Bad Habits

[Pit Bull Committed]

I too would stay clear of dogs with bad habits. Even though there are many great dogs with bad habits there are also many great dogs without the bad habits. I see no correlation between bad habits and great performance or intelligence.

I see no intelligence in a dog solely basing on s/he fighting his/her chain 24/7 for life. An intelligent dog would probably fight his/her chain for the first few hours when first put on a chain but would quickly realize that they can't escape and calm down.

I see no intelligence in a dog solely basing on them pissing in their own water or eating their own poop. An intelligent dog imo would not drink their own piss and avoid stepping on their own shit.

[Officially Retired]

Ok Jack, now we agree on this, but my decision to not perpetuate a yard full of hole digging, house chewing chain fighters still stands.

Okay, your yard, your decisions have to stand

I just simply stead clear of lines with those traits, no matter how great they may be.

Mmm, that's what I have a problem with. Of course, again, your yard; your rules.
But when you steer away from a great dog, and aim your breedings toward "easy-keepers," you are no longer breeding based on performance but on some other criteria

That reminds me or Robert T Jr's owner ... he never bred to Robert T because he had "mangy feet" and didn't want pups with "mangy feet" ...
Yet in the same breath he said he would sell all 5 of his properties to get Robert T Jr (and another dog named Leroy) back ... because he could win all of that back, and more, with those two animals.

So I asked him why he didn't breed to Robert T and the above was the answer
It made no sense to me!
Here this old man would gladly sell 5 properties to get THE DOG Robert T Jr. back (mangy feet and all) ... and yet he didn't possess the sense to LINEBREED on Robert T to capture and harness his exceptional head-fighting genetics ... which it was clear he had, not just based on his own awesome record, but his sire (the Original Robert T) was the greatest head dog of all time!

Honestly, makes no freakin sense to me. Dude wanted "that ability" ... and yet he did not *hang onto* that ability by BREEDING FOR IT.
Okay, mangy feet is not something anyone wants, but I would gladly overlook mangy feet (or upgrade my feeding practices to prevent it) to HANG ONTO extra-ordinary pit ability.
This guy's belief system was WHY he always had to BUY his best dogs, and never was able to BREED them himself: he was not selecting for greatness, but for something that had nothing to do with greatness.

And I am making the exact same statement here: if you breed *away* from a truly superior animal ... over "yard habits" ... then you're no longer breeding for performance IMO.
Sure, get rid of an average palooka, if he digs or chain-fights, but if the dog is a great dog, only a person doomed to mediocrity will get rid of an ace over his yard habits.

And I never said one wouldn't be allowed to mature before culling. And also as you stated, culling can also mean removing from your yard by selling that problem child to someone else, who doesn't mind keeping a dog like that.

Agreed.

Just like I stay away from lines of turning dogs, cold dogs and those killer "hard mouthed" dogs.
S_B

Staying away from turning or cold dogs is not the same thing. Not by a longshot. Turning is very often the sign of shit in the tank, and cold is useless.
I would possibly try breeding to a cold dog (if it was truly cold and not a rank cur, and by truly cold I mean a dog that wags its tail to a killing, not one who's screaming and afraid of it), but I can't stand the sight of a turn and would never breed to a turning dog either. No way.

Hard mouth is a good trait, and as long as everything else was there, is an asset IMO.

In short, I try to breed for WINNING TRAITS not "chain habits" or anything else that has nothing to do with winning.

Jack

[No Quarter Kennel]

Just to add a punctuation mark:

If you decided to tie 2 people up to a chain by the neck, which one do you think would be the best overall fighter and human being?

1) The guy who sat there, dull-eyed and docile, never understanding why he couldn't go anywhere, and who never tried to get off the chain?;

or

2) The guy who knew that chain was holding him back, and who yanked all-day, all-night at the chain ... trying to break it any way he could ... never stopping in his effort to destroy that chain and get off it?

Which guy do you call "stupid" ... and which guy do you think has more "spirit"?

To me, some dogmen show that they don't really know much about dogs at all ... or much else for that matter.

Jack

We've seen "intelligence" tied to gameness and ability, numerous times. MANY folks here agree with that.
In your example above, I would believe the MORE INTELLIGENT human is the one that knows, he cannot escaped a chain around his neck,,,,,,not by his own abilities anyways.
Just basing my opinion on the information given and not any assumptions.

[Officially Retired]

We've seen "intelligence" tied to gameness and ability, numerous times. MANY folks here agree with that.
In your example above, I would believe the MORE INTELLIGENT human is the one that knows, he cannot escaped a chain around his neck,,,,,,not by his own abilities anyways.
Just basing my opinion on the information given and not any assumptions.

So you're saying the gamest, most intelligent men in Alcatraz prison were the ones who "knew" they couldn't escape ... and sat around accepting their fate ... rather than the few who relentlessly tried and finally figured out how to do so?

I absolutely disagree.

I guess you think the gamest, smartest dog are also the ones who "know they can't win" ... and stop trying too? Again, I absolutely disagree.

The gamest, smartest ones are the ones who never stop trying and always figure some "way" to do what they want to do.

[Officially Retired]

My Icon dog not only was smarter than any dog on my yard in the pit, but if he ran some toy off his chain ... and couldn't get it with his front feet ... he'd turn around and try (many times successfully) to get it with his back feet.

I'd say only 1 in 500 dogs will think to "reach" with their back feet too.

Jack

[S_B]

So you're saying the gamest, most intelligent men in Alcatraz prison were the ones who "knew" they couldn't escape ... and sat around accepting their fate ... rather than the few who relentlessly tried and finally figured out how to do so?

I absolutely disagree.

I won't compare human intelligence to that of a dog. There have been studies and theories, but bottom line, it is all educated guessing. I mean, why are we breeding them, and caring for them, if they are as intelligent as us, they'd take care of those basics things themselves. That's what they do in the wild, humans have stepped in to harness what they are selecting for.


Jack, I never saw Robert T, heard about the dog, but if he was really that bad M'fer, and had the nasty habits, which I have stated that I personally do not like. I would not breed to that dog. (mangy feet are no issue, that can be cured) There are other bad M'fers I'd be selecting for. Ones that don't destroy everything, I agree it is cunning sometimes the things these dogs do to their environment.

But I would be selecting dogs that are cunning when it counts, when faced with a real problem and ones that think on their feet in a jam. Those are the truly special animals in my book.

[FrostyPaws]

I must say this. If ANY of the chain fighting dogs I had were like a Robert T, I would just accept my fate, keep the dog, breed him and see what goes where. None of mine were Robert T. Hell, they probably weren't a hair on Robert T's nuts.

Ultimately, I would go with performance over habits if it were a chain fighting or hole digging retard. I can fix hole digging with a concrete spot. I could fix the chain fighting with one of my pens. Either way, dogs such as Robert T, or any dog with such abilities, is worth dealing with to possibly harness what they are/were.

[CrazyRed]

I must say this. If ANY of the chain fighting dogs I had were like a Robert T, I would just accept my fate, keep the dog, breed him and see what goes where. None of mine were Robert T. Hell, they probably weren't a hair on Robert T's nuts.

Ultimately, I would go with performance over habits if it were a chain fighting or hole digging retard. I can fix hole digging with a concrete spot. I could fix the chain fighting with one of my pens. Either way, dogs such as Robert T, or any dog with such abilities, is worth dealing with to possibly harness what they are/were.

Yea I'd just have a yard of hole digging chain fighting fools lol

[Officially Retired]

I won't compare human intelligence to that of a dog. There have been studies and theories, but bottom line, it is all educated guessing. I mean, why are we breeding them, and caring for them, if they are as intelligent as us, they'd take care of those basics things themselves. That's what they do in the wild, humans have stepped in to harness what they are selecting for.

Again, it's hard to keep a discussion on track with you, because you say things that were never said.

I never said dogs were "as intelligent as humans," so why do you complicate the discussion by adding BS to it?

Dogs *do* have some intelligence, and (just like some people are smarter than others) some dogs are smarter than others ... so I don't know why we can't agree on this simple FACT.

Do you think all dogs have ZERO intelligence? I hope not.
Do you think all dogs have the exact same level of intelligence? I hope not.
Or, do you have the basic sense to realize some dogs ARE smarter than others? I hope so

Jack, I never saw Robert T, heard about the dog, but if he was really that bad M'fer, and had the nasty habits, which I have stated that I personally do not like. I would not breed to that dog. (mangy feet are no issue, that can be cured) There are other bad M'fers I'd be selecting for. Ones that don't destroy everything, I agree it is cunning sometimes the things these dogs do to their environment.

Well, then here is were we disagree in a nutshell: I *would* be breeding to Robert T.
If the Old Man (who's been in the fastest of fast lanes since the 1960s) has never seen a head dog as good as Robert T Jr. (except for his father, the Original Robert T), then we're not talking about "a genetic fluke" we're talking about an ACE who passed on his ACE characteristics into a son ... which is made all the more remarkable because the original Robert T wasn't bred all that much

There is no dog you know of "who doesn't destroy the environment" ... who beat four 4xWs ... and whose daddy beat two Grand Champions and two Champions ... plus 5 other dogs.

The absolute key to having THE BEST performance dogs is breeding to (and harnessing genetically) THE BEST performance characteristics ... not to breed to the dogs on your yard that are "the most convenient" to raise

Now, if a man is lucky and gets all of that in one dog, great.
But if a particular dog is absolutely excellent ... I mean truly superior ... but he has some flaws, or annoying tendencies, then IF you're a performance breeder you have to bite the bullet and breed to that ace ... because the moment you don't, you are NOT breeding for the best dogs, you're breeding for your own personal preferences of conduct.

But I would be selecting dogs that are cunning when it counts, when faced with a real problem and ones that think on their feet in a jam. Those are the truly special animals in my book.

LOL, mine too. But there aren't too many dogs that could "think on their feet" and outsmart some of the baddest dogs who ever lived, more so than Robert T and Robert T Jr. ... who beat 6 Champions and 2 Grand Champions between the father/son team.

I seriously doubt too many father/son dogs you know can make that statement ... and I for one would just about give my left nut to have those 2 dogs on my yard, along with a couple of my foundation bitches, because I know I would have hurt a lot of people's feelings with their pups

Jack

[Officially Retired]

I must say this. If ANY of the chain fighting dogs I had were like a Robert T, I would just accept my fate, keep the dog, breed him and see what goes where. None of mine were Robert T. Hell, they probably weren't a hair on Robert T's nuts.

Ultimately, I would go with performance over habits if it were a chain fighting or hole digging retard. I can fix hole digging with a concrete spot. I could fix the chain fighting with one of my pens. Either way, dogs such as Robert T, or any dog with such abilities, is worth dealing with to possibly harness what they are/were.

That is pretty much my point.

No one wants to deal with difficult bullshit. That's a given.
But we are, after all, raising these dogs to beat anything their weight they face AND to have an indominable spirit.
And sometimes that "indominable spirit" and the relentless desire to "have their way" is going to be a pain in the ass to deal with

The point is, if a particular dog has exceptional ability, but is a PITA to deal with, you don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
You breed towards "elite ability" FIRST and let all other considerations fall second.
The moment someone breeds for "nice chain manners" (or coat color, nose color, conformation, "no mangy feet" ... or whatever other BS you want to put here) ... then they're no longer breeding for performance.
Some other consideration becomes the goal.

The Old Man is a great example.
He must have told "Robert T stories" to me a thousand times. He loved that dog, idolized that dog.
Yet he made breeding decisions to other dogs ... because of "mangy feet" ... and was left to scratch his head and wonder "why" he never found that kind of ability again

This simple reason is he didn't breed for it, and consequently he didn't get it.

It honestly doesn't get any more basic than that.

Jack