it by gary hammonds or anyone else .

I hope jack that if i post on other sujects or even start a thread on a suject like fake peds , that i will also not be called meddling by you , if as in the case of of a dog like tombstone who is in the peds of your foundation dogs ,you would like to know what is probalby the true ped of the dog and not the one put out on him, i would hope you would like many others would like to look at that, and again take it or leave it with the other info provide to support the true ped theory , rather than call it meddling .

[S_B]

Projectx, I didn't accuse you of slander, but you obviously felt threatened by the comment.

I don't look to breed dogs with structural defects, if a minor defect pops up, such as slipped hocks for instance, as mentioned here earlier. I would over look it, if most everything else I was looking for in that particular animal was in place.

Gamedogs, who are performance bred are not without defects, as "structure" is not the main focus. Form follows function in most all working breeds, ours is no different.

I would be more inclined to read all of your lengthy posts, if you were actually discussing what you as a breeder has contributed breeding your own dogs. And what superior qualities your dogs bring to the table, instead of what someone else's does not.

And you completely misunderstood me about correctly represented and entered pedigrees as pertains to this database. I haven't turned a blind eye at all when it comes to this, as I want the TRUTH entered here as well as recorded elsewhere. Not sure how you would have come to that conclusion AT ALL.

I have actually corrected some of your data entry in this pedigree database. :lol:

[Officially Retired]

I would be more inclined to read all of your lengthy posts, if you were actually discussing what you as a breeder has contributed breeding your own dogs. And what superior qualities your dogs bring to the table, instead of what someone else's does not.


:appl: :hatsoff:

I didn't even bother to read that last response either, for those exact reasons.

It is far easier to point out "the cracks in a Great Monument" than it is to build a better monument yourself.

Jack

[No Quarter Kennel]

Jack to begin with , you feel that i make posts that are negative, well if i like others think something is wrong then the post unfortunately will probably come over as a negative post, as i think in a previous reply to one of my posts you and me were pretty much on the same page as far as when and why any of us would breed dogs with a serious or at least relatively serious defect , so its not that i dislike gary in particular, its just that sometimes even if like NQK and others who have a vested interest in garys line as they run it themselves, they cant bring themselves to ever admit or agree that the man who they got their dogs from could ever be wrong in certain things , and that their shit doesnt stink so to speak, which is why i always say that we should all take off our rose coloured glases as we have all at one time suffered from that same thing .

So yes i may sound negative if i feel something is wrong , and breeding to a non outstanding dog as you yourself said jack not once but many times over 40 years and having a line that is known for its DEAF dogs which gary himself says he would not want to do , but infact has done ,seems to be a stupid thing to do over and over again , and if its negative or as NQK likes to say that i am trying to discredit gary , well i think gary in this instance has done that himself , and jack just because you and me have had issues its like even when im right im wrong , but your last post sounds like a lets not say anything against gary eventhough you yourself said that ONLY IF A DOG (WHICH RUFUS WASNT ) WAS AN OUTSTANDING DOG AND A ONE IN A THOUSAND WHICH YOU COULNDT FIND AGAIN WOULD YOU EVER CONSIDER BREEDING TO A DEAF DOG , so even if you want to try and make me out to only be saying it to be negative towards gary , and now try to put up percentages and say oh well its only 2% to try and make it sound like its ok , when you yourself said that in over 20 years of breeding you have never had a deaf dog , so 2% may seem low when put like that , but the point is if gary had not bred them back in as he has done and under your own rules jack of when and only when you would ever do that ,why do you think that his continually breeding in dogs that are deaf and selling deaf dogs for breeding stock to others is a good thing to do and good breeding practice because your last post was i consider negative towards me for me just saying what you yourself agree with that you would only ever maybe under extreme circumstances breed to a deaf dog , but you would rather try to put me down and say im negative .

Yes gary has been around the dogs for many years ,and i have said that he has put out good dogs like many others have done but does that mean i or anyone else is not allowed to say anything that isnt all positive if it isnt ? are we to not say that a dog has a false ped when we think or know it has ? there is no rule where we msut only post when we have something positive to say , maybe its becasue there are many of those already and i never started the breeding dogs with structural faults thread to then go on to try to discredit gary , and infact if that was my objective i could start threads all day long and use them to do just that about anyone if i was trying to do it but im not .

Yes i found it funny that he didnt notice rufus was deaf , and again you tried to make it seem less funny or stupid by making excuses for him not noticing it, but considering NQK thinks that gary ( and yes this guru type bull way of thinking about our dogmen heros that he somehow had a super perception and thats why he bred rufus a deaf dog, as he knew being so perceptive and all knowing that he would produce well ) yet he didnt even notice not after a day but in his own words A LONG TIME later that he was deaf amde me laugh.So maybe as i say when were to close to someone or attached to them we put them on a pedastal and give them qualities they maybe dont have, and i found that not noticing rufus was deaf a good example of that , but human nature doesnt allow some people to see the obvious even when they see it , thats the rose coloured glases syndrome which i myself used to suffer from but not anymore .

Jack i agree with you about why gary probably decided to breed rufus knowing he was deaf , and as you said it was because he was bred well , and i said this in previuos posts were i feel that the reason most dogmen breed their defective dogs is for that reason mostly and as i said before when you ask them why or read stories of the same they always say WELL HE WAS BRED WELL ,so i understsand that but you then go on to say oh i dont care what gary or anyone else does with there dogs , etc etc , well im sure most of us dont care about what others do with there dogs, but as this is a forum with threads on various aspects of the dogs , i assume that the forum is there for a cross section of posts of which depending on the subject matter will be more black and white and others less so , but im sure that whehter the man who posts on what dog feed he thinks is the best comapred to what another man says he feeds his dogs with doesnt mean he gives a shit about what the other guy feeds , but he posts what he thinks is a good feed becasue he thinks it is , just like i posted about what i think is correct versus incorrect on this thread , that doesnt mean i care whether gary or any other breeder continually breeds a defect into their line or not, because just like the guy who uses what he thinks is a good feed and posts it on here its just another opinion for others whether emotionally attached to a particular line or dogman or not to take or leave as they like , im would hope theyb wouldnt continue doing it but thats upto them, just like im sure for you jack when you put out your info on meds and other very usefull info , you would like to think that some or maybe all who read it would gain some benefit from that info, but i bet you dont loose sleep over whether they take it on board or not, and i dont loose any thinking about what any other breeder is doing good or bad breeding practice, but just like you and me and thousands maybe millions of others out there who post on all subjects we do post it not becasue we want to meddle in what others are doing as you said , but because i like you and others tell it like we see it and thats it , if they agree or disagree thats fine , and im sure gary will continue to breed his deaf dogs just like i wouldnt so if every post or any post that critises one way of doing something is called meddling ,then every post could be considered meddliling, be it what we feed to how we house and breed our dogs to how we trian them etc etc etc , SO i will say it just to be clear , i DONT GIVE A FLYING RATS BEHIND IF ANYONE AGREES OR DISAGREES WITH MY OPINIONS AND I DONT CARE SO PLEASE DONT TRY TO SAY IM MEDDLING BY POINTING OUT WHAT I FEEL IS NOT IN THE INSTANCE OF CONTINUALLY BREEDING DEFECTIVE DOGS AS DEFINED BY YOU ALSO JACK A GOOD WAY OF BREEDING be it by gary hammonds or anyone else .

I hope jack that if i post on other sujects or even start a thread on a suject like fake peds , that i will also not be called meddling by you , if as in the case of of a dog like tombstone who is in the peds of your foundation dogs ,you would like to know what is probalby the true ped of the dog and not the one put out on him, i would hope you would like many others would like to look at that, and again take it or leave it with the other info provide to support the true ped theory , rather than call it meddling .

Seriously, I don't even wear colored glasses for loved ones. I don't for anyone or anything.
I would greatly appreciate it if you would leave my name completely out of anything you want to discuss on this forum as I could NOT, in anyway shape or form, care any less about you, your opinions or anything related to you.

Have a wonderful Christmas

[projectx]

Projectx, I didn't accuse you of slander, but you obviously felt threatened by the comment.

I don't look to breed dogs with structural defects, if a minor defect pops up, such as slipped hocks for instance, as mentioned here earlier. I would over look it, if most everything else I was looking for in that particular animal was in place.

Gamedogs, who are performance bred are not without defects, as "structure" is not the main focus. Form follows function in most all working breeds, ours is no different.

I would be more inclined to read all of your lengthy posts, if you were actually discussing what you as a breeder has contributed breeding your own dogs. And what superior qualities your dogs bring to the table, instead of what someone else's does not.

And you completely misunderstood me about correctly represented and entered pedigrees as pertains to this database. I haven't turned a blind eye at all when it comes to this, as I want the TRUTH entered here as well as recorded elsewhere. Not sure how you would have come to that conclusion AT ALL.

I have actually corrected some of your data entry in this pedigree database. :lol:

Sb if you never said i slandered anyone why mention my name along with slander in the post, and believe me you do not threaten me at all , its my feeling that i threaten all of the ones who dont see to good from their rose coloured glasses they been wearing or from having their nose so far up their heros ass they cant see the wood for the trees . You see i stoped hero worshiping a long time ago, so now i can defend and also disagree with the dogmen i looked upon as the best , are they are only humans ,and that i can tell you was the best thing i ever did , as it allowed me to question things that untill then i took as gospel .
I am glad that you dont look to breed faults as a rule and i agree with you sb that these animals are not without defects ,and of course its unavoidable to not breed dogs with some minor defects , but i was talking more particualry about dogs with more severe defects either physicall or in the case of gary hammonds , using deaf dogs , so im certainly not saying that we can never breed dogs with minor defects , that would be an ideal world scenario which we do not have .
Your comment about you being more inclined to read all my lenghty posts if i was discuusing what i had as a breeder myself contributed to the breeding of my own dogs seems a rather strange think to say, as when i come on to the forum to read threads on what might interst me , i dont wonder whether the person posting it is either an expierienced breeder or dogfighter the psot normally tell me that ,but i read the post and i ether agree or disagree or think it has some merits or not depending on how i see things like everyone else does on any given subject. .Just like i would have made that comment to you, i would just reply to your post giving you my opinoin on what you posted in your first post , which was obviuosly meant for me as you mentioned my name and as such i replied to it never using the age old comment that you used , about wanting to know what you have done as some sort of reason to not have to agree with me or accept i have a point which you can agree or disagree with , as under those circumstances only about 5 % of all peoeple who ever post on any subject in these forums be it jacks or any other would not be allowed to say shit , regardless of how much sense it made or not , is that what your saying sb?
I dont have to tell you about me or my dogs or what i breed , just like i dont ask you, i look at what you or anyone else may reply to any given subject , and if i ,like many others think they have a point about that they post a reply to it , i dont need to know if they have been there seen it done and got the t shirt for me to read it, i read it and i dont decide to agree or disagree with its contents on the basis of who posted it or how deep they been , i read it and if it makes sense i say it and if it dont agree i say that to , this isnt a pissing contest sb cos if you been around as long enough you knwo that sometimes the one that can piss the farthest aint always right .Sb i will give your post the same respect i do to all the others i read , by at least reading them and deciding whther i agree or not based on whats written in it and reply to, not reply to it by whether my feeling got hurt cos it says something about a line or dogman i like , thats childish bullshit , so if you dont want to read my posts thats fine but lets not start a pissing contest ok .

As for me misunderstanding you , well im gald , as your original post seemed to be against anyone having an opinion be it right or wrong ,and that we should say nothhing and stick toggether , but as i told you, i wont stick toggehter with someone ideas if i dont agrree with them , thats riddiculous , so i mentioned and hoped that if a subject like ped faking comes up that you would not feel that we should just say nothing , and im glad you dont feel that way on that sb and i will gladly stick toggehter with you on that subject sb.

As for my data entry , what exaclty have you changed , as although i myself being only human i can and do occasionaly get things wrong , i would be interested on what data is incorrect in my peds , thank you.

[projectx]

:appl: :hatsoff:

I didn't even bother to read that last response either, for those exact reasons.

It is far easier to point out "the cracks in a Great Monument" than it is to build a better monument yourself.

Jack

Jack there you go again trying to make a put down comment rather than admit you agrree with me on when and why you or i would ever breed if ever to a dog with either deafnesss or another decfect that you thought was severe enough for you not to use a dog like that unless those circumstances to use it were met , and if you dont bother to read my replys thats not being fair to then make a comment reply like your last post , thats jsut plain lazy and unfair, and thats not what i expected of you jack .

[Officially Retired]

:deadhorse:



Jack there you go again trying to make a put down comment rather than admit you agrree with me on when and why you or i would ever breed if ever to a dog with either deafnesss or another decfect that you thought was severe enough for you not to use a dog like that unless those circumstances to use it were met ,

You are confusing many things, as usual.

While I agree I wouldn't breed to a deaf dog, unless it was very special in other ways, I still think it's a waste of time to go on and on and on about the fact Gary Hammonds did so. The great results he got prove his decision was a wise one.

Meanwhile, my ultimate opinions have been completely overlooked by you:
1) I could give a damn what Gary Hammonds does on his own yard;
2) What have YOU done positively for the breed?




and if you dont bother to read my replys thats not being fair to then make a comment reply like your last post , thats jsut plain lazy and unfair, and thats not what i expected of you jack .

You're starting to sound like a whiner.

Me, lazy? How dare you call me lazy. This forum here is the result of 2 straight years of more time and effort spent building and tweaking than you can possibly imagine. My 400-page, 500,000-word book took more time and effort to create than you have the sauce to think about yourself, let alone actually accomplish. Meanwhile, you have done "what" here, besides bitch and moan on occasion with your whopping 33 posts in 2 years?

You want to talk about "unfair?" How's this for unfair? I have asked you MULTIPLE times to state what YOU have done positively for this breed ... and you refuse to answer that ONE GD question I've asked you ... and yet I have written pages-full answering your questions ... and here I am *again* responding to everything you've said ... while YOU refuse to answer only ONE question I have asked of you ... so who TF is "unfair" here?

I didn't bother reading your last poorly-spelled, poorly-punctuated block of text because I am tired of you beating a dead horse and offering nothing but negativity to this forum ... while being too chickenshit to answer a single question about yourself.

So, until you reciprocate and answer MY question, and turn that microscope around to closely examine yourself ... the next negative statement you make to me, or to anyone on here, will be your last.

Jack

[S_B]

When a "defect" in a structure which contributes nothing rears its ugly head, it should be done away with. No sense in it continuing, as it is futile.

Jack, I'm sure most would support whatever decision you choose in dealing with such a defect in this structure.

S_B

[Officially Retired]

I hear you, and it is now getting close to that.

I am still fuming that Projectx actually has the audacity to call "me" lazy. He has only made 33 posts here in 2 years (all negative), while I have contributed (literally) more than 100x that amount during the same period, not to mention "small contributions" like the resource itself, all the articles, all the videos, etc.

The man literally needs to look in the mirror, for a good long while, before he uses words like "lazy" on me again, or "bad for the breed" on a man like Hammonds.

Hell, S_B, you have only been here 3 months, yet you've tripled Projectx' input in posts, you've added more than 650 dogs (13x more than Projectx), and you've also tried contributed immeasurably to straightening out some of the bad data entry in no telling how many other pedigrees ... in 1/8th the amount of time he's been here.

Meanwhile, what has Projectx done "what" in 2 years here?
Oh, that's right, 33 (negative) posts and 49 pedigrees.
Worse, even in the mere 49 pedigrees Projectx has entered, 30 of those entries (62%) were either misspelled or poorly-punctuated.

You know, that "negative microscope" works both ways, and when it shines on him it doesn't look too promising.
Projectx needs to state his breeding credentials, and get his own act together, FIRST, before he dares to call another man "lazy" or "bad for the breed" again.

Jack

[projectx]

I hear you, and it is now getting close to that.

I am still fuming that Projectx actually has the audacity to call "me" lazy. He has only made 33 posts here in 2 years (all negative), while I have contributed (literally) more than 100x that amount during the same period, not to mention "small contributions" like the resource itself, all the articles, all the videos, etc.

The man literally needs to look in the mirror, for a good long while, before he uses words like "lazy" on me again, or "bad for the breed" on a man like Hammonds.

Hell, S_B, you have only been here 3 months, yet you've tripled Projectx' input in posts, you've added more than 650 dogs (13x more than Projectx), and you've also tried contributed immeasurably to straightening out some of the bad data entry in no telling how many other pedigrees ... in 1/8th the amount of time he's been here.

Meanwhile, what has Projectx done "what" in 2 years here?
Oh, that's right, 33 (negative) posts and 49 pedigrees.
Worse, even in the mere 49 pedigrees Projectx has entered, 30 of those entries (62%) were either misspelled or poorly-punctuated.

You know, that "negative microscope" works both ways, and when it shines on him it doesn't look too promising.
Projectx needs to state his breeding credentials, and get his own act together, FIRST, before he dares to call another man "lazy" or "bad for the breed" again.

Jack

Hi jack , i used lazy towards you not becasue i think your lazy i know your not ,but because in your reply to my post you said that you hadnt bothered to read it all just like sb had stated ,and i found that lazy , as i may not agree with a post , but i will at least give it the courtesy of reading it fully before making a reply to it whether positive or negative.

As for me saying that hammonds is bad for the breed , i dont think i said that jack , what i do think and if im not mistaken and not wanting to put words into your mouth you agreed also, is that to constantly breed in a severe defect like deafness , which gary himself has stated he thinks is not a good idea but has kept doing it is bad breeding practice ,and unless like you yourself said the dog in question would have to have been a one in a thousand type dog and also an outstanding pitdog before you would ever consider breeding to a dog like that , so why the hell are you trying to shoot me down for saying what im sure many others also think is bad breeding practice , whether its gary hammonds doing it or a newbie its still bad practice, and i dont see why i or anyone else needs to justify what they post by what credentials they have in the game, just like i dont ask anyone else that question , i just read a post and if i agree or disagree with it i dont wonder whether any post i disagree with is posted by either a rank begginer or ozzie stevens , if it has merits thats what i look at , if everyone on this or any other forum has to have credentials or a badge of honour before they can post a comment and then and only then regardless of how good or bad a post might be is allowed to say anything on any subject , then not many will be posting anything.

If like many other members jack who post on a variety of subjects from feed and housing to breeding and what gamness is, you should know better than most , that its all about pereception , and even the most experienced dogman can make mistakes and they do all the time, you yourself mentioned just that in a post about breeding if im not mistaken so if i or anyone else has to show you and the rest of the forum a resume of achievements before making a post even if its a good post , then make that a rule on here and lets see how many put one up , some will and some wont either becasue they cant or becasue their not here to tell the rest of the world whom or what they have done jack ,some people arent the braging type and like some annonimity thats why you dont see to many memebrs real names if ever .

As i said to you before , if you think my posts are negative , well im sorry but im not sure how i can make a post on something like breeding deaf dogs as a rule rather than an exception a very psoitive post as i dont agree with it , maybe thats why,
and the same would apply to any other posts you say i have been negative in i would have had a reason for me to be negative or not in agreement with it for me to have said it in the first place, and i at least try to , not like some members give a full and frank explanation as to why im not in agreement or negative as you say with a post , rather than just post a comment that says nothing and just disagrees with a post be it mine or another memebers post and gives no reason as to why , thats what i call a negative post jack , and man we can find a ton of those type of posts that say nothing and give nothing so guess what you learn nothing form them nothing ,and normally those posters dont have a reason other than they run a certain line or have an affiliation with a certain dogman , at least i try to give a reason in every post i make then jack its upto another member to either agree or disagree with it and i would hope they try to explain to me by way of a post using reasons as to why they may think im wrong , and if like i think i am a reasonable and open minded person , i may be swayed by that post becasue it has merit and i may have been wrong in my opinion , but that means making an effort not just defending the undefendable or disagreeing becasue of an emotional attachment rather than using facts , that i would have thought would be the way you would like ii to be jack , just like you always give a reason why you think a certain drug or feeding theory is good by using reasons why , or examples of breeding , you give a reason for it , so others whehter they agree with you or not can at least have something to go on before making their decision to either go that way or not .

So just incase you didnt see it jack i do appologise to you if you thought i called you lazy , i know your not and without you this forum would not be what it is , i only meant it in the case of your not even bothering to read my post fully just like SB had said and then reply to it with a sweeping statement that to be fair was derogatroy to me ,without having read my post first, that was what i meant by being lazy , so i again appologise for that it was only meant in that particular context .

[evolutionkennels]

Why would you wanna crack knuckles again a 3x knuckle cracking world champion in 3 different weight divisions with a law degree. Even I wouldn't, although I've been known to crack a few knuckles.

[Officially Retired]

Why would you wanna crack knuckles again a 3x knuckle cracking world champion in 3 different weight divisions with a law degree. Even I wouldn't, although I've been known to crack a few knuckles.

LOL ... well, I am going to have to crack my knuckles later on ... too busy now "being lazy" :lol:

Jack

[projectx]

LOL ... well, I am going to have to crack my knuckles later on ... too busy now "being lazy" :lol:

Jack

Hi jack , well i appologised to you thinking that maybe you had somehow misunderstood in what context i had called you lazy , and i thought you deserved an appolgy incase you had misunderstood me, but thats fine jack .

[projectx]

Why would you wanna crack knuckles again a 3x knuckle cracking world champion in 3 different weight divisions with a law degree. Even I wouldn't, although I've been known to crack a few knuckles.

Hi evo thanks for the advice but i am more than capable of looking after myself , but more importantly what are your views and opinions on the subject of this thread .

[evolutionkennels]

Hi evo thanks for the advice but i am more than capable of looking after myself , but more importantly what are your views and opinions on the subject of this thread .


If it was a grand champion sdj doy that won his last three within a 14 week period, I'd breed him to the best structured bitches from his own bloodline (linebred) each time, pick out the best structured offspring who also perform, and go from the re, but I see his pups have the same defects, I'd save my time and start breeding away from him

[projectx]

If it was a grand champion sdj doy that won his last three within a 14 week period, I'd breed him to the best structured bitches from his own bloodline (linebred) each time, pick out the best structured offspring who also perform, and go from the re, but I see his pups have the same defects, I'd save my time and start breeding away from him

Hi evo , so in the case of hammonds who i used as an example of as a breeder whos line is known for deaf dogs do you think that to continually breed deaf dogs in his particular case back into a line is a good or bad breeding practice .

[evolutionkennels]

I personally do not care for that, as a matter of fact, I don't care for the Hammonds line at all, just my personal opinion. However, they seem to do well in Europe. I wouldn't perpetuate an unhealthy trait. But that is my standard, and who am I to tell another man what to do or not do. If he is happy with his program, that's all that matters, if people are buying his dogs, then they must be doing something right. Everyone likes what like based on what they've seen, what they have access too, or what they can afford based on what they think will make the best dogs. That's why I always get kick out of people asking what others think about this blood or that blood. The important thing is what YOU think based on your research and deductions. So, got with YOUR Gut , and at the end if the day, you'll be able to look in the mirror and say that it worked or didn't work based on YOUR DECISION. If I'd of listened to everyone, I'd of never bred Macha to 357. THAT ALL I'LL SAY

[Officially Retired]

Hi jack , i used lazy towards you not becasue i think your lazy i know your not ,but because in your reply to my post you said that you hadnt bothered to read it all just like sb had stated ,and i found that lazy , as i may not agree with a post , but i will at least give it the courtesy of reading it fully before making a reply to it whether positive or negative.

Not lazy, just sick of beating a dead horse :deadhorse:






As for me saying that hammonds is bad for the breed , i dont think i said that jack , what i do think and if im not mistaken and not wanting to put words into your mouth you agreed also, is that to constantly breed in a severe defect like deafness , which gary himself has stated he thinks is not a good idea but has kept doing it is bad breeding practice ,and unless like you yourself said the dog in question would have to have been a one in a thousand type dog and also an outstanding pitdog before you would ever consider breeding to a dog like that , so why the hell are you trying to shoot me down for saying what im sure many others also think is bad breeding practice , whether its gary hammonds doing it or a newbie its still bad practice, and i dont see why i or anyone else needs to justify what they post by what credentials they have in the game, just like i dont ask anyone else that question , i just read a post and if i agree or disagree with it i dont wonder whether any post i disagree with is posted by either a rank begginer or ozzie stevens , if it has merits thats what i look at , if everyone on this or any other forum has to have credentials or a badge of honour before they can post a comment and then and only then regardless of how good or bad a post might be is allowed to say anything on any subject , then not many will be posting anything.

What I am saying is you made your GD point, and keep repeating it like a broken record. At some stage, it begins to sound like obsession or insanity. Have you ever heard The Serenity Prayer? It goes like this:


"God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change;
The courage to change the things that I can;
And the wisdom to know the difference."

It appears to me that you lack the wisdom to know the difference between what you cannot change and what you can.
You will never be able to change Gary Hammonds' breeding practices, so learn to accept this and move on.
The only thing you have control over is your own breeding practices.

Now, as far as credentials go, no one needs to have them to post here ... but if you're going to go on and on, disparaging a living legend in the breed, and won't move on and change the subject, then at some point I need to know how perfect YOUR standards are to be questioning the standards of a man who's bred some great dogs and contributed in many ways to the history of the breed.




If like many other members jack who post on a variety of subjects from feed and housing to breeding and what gamness is, you should know better than most , that its all about pereception , and even the most experienced dogman can make mistakes and they do all the time, you yourself mentioned just that in a post about breeding if im not mistaken so if i or anyone else has to show you and the rest of the forum a resume of achievements before making a post even if its a good post , then make that a rule on here and lets see how many put one up , some will and some wont either becasue they cant or becasue their not here to tell the rest of the world whom or what they have done jack ,some people arent the braging type and like some annonimity thats why you dont see to many memebrs real names if ever .

This is a copout.

If you're not the bragging type, fine. But don't be a shit-talking type then either.
If you want to keep your accomplishments to yourself, no problem, but don't keep harping on another man ad nauseum.
Have you ever heard the saying, "Judge not, lest ye be judged?"

You're setting yourself up for counter-examinations by all your judgmental talk.
Casually mentioning Hammonds is one thing; posting 3 pages of complaints is another.
You need to gain the wisdom to know the difference.





As i said to you before , if you think my posts are negative , well im sorry but im not sure how i can make a post on something like breeding deaf dogs as a rule rather than an exception a very psoitive post as i dont agree with it , maybe thats why,
and the same would apply to any other posts you say i have been negative in i would have had a reason for me to be negative or not in agreement with it for me to have said it in the first place, and i at least try to , not like some members give a full and frank explanation as to why im not in agreement or negative as you say with a post , rather than just post a comment that says nothing and just disagrees with a post be it mine or another memebers post and gives no reason as to why , thats what i call a negative post jack , and man we can find a ton of those type of posts that say nothing and give nothing so guess what you learn nothing form them nothing ,and normally those posters dont have a reason other than they run a certain line or have an affiliation with a certain dogman , at least i try to give a reason in every post i make then jack its upto another member to either agree or disagree with it and i would hope they try to explain to me by way of a post using reasons as to why they may think im wrong , and if like i think i am a reasonable and open minded person , i may be swayed by that post becasue it has merit and i may have been wrong in my opinion , but that means making an effort not just defending the undefendable or disagreeing becasue of an emotional attachment rather than using facts , that i would have thought would be the way you would like ii to be jack , just like you always give a reason why you think a certain drug or feeding theory is good by using reasons why , or examples of breeding , you give a reason for it , so others whehter they agree with you or not can at least have something to go on before making their decision to either go that way or not .

:deadhorse:

That is all you're doing here. Beating a dead horse and going on and on about nothing. This isn't even worth responding to. You're trying to tell me how an internet discussion goes, lol, as if I don't know. I probably have had more internet debates over the last 18 years I've been online than ANY dogman alive (except maybe Norrod :lol:), so I pretty much know how they go. I have been an investigator/negotiator for a living since 1988, Projectx, I assure you I am quite well versed on the subject of debate.

You've posted your opinion on Hammonds and breeding deaf dogs. I have posted mine.
I have painstakingly stated my own position. At this point, there is really nothing left to discuss.





So just incase you didnt see it jack i do appologise to you if you thought i called you lazy , i know your not and without you this forum would not be what it is , i only meant it in the case of your not even bothering to read my post fully just like SB had said and then reply to it with a sweeping statement that to be fair was derogatroy to me ,without having read my post first, that was what i meant by being lazy , so i again appologise for that it was only meant in that particular context .

I appreciate the apology, and I apologize if I have been rude myself. I promise you there is nothing lazy about me.

Just because I did not bother to read/respond to your other post doesn't mean I'm lazy, it means I already addressed those subjects and to go on and on about them further is, quite frankly, a waste of my time ... as the last :30 of my life has been wasted responding to this post, only to clarify (what should be) the obvious to anyone.

Thank you and that is all I have to say on the subject.

I have stated my views and support them with a pretty big winning record as a breeder for 2+ decades. If you feel your view is better, then support them with a better record.
If you'd like to read the opinions of 2 more experts on breeding, who run other breeds, which likewise support my views of NOT breeding for "flawlessness," but rather breeding for excellence, you can read the 2 articles I posted on this thread (http://www.thepitbullbible.com/forum/showthread.php?107).

Jack

PS: I will now move onto the other thread you posted, which I find far more interesting.