Question on buying dogs.

[Officially Retired]

in a sense of buying a grown dog yes
but for pups I dont see how one can determine which puppy is the best

Cmon, you're telling me you have no idea which pups are going to be the best?

You're telling me you get it wrong more than right?

That damned sure isn't the case when I breed dogs.

IMO, anyone who really knows dogs knows which pups are superior, and at a very early age.

And anyone who knows how to breed dogs, does so in a way that he repeatedly gets litters with high-percentages of at least pretty good dogs, some really good.

In fact, the person who CAN'T tell which pups are going to be superior, and who CAN'T reliably produce above-average litters is NOT a good breeder (or dogman) IMO.

Seriously, how can you call such a man "good" at breeding ... he's basically an average, clueless retard?

Jack

[Officially Retired]

I think factoring in what the active dog man is breeding is a must. If he is active within the same family of dogs, breeding for the traits he desires from within that close/somewhat close family then that is a pretty good option. On the other hand if he is a dog man solely concerned with winning on show night, has really good dogs from multiple families, and then breeds best to best the percentages will be lower. Maybe to break it down further than the two choices, for the active man I would prefer he was successful with one family, if that makes sense.
EWO

Anyone who doesn't breed from a set family of dogs CAN'T be a good breeder, by default.

You simply CAN'T breed reliably from a hodgepodge of different stuff, so the dogman who is both breeder and shower, is always going to be working with his own family.

The dogfighter who has a whole bunch of different stuff is always going to be the guy who can't reliably and consistently breed his own good dogs ... and is going to also be a BUYER (not producer) of great dogs.

Active dogmen tend to keep their pups to themselves, and if they sell, I guarantee they're not selling what they perceive to be their "best" pups; they're selling what they're culling and perceive to be their worst pups.

Good breeders are in the BUSINESS of breeding/selling good dogs; the breeder BENEFITS by selling good dogs.
Good "do it all" dogmen are in the BUSINESS of breeding/matching their own best dogs; the dogfighter LOSES by selling his best pups.

So, unless the guy is a junkie, or unless he lo$e$ major ca$h after a major dog deal, he is not going to be selling his best, be they dogs or pups.

Jack

[Nut]

Macker, just so you know. Im gonna keep the best

[Macker]

Macker, just so you know. Im gonna keep the best

Just don't send me any retards.

They're down from chucky, they'll all be good lol.

[EWO]

Pretty much what I said. You said CAN'T and I said 'lower percentages'. Breeding from a hodgepodge is most definitely a slippery slope. Every now and again a good one will pop up but I can't see higher percentages with any type of consistency.

So to reference the original post, I would go with the breeder vs. the active matcher.

And I agree on the two trains of thought on available dogs. The breeder's best interest is to put his best dogs out there where as the active guy keeps his best dogs at home.

Good set of posts. S

Anyone who doesn't breed from a set family of dogs CAN'T be a good breeder, by default.

You simply CAN'T breed reliably from a hodgepodge of different stuff, so the dogman who is both breeder and shower, is always going to be working with his own family.

The dogfighter who has a whole bunch of different stuff is always going to be the guy who can't reliably and consistently breed his own good dogs ... and is going to also be a BUYER (not producer) of great dogs.

Active dogmen tend to keep their pups to themselves, and if they sell, I guarantee they're not selling what they perceive to be their "best" pups; they're selling what they're culling and perceive to be their worst pups.

Good breeders are in the BUSINESS of breeding/selling good dogs; the breeder BENEFITS by selling good dogs.
Good "do it all" dogmen are in the BUSINESS of breeding/matching their own best dogs; the dogfighter LOSES by selling his best pups.

So, unless the guy is a junkie, or unless he lo$e$ major ca$h after a major dog deal, he is not going to be selling his best, be they dogs or pups.

Jack

[skipper]

Wow, Jack are u telling us you can see at a 8 week pup who's going to be the best of the litter? Guess that makes me a clueless retard. I have bred very few litters, but almost every time the ones i didn't believe in at all turns out to be the best. Then again im no breeder, and by your standards not even a dogman. Maybe if i ever become a big breeder i can gain that knowledge, but for now its always a gamble for me when picking pups. I'm very impressed with this ability to spot a good one.

[Officially Retired]

Wow, Jack are u telling us you can see at a 8 week pup who's going to be the best of the litter?

Yes, I do have that ability, and have almost never been wrong either.

Guess that makes me a clueless retard.

I don't see how my ability to see which pups are going to be better at an early age has anything to do with you.

I have bred very few litters, but almost every time the ones i didn't believe in at all turns out to be the best.

Okay, if that is true, then your ability to see which pups are the best does suck.

Here are two concepts you need to grasp:

1) Other people are simply better than you at certain things;
2) You are also better than other people at certain things.

If you can't see what to look for in a pup, athletically, then don't project your inability to see what you need to see onto other people. Other people really may blow you away in certain aptitudes, just as you may blow other people away in certain other aptitudes. And, really, if you've only bred a few litters, then how can you possibly presume to believe you have the same knack for breeding as someone who's bred scores of litters ... AND kept the same family in the winner's circle for decades?

Then again im no breeder, and by your standards not even a dogman.

You are a self-admitted non-breeder, and if you don't have the aptitude to pick the right pups, then you probably won't make much of one.

That doesn't mean you don't have a lot of skill in other areas that are important.

The fact is, most people suck at breeding, which is why they can't keep the same family winning, and are always "starting over" again, and buying dogs.

Maybe if i ever become a big breeder i can gain that knowledge, but for now its always a gamble for me when picking pups. I'm very impressed with this ability to spot a good one.

There is nothing to be impressed about; it's all common sense, and it's all based on very "seeable" traits.

If you're working with a high-percentage line, and you keep it that way, then the gameness comes by default in most individuals.

By contrast, if most of what you're putting out there is quitting, then you're working with a low-percentage line. Again, basic horse sense.

Once you have that FACT squared away, then you simply have an eye for movement, balance, bone structure, reflexes, etc. --- or you don't.

I can spot an athlete a mile away; I can tell by its stance, how it does things, etc., especially within my own line.

I don't see why this is such a big mystery, quite frankly.

Have I ever been wrong? Sure. But I am right 20-1.

There has never been a year in the history of my breeding dogs that we've lost more than we've won.
There has never been a year in the history of my breeding dogs that we've "broke even."
The worst year in the history of my breeding dogs we went 57% (my first year);
It quickly rose to 75% by my 3rd year, and has been in the 80th percentile ever since ... and this has been going on for over 20 years.

Do you really think it has all been "by luck" ... or by NOT knowing WTH I am doing in my selection?

I do believe breeding is ONLY considered "a crapshoot" BY the clueless.

Breeding is an art and a science to those who can reliably and consistently produce winners.

It is all explained in The Art of Breeding Dogs, but you have to read it and GET it.

If you do read it, get it, and practice those principles, then you cannot help but succeed as a breeder ... but if you don't, you won't.

Jack

[skipper]

I don't see how my ability to see which pups are going to be better at an early age has anything to do with you.

I was refering to your earlier post. #11 But your right it has nothing to do with me.


Okay, if that is true, then your ability to see which pups are the best does suck.

Here are two concepts you need to grasp:

1) Other people are simply better than you at certain things;
2) You are also better than other people at certain things.

If you can't see what to look for in a pup, athletically, then don't project your inability to see what you need to see in other people. And if you've only bred a few litters, how can you possibly presume to believe you have the same knack for breeding as someone who's bred scores of litters ... AND kept the same family in the winner's circle for decades?


Oh your absolutley right. I'm not even close to a breeder of your standards. And thats why i was impressed with this ability because i never heard of anyone being able to before.
For me it has been the case almost every time. The pups that are turning on early, great structure, movement and attitude are most often the ones getting beaten by the half skittish quiet ones. More than once have i thought of getting rid of pups i didn't believe in only to be proven dead wrong when times come to put em to the test.

You are a self-admitted non-breeder, and if you don't have the aptitude to pick the right pups, then you probably won't make much of one.

That doesn't mean you don't have a lot of skill in other areas that are important. The fact is, most people suck at breeding, which is why they can't keep the same family winning, and are always "starting over" again, and buying dogs.



Spot on again. Thats why all pups are kept with me or my close circle. At the end the best ones will still be available but i can't tell before they have been looked at. I'm also the first to admit i suck at breeding.



Ps. sorry for my crappy quoting skills.

[Officially Retired]

LMAO, we all have skills that suck, and skills we're good at.

For every one of the same 20 years I've bred winners, I have been told my people skills suck

Like you, I have been SURPRISED by ordinary-seeming dogs turning out better than I have thought, but very rarely have the gems of the litter turned out to be shit.

I mean, from Ch Stormbringer in 1999 to Ch Vengence in 2006, and a whole lotta dogs inbetween, I just knew these were going to be the best dogs in their litters.

U-Nhan-Rha, Jezebel, I could go on for a while. Thought they shined early on ... and they did as adults too.
Doesn't mean other dogs weren't good in these litters also, but when I see a pup that is clearly (and distinguishably) excellent, I can't honestly think of too many times where I have been wrong.

There have been a few, but by a longshot most of the time they pan out the way they shined to be when young

Jack

[skipper]

LOL yeah true. I would probably not send you to mediate peace in the middle east. But there are other things you're obviously good at.