Bad Habits

[EWO]

I think people often mislead themselves by not having a true mission statement. You know, the line of shit companies put out there to remind themselves of what they should be doing, and should have been doing all along. The dog game is no different. If a guy's mission statement is to win matches and his mindset is solely on winning matches then the bad habit dogs (on percentages they are of no value to him, understanding there are exceptions to the rule, but those exceptions are few and far between). On the other hand if a guy wants to breed his dogs to win matches then that very same bad habit dog can be a vital point to the program.

An analogy would be jumping from line to line every time a dog wins or loses. People with an intelligent plan, stick to that plan and bad habit dogs can be a huge asset to that plan going forward.

Are they easy to own? Nope. Hence the name, hard keepers. Are they of value?. Absolutely. If his only bad habit is a bad chain habit, yet he demonstrates and performs well, he is of value going forward, maybe not on show night, but most definitely in getting the next one to the show. EWO

[CrazyRed]

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.


Jack

I know the gentleman was a private individual and kept what he bred and used what he bred, and for the life of me I never knew or understood why Robert T didn't have at least 100 offspring, hell I wonder still, why wasn't Tornado, her mother her offspring and more not bred to Robert T or T Jr... Man what a helluva accomplishment that father & son combo had...

[Officially Retired]

I know the gentleman was a private individual and kept what he bred and used what he bred, and for the life of me I never knew or understood why Robert T didn't have at least 100 offspring, hell I wonder still, why wasn't Tornado, her mother her offspring and more not bred to Robert T or T Jr... Man what a helluva accomplishment that father & son combo had...

Yeah, neither of them was really a breeder, especially The Old Man.

I believe K.A. actually did breed both Tornado and the original Robert T. Maybe even T. Jr. too.
I know Allen bought the Carver's Bob Tail dog who sired him.

Oh, and I wouldn't call The Old Man a gentleman

But, yeah, at one time The Old Man had the original Robert T, Tornado, and Robert T Jr. on his yard ... musta been a good feeling to look out there and see that ... 23 wins (and no telling how much $$ won) between 3 dogs

Jack

.

[Officially Retired]

I think people often mislead themselves by not having a true mission statement. You know, the line of shit companies put out there to remind themselves of what they should be doing, and should have been doing all along. The dog game is no different.

Awesome point EWO.

Absolutely, one should have a mission statement: a clearly-defined goal as to what one is breeding their dogs to do, exactly.

If a guy's mission statement is to win matches and his mindset is solely on winning matches then the bad habit dogs (on percentages they are of no value to him, understanding there are exceptions to the rule, but those exceptions are few and far between). On the other hand if a guy wants to breed his dogs to win matches then that very same bad habit dog can be a vital point to the program.

I know what you're saying, but have to disagree a bit.

Zukill won 6, and killed all 6 dogs in under an hour. Most dogs with teeth can't do that, let alone without.
Robert T Jr. beat four 4xWs ... with no teeth ... again most dogs with teeth can't do that.

I am not talking about keeping a dog that is just "game" who's a problem dog, but one that is truly outstanding.
A dog with truly AWESOME talent is a dog with truly awesome talent ... and he will almost always win no matter what.
These are the ones to "bite the bullet" over and deal with their problems (if any).

Such are ALWAYS more valuable than mediocre dogs that "can win" (but there's nothing truly awesome or excellent about the animal).

An analogy would be jumping from line to line every time a dog wins or loses. People with an intelligent plan, stick to that plan and bad habit dogs can be a huge asset to that plan going forward.

Agreed. Stick with what you've got, if it's truly excellent. Keep trying to raise the bar by KEEPING the truly excellent genes ... but try to breed around any faults.
For example, breeding Robert T to a daughter who has no mange ... then keeping the pups that have his style and also have no mange.

However, if the cards fell that the best dog in the litter had mangy feet also ... then I'd have a yard full of mangy-footed ace head dogs ... rather than "nicely-footed" average palookas

Are they easy to own? Nope. Hence the name, hard keepers. Are they of value?. Absolutely. If his only bad habit is a bad chain habit, yet he demonstrates and performs well, he is of value going forward, maybe not on show night, but most definitely in getting the next one to the show. EWO

The toothless dogs I mentioned did BOTH ... they performed better on show night than 99.9999999% of any dogs that ever were shown AND (if they would have been bred correctly) could have carried on that ability into posterity.

Unfortunately, too many people DON'T know how to breed dogs, DON'T really have "a mission statement" clearly-defined in their head, and they turn a literal Godsend of a dog into a "passing fluke" either by not breeding them at all ... or by not specifically making it their "mission" to keep those great traits alive.

Finally, it's not even just about "winning" ... it's how WELL and DECISIVELY you win

As the old Porsche ad says, "It's not how fast you go; it's how well you go fast."

Jack

.

[EWO]

Agreed. The post had some generalities to it without a lot of specific details. In our area Rufus won six matches with basically flat teeth and hard gums. He produced his fair share of dogs, and some of them in turn produced some good dogs. It happens. But going into that first one with no teeth does not leave one with the warm fuzzies. After the first and second that 'no-teeth' murderer is not only a dog man's dream but a betting man's dream.

Just basing this on my opinion I would say there have been a lot of dogs that were culled early because of bad habits, and a smaller percentage could have made it on show night, and maybe even a larger percentage would have produced dogs (with good habits) that performed down the road.

Some people can't think past the first roll, much less show night a couple of years from now or a lifetime of production. Some have to have it right now, and right now has to easy, with as little self-input as possible. I think that is why lots of bad habit dogs do not get the same shake his easy kept counter part gets.

If I have a three-legged, one-eyed, flat tooth monster that can get it done some one would have to show me that I made the wrong decision. I would not make the 'wrong' decision (culling) because he was hard to keep. EWO

[Officially Retired]

Another great post EWO ...

[BKNGAME]

I ws reading this post late Monday night & came home Tuesday to my a 14 month old pup having destroyed the privacy fence going for stray dog on other side. He has since been attempting to chew on concrete water bowls, house, etc. This just started Tuesday, March 11, 2014 what would be your next step?

[Officially Retired]

I ws reading this post late Monday night & came home Tuesday to my a 14 month old pup having destroyed the privacy fence going for stray dog on other side. He has since been attempting to chew on concrete water bowls, house, etc. This just started Tuesday, March 11, 2014 what would be your next step?

ROTFLMAO!

I would keep him and base my yard on him ... a true, obnoxious, determined bulldog in the making

Jack

Oh, and I would definitely not chain him next to a fence again

[EWO]

I had a heavy Skull bred male once that had bad habits. Lets just say he rented his wood house by the day. It was of no use on the second day and by the third day its only purpose would be kindling. He went after concrete bowls, houses, chains, rocks, whatever. I ended up with him in a 10X10 pen with a car tire. He fought that tire relentlessly, maybe 16-18 hours per day, sometimes all thru the night. As long as the tire was there the dog houses and the concrete bowl were safe. (granted a 10X10 is not recommended for most bulldogs, but with the tire in there he had no desire to go anywhere).

A few years later I visited a yard and we were talking dogs and this guy had my dog's littermate brother. He was a digger. This dog was on a 8ft or so chain, the chain was stretched and tight, and all you could hear was barking and digging, but no dog. He was completely out of sight. He had a hole that was at least 4, maybe five feet deep. Half of the axle was exposed. The guy had welded re-bar to the axle and poured concrete around the axle, maybe 8" in diameter of concrete. The dog dug a hole so deep the first axle just turned over into the hole with him.

So it happens. On a side note I have always wondered why more of the bad habit/hard kept dogs did not die from swallowing barrels, wood, rocks and roots. I am sure some do but one would think the tract could only hold and pass so much plastic, wood or rocks.

Like Jack said, I would make sure that determined guy gets every chance any other dog would. EWO

[Eliman]

I agree with jack on this one every hound i have had who would fight his chain seamed to have above average intelligence. Pen climbers aswell ones who would scale a 10x10 llke a rock wall all of them turned out to be very smart both traits a pain but i will never cull one for it. I have a Gyp off a Skull dog who would dig holes so big they had to use a backhoe to fill them in now that was a sight to see, she is a easy keeper aswell as her offspring i just don't see culling a hound for these pet peeves. jMO