# Importance of male vs female



## Marta Wajngarten

If you're looking for a new pup, do you look for combinations where you can honestly say you love both parents, or would you be willing to compromise on one parent if you felt the other is exceptional?

I've been puppy searching and I've noticed a couple combinations where the male is a highly spoken of dog and the mom is an ok dog. Speaking with one breeder she admitted she chose a combination solely based on her desire to have a pup from that male, the female was simply available and while not a horrible dog, she was just one of the kennel dogs offered to her. 

I would imagine you take your chances and hope that at least one or two pups will be more like the male, and the others can just be sold off, but I ideally if you were truly striving for a litter full of dogs as great as possible wouldn't you place equal emphasis on both parents to be both excellent dogs and compliment each other?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

What breeder is this ?


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

> If you're looking for a new pup, do you look for combinations where you can honestly say you love both parents, or would you be willing to compromise on one parent if you felt the other is exceptional?


Compromise in what way? And what does each parent bring to the breeding? One thing to keep in mind is how prepotent a parent is. Male or female. There are some dogs, it just doesn't seem to matter who you breed them to, they reproduce themselves, or at least certain traits, every time. 

Something else to keep in mind is the dogs behind the dog. Just because you love two dogs, doesn't mean they will be the best possible mates for each other. You might love one dog and think the other is just OK, but due to pedigree, their individual traits, etc it might be the perfect combination to produce the pup you are looking for. Or not LOL 



> I've been puppy searching and I've noticed a couple combinations where the male is a highly spoken of dog and the mom is an ok dog.


Determined to be "OK" how? On the trial field, or in the whelping box? There are many females out there, especially in the Malinois world, who never step foot on the trial field but have proven themselves over and over in the whelping box. Or if they do title, it's just at a low level.

And "OK" by who's definition? Are they labeling the dog as just OK because of some trait they don't personally like? What sort of standards are they using for comparison? 

I have a male, Mac, who I've heard some people label "nervy" because he barks. A lot ](*,) By their definition he's "just OK", because they can't get a "read" on him, and they don't feel he's worth being bred. Talk to them, he's "just OK". Talk to someone else, he's one of the best males they've seen, they just ignore the barking and look at the drives, grips, stability, power, etc. Different strokes for different folks. 



> Speaking with one breeder she admitted she chose a combination solely based on her desire to have a pup from that male, the female was simply available and while not a horrible dog, she was just one of the kennel dogs offered to her.


This would concern me, "available uterus" isn't exactly a valid reason to breed a female. But I'd want to know if there was more thought put into the breeding then just "available uterus". Was there something about the female that made the breeder think she'd produce well with this particular male. Has she produced well in the past? Have similar breedings been done? What are her littermates like? 



> I would imagine you take your chances and hope that at least one or two pups will be more like the male, and the others can just be sold off, but I ideally if you were truly striving for a litter full of dogs as great as possible wouldn't you place equal emphasis on both parents to be both excellent dogs and compliment each other?


Yes and no, depends on how you are defining "excellent". I've seen some excellent working dogs that couldn't reproduce no matter how they were bred. And some "pretty good" dogs that produced better than themselves. There are also "excellent" dogs out there that only produce well when combined with certain lines. Or will produce really nice male pups, but the females aren't any good. Or vice versa.

When I'm looking for a puppy, I'm more concerned with what the parent(s) have already produced, assuming they have been bred before. If they haven't be breed before, then all you have to go on is the quality of the parents, and the pedigree behind them.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

> I have a male, Mac, who I've heard some people label "nervy" because he barks. A lot.


What does nervy mean? I would take it as he has the nerve to do things other dogs are afraid to do. Today it means he barks alot?

Unless the ancestry has been closley line bred, the best looking past the parents is going to do, IMHO, is say something about each individuale in the ancestry but not as much as what the parents, sitting in front of you will tell you. If the ancestars are not line bred, there has been all new genetics added to the soup with each breeding. Some of the ingredients in the soup may be to your liking. Other ingredients in that same soup may not be. What has been made is soup and what your going to get is more soup with some good and some bad. With that said, If you don't like both parents extremely well, keep looking because if you like what is right there in front of you on both sides, the odds of getting a decent pup is far better than pretending you understand all the pluses and minuses on five generations of ancestry.


----------



## mike suttle

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVnTg88Zkrc
This is one of many examples of a nice dog from a female that has never spent one day of her life doing any kind of work.
This is a son of our female Flos and an Arko brother. Flos is a great working quality dog by my definition. She has super strong nerves, perfect health, and a great working pedigree. However, she never spent one day on a training field, so she does not bite, has no idea about bitework. But when testing her courage on the stakeout line I could not get her to back up an inch, she just stood there wagging her tail looking at me like she was waiting for me to come and pet her. The first time I threw a ball for her she did not even look twice at it. After a few minutes of kicking the ball around and frustrating her with it she came alive on it and really wanted to have it. It was very obvious to me from the first few minutes that she was a great dog by nature and character, but had never been worked in any capacity at all. Her job in Holland was to be a farm dog, and that is where her real prey drive shines...........she can kill a cat or a racoon so fast I dont even have time to tell what it was. 
If she had been imprinted and trained as a puppy she would work great I have no doubt. 
So as you can see, it is possible to get nice dogs from dogs that dont work, but you still have to know what you are looking at when you breed a dog that does not work.
Look for the natural qualities and character of the dog and you will never go wrong..........look only at the training and you will seldom get it right.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

Don Turnipseed said:


> What does nervy mean?


It means different things to different people, when you talk to the French it gets very confusing LOL I think they use it more like you are. But here in the US it's generally not used in a positive way. Used more to mean "unstable" "lacking character" etc. 



mike suttle said:


> Look for the natural qualities and character of the dog and you will never go wrong..........look only at the training and you will seldom get it right.


This is a good quote for people to keep in mind.


----------



## Ryan Venables

Kadi Thingvall said:


> ...And some "pretty good" dogs that produced better than themselves...


I'd like to think I'm an example of this from my parents "breeding"

LOL\\/


----------



## Nicole Stark

I like extreme dogs so I tend to look for parents that represent extreme characteristics/traits. For me, this is important perhaps even critical within a breeding program. This is where I start, then I begin looking at offspring from either parent to see what traits are dominant, I press that view laterally on either side of the parent, and then move backwards. Basically, I look at as much info on the dogs as I am able to find from the parents, then back one generation and forward another. And I do mean that I look at everything I can get a hold of. I do not bother with breedings that do not bring about reasonable intrigue in me in some way. This obviously goes without saying. By the time I end up with a pup I have a pretty good idea of what to expect particularly if the dogs are bred tight or heavily upon specific traits. 

Some like looking at training videos. Me, I like to see the dog in more neutral environments in as much as one likes to see them working. These videos are obviously considerably harder to come by.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I have a male, Mac, who I've heard some people label "nervy" because he barks. A lot ](*,) By their definition he's "just OK", because they can't get a "read" on him, and they don't feel he's worth being bred. Talk to them, he's "just OK". Talk to someone else, he's one of the best males they've seen, they just ignore the barking and look at the drives, grips, stability, power, etc. Different strokes for different folks.


Ha, his son barks waaaaay too much for herding and originally not quite enough for protection sport. ](*,) We're teaching the revier now with markers and it is coming along nicely in a few sessions. I'm sure we'll create a monster... ;-)


----------



## Charles Guyer

His dadgone daughter is sitting here barking at me right now.

I figure there's enough genetic material from the parents to warrant giving them both some checkin up on.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Mac is a good dog. He is not nervy at all.

Merry Christmas.


----------



## Bob Scott

Unless you know that both parents produce outstanding pups no matter what it's bred to I would have a hard time selecting a pup based on one parent.


----------



## Nicole Stark

Bob Scott said:


> Unless you know that both parents produce outstanding pups no matter what it's bred to I would have a hard time selecting a pup based on one parent.


Bob, I do tend to agree with this. Yet, in absence of that information (for me at least with so much distance between me and anyone else - living in Alaska is like living in a foreign country!), I need to assess what I know about the dog (if unproven) to try to find out if those characteristics, the ones that stand out to me anyway, are traits that are represented around and behind that particular dog. 

Sometimes, and believe me I know, this isn't that easy to ascertain, in which case a prepotent stud (for example) works in ones favor especially if the lines behind the bitch are otherwise well known/solid traits and has been bred in such ways to know if the traits that are important have been carried forward in relative breedings.


----------



## Bob Scott

Nicole Stark said:


> Bob, I do tend to agree with this. Yet, in absence of that information (for me at least with so much distance between me and anyone else - living in Alaska is like living in a foreign country!), I need to assess what I know about the dog (if unproven) to try to find out if those characteristics, the ones that stand out to me anyway, are traits that are represented around and behind that particular dog.
> 
> Sometimes, and believe me I know, this isn't that easy to ascertain, in which case a prepotent stud (for example) works in ones favor especially if the lines behind the bitch are otherwise well known/solid traits and has been bred in such ways to know if the traits that are important have been carried forward in relative breedings.



Understood about the limited area thing.
This is similar to a discussion about breeding working terriers. 
Would you breed to a great worker with no background info or a "pet" from great hunting lines.
My first choice would be the pet from great lines but the great worker with no background would be worth a shot if nothing else was available.


----------



## Nicole Stark

I'd be inclined to go with the worker with no history assuming that the reason for no history isn't because it was attempted and failed but rather generally unknown because no one has ever bothered to find out. Course, I'd also wonder and consider how either we're bred and what the strength of the lines were before deciding. And I assume by pet, it means more or less a wash out in other regards. 

I feel it's paramount at minimum to start with the best specimens you can find. Best of course is left up to the interpretation of the consumer or in other cases the breeder. I spayed my mastiff bitch for a reason. I've got $20G + invested in my type of dog with the best specimen I've had of them all right here. Rightfully, she could have been put up against the top dogs of her type (here, that really isn't saying much though) yet and unfortunately because she didn't represent what I wanted to carry forward I ended that and started my search elsewhere.


----------



## Drew Peirce

mike, that flos son looks pretty sweet


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Charles Guyer said:


> His dadgone daughter is sitting here barking at me right now.
> 
> I figure there's enough genetic material from the parents to warrant giving them both some checkin up on.


When you shine a light through one ear and the light comes out the other side, that usually indicates a problem. I'd start there. :wink:


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Kadi Thingvall said:


> It means different things to different people, when you talk to the French it gets very confusing LOL I think they use it more like you are. But here in the US it's generally not used in a positive way. Used more to mean "unstable" "lacking character" etc.
> 
> 
> 
> This is a good quote for people to keep in mind.


There is a difference between dogs that bark because they are faced with a situation they cannot handle - I would call this "nervy" and dogs that bark because they don't "agree", i.e. our younger GSD barks ominously at the helper if he is annoyed. He's the only one in the group that does this.

When we picked him up, the girl who owned his mother said, we could change our minds if we wanted to but said he had always "complained" and would probably be difficult to stop. We took him. He loves kids, adults, etc., can be surrounded by 20-30 kids without batting an eyelid, has strong nerves but nerves us!

Good posts Kadi and Mike S.

I agree with observing the natural traits of the pups, assuming one knows what to look for, but in a well thought out mating (Afred Hahn (GSD) for instance) there will not be so many "shitters". I tend to find the litters have varying degrees of shitters from bad to worse or good litters that have varying degrees of good to excellent, just my experience.


----------



## Erik Berg

Most experienced breeders thinks the female is just as important as the male, maybe even more important, so I wouldn´t compromise with a mediocre female.


----------



## Charles Guyer

Maren Bell Jones said:


> When you shine a light through one ear and the light comes out the other side, that usually indicates a problem. I'd start there. :wink:


I'm going to need a second opinion.


----------



## Martine Loots

mike suttle said:


> Look for the natural qualities and character of the dog and you will never go wrong..........look only at the training and you will seldom get it right.


So true


----------



## cindy graffam

hi, I just caught sight of this thread. Many people who specialize in genetics give the female a 60% (or more) weight in determining offspring constitution, mental and physical. The dam line to the original founding females can be significant. Called the STAMM in netherlands, it is of huge importance in dogs and horses in the breeding programs there.

An ideal pedigree contains several lines to producing AND performing females. This 'loaded' pedigree greatly enhances the possiblities for success in whelping strong puppies.

If a female is not actively working and training, or if she does not have a history of such; it would be impossible to see what traits she will bring to the puppy. How can you guage grips, drive, focus, nerve, trainability, speed, athleticism, courage, hunt drive, tracking - without actually working that dog????

A balanced mating is best, extreme to extreme or bland to bland is less effective, overall.

Looking at the genotype, phenotype, and generational input is all equally important, IMO.

I would rather mate a strong quality female to a medium male ( I would want both parents to have shown the work qualities on the field); but the best choice is to select a litter with BOTH parents showing the traits you desire in the puppy.

Cindy


----------



## mike suttle

cindy graffam said:


> How can you guage grips, drive, focus, nerve, trainability, speed, athleticism, courage, hunt drive, tracking - without actually working that dog????
> 
> Cindy


By proper selection testing.
If you test a fully trained dog, one that has spent years learning the way that humans have conditioned the dog to behave, then it will be hard to tell what you are looking at.
If you test a dog that has had no training, and you test only on the genetics and natural character of the dog, then you will get a much better picture of what you are looking at, what the dog has without great training.
I have had seen great trainers teach dogs with shitty grips to bite full and calm, I have seen them use force to make a dog track like a machine when the dog had zero natural drive to track, I have seen them use electric to make them super fast down the the field to bite, when they would have normally been pretty slow if left to rely on their own natural drive to go bite.
Selection testing of a working dog is an art in itself. 
You have to able to see through training (good or bad) and look into the heart and soul of the animal.


----------



## Martine Loots

cindy graffam said:


> If a female is not actively working and training, or if she does not have a history of such; it would be impossible to see what traits she will bring to the puppy. How can you guage grips, drive, focus, nerve, trainability, speed, athleticism, courage, hunt drive, tracking - without actually working that dog????


If you know the lines, it's pretty easy to judge the quality even though the female never set foot on a training field. I don't care whether a female is worked or not. A few minutes of observation and knowledge of the lines will do.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

cindy graffam said:


> hi, I just caught sight of this thread. Many people who specialize in genetics give the female a 60% (or more) weight in determining offspring constitution, mental and physical. The dam line to the original founding females can be significant. Called the STAMM in netherlands, it is of huge importance in dogs and horses in the breeding programs there.
> 
> An ideal pedigree contains several lines to producing AND performing females. This 'loaded' pedigree greatly enhances the possiblities for success in whelping strong puppies.
> 
> If a female is not actively working and training, or if she does not have a history of such; it would be impossible to see what traits she will bring to the puppy. How can you guage grips, drive, focus, nerve, trainability, speed, athleticism, courage, hunt drive, tracking - without actually working that dog????
> 
> A balanced mating is best, extreme to extreme or bland to bland is less effective, overall.
> 
> Looking at the genotype, phenotype, and generational input is all equally important, IMO.
> 
> I would rather mate a strong quality female to a medium male ( I would want both parents to have shown the work qualities on the field); but the best choice is to select a litter with BOTH parents showing the traits you desire in the puppy.
> 
> Cindy


I have to ask....how many litters have you produced Cindy?


----------



## Courtney Guthrie

Don- I'm not Cindy obviously, but I can tell you that she produces some very nice dogs. Google her and her webiste should come up.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

The how many is relative to the info she posted at the begiining of her post Courtney. I am curious if she has had enough litters to prove or disprove what she has read. I fhte the genetic ditribution, according to what she has read, gives the female up to 60% of the value, that leaves the male with 40%. I find it hard to believe anyone would swallow that since they inherit 50% from each parent. Lack of understanding has never prevented good dogs being produced.


----------



## Joby Becker

Don Turnipseed said:


> The how many is relative to the info she posted at the begiining of her post Courtney. I am curious if she has had enough litters to prove or disprove what she has read. I fhte the genetic ditribution, according to what she has read, gives the female up to 60% of the value, that leaves the male with 40%. I find it hard to believe anyone would swallow that since they inherit 50% from each parent. Lack of understanding has never prevented good dogs being produced.


I would say it is 50/50 on genetic material, and the other 10% swing can be influenced by the dam, her behaviors and demeanor while rearing, and possibly even carrying the pups.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

The influence the dam has raising the pups still has nothing to do with genetics. It is environment. Considering my pups are raised by mom,dad, and several aunts will negate most of that. While dad doesn't appear to have an influence, it becomes obvious when mom starts weaning the pups and gets rough with them....they run straight to dad and sit around him for protection. Also, if the pups are at the other end of the yard and yelp, dad will be the first one there every time to check on them. So we should stay with the genetics contributed because if mom is a bad mother, she will impart that type of characteristic on to the pups....so it isn't all good.


----------



## Erik Berg

As I understand it the 50/50 rule only applies to the DNA in the core of the cell, the other parts of the cell comes only from the mother, how much influence these other "parts" have I don´t know, or if they have done some research on, structure/looks I´ve read comes more from the mother compared to the male. But considering the fact the female´s temperament also affects her offspring neglecting the females qualities sounds unwise.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Erik Berg said:


> As I understand it the 50/50 rule only applies to the DNA in the core of the cell, the other parts of the cell comes only from the mother, how much influence these other "parts" have I don´t know, or if they have done some research on, structure/looks I´ve read comes more from the mother compared to the male. But considering the fact the female´s temperament also affects her offspring neglecting the females qualities sounds unwise.


Eric, this is a new word I have seen being used in many things....CORE. I have seen it used for exercise programs and a few other things. Now in genetics. Would you please explain exactly what you mean when you say, 


> As I understand it the 50/50 rule only applies to the DNA in the core of the cell,


I am really beginning to thing this new word has no real meaning but sounds good to the used.

Please explain


----------



## Erik Berg

What I meant was that the female eggcell passes on some more DNA than the sperms do, things that are imporant outside the core of the cell where the 50/50 genes from the male and female are. How important those extra things are for looks/character I don´t know thou, but also hormones from the female can affect the puppies during pregnacy what I´ve heard, so besides the genetic material the bitch gives the environmental impact in combination with the genes are more influenced from the female. I guess that´s why some say the female gives a bit more in % even if some of that isn´t pure genetics. I´ve heard that about horses too, some that claims the female is responsible for upp to 70% of how the offspring turns out. Anyway, that the female is just as important as the male I think it´s safe to say.


----------



## Ashley Campbell

Erik, how does the egg cell pass along more DNA than the sperm when genetics are paired up by chromasomes, 1 from the egg, and 1 from the sperm? If that were the case, you'd have "down syndrome" dogs if there were extra chromasomes being passed along from the egg. Any extra set's (like in humans, down syndrome is caused by having 47 chromasomes rather than the normal 46) cause defects.

As for hormones and whatnot, I won't argue that. And in horses I'd say it's true that the mother has a long term effect on the offspring. A passive mother usually raises an unruly as hell colt (I have one in mind actually) where as a less permissive dam that kicks the crap out of her colt for being an obnoxious jerk, usually raises an easier to handle colt.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Thank you Erik. I don't read all the new theory soI can't say one way or the other. I was just curious as to what you meant with the application of "core". The word seems to being thrown around a lot as of late.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Can you post the research you are reading ? It sounds an awful lot like crap.


----------



## Nick Jenkins

Maybe he means mitochondrial DNA which comes from the dam. Doesn't affect the outcome of the offspring as far as I know but I guess you could say the dam would contribute more in number technically speaking. And core is just the normal DNA that contributes to the mixing which leads to the pups. 

As a side note I had a professor who stated that in cattle there was some study about how the sire contributed like 87%. Still not quite sure how that number came about unless he was referring to population type genetics and the large scale use of sires. Sorry random.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Erik Berg said:


> What I meant was that the female eggcell passes on some more DNA than the sperms do, things that are imporant outside the core of the cell where the 50/50 genes from the male and female are.


Uh...what? The Y chromosome is indeed smaller and contains less material than the X chromosome. But I don't know if it's a language thing or something else, but I don't know what you're talking about? :-s




> How important those extra things are for looks/character I don´t know thou, but also hormones from the female can affect the puppies during pregnacy what I´ve heard, so besides the genetic material the bitch gives the environmental impact in combination with the genes are more influenced from the female. I guess that´s why some say the female gives a bit more in % even if some of that isn´t pure genetics. I´ve heard that about horses too, some that claims the female is responsible for upp to 70% of how the offspring turns out. Anyway, that the female is just as important as the male I think it´s safe to say.


The environment in utero and post natally is incredibly important, I will agree with that. Not sure about how to quantify that in a percentage though.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

Nick Jenkins said:


> As a side note I had a professor who stated that in cattle there was some study about how the sire contributed like 87%. Still not quite sure how that number came about unless he was referring to population type genetics and the large scale use of sires. Sorry random.


I don't know about 87%, but the sire's genetics does control how quickly the fetus grows in utero as it is in his best interest to do so. The dam, who does not want to have a potentially fatal dystocia or be caught and eaten by a predator if she gets too large, limits how big the fetus can get. In addition, the dairy industry knows that size of a bull's testes correlate directly with how much milk his daughters produce.


----------



## Charlotte Hince

Nick Jenkins said:


> Maybe he means mitochondrial DNA which comes from the dam. Doesn't affect the outcome of the offspring as far as I know but I guess you could say the dam would contribute more in number technically speaking. And core is just the normal DNA that contributes to the mixing which leads to the pups.


That's the only thing that makes sense to me. I mean, if there's an error in the mitochondrial DNA, you'll see it as some kind of severe defect but there are only about 5 genes where we know of an actual function of in the mitochondra, and nearly all effect just the mitochondria themselves. It's also not new...


----------



## Nick Jenkins

Interesting. I knew scrotal circumference is directly corrolated with fertility but not milk production. At least not in terms of lbs of milk. Higher fertility makes sense they would cotribute more milk since they would get pregnant more regularly. Interesting though I'll have to look into that. I now feel my dairy science class cheated me


----------



## Don Turnipseed

So, what I am to surmise out of this is that certain parties that want to say the female makes a bigger contribution of DNA than the male, is including mitochondrial DNA even though it has no effect on the offspring. LOL And that should surprise anyone? What it boils down to, no matter how good the female is, no matter how good the male is, no matter how much you know about genetics, the only way to know for sure if a cross is a good one....is to do it. Surprisingly, the value of linebreeding has been proven for centuries. Breed like to like to like to like you get like. Talking all this stuff is not going to produce superior dogs on a regular basis. Heck, having a gentics lab at your disposal wouldn't insure anything.


----------



## Nick Jenkins

I think the main idea was although linebreeding yeilds predictable results what to do if you had to choose a male or a female. So don although it doesn't make much practical sense if you had to pick a male or female to use in your program what would you choose and why assuming the traits you select for were similiar in both. I know it doesn't apply but as far as the linking it to the original point of the thread what would you say.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Your right, It doesn't really apply as my genetics are all pretty much similar. But, I just got a male pup to refresh those genetics with. I didn't even ask who the dam was. Don't really care. By the same token. When breeding my dogs anymore, I look mostly to see how closely related they might be but, all my judgement is on the male. It is easier to see what I have with the males. If I like what they show, the females are in the ball park. With the OP, I would say they are both equally important at that point considering a pup. To be objective, I would say they have to like both parents to the point they would be willing to fork out big bucks for either parent. They have to be that impressive. If they are, the pups got a good chance of being really nice dogs. 

The german pup turned 3 mo about a week ago. He had a raw chicken leg bone with a little meat still on it this morning. All 29 1/2 inches of Jack came up to steal it and that pup threw down on Jack and grabbed him by the face. At this point, it is hard to say if it is temper...or if he has the confidence my other males have. I hope it isn't temper. Jack did let him have his bone until he dropped it.


----------



## cindy graffam

this article is hard to read, but worth a few minutes. it brings to light the XX chromosomes,using horses as an example, and may help shed light on the belief the female does bring more traits into the offspring, due to the X chromosome being larger and carrying more 'traits'..

interesting read.

cindy

http://wingspan.wordpress.com/2009/11/09/x-factor-2/


----------



## cindy graffam

Hi Mike Suttle, I agree with you 100%. It is super important to talk with the helpers catching and working the dogs, they can tell you so much more than what we see from the sidelines. Trainers with good experience can see what a dog has inside- even by watching it work a track... or watch the dog learn an OB excersize.

It is not so much the points that show what the dog is; i it is talking with folks who actively train and catch the dogs that is the critical part of a dog evaluation, I think this is so.

Some titles are not always worth much for character assesment; much more to consider when evaluating a dog.

I learned quite a bit by just asking these experienced trainers and helpers questions, they are surprisingly open and have great information to share! Wonderful sources of wisdom.
Cindy


----------



## Joby Becker

cindy graffam said:


> Hi Mike Suttle, I agree with you 100%. It is super important to talk with the helpers catching and working the dogs, they can tell you so much more than what we see from the sidelines. Trainers with good experience can see what a dog has inside- even by watching it work a track... or watch the dog learn an OB excersize.
> 
> It is not so much the points that show what the dog is; i it is talking with folks who actively train and catch the dogs that is the critical part of a dog evaluation, I think this is so.
> 
> Some titles are not always worth much for character assesment; much more to consider when evaluating a dog.
> 
> I learned quite a bit by just asking these experienced trainers and helpers questions, they are surprisingly open and have great information to share! Wonderful sources of wisdom.
> Cindy


???


----------



## Maren Bell Jones

cindy graffam said:


> hi, I just caught sight of this thread. Many people who specialize in genetics give the female a 60% (or more) weight in determining offspring constitution, mental and physical. The dam line to the original founding females can be significant.


Can you cite the geneticists who think this (yes, I know the X chromosome is bigger than the Y, which I mentioned in a previous post)? I'd be interested to read the studies.


----------



## cindy graffam

another reference...horses rather than dogs, but the idea is maybe same? Some X discussion again.

http://wingspan.wordpress.com/category/thoroughbred-bloodlines/


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

For all we know all the crap recessives are stored in the X. lol


----------



## CJ Neubert

Yes But we DO know that selective deafness is certainly a trait of the Y chromosome lol


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Nah, we learn that from Mom bitching for no reason early on. It's not like you really have to pay attention to what they say. I cannot tell you how many times I have paid attention and regretted it later.


----------



## Erik Berg

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Uh...what? The Y chromosome is indeed smaller and contains less material than the X chromosome. But I don't know if it's a language thing or something else, but I don't know what you're talking about? :-s


Core is probably the wrong word in english, I meant the cell nucleus where 50/50 comes from the male and female. The mitochondrie DNA is comming only from the mother and is outside the cell nucleaus so in that sence the mother has more genetic impact, how this is expressed in the puppies I don´t know, found and article about it in racehorses,
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2010/s2804825.htm

The impact during pregnancy and then later when the mother is feeding and raising the pups may be much more important than the mitochondrie DNA, I don´t know, but in general the bitch seems more important with the combination of both here genes and the environmental/hormonal influence.

Don´t have any scientific facts but many breeders seems to value good bitches and think a good bitch can produce better with also a mediocre male than a good male mated with a lesser bitch, so maybe the bitch is more important even if we don´t know how much more the bitch influence the offspring or not. Behind good producing studs there is also a good bitch in many cases what I´ve seen of some popular studs, probably not a coincidence.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: I don´t know, but in general the bitch seems more important with the combination of both here genes and the environmental/hormonal influence.

Operative word there is "seems". I will not ever say that a good producing bitch is important, but you go ahead and think what you want. I have had stud dogs that I could breed to anything and the pups turned out like him. That is what you are looking for, not a bitch. What is she going to do ? How many litters ? How many puppies ?

Maybe all this bitch thinking is why we produce **** all in this country. Then again, I think an awful lot of the breeders are women. Probably the other reason we produce **** all. They mother the damn things to death.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Erik said


> Don´t have any scientific facts but many breeders seems to value good bitches and think a good bitch can produce better with also a mediocre male than a good male mated with a lesser bitch, so maybe the bitch is more important even if we don´t know how much more the bitch influence the offspring or not. Behind good producing studs there is also a good bitch in many cases what I´ve seen of some popular studs, probably not a coincidence.


Interesting statement Erik. What you have to realise is that most breeders also think saving the weak is responsible breeding. They think it is healthy to raise the puos in the house at 80 degrees, they think ENS is the greatest thing in the world. Breeders have all kinds of wierd notions these day. Considering what crazy stuff todays breeders have come to believe...I wouldn't put a lot of stock in what they think in regards to the importance of the female. Maybe someone should test the theory and breed a great bitch to a mediocre male and see if the bitch is going to be able to pull a good litter. Bottom line, both are equally important. Breed the best to the best and keep ypur fingers crossed.

I believe there is a book out called "The X Factor" concerning horses.


----------



## Denise Gatlin

mike suttle said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVnTg88Zkrc
> This is one of many examples of a nice dog from a female that has never spent one day of her life doing any kind of work.
> This is a son of our female Flos and an Arko brother. Flos is a great working quality dog by my definition. She has super strong nerves, perfect health, and a great working pedigree. However, she never spent one day on a training field, so she does not bite, has no idea about bitework. But when testing her courage on the stakeout line I could not get her to back up an inch, she just stood there wagging her tail looking at me like she was waiting for me to come and pet her. The first time I threw a ball for her she did not even look twice at it. After a few minutes of kicking the ball around and frustrating her with it she came alive on it and really wanted to have it. It was very obvious to me from the first few minutes that she was a great dog by nature and character, but had never been worked in any capacity at all. Her job in Holland was to be a farm dog, and that is where her real prey drive shines...........she can kill a cat or a racoon so fast I dont even have time to tell what it was.
> If she had been imprinted and trained as a puppy she would work great I have no doubt.
> So as you can see, it is possible to get nice dogs from dogs that dont work, but you still have to know what you are looking at when you breed a dog that does not work.
> Look for the natural qualities and character of the dog and you will never go wrong..........look only at the training and you will seldom get it right.


I agree totally with Mike here on his last sentence. My first association many years ago with a local Schutzhund club included a guy who had a nice Mal by physical standards but the dog did not have the innate drive or ability. But....the owner force trained (past the point of brutality) the dog into multiple SchIII, etc titles whereby he further advertised the dog for stud using the titles. None, absolutely none of his pups he sired over the following years had working potential.


----------



## Erik Berg

Don, the importance of good bitches or strong bitchlines for a stud is however not a modern idea among workingdog breeders. But I guess we have the same opionion that the bitch is at least equally important.

Jeff, why would a breeder looking for studs that can compensate for his crappy bitches,and how many studs for that matter reproduce themselves regardless of what he is breed to? For the breed as a whole studs have more influence due to the larger number of offspring, but for the individual breeder you don´t get better results than the bitches you breed to, some breeders have bitchlines that goes on for about 10 generations, so there would be pretty many litters produced with these bitches during that time.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: how many studs for that matter reproduce themselves regardless of what he is breed to? 

Just because a dog has sired a litter doesn't mean he is a stud dog. It is the dog you look for though. 

Quote: Jeff, why would a breeder looking for studs that can compensate for his crappy bitches?

I ask myself this an awful lot. However, it is not the worst that has happened. THe worst is breeding to a high scoring dog because of the scores.

You have to breed a dog to see what he will reproduce. There is no other way to find this out. All I see here is a lot of people that have never bred, or had one litter regurgitating what they have read based on horses, or mice or whatever, but not dogs.

It is bad enough that what people think is a good dog is scatter****ed to the 4 winds, but to have a discussion with a bunch of people that don't breed about breeding is sorta silly. 

I want all these people to go out and breed according to what they have read, and see if it works that way and THEN make a contribution. Other than breeding really really close, and even then, there is no way to read an article and know how to breed. Wish it were like that. Trust me, I really do.


----------



## tracey schneider

Havent read the whole thred yet but +1 on jeffs post


----------



## tracey schneider

Wow in reading some of these posts its like some of you are over thinking it just to end up over simplifying it. You cant predict anything without knowing the pedigree and the prepotency..... its not a simple m/f thing..... well ok maybe in total scatter bred dogs.... I honestly font know, I haven't much experiwnce with that. 
T


----------



## Erik Berg

Hmm, I don´t think anyone who have breed sucesfully disregard the fact that there is more to breeding than finding a good male and female. Still the female is the foundation and what you countine on with for generations, if you don´t buy new females as soon as the one you started with is to old or wasn´t good. As an example this dog, probably the oldest active GSD kennel here in sweden, as you see the kennel name "kurant" goes back about 40 years on the females side,
http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/pedigree/474891.html

Jeff, you are correct you can´t read how to breed perfect dogs, what is best to avoid you can get a clue off but I guess there also is a bit of luck. However, I´m only refering to successfull hunting/workingdog breeders and what they have said when it comes to how they choose females and their importance. I think most would agree you are in a disadvanatge from the start if your females are mediocre and counting on the males to cover upp this.


----------



## Nicole Stark

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> It is bad enough that what people think is a good dog is scatter****ed to the 4 winds, but to have a discussion with a bunch of people that don't breed about breeding is sorta silly.
> 
> 
> 
> Ya I agree, the OP sorta invited that discussion by the way the question was presented:
> 
> _If you're looking for a new pup, do you look for combinations where you can honestly say you love both parents, or would you be willing to compromise on one parent if you felt the other is exceptional?_
> 
> Clearly, anyone who hasn't successfully bred dogs wouldn't have the best vantage point in this discussion, which certainly was/is the more relevant perspective on the matter.
Click to expand...


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: I think most would agree you are in a disadvanatge from the start if your females are mediocre and counting on the males to cover upp this.

Good thing you are only thinking. Females are almost always mediocre, it is how nature works. I understand that we are raised to think that girls are smarter and better and bla bla bla but the reality is that guys are smarter.

No one serious about a competition dog goes out and looks for a female. For every female out there that is good enough to do competition, you will find that there are 40 or 50 that never see it. EVER.

Most people wouldn't know what a good female is if their life depended on it. 

You are looking at breeding kennels in the dumbest place on earth and pointing out how they use the same female line bla bla bla.

A bitch isn't worth going out and buying. Don't you get that ? Same line that they built with the males influence, but for 40 years didn't go out and buy a female. Duh.

Again, I have bred dogs, and it is obvious that you have not. You can try to spin things so I am saying that the female doesn't count, or you can try and say that she is the one that contributes the most to your breeding program, but it would not be true.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

I only look at the males because they are easier to read. If they are way up there, the girls have to be up there. I learned long ago that you just can't figure out what is in a females head.


----------



## Martine Loots

Both male and female are equally important. Both have to be perfect (and by "perfect" I sure don't mean "titled")
Knowledge of your lines and ability to read a dog will take you a long way (I'd even say "all te way")

To me "pefect" means: good lines (that match), good health, stable character, strong, agile


----------



## Ben Colbert

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> A bitch isn't worth going out and buying. Don't you get that ?



Jeff,

If you had an outstanding dog and you wanted to breed him a few times so you started looking for bitches how would you choose one over another. I mean I wouldn't imagine you're going to breed some shitty showline GSD to your East German (or whatever) monster. So how do you narrow it down from all the working line, untitled females? Just lines and pedigree? How about for a breed like Mal's where most (or so I've heard) pedigrees can't be trusted?


----------



## Daryl Ehret

There are a handful of important females that I'd buy for use as a breeder, _if only they were still alive today_. The trends would show that these females could produce top performers when bred with many different stud dogs. Trouble is, the performance records of the female gender is shallow in comparison to the career that the males can lead.

A good male has a lot more potential for producing a tremendous amount of offspring, could kick out "a litter a day", compared to the female's ability to partake in two litters a year. So, *we're going to have a lot more to go on, when evaluating the performance and production record of a male*, as compared to a female.

I think breeder's _should_ develop one or more female lines, being very knowledgeable of them which helps take a lot of the guesswork out of their breeding. Especially for occasions they want to bring in the new blood of a strong performance male.

I suppose a breeder could just as equally well develop a male line of dogs, though he'd have to more likely _purchase_, rather than _lease_ the services of a female for each generation. Or maybe, buy back male progeny from kennels at which stud services were rendered. Doesn't sound like a very sensible approach.

While both genders produce a 50/50 compliment of genetic material to their offspring, either gender parent could be more (or less) prepotent in varying aspects than the other is, depending on who is homozygous in their genotypes for what, and who's gene types might be more 'dominant'.

Yeah, the dam's status during pregnancy and raising the young is going to affect some things, yet which the "importance", in a _hereditary sense_ could be lost. And, there's some things a breeder can do that will affect those windows of development as well like, how late-term to work the female in protection, or how soon to wean the pups from their mother.


----------



## Erik Berg

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> You are looking at breeding kennels in the dumbest place on earth and pointing out how they use the same female line bla bla bla.


???, I completly lost you now, are you saying those kennels that breed on with their females don´t know what they are doing? Studs there are many to choose from, so of course a good producing female is worth more for the breeder. No one is saying you must title a female to high levels and if a breeder don´t know what a good female is and have knowledge of the lines he/she shouldn´t be breeding in the first place.

I don´t think I´ve said females is the only thing that counts, I said she contributes at least equally, which is obvious. Some feels she have more impact over the litter, and most at least say a good female is essential. Every idiot can breed some dogs, that certainly don´t makes them an expert. I´m 100% sure thou that all those kennels that have been very succesfull and breed many litters have more basis for their opinion than you in this case. 

But I don´t really know your opinion, if you say females are less important or not or if you are talking about competitiondogs in general and not breeding, a bit confusing


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Both male and female are equally important. Those that breed a great male to a weak female, or the reverse, in hopes of adding to the weaker side should not be breeding. All they are doing is dragging the better dog down but they will never succeed in turning the weaker dog into a silk purse. I make all my decisions based on the males because they are easier to read. That does not mean I discount the females importance because they are the ones that produce the males. Of course if I don't like the pups...it is always the females fault. :grin:


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Erik, are you a breeder ? 

So far you have said that the female contributes more, cause you read some article about horses, then I lost you.

What is it that you are trying to find out ?

What it seems like is that you are trying to figure out how to start at the same place that some kennel is 40 years later.

What are the odds that you are going to get superbitch right off the bat to start your amazing breeding program, which should take off after a year or two.

You might spend the first 5 to ten years figuring out what it is you actually like about the breed. That changes you know.

Look, all of you that have never bred, and are trying to get some secret formula, give up. There is none. You want to sell a lot of puppies ? The guy that has done it best in the last 10 years is Mike Ellis. That is the way to do it.

However, whenever you do a seminar, make sure that the one putting the seminar on is actually going to train the dog. That puts a damper on things pretty quick.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Erik, are you a breeder ?
> 
> So far you have said that the female contributes more, cause you read some article about horses, then I lost you.
> 
> What is it that you are trying to find out ?
> 
> What it seems like is that you are trying to figure out how to start at the same place that some kennel is 40 years later.
> 
> What are the odds that you are going to get superbitch right off the bat to start your amazing breeding program, which should take off after a year or two.
> 
> You might spend the first 5 to ten years figuring out what it is you actually like about the breed. That changes you know.
> 
> Look, all of you that have never bred, and are trying to get some secret formula, give up. There is none. You want to sell a lot of puppies ? The guy that has done it best in the last 10 years is Mike Ellis. That is the way to do it.
> 
> However, whenever you do a seminar, make sure that the one putting the seminar on is actually going to train the dog. That puts a damper on things pretty quick.


Secret fomula? I can tell you what it is. Spend years breeding and through you mistakes and successes, you will either get a feel for it ....or you won't. There is your secret formula.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

I know right ? All of these threads want to start where kennel x is right from the start, and it just doesn't work that way.

I was just curious to see if Erik was one of the super breeders in sweden or where ever.


----------



## Erik Berg

No, I´m not a breeder but think breeding/genetics is intressting, but I can read and have ears so if successfull kennels tells me their view about the females role I think compensating mediocre females with a stud doesn´t sound like a good idea, like the person who started the discussion asked. And many times it seems people get all hung upp on the stud but less so on the females.
And when you jeff say like you did that you don´t care for a good producing bitch it seems to conflicting what many others says, especially when besides the pure genetics the environmental effects from the bitch also is a factor.

I´m not trying to find out something, just gave an example on how most longtime breeders does I suppose, start with a female and then countinue and breed selectively for your goals in many generations. Having a own bitchline you know well must be an advantage common sense tells me. 

Look at some good dogs and also that have been used much in breedings, take in the GSD world sid v haus pixner for example. Same mother or her sister has also been used on other studs with great results and produced other good dogs and much used studs, is this due to good bitches or the males they have been used on for example? There are many more studs that also have been good individual dogs as studs that comes from combinations with strong bitches.

One of the most if not the most influential pointer breeders in the scandinavian countries that started in the 50s said this about bitches,

"The most important thing in breeding is strongly consolidated bitch"stam/stock", especially when it comes to huntingability, further I mean if a stud is going to be a good producer he should have a strong bitchline behind him"

Similar thoughts I have seen by other breeders of huntingdogs when it comes to bitches, a sucessfull italian breeder said, 

"Generally speaking the genetic contribution is 50% from the mother and 50% from the father, however in my opinion it is essential that the female is a good hunter with as few imperfections as possibile. Then I look for one of the best 10 stud dogs on the marchet at that moment (if I haven’t my interesting stallion) and after studying their pedigrees carefully I make my choice, taking into account the bloodline, mental and physical qualities in order to improbe and enhance the qualities of the female or eliminate her defects."

So to sum up, bitches seems valueabel for many good breeders of working/hunting-dogs, and why wouldn´t they. It´s not so farfetched to believe good females is something to strive for and maybe also should be given more importance than the males many times. Intresstingly I read a study today about how much influence the females had when analyzing results from many mentaltest they use in sweden, don´t find the study online anymore and know exactly how it was done but the conclusion was females that themselves showed good results on the tests more strongly affected the offspring results compared to the males. The bottomline was if breeding for mental traits the importance of the females is essential due to the fact she had more impact on the offspring according to this study.


----------



## Joby Becker

I missed the post where anyone said that mediocre or lacking females should be used to breed...

where is that one?


----------



## Erik Berg

The absolute first post was wondering about this.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Your theory is good, but you are still talking about someone with hunting dogs, and many many years into breeding. 

You slightly touched on what a good hunting bitch should be, but you have not addressed the person starting from square one. What are the odds that they will know what a good brood bitch will be ? Ideals change with time, and who knows what this person thinks is a mediocre bitch ? Maybe she is not male like, and that is what has put her down as mediocre.

There is the other fact that what are the odds that you are going to find this bitch ? Do you think that a breeder will sell you this ?

You have to start somewhere. Don started with show dogs. I started with a show bitch and an ok working dog. It was AFTER that that I realized that I had to be a lot more serious. The pups were good dogs, no barn burners but good enough to say that the litter was not a flop. THey all looked good, and were at least as much as the father.

I kept a female back, and that was one of the lines that I started with. This particular line ended abruptly when a litter of pups 4th gen had no rectums.

How would you find that out any other way other than breeding the dogs together ? I owned three "mediocre" bitches that produced outstanding dogs in the time I was breeding. I doubt that you would have bothered with the bitches at all. Probably would have spayed them in your quest for super bitch. : )

You have to start somewhere. 

Lets take our own Don Turnipseed for example. He makes these OUTRAGEOUS claims that he can pick the pups and tell you what they will be at 4 weeks.

It couldn't be a couple of DECADES of experience with what worked and what didn't, now could it ? No way you are going to read what he has done and be able to do that first litter. That is just one example of why people need to stop reading and just start with what you have and see if it takes you somewhere. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.


----------



## Erik Berg

Yes, you must breed to know how a dog produce, no arguing there. Even if I qouted huntingbreeders, when asked about what they want in a breedingbitch GSDs breeders have had similar opinions, even if there could be some slight differences in the ideal. The GSD kennel I linked the pedigree to earlier said this in an interview, over 40 litters produced, others also hade similar ideas, 

" I don´t belive in "compensation-breeding", both male and female should have the traits you want, for a breedingbitch I want a dog that is well above average in fearlesness, curiosity and fightingdrive, I also must like her in general, she also must be a good mother"

Most longterm breeders have started with a bitch they liked themselves and then breed on with that for many generations. Most also aren´t total rookies when they started breeding, I guess they could judge if they liked the offspring, with time I suppose they also get more experience. Take tikerhooks best breedings, also strong bitches in those matings according to the kennel owner, like orry v haus antverpa for example.

I don´t know what you mean with looking at breedingkennels at the "most stupid place in the world", personaly I´m glad we have independent workinglines for many generations in sweden without german and only IPO-influence you see in other countries, you won´t find that in other places except maybe for the old DDR or the czech-lines. I´m sure you would like some of the dogs from these lines too, if you aren´t an IPO only person


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Well then, I cannot wait to see what you will produce.


----------



## Erik Berg

I´m not going to breed and have never said I would be successful at that, just shared some thoughts on what some established breeders think about females or breeding in general.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Don't puss out now, you have all the information you need. Lets see what you can do.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Erik, I am curious, you said the kennel had over 40 litters. How long have they been breeding? I just got back from the valley and have to get the truck unloaded. When I get done I will give you my perspective, but it is my perspective and not meant to be argumentative.


----------



## Erik Berg

1968, 44 litters so far.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

My observations of what you hear in the breeding world is 95% bullshit.

1) Why do many breeders consider the females the strongest part of the equation? Because most of them have females. You build a rep on the puppies you produce as a kennel. Who get's the the puppies? The owner of the males or the females? That's right! The owner of the females gets the rep and the bulk of the money. How many actual kennels are there that own all males?? I have never seen one. So, it boils down to, are these kennels going to like to think their females make the difference, or that male that someone else owns? I know I would take the credit if all I had was females to judge anything by.

2) Most consider it bad business to keep a bunch of studs because that stud is taking up the space that a good producing female could have. $$$$ This is why, if they have their own stud normally, he is sevicing multiple females.

3) This bullshit about the impact for the good on a breed, another cry from the hobby breeders, The best producing female you can find will have little impact on a breed. A litter a year for what, five years to a decade. A decade of litters is 10. That doesn't make an impact. Having one litter a year in anything isn't going to have a great impact on a whole breed. The good male on other hand can service half the breed in a decade. A great male has the potential to make an unbelievable impact on the breed....all by himself.

4) Linebreeding. Many people think they are linebreeding if there is a common ancestor in 5 generations. That give you 2 related dogs and 60 outcrosses. A related dog every 4 generations gives you 2 related dogs and 34 outcrosses. A related dog every 3 generations gives you 2 related dogs and 12 outcrosses. One related dog every second generation gives you the two realated dogs and it is still cut with 4 total outcrosses. Bottom line even with an outcross every second generation it is going to take you at least 30 or 40 years to produce a consistent line because every time you ad an unrelated dog you are back to making soup. Think about that next time you think your buying a fine line bred dog.

The bottom line is, if a breeder says the female carries the weight, see how many studs they have sitting around before you take their opinion too seriously.

That is as simple as I can break it down.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Erik Berg said:


> 1968, 44 litters so far.


A litter a year. I would think it would be damned near impossible to judge something like whether the female has more pull than the male with a litter a year. I have had somewhere around 200 litters and I think they are equally important. Maybe when I throw this East German pup in the mix I will see something that makes me think otherwise but I don't think I will see it. I expect to see some take after him, some after the female and the majority a mix of the two.


----------



## andreas broqvist

Don Turnipseed said:


> A litter a year. I would think it would be damned near impossible to judge something like whether the female has more pull than the male with a litter a year. I have had somewhere around 200 litters and I think they are equally important. Maybe when I throw this East German pup in the mix I will see something that makes me think otherwise but I don't think I will see it. I expect to see some take after him, some after the female and the majority a mix of the two.


DAME 200 liters. You shuld write a book about your breeding program and the way the dogs have changed over the years. Its wery interesting to hear about your true line breeding program.

Thos 200 liters are based on just 3 dogs right? Not anything aded untill the new dog taht you will ad now?


----------



## Don Turnipseed

andreas broqvist said:


> DAME 200 liters. You shuld write a book about your breeding program and the way the dogs have changed over the years. Its wery interesting to hear about your true line breeding program.
> 
> Thos 200 liters are based on just 3 dogs right? Not anything aded untill the new dog taht you will ad now?


A lot of people have tried to get me to write specifically on breeding Andreas. I even have tried outlining it to where it would make sense and that in itself posed a major problem. Then there is the other thing. Everyone that has never done it already knows everything coupled with the fact few people could carry it through properly today. 

As far as hoiw many dogs have been added to the mix. The two original dam and sire. I got a full outcross bitch and bred her once. My original bitch wouldn't tolerate her and almost did her in because my wife at the time let them into the same yard. The wife spent about two weeks in the hospital breaking that fight up. I was at work.
Some years later, I did a stud service with Winchester that was a 50% out and his greatgrand daughter and took the pick of the litter female which was a 25% out. Saw a nice male in the litter that I liked better but I needed a female. The guy called two days later and tolm me I could have that male if I would come and get him. He had just broke one of the other pups legs at 6 weeks old. I was there in about 2 hours. Like his sister, he was a 25% out and both off Winchester. Bred her once and got rid of her. I still have the male, Titan. He is the oldest dog in the yard now, Odin is one of his pups, along with Cassidy, Greta, and Tootsie. Some years later when I saw the dogs going to far to the left, where I considered them becoming totally unbalanced,
I studded him to a female that was training hard, game, but not tough, for the pick of the litter. Put every male in the yard over her and some of the pups from the other crosses. She was a 50% out. That makes the original sire and dame, one full outcross female, the 25% bro and sis, and the 50% bitch for the 11 gen on the ground. Now a full out East German dog. 

So, how do you write a factual book when so much is feel. So much is observation. So much is personal selection. So much is being able to see the broader scope of when you are doing more harm than good. So much is having the sense to see the danger signs. So much is being able to have and keep a good number of dogs so you have a base to select from. 

Let me ask you Andreus, how many people have you heard either put line breeding down as being bad, or that say they are line breeding and pat themselves on the back? Bunches right. Go back and read #4 of my last post. Gives you a clearer picture of how well breeding is really understood.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter

Don Turnipseed said:


> So, how do you write a factual book when so much is feel. So much is observation. So much is personal selection. So much is being able to see the broader scope of when you are doing more harm than good. So much is having the sense to see the danger signs. So much is being able to have and keep a good number of dogs so you have a base to select from.


Don the book would be boring if just full of numbers and facts. You talk about your feelings, observations, the danger signs. A few stories about the cops comming to your house and some ex wives tales...throw in some stuff about all of America being nothing but pussies now

I would buy it, read it, learn from it and enjoy it.

You know by now that everyone is a dog expert. You yourself give advice and strong opinions on teaching dog obedience and you don't even do it. So...we are all guilty at times LOL.

Write the book. You know a lot about your dogs, your lines, your likes, your dislikes, and you are an interesting dude that has done something with a breeding program that not many can or will do.

Do it.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

At least it would offer another perspective to throw in the pot. Your reasons along the way of why you chose this dog or that dog would be interesting to myself to read about.


----------



## andreas broqvist

I wuld like a book WITH that angel on it. Books based on facts about Inbreeding and how to breed is already out ther. Al the math to calculate, al the things to think of and al that. 
But ther is NOT a bok By one who has done it by him self and what his wievs are. I mignt nog agree with you in al your post, but everything you say about breeding and what you se in it is interesting. 
Its ONE breed and My bereed might not work out the same way byt its always nice to se.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

I just don't see it happening soon if ever. I am still ejoying the doing. Books are for when you can't do anymore. My little German guy is taking precedent now.

There were some intersting aspects to developing the line. Probably the one that fascinated me the most and tripped my trigger totally was changing the structure of the dogs so they were suitable for running game. Those generations were the most intersting, changing them from small successful standard show dogs with the fast leg movement from having high tailsets, short back, no legs, into the dogs they are now. Low tailsets, long backed, long legged running dogs. Those are the things that really fascinated me. The anticipation in every litter was almost more than could stand. Waiting for the post to mature so I could see what was happening. They went from 22" and 23" cobby dogs into the 27" to 29"+ dogs they are today. Actually, it was changing the structure that started the tight breeding. You guy are getting me think back to much. I had almost forgot about how and why all this started. I need to get this German guy bred in. There is experimenting to do yet.

Then there were the parvo years !!! Another chapter. LOL Just kidding


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Jennifer said,


> You know by now that everyone is a dog expert. You yourself give advice and strong opinions on teaching dog obedience and you don't even do it. So...we are all guilty at times LOL.


Your right, I do give advice about things quite often....but it isn't based on what I have been told or read. As far as the obedeience thing, I have to disagree. Not doing it the way people want me to do it is not the same as not doing it. We didn't have leash laws for a long time. From about the time I was 8 on up, I always had a dog next to me as I rode my bike through traffic and across town. They always sat religiously by my bike when I went into the store or a friends house. Everything was off leash. Never had a dog get run over in the trafic because we taught them where to run. They would bite someone when told, they sat rolled over and all that. You never hardly saw a dog on a leash unless it was a pup learning the ropes. They didn't have springs to hook your dog to a bicycle then and we didn't need them anyway. So, yes, I have taught obedience for better than 50 years. Everything we required then was off leash...we just considered it every day stuff rather than thinking it was a great feat makeing us a trainer..... so no, I don't consider my self a trainer by todays standard. I don't use clicker, but, never did need them. Dogs stayed where they were told to stay.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter

Don Turnipseed said:


> Jennifer said,
> 
> 
> Your right, I do give advice about things quite often....but it isn't based on what I have been told or read. As far as the obedeience thing, I have to disagree. Not doing it the way people want me to do it is not the same as not doing it. We didn't have leash laws for a long time. From about the time I was 8 on up, I always had a dog next to me as I rode my bike through traffic and across town. They always sat religiously by my bike when I went into the store or a friends house. Everything was off leash. Never had a dog get run over in the trafic because we taught them where to run. They would bite someone when told, they sat rolled over and all that. You never hardly saw a dog on a leash unless it was a pup learning the ropes. They didn't have springs to hook your dog to a bicycle then and we didn't need them anyway. So, yes, I have taught obedience for better than 50 years. Everything we required then was off leash...we just considered it every day stuff rather than thinking it was a great feat makeing us a trainer..... so no, I don't consider my self a trainer by todays standard. I don't use clicker, but, never did need them. Dogs stayed where they were told to stay.


I get that Don and that is all good and important stuff that is needed for all people that own dogs. You deserve credit for that for sure, I don't want to take that away from you. I think that you can talk all you want about knowing how to teach dogs manners.

That said, there is a big difference between that and teaching formal obedience at the standard that many people need to compete in dog sports these days. If you were teaching your dogs to call off pigs mid chase and do some focused attention heeling...that would be a different story.


----------



## Erik Berg

Don, when did you started breed airedales? How many different dogs have you build your line on, have you taken many litters that you didn´t countinue with hence so many litters? Would be intressting to see a full pedigree for some of your present dogs.

I don´t think anyone suggesting breeding good females to less good males, both should have what you want. The importance of the female, and femaleline, is just due to the fact it´s the female you carry on with, and if you have lesser females you have less chance to improve what you want, plus that she also have more environmental effects. 

I know a breeder that breed different hunting breeds, mainly two they have breed since 1952, breeds on a very large scale and has breed several hundreds of litters, maybe over 1000 if they have breed since the start in the same extent as the last 20 years. They have both males and females of their own stock for several generations, but reading their thoughts about breedings they also stress the importance of the females to breed good dogs. So I don´t think it´s an issue of praising their own females over the studs, and more importantly the proof is in the dogs I suppose, obviously some of the kennels that breed to good females have produced fine dogs, which isn´t surprising really I guess.

Males as I said earlier often have more impact, good and bad, in some cases females also can have if many of her sons are used in breedings. I don´t think you need to be a very large breeder to have an impact on the breed, if someone produce a dog that is used a lot it has impacts, as you can see in some breeds where a single stud has had very much offspring and sons in the breedings.

I also wish people could differ between sharing some experience/thoughts from other good breeders compared to telling someone else how to do things, which I never had even if some seems to miss that point.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

Of all the dogs I have acquired from various kennels over the years, by far the best that I have ever owned in my opinion are from breeders who put the greatest emphasis on their females. One who needs little introduction is Tiekerhook kennels, and the other is Skocicka samota, who was once in charge of the breeding females of the z Pohranicni straze program in the Czech Republic.

It's not that either of these breeders believes that the female contributes more than the male, it's because _as breeders, that's where they can make the greatest concentration of quality on their particular behalf, while maintaining the greatest flexibility in the direction their breeding program will grow._ There will always be a wide variety of great males available at their disposal, handled by non-breeders that have concentrated their efforts on the performance careers of those studs and aren't necessarily bound to the loyalties of any particular (and possibly rival) kennelname. In this way, they have the ability to select more precisely a complimentary breeding partner for the particular goal of the prospective litter, than they would if it were the other way around.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: other is Skocicka samota, who was once in charge of the breeding females of the z Pohranicni straze program in the Czech Republic.

Didn't everyone in the czech republic hold that job at one time or the other ? LOL


----------



## Drew Peirce

Daryl Ehret said:


> It's not that either of these breeders believes that the female contributes more than the male, it's because _as breeders, that's where they can make the greatest concentration of quality on their particular behalf, while maintaining the greatest flexibility in the direction their breeding program will grow._ There will always be a wide variety of great males available at their disposal, handled by non-breeders that have concentrated their efforts on the performance careers of those studs and aren't necessarily bound to the loyalties of any particular (and possibly rival) kennelname. In this way, they have the ability to select more precisely a complimentary breeding partner for the particular goal of the prospective litter, than they would if it were the other way around.



There it is, in a nutshell..........


----------



## jack van strien

Imo many not so qualified breeders have more impact on a breed as opposed to long time knowledgeable
breeders.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: other is Skocicka samota, who was once in charge of the breeding females of the z Pohranicni straze program in the Czech Republic.
> 
> Didn't everyone in the czech republic hold that job at one time or the other ? LOL


The owner of _'Skocicka samota'_ kennel was in charge of the breeding females, and is now fairly active in sport. There's the Jinopo kennelmaster most people think of, who was the former director of the zPS program and current czech "kingpin", now breeding dogs labeled _'Jipo Me'_ and _'Jirkova dvora'_. I've never owned a dog from his breeding, just never interested. My wife got a pup from him this year, linebred on our ageing stud Faro Policia. I met one former zPS worker at my home in Colorado, but I can't remember his name and didn't inquire about what his job entailed. I'm pretty sure he was just a border patrolman, and those workers weren't even allowed inside of the breeding facilities.


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga

The czech guys have a pretty impressive breeding program, jinopo say they have about 70% of their progeny in law enforcement. Nowadays they mix western lines like schiffslache, karthago and doellenweise into their programs.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

Oluwatobi Odunuga said:


> The czech guys have a pretty impressive breeding program, jinopo say they have about 70% of their progeny in law enforcement. Nowadays they mix western lines like schiffslache, karthago and doellenweise into their programs.


I've already mentioned what I think of the 70% claim. If you breed four dozen litters a year and three fourths of them become law enforcement dogs, you'd soon run out of police to handle them. But, what Jinopo dogs have Karthago or Dollenweise in their bloodlines? None that I can think of. Tyson Schiffslache perhaps, but I'm not even sure of that.


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga

Many of the dogs they have for sale have karthago on the top of the pedigree, maybe not their breedings anyway.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

Kind of makes you wonder why they'd be selling westlines, and not czech dogs.


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga

In my honest opinion, mixing west and czech is a very sensible thing to do, if you have the time look at the videos of the dogs they have for sale, full mouth grips, handle pressure well, etc. I f i had the money i would give them a try.


----------



## cindy graffam

Link to pedigree of one of the top Jinopo studs for 2010, per Jinopo website.

http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/pedigree/522349.html


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Jennifer Coulter said:


> I get that Don and that is all good and important stuff that is needed for all people that own dogs. You deserve credit for that for sure, I don't want to take that away from you. I think that you can talk all you want about knowing how to teach dogs manners.
> 
> That said, there is a big difference between that and teaching formal obedience at the standard that many people need to compete in dog sports these days. If you were teaching your dogs to call off pigs mid chase and do some focused attention heeling...that would be a different story.


Your a bit presumptuous assuming no one could train dogs to the same level then. Little kids got their dogs to sit stay, down stay, stay with them while riding bikes through traffic, play dead, bite people and all the other things that you, as adults have to work at constsantly. Now I am told dogs won't bite without being trained they won't protect, yadda, yadda, yadda. Yet, you assume dogs back then could not be trained to the levels they do today. The things I mentioned are not manners, they are the same thing y'all have so much trouble with. I realize if I say it it automatically gets classified as manners. but that is something many trainers can't teach today, simple manners. Since you weren't alive to see the changes in both dogs and people, I am going to attempt to give you some simple concepts to think about. 

It was said that dogs are no different today than they were. This is said by those, yourself being one, that grew up with leash laws and such. It may surprise you to learn they had comp obedience back in the dark ages. They used treats back then also. What you will never get to experience is the difference in dogs. Dogs didn't fall apart if they were taken into unfamiliar territory. It was no big deal. None of our dogs were crate trained because they didn't have crates. The dog had an accident in the house, you booted his ass out the door. That is the front door as often as not. The front yard seldom had a fence. No one had the mind set that the dog had to be in the house. The family dog was usually laying, unanchord, on the front porch when people went to work. They were usually there when we came home. Dogs walked to school with the kids. Many left home and traveled the 8 blocks or whatever to the school to meet the kids. Dogs were far smarter and workable than they are now. Sure, more than a few got run over eventually and you replaced them if they did. While we felt bad, it wasn't cause for a national day of mourning. Dogs today, lagely raised in crates, kennels or in the house for everything except when they are being trained. Of course they fall apart when taken to a new field or faced with a new decoy. They are no different than a person would be if he was raised in a closet. 

Dogs were different because they had a totally different environment. Streets were one lane going each way with no where near the traffic of today. The whole neighbor hood was their playground. Little kids trained things in minutes that it tackes time and effort for trainer to train today. Yes, much of the training was done with with a whack on the head...but the dogs didn't fall apart and understood what you wanted because they got hugged and praised when they did it right. You may have read how I hose broke this German pup by 3 mo. I booted him out the door and he didn't get to come in. When he came in, if he started to squat he got booted out the door. Didn't take him long to realize that he just didn't do his business in the house. I don't even keep but a few crates around and those are used for transporting the dogs. Never for training. I don't ever recall having to take a dog for a walk, they were out and about with us all the time....off leash. Dogs on people porches, people walking doiwn the side walk past us, kids playing in front yards, all these things you call distractions today....they meant nothing to our dogs because these were common daily things to our dogs. They were no more distractions than the man in the moon was. The dogs of today are man made, just like they were back then. Oh, yes, and you never heard of the importance of socializing the dogs. They simply didn't need it. The importamnce of socializeing became glarinly apparent after the leash laws came to be. The obvious difference in the dogs was immediate. 

Now, to clarify something. I couldn't train a dog to sit ouside a store while I went in today. Streets are clogged with cars, more restrictive dog laws, etc, etc. So, if want to believe dogs are the same and training has reached new highs, go for it. I do cringe at the thought that todays understanding of dogs is such that you feel a need to have dogs for protecing the family, but, said dogs have to be crated or kenneled for the kids safety. The adults have to be right there to protect the kids from the dogs. Dogs used to be known as mans best friend. Helloooo LOL

Note: I didn't refer to the pussification of America once....figured I shouldn't have too.


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga

Cindy thanks for the pedigree, chari looks like a nice dog like most of the jinopo dogs.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

Oluwatobi Odunuga said:


> In my honest opinion, mixing west and czech is a very sensible thing to do, if you have the time look at the videos of the dogs they have for sale, full mouth grips, handle pressure well, etc. I f i had the money i would give them a try.


I agree, it's very sensible and have voiced that sentiment for years. There are many czech breeders that are utilizing west workingline into their breeding. I just don't recall any Jinopo dogs belonging of the westline kennels you mentioned. And keep in mind, brokering dogs is not the same as breeding dogs.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Don, I came to Switzerland in 1970 and our first dog that we imported from the UK in 1977, was a Landseer (White and black Newfoundland), 70 kgs x 74 cm withers. I, 47 kgs, 5' 1-2". I realised how large this pup would grow and gave thought to making him obediient, mentally, as physically I thought I couldn't impress him.

He definitely wasn't an angel - we had many a run-in as most dogs were free then. However, Ben was well behaved. i could leave him in down outside the library, shops, etc. He was a model of obedience on the lead but when running loose with a bitch, he wouldn't allow another dog to join in!

I often think back to those days. If anything happened, bite wounds, etc. there was a change of telephone numbers and we fixed it with our insurance. We still can do this but the physic terror that accompanies such happenings causes owners loss of sleep, etc.

If your dog bites another dog, he is labelled "dangerous". All attacks on other dogs, however slight, are reported and have consequences.

Switzerland is a tiny country so you can imagine what happens. I go out early in the morning or walk the dog on a long line. I let them off the lead when I am pretty sure there are no other dogs around. In training OB they are free and in Schutzhund they can let out their aggression.

It's sad. I have monsters but the monsters are, especially the younger one, extremely friendly to passers-by, who are also extremely surprised, having heard the worst!!

The dog has not changed in any way at all, apart from perverse breeding, but the 2-legged species has become dangerous.


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga

Darhyl, 
Charis has nachbarschaft, and rubachtal. Your'e right the other lines are mentioned are the dogs they broker .....my mistake.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Gillian Schuler said:


> Don, I came to Switzerland in 1970 and our first dog that we imported from the UK in 1977, was a Landseer (White and black Newfoundland), 70 kgs x 74 cm withers. I, 47 kgs, 5' 1-2". I realised how large this pup would grow and gave thought to making him obediient, mentally, as physically I thought I couldn't impress him.
> 
> He definitely wasn't an angel - we had many a run-in as most dogs were free then. However, Ben was well behaved. i could leave him in down outside the library, shops, etc. He was a model of obedience on the lead but when running loose with a bitch, he wouldn't allow another dog to join in!
> 
> I often think back to those days. If anything happened, bite wounds, etc. there was a change of telephone numbers and we fixed it with our insurance. We still can do this but the physic terror that accompanies such happenings causes owners loss of sleep, etc.
> 
> If your dog bites another dog, he is labelled "dangerous". All attacks on other dogs, however slight, are reported and have consequences.
> 
> Switzerland is a tiny country so you can imagine what happens. I go out early in the morning or walk the dog on a long line. I let them off the lead when I am pretty sure there are no other dogs around. In training OB they are free and in Schutzhund they can let out their aggression.
> 
> It's sad. I have monsters but the monsters are, especially the younger one, extremely friendly to passers-by, who are also extremely surprised, having heard the worst!!
> 
> The dog has not changed in any way at all, apart from perverse breeding, but the 2-legged species has become dangerous.


That's a fact Gillian. There isn't a dog out there, stable or unstable, that we have not made him what he is. Todays dogs, given the freedom of the old day, would be as stabe as the dog from years ago. Bitches in heat were and always will be a problem because dog are dogs. The only reason the dogs are so different is becuase, through necessity, their environment has become one of total restriction. We would be no different if raised in such a restrictive environment. The example you gave was in the late seventies. Think how different a dog may have been in the early 50's. They had freedoms totally unknown to dogs today. Look at the feral dogs living in society around the world. Can you imagine what it may take to create a good distraction to train them. They have gown up around it all.


----------



## Lee H Sternberg

Don Turnipseed said:


> Your a bit presumptuous assuming no one could train dogs to the same level then. Little kids got their dogs to sit stay, down stay, stay with them while riding bikes through traffic, play dead, bite people and all the other things that you, as adults have to work at constsantly. Now I am told dogs won't bite without being trained they won't protect, yadda, yadda, yadda. Yet, you assume dogs back then could not be trained to the levels they do today. The things I mentioned are not manners, they are the same thing y'all have so much trouble with. I realize if I say it it automatically gets classified as manners. but that is something many trainers can't teach today, simple manners. Since you weren't alive to see the changes in both dogs and people, I am going to attempt to give you some simple concepts to think about.
> 
> It was said that dogs are no different today than they were. This is said by those, yourself being one, that grew up with leash laws and such. It may surprise you to learn they had comp obedience back in the dark ages. They used treats back then also. What you will never get to experience is the difference in dogs. Dogs didn't fall apart if they were taken into unfamiliar territory. It was no big deal. None of our dogs were crate trained because they didn't have crates. The dog had an accident in the house, you booted his ass out the door. That is the front door as often as not. The front yard seldom had a fence. No one had the mind set that the dog had to be in the house. The family dog was usually laying, unanchord, on the front porch when people went to work. They were usually there when we came home. Dogs walked to school with the kids. Many left home and traveled the 8 blocks or whatever to the school to meet the kids. Dogs were far smarter and workable than they are now. Sure, more than a few got run over eventually and you replaced them if they did. While we felt bad, it wasn't cause for a national day of mourning. Dogs today, lagely raised in crates, kennels or in the house for everything except when they are being trained. Of course they fall apart when taken to a new field or faced with a new decoy. They are no different than a person would be if he was raised in a closet.
> 
> Dogs were different because they had a totally different environment. Streets were one lane going each way with no where near the traffic of today. The whole neighbor hood was their playground. Little kids trained things in minutes that it tackes time and effort for trainer to train today. Yes, much of the training was done with with a whack on the head...but the dogs didn't fall apart and understood what you wanted because they got hugged and praised when they did it right. You may have read how I hose broke this German pup by 3 mo. I booted him out the door and he didn't get to come in. When he came in, if he started to squat he got booted out the door. Didn't take him long to realize that he just didn't do his business in the house. I don't even keep but a few crates around and those are used for transporting the dogs. Never for training. I don't ever recall having to take a dog for a walk, they were out and about with us all the time....off leash. Dogs on people porches, people walking doiwn the side walk past us, kids playing in front yards, all these things you call distractions today....they meant nothing to our dogs because these were common daily things to our dogs. They were no more distractions than the man in the moon was. The dogs of today are man made, just like they were back then. Oh, yes, and you never heard of the importance of socializing the dogs. They simply didn't need it. The importamnce of socializeing became glarinly apparent after the leash laws came to be. The obvious difference in the dogs was immediate.
> 
> Now, to clarify something. I couldn't train a dog to sit ouside a store while I went in today. Streets are clogged with cars, more restrictive dog laws, etc, etc. So, if want to believe dogs are the same and training has reached new highs, go for it. I do cringe at the thought that todays understanding of dogs is such that you feel a need to have dogs for protecing the family, but, said dogs have to be crated or kenneled for the kids safety. The adults have to be right there to protect the kids from the dogs. Dogs used to be known as mans best friend. Helloooo LOL
> 
> Note: I didn't refer to the pussification of America once....figured I shouldn't have too.



AMEN Don. Brings back great memories of me and a couple of my dogs back in the Stone Ages!


----------



## Jennifer Coulter

Don Turnipseed said:


> Your a bit presumptuous assuming no one could train dogs to the same level then.


Lot of threads bleeding in to one and you and I are way off topic...oh well.

I wasn't saying that no one in the past could train their dog to the level of competition dogs now, that was someone else in another thread. I was saying only that it is not something that YOU do personally. Train dogs to competitive obedience levels I mean. That is not a bad thing at all Don. Don't see that as a negative. Just that that is not your area of expertise. That was really my point. It isn't mine either, though I do have to pass an obedience exam, I take it way further than I would have to to pass.

I also never said dogs were the same in the old days as now a days. That was also someone else. Don't know enough about that to comment. 

You also have me confused for others in that I don't need a dog to protect me, and don't train dogs in protection.

As an FYI, I have an indoor dog that lives loose in my house all the time, no crate. I leave my garbage accessable, it doesn't eat it Pretty sure I trained that just like you would. It is my current working dog. 

I have another one that lives out in the dirt like some of yours. 

At my job my dog is off leash around 1000 strangers a day. People barking at my dogs face, strangers calling the dogs to them while rushing past on skis and boards with sharp edges. Dog waiting around in crowded line ups, ride on chailifts, snowmobiles, in snowcats, helicopters...dogs around loud explosives on a regular basis..and so on. Ya know what? It is not rocket science. Doesn't take a bunch of fancy training really. Mostly consistancy in what is acceptable and what is not.

I actually think that most (not all) pet owners would be better off training with Kohler methods than with clickers/markers. 

That said, I personally think marker and reward based training is amazing and in the right hands and used well, is a kick ass tool in the tool box. It is a tool that I for one need to do the kind of more formal obedience that I enjoy training and learning about.

My only gripe is to hear you knock a type of training you would never need for the things that are important to you personally. There ARE people that train dogs to competitive levels that do not use marker type or even reward based training. I would rather that they were the ones to provide the arguments as to why they don't like that kind of training. The same way if someone was going to question something on a breeding or hog hunting topic, it might hold more weight for you if they had some experince in that arena.

I think this all started because I thougth you should write a book. You know a lot of crap that needs to be remembered and passed on. I think you have had a hellova interesting life, done things with dogs and breeding that most only dream about.

You have already likely forgotten more about dogs than I will ever know. There is a lot that people like me could learn from you. Even if you never pick up a clicker LOL:mrgreen:

We could take this to PM if you wanna go some more, since we are so far off topic....


----------



## Don Turnipseed

My post was about dogs in general Jennifer, not your dogs or mine. Most of this training stuff was relative to the times. Dogs trasitioned from tools to part of the family. People started doing more things with them and useing them for something other than a tool. Training became more universally popular and something to do as life became more restrictive for people also. The bar kept raising at competition levels. In pointer trials, it got so high that they have to use horses to keep up with the dogs. The angle of the tail is a focal point. Anything to make things competative. Could they have trained then to the level of todays dogs on such a broad basis. Maybe they could have with internet access. No one can say. There is one heck of a lot of people training today and in 15 or 20 years, you will be sounding more like me. LOL OK, I have to go and take pictures of the pups for people. No one wants to come and see them except for one couple that flew out from Co to see them. They are flying back out Jan 4th to pick up their pup. While I would rather sit here and talk dogs....I can't today.
Besides, I have already given my thoughts on males vs females.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter

Don Turnipseed said:


> My post was about dogs in general Jennifer, not your dogs or mine. Most of this training stuff was relative to the times. Dogs trasitioned from tools to part of the family. People started doing more things with them and useing them for something other than a tool. Training became more universally popular and something to do as life became more restrictive for people also. The bar kept raising at competition levels. In pointer trials, it got so high that they have to use horses to keep up with the dogs. The angle of the tail is a focal point. Anything to make things competative. Could they have trained then to the level of todays dogs on such a broad basis. Maybe they could have with internet access. No one can say. There is one heck of a lot of people training today and in 15 or 20 years, you will be sounding more like me. LOL OK, I have to go and take pictures of the pups for people. No one wants to come and see them except for one couple that flew out from Co to see them. They are flying back out Jan 4th to pick up their pup. While I would rather sit here and talk dogs....I can't today.
> Besides, I have already given my thoughts on males vs females.


I am on here more and chattier than usual because I have a busted rib at present so am on the suck list. Let me know what you are drinking in the afternoon and you can tell me some more stories about the old days to keep me occupied. :mrgreen:


----------



## Daryl Ehret

Oluwatobi Odunuga said:


> Darhyl,
> Charis has nachbarschaft, and rubachtal. Your'e right the other lines are mentioned are the dogs they broker .....my mistake.


I don't wanna keep bustin your chops, but keep in mind Charis was not produced by them, and they have only just put litters on the ground that are sired by him. He is a new dog in their program and taking them in a very unprecedented direction unlike much anything they've done before. While I think this is a good move, they also should take careful consideration toward preserving what makes their dogs different from west german sporting lines.


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga

No problem with busting my chops, you're right. What do you think seperates the czech lines from the west ones?


----------



## Daryl Ehret

I don't like to generalize to much about the different bloodlines, but west german workinglines have gotten a lot "sportier", and while they're good for bringing good working drives to the czech lines, they often aren't as hard as czech dogs tend to be. 

Another west/czech mix they use is Bady, a son of Vito vom Waldwinkel, and their intent is to use him mostly with large females that need stronger drives. That implies that while his drive is better than many males they use, he is likely a smaller dog than they prefer.


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga

Well the czech and west lines may be the future of the breed. Karthago, tiekerhook, schiffslache, etc make nice combinations with the czech lines.


----------



## andreas broqvist

The dogs on the pic of the pedegree lok so mutch like Show dogs. Why do they breed for that standard. Or is it just how they stack them?

To me the working sch has more of a stright back and more legs.


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga

Many of the dogs' legs are manually adjusted to take photos, i guess people prefer them that way. Not sure if it has any connection with HD.


----------



## Bob Scott

Both of my GSDs are WG over Czech but different lines. Night and day personalities, temperment and looks.
One is calm, dignified and serious. The other is a clown with a dark side.


----------



## Joby Becker

Bob Scott said:


> Both of my GSDs are WG over Czech but different lines. Night and day personalities, temperment and looks.
> One is calm, dignified and serious. The other is a clown with a dark side.


Which one you like better if you do like one better that is...Don;t worry they can't read...or can they??


----------



## Bob Scott

Joby Becker said:


> Which one you like better if you do like one better that is...Don;t worry they can't read...or can they??


Probably Thunder, the serious one. The clown, Trooper is to handler sensitive for me. To many yrs with terriers I guess. :lol:
The serious one doesn't get all upset when I'm pissed about whatever. His attitude is "Well, you having a bad day. Get the hell over it and we can train."
Trooper is a worrier. "Dad is pissed! OH SHIT!" He doesn't hang on to it like a frickin Golden but it's just something I'm not crazy about. If I'm happy, he's off the frickin charts happy! :roll: :lol:
Both are cool dogs in their own right and both super obedient but, as like most folks, we all have a type of dog we prefer to train/work with. Thunder is my competition dog but Trooper is just as easy to train. Just needs totally different handling. 
BOTH are great with marker training! :grin::grin::grin::grin::grin::grin: 
I had three big dogs yrs ago and someone asked me which one I liked the best.
I answered;
"They're just like my kids. Sometimes I like this one. Sometimes I like that one. Some days I want to kick all their asses!"


----------



## Erik Berg

andreas broqvist said:


> The dogs on the pic of the pedegree lok so mutch like Show dogs. Why do they breed for that standard. Or is it just how they stack them?


To please the market you know I suppose one of the reason the czech are using westdogs now is because their own dogs may be pretty much related, and now when it´s easier to use other dogs outside their country many does that. 

It´s a bit same in sweden, the own developed lines have much influence of maybe 3-4 dogs, like this bitch from the swedish workinglines,
http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/pedigree/437526.html


----------



## andreas broqvist

Yes I know. But ouer Swedish GSDs "working type" do not look like thos Show looking dogs.
Maby its just that ouer mind sett in working dogs is so far from show dogs so we do not care and therfor ouer dogs look diferent.


----------

