Picking from litter based on color?

[Officially Retired]

Maybe I don't have the understanding I need about genetics but I ne er claimed to be the best and Im always willingto learn something new.

Good, that is the way to be, willing to learn, and I am always willing to learn too

However, seeing as I have bred dogs for over two decades, and have been one of the very few who's been able to maintain a highly-successful family during the entire time, I would like to think I have a better understanding of how to breed dogs than the average bear. This doesn't mean I "know everything," but I do know more than most.

With that said how can you know what traits will come from a dog that is being breed for the first time. I mean if a dog has a trait and it has been passed down in the ped from generation to generation does that mean he will for sure pass it down also?

No one ever said "for sure," so you're building a strawman to knock down.

By knowing your dogs, and what's behind them, who produces what (and how consistently), you are simply increasing your odds of getting what you want ... but no one said anything about "for sure." For example, if you and I want to get a seal-colored finisher of a dog, which do you think will give us the greatest odds of success?:

1) Breeding to two unrelated red/rednose dogs with no finish?; or
2) Breeding to two highly-related seal-colored dogs, who both have finish, and who both share (and are linebred down from) a common ancestor with finish?

It's common sense my friend. Whatever trait you want to get, there are ways to dramatically-increase YOUR ODDS of getting it ... and there are ways of making it virtually impossible to get.

And if so, couldn't you study the ped and try to match the color of dogs w the trait you want to the pups in the litter such has black dogs in the ped have good finish will this better the chance of having finish in black dogs just asking to stay on topic?

As I mentioned in my first post, it is NOT just about the colors, but also about the traits of the pups as well, and I gave examples of seal-colored Silverback dogs who did not have the finishing trait. You cannot just follow the color (nor can you ignore dogs who don't have this color), but if you select BOTH the dogs who have the common color and the desired traits, you will dramatically-increase your likelihood of being able to replicate "that" in your breedings forever.

Hope this makes sense

Jack

[R2L]

I do select pups who look a like the dog(s) the breeding is based upon. But i dont think to deep about it, time will show.

If you got a throwback in your litter with a color that doesnt exist in the past 2 generations. Do you think this is just the color? I honestly have no idea but i wouldnt pick this dog for linebreeding.

[Officially Retired]

I do select pups who look a like the dog(s) the breeding is based upon. But i dont think to deep about it, time will show.

Well, hopefully, this interesting thread topic will get us all to think a little bit more about it

If you got a throwback in your litter with a color that doesnt exist in the past 2 generations. Do you think this is just the color? I honestly have no idea but i wouldnt pick this dog for linebreeding.

That is basically what I wrote about in the Ouch! thread.

I actually did not at first breed my bitches to Silverback as much as my other stud dogs, precisely because (as you say) he was "different" from my regular Poncho dogs. However, after thinking about it deeper, and realizing he was adding something BETTER that my dogs never really had before, I shifted all of my breeding focus on putting my good Poncho bitches under Silverback (beyond all my other studs) ... precisely because Silverback was giving me two key traits that my other studs could not give me (while losing nothing of the common foundational traits I have set in my family and come to love).

And now, having done this for a number of years, I can say that (so far) the dogs who definitively carry Silverback's finishing trait also definitively carry his color (and, similarly, almost all of the very best Poncho "head dogs" were buckskin dogs with a black spot on their tail, like Poncho)

However, again as I stated in my first post, this does not mean I believe color and ability are "always" (or necessarily) linked ... but I do believe that, if you're family-/line-/inbreeding, that the dogs who come out with the color and the other defining characteristics of the main dog they're down from are simply more likely to carry his key performance traits that you're breeding him for as well. And anyone who disagrees with this simply has NOT bred a family of their own dogs long enough to have a valid opinion.

Therefore, to answer your question as to whether to go with the new-colored dog or not, that would depend entirely on whether he was adding something better or not.

Jack

[bad dog]

the only way to know for sure what you got is let them grow up look at them and see what you got.

[Officially Retired]

There can be no doubt that keeping all the pups, and "looking at them and seeing what you've got," as adults, is the surest way to find out what you have. (I don't think anyone could argue with this position.)

However, the question centered around the idea of selling a few pups, while keeping a few for oneself, and the gist of the question was trying to use color as a criterion for selecting the best individuals. And, IMO, as someone who has sold a lot of dogs, and made decisions for over 23 years as to "which ones to keep," and have been able to keep my dogs competitive with the best in the world by breeding those pups I kept, I think color very oftentimes does play a part in my selection process. But not always! So I would never select a pup just based on color alone.

I also look for other characteristics that I value (intelligence, intensity, apparent speed/athleticism, movement, etc.). So while color is not my primary motivating force in selecting a pup, if a given individual has the color of the key dog it is linebred on, and if it also exhibits "the look in the eye," the attitude, the speed/athleticism/movement, and the other characteristics I see (or remember) about the very key dog that pup is linebred on, then I am pretty freakin' sure that this pup stands the best chance in the litter of being "what I wanted" when I made that breeding ... and I am very seldom wrong in my selection process this way.

That said, I do agree that an ultimate "look" at the adult animal is the only way to know for sure.

Jack

[FrostyPaws]

Before I got Frosty, I wasn't very successful at it as I just didn't understand what it really took to breed any type of successful dogs. I don't take it as being mean. The facts are the facts. Nothing outstanding ever came from any breeding I did before him. I had some decent dogs here and there, but that was it. I didn't have the aptitude at that time, or really the willingness, to understand what it took. I just wanted to show dogs more than anything else so that's really what I was interested in. I wasn't interested in attempting to maintain any lineage of dogs as I simply didn't care about that.

There were a couple of things that ended up changing my mind on things. The few dogs I had bred, while they weren't anything outstanding, were better than a lot of other dogs I'd gotten elsewhere. So, I knew I had the ability to possibly change my own course. So, I started talking more to people who had/were/are successfully breeding their dogs, and I picked things up from each individual. When I got Frosty, no one knew how good of a producer he would be. He'd been bred two or three times before I got him, and there wasn't really anything special about him at that point. When I finally settled down enough in my own mind to breed Frosty, I discovered a dog that produced exactly what I wanted a lot more times than not. I'd been around dogs like that such as the Little John dog of Soggy Bottom and a few other dogs. But that was something I'd never had before, but by then, I'd gotten far enough along in my own thoughts and exchanging ideas or picking the brains of others that were successful at breeding dogs that I had my feet on the right path. And since that time, I've never looked back.

Dogs such as Frosty, Little John, Deacon, whatever dog a person wants to use as an example, helps us realize what can really be accomplished with the right dogs, but those dogs can only help us if we're at that stage to accept what it is we're seeing and not just piss it all away. When I saw what Frosty produced for me as opposed to other studs and what they were producing, I knew right then that, for me, there wasn't another stud to use. There was absolutely no reason for me to leave my yard, ever again, if I did everything right. That was about 10 years ago, and the dogs from Frosty and his offspring still rule this yard with an iron fist. Which I'm proud to say

[Officially Retired]

Before I got Frosty, I wasn't very successful at it as I just didn't understand what it really took to breed any type of successful dogs.

As I well remember

I don't take it as being mean. The facts are the facts. Nothing outstanding ever came from any breeding I did before him.

And I was not trying to be mean, honestly, but I did want to state those facts to "lift up the hood" and examine the engine a little regarding the statement of "what you had been doing for all these years."

Point being, your understanding of breeding for most of your years was remedial at best. Again, not being mean, just stating the facts.

I know you're very good at conditioning, and I would unhesitatingly believe you if you said a dog was game, but on the finer points of genetic management you really don't have a whole lot of experience ... while (as someone who has successfully maintained the same family of dogs, for over 20 years, at the top of the food chain) that is my forté

I had some decent dogs here and there, but that was it. I didn't have the aptitude at that time, or really the willingness, to understand what it took. I just wanted to show dogs more than anything else so that's really what I was interested in. I wasn't interested in attempting to maintain any lineage of dogs as I simply didn't care about that.

If I recall correctly, you had neither the aptitude nor the willingness to listen, LOL, as I well remember our 10-page discussions about perpetual cross-breedings versus linebreedings

There were a couple of things that ended up changing my mind on things. The few dogs I had bred, while they weren't anything outstanding, were better than a lot of other dogs I'd gotten elsewhere. So, I knew I had the ability to possibly change my own course. So, I started talking more to people who had/were/are successfully breeding their dogs, and I picked things up from each individual. When I got Frosty, no one knew how good of a producer he would be. He'd been bred two or three times before I got him, and there wasn't really anything special about him at that point. When I finally settled down enough in my own mind to breed Frosty, I discovered a dog that produced exactly what I wanted a lot more times than not. I'd been around dogs like that such as the Little John dog of Soggy Bottom and a few other dogs. But that was something I'd never had before, but by then, I'd gotten far enough along in my own thoughts and exchanging ideas or picking the brains of others that were successful at breeding dogs that I had my feet on the right path. And since that time, I've never looked back.

I also remember that you didn't believe in "prepotency," and you didn't believe in "high-percentage litters" either, until you got Frosty. You basically used to think all dogs produce less then 10% gameness and that 90% of dogs were just curs, again until you got Frosty.

I think a person really needs to actually have a truly prepotent animal before they can understand that they really do exist. Some dogs simply produce better than others, and that is all there is to it.

This touches on what I was saying to Widerange about "rolling the dice" ... even if we agree that all breedings are rolling the dice, that still doesn't change the reality that most people are blindly rolling their dice when they breed their animals (because they're not using truly prepotent animals and they're not following time-proven, genetic-management breeding patterns) ... while knowledgeable breeders are loading their dice by using truly prepotent animals, from truly prepotent families, and are then managing those genetics by following time-proven breeding patterns, based on individual selection of those animals who exhibit the key traits which are desired to be maintained.

This is essentially "The Breeding Secret" I continually mentioned in The Hollingsworth Dogs

Dogs such as Frosty, Little John, Deacon, whatever dog a person wants to use as an example, helps us realize what can really be accomplished with the right dogs, but those dogs can only help us if we're at that stage to accept what it is we're seeing and not just piss it all away.

I agree. And their prepotent abilities can only be maintained for the long haul if they're linebred upon, and if the selection process factors-in both traits and prepotency as things progress into new dogs. Ideally, each step should involve paying attention to prepotency also. Conversely, the quickest way to piss away prepotency is to breed outside your prepotent family/genetic combination, particularly if what you're adding isn't itself prepotent.

That kind of genetic mismanagement is why MOST people in these dogs always have to "buy new dogs," which is because they "fumble the genetic ball" as they try to carry their breeding programs forward, and their tripping point always involves "crosses" and not paying attention to the percentages of what they're working with.

When I saw what Frosty produced for me as opposed to other studs and what they were producing, I knew right then that, for me, there wasn't another stud to use. There was absolutely no reason for me to leave my yard, ever again, if I did everything right.

I agree with you 100%, and I am living proof of this, as I am now beginning my 3rd decade of breeding the same family of dogs ... that still win over the best in the world FAR more often than they lose ...

That was about 10 years ago, and the dogs from Frosty and his offspring still rule this yard with an iron fist. Which I'm proud to say

Well, you're to be commended on that, and it is a good feeling.

But consider the possibility there's still more to learn, and that you can further refine what you're feeding to be even better than what it is now. I know, because I have further refined my own family, and again this has to do with selecting for the traits that we favor most.

For example, suppose in your own family that you have a standout animal (e.g., Ray, if I remember correctly). You may have (say) 25 dogs on your yard that "can win" ... but some of those dogs will "win ugly" (and take a lot of abuse to get there), while others can win impressively (taking less abuse and being more in control), while Ray sits at the top of the heap being able to quickly and effectively control and destroy his opponents. Now maybe you can get "a lot of game, winning dogs" by interbreeding various members of your family, but by selecting Ray to be the focus, and by funneling your future endeavors through him, if Ray has inherited the prepotency of his father Frosty and is a better animal, you will eventually take your "high percentage yard" to a higher level than it was with just a bunch of "Frosty dogs."

Why? Because now you have a bunch of Ray dogs, a superior specimen to Frosty, while his supporting bitches are based on the same breeding combination as Frosty (and his best breeding clicks). Basic logic holds that in order to get better results, you have to use better specimens, which would be what you're doing now. Repeat this over time, and of course there will be a progressive evolution toward more consistently high-end animals than merely breeding the average Frosty to random bitches. There has to be!

This brings us to the point of this thread topic: if you are trying to get "dogs like Ray," then it only makes sense to select those pups that look/act/move like Ray. I agree, final evaluation as an adult animal if the proof in the pudding, but (as the topic mentioned) if you're selling some of the pups, then you should be keeping the ones which look/act/move like Ray ... because there ABSOLUTELY IS a correlation and an increased likelihood of success the more a given pup looks/acts/is colored like the dog it's linebred on. As I mentioned previously, while color may not be the primary motivating force in selecting a pup to replace Ray ... if a given individual has the color of that key dog, and if it also exhibits "the look in the eye," the attitude, personality, the speed/athleticism/movement, and the other characteristics you see (or remember) about Ray, on whom that pup is linebred, then you can best believe that said pup stands the best chance in the litter of being like Ray in his abilities. For I have seen this happen dozens of times in my own dogs.

It simply makes "genetic sense," if you think about it

Jack

[FrostyPaws]

Jack, I know you didn't mean for it to be mean, and I didn't take it as such. I'm good with facts, even if they are leveled at my ineptitude at breeding dogs the first half of my time in dogs. I was a dumbass, what can I say. I guess in regards to my "all these years" statement, I should've clarified it as the time with Frosty.

And no, on the point of genetic management, I don't have the time nor the experience put in as you or other people that have been breeding dogs throughout their time in dogs. I don't have any shame about saying that. The first half was showing. The second half was breeding and showing. The breeding was remedial at best, as you said, until I got a dog like Frosty.

I've always believed in high percentage litters. I just don't believe in them near as often as others, but that's just a point that we'll always agree to disagree on. And while my attitude has changed somewhat on dogs and junk, I still think most dogs produce a high amount of junky, shit dogs. Obviously, that isn't the case with all, and that was a well learned lesson over the years.

And you're exactly right. No one can ever understand the reality of prepotent dogs until they have one. People can THINK they have one; they can PROCLAIM they have one, but when you ACTUALLY have one then EVERYONE will notice. It won't just be me, you, and our collective mothers. The small fraternity of dog owners gets even smaller when it comes to people that show, and they will take notice of what's coming down the pike. Prepotent dogs make a name for themselves. We're just the lucky people that own and allow that greatness to shine through if we, as the manager of the dog, do our job correctly.

I agree fully there's a lot more to learn. I've only just begun to chip off some of the ice. And to what you've said, I already have dogs that are better than Ray in regards to what he was and what I've been trying to accomplish yard wise. I think people, in general, lose sight of the fact that dogs are a "big picture" scenario instead of "right now" one if they're going to have any success in either field of dogs. For the first years of my dog life, I was of the "right now" scenario, and slowly, the light clicked on. But in regards to the thread and selection/color, I would defer to what Jack says as it's something he's had to do for years, and he's always done it with success.

[Officially Retired]

Jack, I know you didn't mean for it to be mean, and I didn't take it as such. I'm good with facts, even if they are leveled at my ineptitude at breeding dogs the first half of my time in dogs. I was a dumbass, what can I say. I guess in regards to my "all these years" statement, I should've clarified it as the time with Frosty.

Well, most people aren't as realistic in their dealing with facts, which is why I prefaced my statements with "I am not trying to be mean."

In the same fashion as you, I have no problem accepting the fact I was a dumbass in my calling weight/conditioning dogs for the first 10+ years of my owning them, so we all have our strengths and weaknesses ... and we can all learn and improve if we get exposed to the right people and are willing to listen.

And no, on the point of genetic management, I don't have the time nor the experience put in as you or other people that have been breeding dogs throughout their time in dogs. I don't have any shame about saying that. The first half was showing. The second half was breeding and showing. The breeding was remedial at best, as you said, until I got a dog like Frosty.

A prepotent stud is a gift, but the benefits of that gift can be tossed away by genetic mismanagement, so it is good that you got the dog when you were at a point to have the perspective to make good choices with him.

I've always believed in high percentage litters. I just don't believe in them near as often as others, but that's just a point that we'll always agree to disagree on. And while my attitude has changed somewhat on dogs and junk, I still think most dogs produce a high amount of junky, shit dogs. Obviously, that isn't the case with all, and that was a well learned lesson over the years.

I absolutely agree most dogs produce shitty dogs, which is why you couldn't give me most dogs.

However, some dogs (and the lines built around them) produce a preponderance of worthy dogs, and will continue to do so as long as the selection/genetic management is there behind them.

And you're exactly right. No one can ever understand the reality of prepotent dogs until they have one. People can THINK they have one; they can PROCLAIM they have one, but when you ACTUALLY have one then EVERYONE will notice. It won't just be me, you, and our collective mothers. The small fraternity of dog owners gets even smaller when it comes to people that show, and they will take notice of what's coming down the pike. Prepotent dogs make a name for themselves. We're just the lucky people that own and allow that greatness to shine through if we, as the manager of the dog, do our job correctly.

Mmmm, while we agree that people can't understand prepotency unless they experience it, I disagree that all prepotent dogs "make a name for themselves." Dogs are prepotent (or they're not) regardless if anyone takes notice. For example, the dogs you have down from Frosty have exceeded the dogs you have down from other studs, as evaluated in your private yard, and this fact would hold true whether anyone "knows about it" or not. So I have to disagree with the idea that prepotency is dependent on "people knowing about it." A dog is either prepotent, or it is not prepotent, regardless of the general consensus (or knowledge) of the fraternity at large.

Now, whether the general public believes a dog is prepotent is something else again, and naturally the show arena is what shines a light on "private claims" versus "public proof" as to a given dog's prepotency. And you're right about that, insofar as dogs that get shown off a particular stud, the results of these shows either publicly verify a stud dog's prepotency, or they refute the claims, based upon the results that get repeated over time.

However, that said, if you had a small circle of friends (all of whom had Frosty dogs), and all of these people gave you feedback and were in complete agreement that these dogs blow away your other previous dogs, that reality may not be "common knowledge" in the fraternity at large, but it doesn't change the fact one bit that Frosty dogs have repeatedly and consistently proven to be better than your other dogs.

So, as you said, because the crackdown on shows is becoming more widespread, the number of people really showing dogs now is becoming more and more scarce ... so people who want to maintain the integrity of their bloodlines are simply evaluating them privately, through their small circles of friends, which is still a valid way to evaluate a stud dog's (or brood bitch's) prepotency.

I agree fully there's a lot more to learn. I've only just begun to chip off some of the ice.

As do we all. Even just 6 years ago, I made a super-tight preservational breeding that I felt was "too tight" to be performance dogs ... and every dog in the litter was match quality, one of whom made Champion, another of whom was a 2xW who lost his 3rd game while sick. Thus my own assumption that my own breeding was going to be "too tight" to produce performers was blown to pieces.

And, over the years, I have seen so many of the assumptions many of us make (myself included) get blown to pieces with the ultimate factual realities, that I believe what MOST people think and say about "breeding dogs" in general is nothing but the "parroting" they repeat of some other bird-brain's squawk that they heard. And, since then, my inbred Silverback dogs have proven to be THE most consistently-powerful animals I have ever bred, so I have completely changed my mind on the whole idea of "too tight," and there are a ton of truly great dogs that are highly inbred. The truth is, most people really don't know what they're talking about in regards to breeding dogs.

As someone who has actually bred DEEPER into my own line of dogs than 99.99% of any APBT breeder who has ever lived, I now go forward with not just an open mind to learn as I go, but with the absolute conviction that I can maintain the quality in my little family of dogs for as long as I want to, provided I keep "what I want in a dog" clearly in mind, and that I perpetually select for those traits in the individuals I choose to carry forth with. It really is as simple as that.

And to what you've said, I already have dogs that are better than Ray in regards to what he was and what I've been trying to accomplish yard wise.

That is a great sign in the worth of your developing bloodline

I think people, in general, lose sight of the fact that dogs are a "big picture" scenario instead of "right now" one if they're going to have any success in either field of dogs. For the first years of my dog life, I was of the "right now" scenario, and slowly, the light clicked on.

I think people lose sight of the fact GENETIC MANAGAMENT for ATHLETIC EXCELLENCE is the "big picture" to breeding dogs.

Pedigree-wise, they think it's a "crapshoot" to toss a bunch of random genes together to "see what happens" ... and, traits-wise, most people believe all you have to do is "gut check" your dogs and breed the ones "that scratch." And thus they have BOTH aspects of what it takes to breed good dogs bass-ackwards. Truly consistent genetic management involves isolating key genes, through close breedings, not randomly introducing wildcards and variables. And regarding gameness, sure gameness is important and the driving force behind everything, but I can think of plenty of extremely game dogs that aren't worth a quarter as match dogs, and couldn't produce a World Class Dog regardless of how they got bred.

So it takes a whole lot more than "beating dogs up and breeding the ones that scratch" to be successful as a breeder. I spent the first half of my breeding career breeding for nothing but gameness ... but my win record as a breeder was only about 57%. It was only when I also started selecting for style, world class stamina, the ability NOT to get touched while effectively staying in control ... and where I started getting rid of dogs that chose to hit spots which left them vulnerable ... that my win percentage began to skyrocket on up into the mid-80th percentile. My dogs now still show extreme gameness for the most part, as reliably and consistently as ever before, but they just DO BETTER in there now, and that is simply because I select for better traits than just a punching bag that will go back for more.

But in regards to the thread and selection/color, I would defer to what Jack says as it's something he's had to do for years, and he's always done it with success.

Getting back to the topic, lol, as I mentioned traits are always more important than color ... and if a person has (or develops) an eye for athleticism in a pup, an eye for proper stance/balance/movement, an eye for alertness and intelligence in its expression ... and if he really does KNOW the key dog in that pup's genetic background that it's linebred upon ... he will EASILY be able to select the right pups out of that litter to carry forward with. You can just see it in them, whether they have "the essence" of that key dog in them or not. The pups that don't have that same essence might still be good pups in their own way, but the pups that have "the stamp" of that key foundation dog they're linebred on are pretty obvious IMO ... and, yes, oftentimes "color" plays a role in that evaluation. But not always!

Like I said, most of the highest-ability Poncho dogs were buckskin with a black spot on the tail, and all of the finishers off Silverback have been either seal or chocolate like he is, but again I expect some deviations from this at some point. I don't want to make it seem like color is the "only" thing I look for ... nor that pups of different colors can't be good ... but if I have a seal pup off Silverback, who moves like he does, who has that "look" that he does, who eats savagely and regurges like does, etc., that's the one I am keeping ... and if I do a heavy Poncho breeding, and I see a buckskin pup with a white blaze, who also has a black spot on its tail, and if it has the devious way of climbing fences and getting "out" of cages, and looks at me with deep "human-like" eyes and intelligence that Poncho did, etc. ... that is the one I am keeping.

No, this is not as sure a way of selecting as is actually rolling the dogs out as adults, but in 23 years of keeping and selling dogs, simply "seeing" the traits of my key dogs in my pups, and selecting those pups that carry those traits, has almost never been proven wrong come time to find out for sure.

Jack

[FrostyPaws]

I wasn't meaning prepotency is dependent on someone knowing it. I was simply trying to illustrate the fact that of so many people proclaim to have a dog producing this or that. The reality is that a dog that is an actual producer will make a name for themselves due to that prepotency. By no means was I trying to say that has anything to do with people knowing. Just clarifying

Good thread