Breeding Dogs With Structural Defects

[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

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

For example, my entire bloodline was based on Ch Hammer, 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 ).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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"

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

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 )

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

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

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, 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

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, 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, 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

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
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

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 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.