looking for some working andy capp

Some good reading, thanks TFX for sharing!

Awesome thread thanks TFX

How is the last breeding you spoke of doing? TFX

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFX

The real question should be for any fancier looking for descendants of any dog, do you want that dog in the pedigree, or do you want the traits from that dog? Many years ago a fellow brought over a male to my place to be evaluated. The dog was sired by the great GR CH Andy Capp right back to his dam Penny Sue. He was shy, only marginally well conformed, and the rankest kind of cur one might have ever the displeasure of witnessing. Subsequently, this fellow sold the dog to some unsuspecting folks, and he now appears in a number of modern day pedigrees. One could have based a whole yard on the dog and peddled them with great success on the merits of the dog's pedigree alone. Although heavy on the Andy Capp breeding in his pedigree, unfortunately this dog had no more to do with the traits of Andy Capp than did the blue bully mongrel down the road. I visited a yard early this week to pick up a 9 year old sire of my breeding. This fellow had some dogs on his yard down from our old Homer III dog. They aren't very tight on the blood, but they sure do carry the traits of the little dog.

As for "working" Andy Capp dogs, there are 5 of these 2 year olds out there from a litter that are all outstanding individuals by every account I have heard from people on both coasts and in Mexico.
http://www.apbt.online-pedigrees.com/pu ... _id=331142

Once again, although these dogs are not "tight" on Andy Capp, I believe they carry the traits he was best known for. I saw the aftermath of one that was set down with one from this breeding, and it will cause one to marvel for certain at the talent level. Traits skip generations, and as near as I can tell based on my 20+ years of maintianing the same family of dogs and watching them evolve, I think 4 generations is about the average skip rate before traits of any ancestor are outwardly manifested or expressed again. Obviously, this is kind of a simplification and there are many more variables at work, but this has been my observation on average with both performance and physical characteristics. Personally, I paid no attention to this breeding above when it was made because the bottom side is not anything I am real crazy about. Once they matured though, I became a big fan. I firmly believe the Andy Capp traits from both sides of the pedigree cropped up in this group. Incidentally, the "cur trait" seems to crop up at the same 4-5 generation interval. Thus the importance of purification of bloodlines so that it becomes less prevalant. I don't think curs can be totally eliminated from a program, but I think one can drastically raise the average gameness of his stock by eliminating curs.

Here is another "working" breeding that I am doing next week that has an Andy Capp base. I wouldn't say these are Andy Capp dogs, but if you want something that is finer than that potlicker who was sired by Andy Capp to his mama of which I referred to above, I can guarantee most of these will grow up to please the discriminating fancier. When one doesn't change up the recipe except to keep adding more goodness, it is pretty easy to predict what the results will be.
http://www.apbt.online-pedigrees.com/pu ... _id=296011

---

First off, I like to say I agree with you completely 100%...but I do have some questions. What do you base your selection on? For working hounds, shouldn't it be the box and their ability to produce winners? I guess I'm just a little confuse...when I see a pedigree of a dog where the Rom/Por Gr Ch/ Ch way in the 4th generation. I mean, if those ancestors that are in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd generations were really that great or claimed to carry the "Great" dog's traits then how come they aren't winners or Roms/Pors? It may seem as if I like to see a pretty pedigree but that's not the case. If I don't know all the ancestors in the pedigree personally or know someone that knows those dogs first handed then all I have is the pedigree and past down stories to go by. How many generations of dogs should one keep on breeding without testing them in the box? *Not talking about bs HGT either. I mean don't get me wrong here...Theories and opinions do have their part too in the selection process but wouldn't the actual box reveals what the individual dog could actually do? Just curious and would like to hear your thoughts on it. ;)

Ps... I'm not referring to the pedigrees you posted. Also please excuse my novice questions.

First thing, it's not all that easy to get a ROM or POR dog to just pop out of a breeding program. When you consider that most dogs never make it to the show, you should consider yourself lucky when you do have dogs that make it there and win.

Second thing, being a winner doesn't necessarily mean anything except your dog beat the dog in front of it. That could mean your average dog beat a dog that quit in 20 minutes, and in the overall way of looking at things, being a winner isn't all that impressive. The only time winning ever meant anything to me was when a quality dog was beaten. Unfortunately, for my dog, we tended to see more quality action at the yard than the show due to selection, breeding, etc etc. So because a dog isn't a winner doesn't mean it's not "tested in the box". It could be something as simple as the dog simply isn't a winner for a variety of reasons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FrostyPaws

First thing, it's not all that easy to get a ROM or POR dog to just pop out of a breeding program. When you consider that most dogs never make it to the show, you should consider yourself lucky when you do have dogs that make it there and win.

Second thing, being a winner doesn't necessarily mean anything except your dog beat the dog in front of it. That could mean your average dog beat a dog that quit in 20 minutes, and in the overall way of looking at things, being a winner isn't all that impressive. The only time winning ever meant anything to me was when a quality dog was beaten. Unfortunately, for my dog, we tended to see more quality action at the yard than the show due to selection, breeding, etc etc. So because a dog isn't a winner doesn't mean it's not "tested in the box". It could be something as simple as the dog simply isn't a winner for a variety of reasons.

---

Fair enough! Well said FrostyPaws! I can see where you're coming from.

I agree with Frosty Paws to some extent. Some of the best dogs I have ever seen had no titles. In my opinion, you're confusing titles with quality Pit Bull Committed. There are numerous reasons why hard tested, extremely high quality dogs are never shown, and thus have no titles. The ROM and POR systems both have flaws, one of them being volume breeding; particularly on the male side, can mask a marginal producer by putting a title behind his name. Conversely, some high percentage producers never got credit due to small scale breeding, poor management, or preservation efforts that didn't allow certain individuals to be exhibited. Don't get me wrong, I like show dogs for my brood dogs as often as possible, I think Jack can attest to that, and at a minimum I have always used hard tested brood stock. Up until 2013, I still had tested dogs to breed to. For me today that is not possible as I don't use the dogs for performance personally, and I am down to a handful of basically pet dogs. There are some guys I am working with to get the bloodline revived a bit, and perhaps they will show some of them down the road.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFX

I agree with Frosty Paws to some extent. Some of the best dogs I have ever seen had no titles. In my opinion, you're confusing titles with quality Pit Bull Committed. There are numerous reasons why hard tested, extremely high quality dogs are never shown, and thus have no titles. The ROM and POR systems both have flaws, one of them being volume breeding; particularly on the male side, can mask a marginal producer by putting a title behind his name. Conversely, some high percentage producers never got credit due to small scale breeding, poor management, or preservation efforts that didn't allow certain individuals to be exhibited. Don't get me wrong, I like show dogs for my brood dogs as often as possible, I think Jack can attest to that, and at a minimum I have always used hard tested brood stock. Up until 2013, I still had tested dogs to breed to. For me today that is not possible as I don't use the dogs for performance personally, and I am down to a handful of basically pet dogs. There are some guys I am working with to get the bloodline revived a bit, and perhaps they will show some of them down the road.

---

Very well said! Makes a lot sense! In this case if I want to acquire some dogs it'll be best to buy directly from the source or buy from a person I know and can trust. ;)