Famous Dogs That Quit

[prairiedog]

I was reading an old issue of the AGDT when me and Thomas Crapper were having our daily interaction and came across a letter in which a subscriber expressed his belief that gameness isn't a gene but an attitude. It got me thinking of all the famous dogs that quit who went on to produce game dogs that in turn became the foundation of successful programs on this side of the Atlantic and the other. Finley's Bo, Crenshaw's Missy, Wood's Snooty, Mountain Man's Bandit, St. Benedict's Meanie (feel free to add any others that come to mind), which runs entirely counter to the arguments perpetuated by idealists/purists/hardliners that you can't squeeze blood from a stone i.e. perpetuate a line of game winning dogs by contaminating your gene pool with cur blood. I don't necessarily agree with the aforementioned fellow regarding attitude>genes, but it does strike me that your not going to undo hundreds of years of evolutionary process in a generation or two. I may be wrong, but if I'm correct, what's the fuss about breeding a dog that isn't game (the belief that a dog is dead game)? At least you know where you stand with that individual. I know plenty of successful dogmen that have owned, or currently own, dogs they deem too valuable to risking losing, for one reason or another, who went on to breed those individuals without ever having checked their oil. Ignorance may be bliss, but isn't knowledge of more import? I don't know where I was really going with this disorganized stream of consciousness but maybe it will spark some conversation.

[Officially Retired]

I am going to bed early as I was up late last night, but there is a whole lot to say on this topic, and I will crack my knuckles and have plenty to say tomorrow

Jack

[R2L]

Can't breed to a deadgame dog, since its dead
There is more into for sure cause also on this side of the ocean there are cur dogs which were foundational to MANY good ones.
The two most famous examples
Jumbo ROM 1x LG http://www.apbtpedigrees.com/printpe...?recordID=3697
Mr Indian ROM http://www.apbt.online-pedigrees.com...&dog_id=217345
Mr Indian ROM son (jr) was a ROM dog too, both were walljumpers.

Jack has wrote some very informational stuff about this topic, and i guess he will do it again in this tread so im not going to repeat any of it

I want to pull this piece of text out of his article: "hard culling or genetic re-direction" though

However, Genetic Re-Direction can only be achieved when you have a clean-bred family of dogs, and it can only be achieved by an intelligent person with *both* a good eye for a dog AND a solid knowledge of the gene pool he is working with. Right out of the gate, this would eliminate 95% of all dogmen from qualifying as breeding managers. They have neither the bloodline, the eye, nor the intelligence to manage a gene pool effectively. Thus I believe that 95% of all dogmen should not breed dogs, they should just get small yards and “drive the race car,” but not attempt to manufacture one.

[skipper]

To make a looooong story short. There are different degrees of gameness. It's one thing to quit on all four for no reason. While being counted out after a hard battle while in shock, or just desoriated is a whole other story. One man might scream cur to such a dog, I won't. To make it easy, keep and/or breed only to dogs that are game ENOUGH for your standards. Very few dogs are dead game, and how could you breed them after that?

[Bullfrog]

To make a looooong story short. There are different degrees of gameness. It's one thing to quit on all four for no reason. While being counted out after a hard battle while in shock, or just desoriated is a whole other story. One man might scream cur to such a dog, I won't. To make it easy, keep and/or breed only to dogs that are game ENOUGH for your standards. Very few dogs are dead game, and how could you breed them after that?

There are absolutely varying degrees of gameness. Most people you meet (unfortunately) look at it as a black and white issue, when in fact there are all sorts of variables that need to be considered. However, people involved with this breed are typically not smart enough nor experienced enough to know what it is they are looking at.

[Officially Retired]

I was reading an old issue of the AGDT when me and Thomas Crapper were having our daily interaction and came across a letter in which a subscriber expressed his belief that gameness isn't a gene but an attitude. It got me thinking of all the famous dogs that quit who went on to produce game dogs that in turn became the foundation of successful programs on this side of the Atlantic and the other.

Well, first of all, I think Thomas Crapper's opinion is full of (you guessed it) crap. After all, if gameness were not genetic, then why in the world are we being so selective in our breedings? In fact, why isn't gameness found as commonly in other breeds as it is in pit bulls, if genetics were not relevant? To suggest that gameness is mere "attitude" is ridiculous IMO. I have seen plenty of little mutts (and teenage punks) with "attitude," but if you slap the shit out of them, that attitude runs dry pretty quick

The cluelessness among dogmen with regard to gameness is incredible IMO. They act like gameness is either "there" or "not there," which is preposterous. The age old "game" or "cur" mentality (this is why I amended your heading, and some of your text, as it encouraged this mentality). It is precisely this total LACK of understanding that makes people label any dog that isn't 100% dead game a "cur" which has been a crime to the breed for decades.

The truth is, "gameness" (which is nothing but the will to win) comes in DEGREES in dogs, it isn't just "there 100%" in a dog or "not there at all" in a dog. It is the same with the ability to bite hard, the ability to breathe well, the ability to move well, etc. Likewise, these abilities are not "there 100%" or "not there at all" in a dog, they too come in varying DEGREES within different individuals. Our job as dogmen is to select dogs with high degrees of as many of these different attributes as possible, and to combine them in the right way. But to say, "I will never breed to a dog that doesn't have 100% gameness" is as stupid as saying, "I will not breed to a dog that doesn't have 100% hard mouth." There are plenty of truly great dogs that don't have 100% of either trait, but they have high enough percentages in ALL traits, and can direct and combine everything in the right way with their intelligence, in such a way as they will win consistently. (Take Robert T for example.)

Finley's Bo, Crenshaw's Missy, Wood's Snooty, Mountain Man's Bandit, St. Benedict's Meanie (feel free to add any others that come to mind), which runs entirely counter to the arguments perpetuated by idealists/purists/hardliners that you can't squeeze blood from a stone i.e. perpetuate a line of game winning dogs by contaminating your gene pool with cur blood. I don't necessarily agree with the aforementioned fellow regarding attitude>genes, but it does strike me that your not going to undo hundreds of years of evolutionary process in a generation or two.

The reason why the above dogs still produced well is because they had a FAIRLY-HIGH degree of gameness (as well as other good traits) compared to other dogs. They had enough good traits to compete at the highest level, and while they may have fallen short in some areas, they still were top-tier dogs. Trying to compare the saying "blood from a stone" to a dog that stopped at some point is retarded because stones have NO blood ... and to say a dog that competed in the fast lane has "no" gameness is (again) retarded. They had PLENTY of gameness (and other competitive attributes), they just did not have them as high (or combine them as well) as their opponent. Wondering "why" such dogs produced dogs better than themselves is like wondering "why" an average dog like Little Tater can produce an ace like Gr Ch Buck ... they can do it if you breed them the right way. Breeding "the right way" has to do with aligning the ancestors of a dog's pedigree correctly, so that you have the highest chance of bringing-out the best genes.

A dog with 70% gameness (down from a dog with 100% gameness) that is bred to another dog of 90% gameness (with the same 100% DG dog behind it) can have their genes aligned in such a way that more 100% DG dogs come out, because the chance of "pulling" the gameness genes out of that common ancestor are excellent. For example, I bred the DG Truman to Rio, and I bred Truman to Angel, and several pups out of both litters QUIT. I bred two of these pups together "before" they quit (they had looked okay in rolls), but after their parents quit I sold the pups out of them cheap. Well, guess what? Those pups all got ABUSED by people who "had to prove" their gameness ... and every last one of them took their deaths GAME. Why? Because they were double-grandpups out of a DG dog, that's why

I may be wrong, but if I'm correct, what's the fuss about breeding a dog that isn't dead game? At least you know where you stand with that individual. I know plenty of successful dogmen that have owned, or currently own, dogs they deem too valuable to risking losing, for one reason or another, who went on to breed those individuals without ever having checked their oil. Ignorance may be bliss, but isn't knowledge of more import? I don't know where I was really going with this disorganized stream of consciousness but maybe it will spark some conversation.

Breeding to any dog that you kNOW where you're at with is, of course, to be standing on firmer ground. However, just because a dog is "untouched" doesn't mean he isn't an ace, you just don't know it yet

Jack

[skipper]

Well put.

[FrostyPaws]

I would like to note that Crenshaw's Missy wasn't the foundation of any breeding program that I know of. I don't think any purist is stupid enough to say you can't breed curs and not get game dogs. There is plenty of evidence contrary to the fact. If you meet someone of that ilk, you should immediately disregard them as a complete and utter idiot.

That being said, is the bottle half empty or half full? Different degrees of gameness, different degrees of curs. It's all semantics to some degree. I believe I would consider myself a purist in regards to this topic. Have there been dogs that stopped along the way that I would breed to? Yes. Have there been dogs that quit? I don't think so. You have to realize the distinction between stopped and quit to understand what I mean. For every dog that quit that produced quality dogs, there is another dog out there that took the same punishment, maybe more, that didn't quit and produced quality dogs. To me, that is the entire issue. Why breed to a dog that quit when you can simply breed to one that didn't and retain the quality.

As for the "too valuable to lose" argument. I understand that. If the dog is too valuable to lose, then don't show the dog. Is the dog too valuable to even be looked at to even begin to understand what it is you're breeding? Or does a person simply not care WHAT type of dog it is as long as it's bred the way they want. There are plenty of successful dogmen that did exactly as Prairie said, and there have been plenty that did the exact opposite to where no dog was too valuable to be checked to the owner's satisfaction.

[Officially Retired]

I would like to note that Crenshaw's Missy wasn't the foundation of any breeding program that I know of. I don't think any purist is stupid enough to say you can't breed curs and not get game dogs. There is plenty of evidence contrary to the fact. If you meet someone of that ilk, you should immediately disregard them as a complete and utter idiot.

Agreed.

That being said, is the bottle half empty or half full? Different degrees of gameness, different degrees of curs. It's all semantics to some degree. I believe I would consider myself a purist in regards to this topic. Have there been dogs that stopped along the way that I would breed to? Yes. Have there been dogs that quit? I don't think so. You have to realize the distinction between stopped and quit to understand what I mean. For every dog that quit that produced quality dogs, there is another dog out there that took the same punishment, maybe more, that didn't quit and produced quality dogs. To me, that is the entire issue. Why breed to a dog that quit when you can simply breed to one that didn't and retain the quality.

It is a scientific fact that there aren't "degrees of cold," there are only degrees of heat. In other words temperatures rise with more heat (atomic/molecular vibration), while temperatures lower with less heat. There isn't the "presence of cold"; in point of fact when you get to freezing temperatures there is only the ABSENCE of heat. Heat is positive vibration, molecular movement, and so the idea of "negative" temperatures in fact are merely the absence of positive movement.

If we take this analogy and apply it to gameness, which is the POSITIVE, volitional desire will to win, then dead gameness is therefore the maximum positive value of this trait.

There isn't "presence of cur" in dogs that stop trying, there is only the absence of gameness (the will to win).

As for the "too valuable to lose" argument. I understand that. If the dog is too valuable to lose, then don't show the dog. Is the dog too valuable to even be looked at to even begin to understand what it is you're breeding? Or does a person simply not care WHAT type of dog it is as long as it's bred the way they want. There are plenty of successful dogmen that did exactly as Prairie said, and there have been plenty that did the exact opposite to where no dog was too valuable to be checked to the owner's satisfaction.

Agreed. No dog is "too valuable" to roll and look at, at least to some reasonable degree that some of his traits can be assessed.

But I do think there are some dogs that are too valuable to match.

Jack

[FrostyPaws]

It is a scientific fact that there aren't "degrees of cold," there are only degrees of heat. In other words temperatures rise with more heat (atomic/molecular vibration), while temperatures lower with less heat. There isn't the "presence of cold"; in point of fact when you get to freezing temperatures there is only the ABSENCE of heat. Heat is positive vibration, molecular movement, and so the idea of "negative" temperatures in fact are merely the absence of positive movement.

If we take this analogy and apply it to gameness, which is the POSITIVE, volitional desire will to win, then dead gameness is therefore the maximum positive value of this trait.

There isn't "presence of cur" in dogs that stop trying, there is only the absence of gameness (the will to win).

Jack

I don't disagree with your cold/heat facts. I simply don't look at it as degrees of gameness or degrees of cur. That's why I said it was all semantics to some degree. Any dog that quits is of no consequence to me. So whether it has degrees of gameness or degrees of cur, whichever hypothesis one subscribes to, doesn't change my view. A dog that is stopped? That, in of itself, is enough to give me pause and to seriously consider the entire picture of what was witnessed versus what actually happened. When making those kind of considerations, a man really needs to know what exactly happened. He can't just take the word of a witness unless the witness has the ability to recognize the truth of the situation. Unfortunately, there are many men that "saw" things, only not to realize the truth of what actually happened.

I wholeheartedly agree that some dogs are too valuable to match.