pedigrees

[bolero]

i truly just need the ped with rascal to compute the correct inbreeding coefficients because with snooty as the sire it makes some line breedings done look as if they are complete out crosses

[bolero]

i am really not sure how much proof to get. there are numerous people who say rascal is the sire including the man who bred him and only one saying that snooty is the sire. and the man who is saying that it is snooty is notorious for hanging papers

[bolero]

Also since we are fixing pedigrees Nikita was never bred to ripper the breeding never took place

[CYJ]

Hello Bolero. Mr. Stephenson should have like Mr. E. Crenshaw got his paper work corrected way back then. To late now when those like Loposay or Carver are dead. Some wanted to change the Finley's Bo dog or his sire to being off the Loposay's Bullet II dog. Were saying that Loposay told them that information.

Mr. Loposay was dead by then. Was to late for him to contact ADBA or UKC to have the pedigree corrected if he ever even said such.

You have Stephenson's Bullet to do any test breeding etc. with your dogs. Is shown as a half sibling on the dam's side to Garner's Amos. Bullet is shown as being sired by J. Crenshaw's Rascal. Bolero at the end of the day all that really matters is the first four generation of dogs with your name on them. Many times any thing beyond that is a moot point to worry or ponder over too much.

Unless you have in your hand a hard copy of the ADBA or UKC papers on a certain dog. You can only look at all the shown pedigrees on a dog off all the other internet sites. The ones that agree in the majority is the one you have to go with. That is basically how any of the moderators on here do it. You will get your best search info with Google.com. Remember to spell the registered name correctly and do a space and add apbt. Usually two to three or more sites can come up to look at and compare. Cheers

[bolero]

you are correct to a point. Now jack is a very smart men who loves inbreeding and says it is the only way to breed but i can show multiple scientific journal articles that somewhat disagree i recommend everyone go to the site for the institute of canine biology and learn about estimated breeding values and inbreeding coefficients and genetic diversity. no these are not the scientific journal articles i speak of but those can be found on google scholar and some are even about the APBT. now inbreeding coefficients are pretty much useless unless you go back a good number of generations like this site allows.

I will let everyone in on a little secret on why we do not see many inbreeding defects in our working dogs and it has to do with genetic diversity. Now jack is right when he says inbreeding causes nothing but brings out what is already there but he conveniently leaves out that the more you inbreed the less genetic diversity you have when it comes to the genes. now inbreeding/linebreeding is a great tool when used correctly but one cannot inbreed for ever like he says without seeing serious problems.

genetic disorders or traits that are caused by simple recessives can be set or gotten rid of by inbreeding and selecting against or for certain traits but when you have traits good or bad that are polygenetic it is not as easy to rid them from the gene pool or set them if they are good

most animal behaviours are caused by polygenic traits for example hunting traits in hunting dogs such as german shorthaired pointers or as i suspect gameness in our dogs.

inbreeding alone does not cause a loss of genetic diversity but inbreeding combined with what is called popular sire syndrome and using only one or two offspring each generation of that popular sire.

take a producer like jeep for example. let's say for example jeep was a carrier of a genetic trait that was not wanted by breeders. now as a carrier he would not express this trait himself. in fact in order for it to be expressed he would have to be bred to another carrier or another dog that expressed it. say this trait was fairly uncommon. then let's say you breed jeep 40 or 50 times like he was and a fairly uncommon trait becomes widely spread throughout the whole line and is almost near impossible to rid the line of this trait add on top of that that say only a couple sons of his were used to breed it would make it even worse thankfully as breeders of the APBT we all have our favorite lines sires dams offspring and the like and our genetic diversity is actually pretty good.

Another thing to study is heredity. now heredity is not that percentage of a trait being passed down it is the percentage of the varying degrees of a trait in a population. for instance gameness i believe has varying degrees from complete cur to dead game and everywhere inbetween. heredity takes into consideration genetics plus environment or nature vs nurture if you will. the problem with a lot of people is they believe that it has to be one or the other when in reality it is a combination of the two added together. an example is say a trait is moderately heritable which most behavioural traits are then selection for said trait will be successful as long as you breed for it and take into account environment. i say all this to say that if the inbreeding coefficient is skewed in one way or the other it can make a breeding look like an outcross when in reality it is line bred like BOLERO for instance who with AMOS' incorrect pedigree like it is now does not show the true value of BOLERO which in turn screws up all the offspring. so all i ask is to be able to have boleros' pedigree the way i and her breeder know to be true so i can see things more clearly

[bolero]

if you go to stephensons bullet on the other pedigree site you will see the picture of amos that is up here where it shows that rascal is the sire. but i can see that for some reason you are inclined to beleive garner who again had nothing to do with the breeding of amos at all. all garner did was buy him. so if you change it you change it i doubt i will change your mind. i just dont understand how garners word carries more weight than the breeder of amos

[CYJ]

Bolero I did just that and saw a picture of Garner's Amos with beside that a (Stepenson's Bullet). Yet when you scroll down to the pedigree. It show's Wood's Snooty as the sire and not J. Crenshaw's Rascal. I did not base my opinion on just Tom Garner's site. I looked at three or four other sites. The majority agree with Tom Garner's pedigree on His Amos dog. Stephenson's Bullet and Stephenson's Amos (Garner's Amos) are two different sibling dogs with the same Dam but different sires.

With no disrespect toward Tom Garner. I could care less about his pedigrees or dogs. I never understood why some buy dogs from Garner and other breeders and add Garner & Joe's Bill or Carver & Johnson's Bully etc. Why not just their name only since they are the owner of the dog. You have a owner and breeder section to use etc.

I have never owned or bought one of Garner's dogs or puppies. Garner owned some dogs bred down from my dog yard and C. Middleton's dog yard. Was Garner's Dolly, whom he bought from V. Jackson.

In no disrespect, the above thoughts on breeding etc. You need to place that info in paragraphs. Very few are going to take the time to read all of those jumbled up sentences.

IMHO I do not wish to get into a pissing contest with you. But you are starting to sound like that fellow from England that wanted to argue about the birth date of Tudor's Dibo and Boudreaux Blind Billy according to something Don Mayfield told him. Since he owned a lot of those last Don Mayfield dogs. Seemed everything Don said was the gospel period even though it was info from fifty or more years ago.

When we all got tired of arguing with him and told him he was entitled to his on opinion and best move on to somethin else. He got mad took his marbles and went home. While erasing a lot of pedigrees that created havoc on this pedigree system Took a couple of months are longer to fix what he did. Causing Ca. Jack to change some of the more liberal pedigree policy we had at that time.

In closing if you personally want Amos off of J. Crenshaw's Rascal so be it. Write out all of your personal hand pedigrees as such if you have dogs descended from Garner's Amos. Since you seem not to like Tom Garner. Change the name on your personnel pedigrees to Stephenson's Amos. Will not bother any of us one way are the other. Wish you the best with your dogs. How do you have them registered on this site and are there any pictures of your dogs? Would like to see the pedigrees and pictures. Until, Cheers

[bolero]

i agree CYJ i will separate it into paragraphs. also it is what it is i believe rascal is the sire and have my reasons now the only reason that other pedigree sites agree with garner's ped is because they just copied what was already there. that is usually what most sites do. like i said what i believe is not going to change anything. i just think garners word or whatever should not outweigh the man who bred amos and the man who used a son of amos to create a well respected bloodline. there are breeders and there are competitors and then there are those rare few that do both and i guess i respect those few more and take there word to mean more also. again no disrespect to you and as far as that blind billy guy he was nuts and i am not taking anyone's word as gospel i am just going by more than someone's word i am going by what i know about the line and the way they act and look compared to other lines down from snooty and they are worlds apart but whatever i will deal with what i have

[bolero]

as far as it being garner's amos well that is what it is and pretty much the only breeding that amounted to much was the breeding where stomper was born and tom did not make that breeding there are 8 breedings on this site for amos and tom made four of them. snake man made almost as much according to this site. Garner bought the dog when he was older he did not breed him or raise him. just because he has his name attached to the dog does not make what he says mean more than others. he has his name attached to chinaman to but i and a lot of other people think of chinaman as V&B's Chinaman since they were the ones that made him a household name. basically it is semantics he buys the dog sticks his name on there and magically people forget who made the dog which was i believe woods and abernathy and the people who used the dog for his intended purpose which was V&B. you are correct i don't like the man personally i believe he is everything that is wrong with the breed. he lies for one thing and has been caught falsifying peds is he the only one of course not but he still does it then he sells these dogs to anyone with some cash and sells to people who should not own a dog nevermind a purebred APBT. hell just in september alone according to his site he had 23 litters on the ground that is ridiculous. not only that he has the nerve to say he is the best breeder of these dogs 23 litters say they average 6 dogs a litter, that is 138 dogs produced and he will sell everyone of them and keep none for $1,500.00 a piece that is $207,000.00. i would love to see the percentages of good dogs out of 138. let's say 30% work out which is a low percent that is 41 dogs. To me that is the epitome of throw enough shit against the wall something is bound to stick. i just believe the man brings a lot of unwanted attention and somehow walks around free. there are just too many coincidences surrounding him.

[EWO]

Hopefully there can be some common ground.

I am not a breeder but I enjoyed the read above about genetics, diversity and heredity. Another hope is that this gets resolved and all parties are good with the end result.

My Miss Two Eyes pedigrees show Snooty. Based on the dogs I have owned and seen I prefer the Snooty version, not that has any factoring in what is correct.

If there is indisputable proof then the best practice would be to make the database as absolutely accurate as possible. I'm not sure if at this point there is enough proof to use the term indisputable.

If there is a way to make the pedigrees to get the information needed and not change the coefficients of a bunch of other dogs that would serve both parties. I am not a pedigree or database guy so I doubt I could help that much.

To tag the genetic/heredity comments and Jack changing Hammer's pedigree. My comment then and now is that it is not as simple as changing the pedigree as the next guy may have bred a series of dogs down off the Snooty version and then his numbers change and sort of tosses a wrench in his doings. I made the comment when Jack was making the change that if all those VG dogs were bred with Hammer in mind then later it was Rueben the breeding theories get really screwy. Hammer was bred one way but there were other Hollingsworth dogs used that were not exactly Hammer but it was a Hollingsworth blend. I suggested then maybe the line breeding was paper and the actual breeding was an out cross over and over. He told me I was a fuck-tard and had not bred thousands of winners and hundreds of champions. Short story tag this subject and post it in another section. It is a great topic/subject and you have a boat load of things to offer.

I do not own Garner dogs myself. I have seen some really good ones and seen some really bad ones. Like most others. This gets off topic of the original thread but I am his biggest fan. Not dog related though. He should be teaching a class at an Ivy League business school. He identified a desirable product. He made a capital investment. He marketed his product and he then tuned his product, his marketing and his business to a target audience/clientele. Over time he has tested the market with price increases and continued to hit the target audience with not only what they want, but with what they think they want. Over time he has also built a network that readily supplies him with the information he needs to change/adjust to the next wave of customers. He often buys back his successful products to perpetuate the business, again the combination of marketing and networking to ensure there is a return on every dollar spent. Pure business genius. This works selling dogs, cars or hotdogs. Pure genius.

But back to the original post. For the sake of the database I would think the Snooty version is most preferred. If there is indisputable proof then I would like to see it changed as absolute accuracy should be the end goal of this database, or any database for that matter. I personally prefer the Snooty version because a lot of my dogs have carried Snooty along the way. But that is not a factor as my personal preference carries no weight when it comes to accuracy as both Snooty and Rascal were a number of years before my time.

Hopefully there is some common ground that allows all to continue sharing knowledge, insight and personal experience in these dogs.

EWO