# For Andrew Hyle



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I wanted to move this to a new thread so it didn't continue to derail the spay neuter thread....


Andrew Hyle said:


> .
> As for breeding , if there ISNT a better bred dog out there then the breeding being done is crap. Each generation should be better then the last , thats breeding 101.
> Neutering one individual isnt damning the breeders efforts nor is it ruining the sport/breed.
> If there isnt a better dog coming up then something is wrong...


The goal of breedings is an overall increase in quality over the mean of the population as a whole, this is done, or not done, according to selection over the entire breed population, over time. It is not done on an individual level as you are stating...If that was the case we have super dogs by now, that trained themselves. And there is little relevance in drawing a comparison between mean population and Superior individuals.

Your theory is crap, take horses, since you like to talk horses. 

At the Preakness the speed record that still stands was set in 1985, it was tied by a horse in 1996, and another in 2007..In my opinion Secretariat set the record in 1973, but there was a clock error. 

Take the Belmont, why has Secretariat's record stood since 1973, he won by over 30 lengths, and the closest any horse has come since then to his time was 2 whole seconds, which is a big margin in a horse race. The winner in 2010 was almost 8 SECONDS slower than his time WHICH IS HUGE, and it has been 37 years....

Kentucky Derby, Secretariat has held that record for 37 yrs as well, this years winner was over 5 seconds slower....

I like horse racing, here are the vids of those races if anybody wants to see what a beastly freak of nature Secretariat was. He won 16 races, and finished in the money in 20 of 21 races. Can't wait to see the movie that just came out....

BELMONT, arguably the most impressive race in history. over 30 length win.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoFquax2F-k

PREAKNESS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEOlWDz2KBw

KENTUCKY DERBY, only 1 of 2 horses to break 2 minutes in 135 years. Actually increased his time every quarter, he is the only horse to clock faster times in each quarter as the race progressed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyqllleV6WA

So why do these records still stand, in 135 years or more of racing?
Why did Secretariat throw a mixed bag of horses, ranging from terrible race horses, to Big Stakes Winners, when he was studded?

Are you saying that all these horse breeders are making mistakes. Why has there not been another Secretariat, or a better horse in 37 years? or arguably EVER?

Truth is there are extraordinary performance animals, with many complex traits, with genes that fall into the right combinations, and expressions.

The traits involved in a good working dog are complex and most are not highly heritable traits, if the dog is not DD dominant expressive in a lot of genes, it makes it even more difficult...

*THAT IS GENETICS 101*

We don't have access to genetic analysis of dogs for most of these traits, some yes, most not, and most of those, aside from simple genes, are analyzed by universities with huge budgets for DNA analysis.
If outcrossing, or hell even inbreeding, there is no real way to determine what the outcome with be on a genetic level, we use expressions, we have no real analysis of which pairings may be homozygous dominant, homozygous recessive, heterozygous, hemizygous, or which ones are even autozygous or allozygous, in the genetic makeup, for the more complex traits, even if we had a DNA analyzer in our garage.



Andrew Hyle said:


> Point blank , if your breeding stock isnt meeting your goals then something isnt right. Obviously not every pup will be a star and not every litter , but with that many breedings then one would have to question what your doing besides adding to the over population.
> Im only argueing what you've said.


I would be willing to bet that if Jeff's stock did not meet his goals and it was apparent early enough, they DID NOT add to over population. 
I see how you switched it up from not getting better with every generation, to not meeting ones goals...that is a far different statement.



Andrew Hyle said:


> If your litters are frequently lacking in excellent individuals then something isnt right about the genetic combo.
> Is that right or wrong?
> Your the one putting your own hardwork down. Im just expressing my thoughts on the topic.
> Experience will always trump theories , but when a person admits that there stock isnt continually getting better through each generation then?


This shows great naivety, the averages ideally get better, that does not mean that even if you have a special, super performance animal, that he is gonna produce himself, or better than himself at all, and if he does it is not all that common. You can improve on the crappy dog much easier than a dog that is at the top of the performance levels..Just as in horses...look at above examples..

And your definition of conformation is whacked. If dealing with written standards, as in purebred dogs, which you obviously have VERY LITTLE experience with, everything is conformation, bone size and muscle mass, and density as well, not just the angles, and slopes...not that conformation to a written standard matters much in an altered dog as far as standards go, whats the point? I am not big on written standards for performance animals either, they contain many things that have no bearing on performance...but that being said the things you are talking about that you think are "not conformation" can affect performance as well....including the things you are WRONG about...

All this coming from some young guy, that owns all mixed bred, most likely, all rescue animals that cannot perform anything? 
Really? 
You obviously joined the board to push some buttons, but you really come off like someone who knows very little about breeding, genetics, and conformation in performance animals...
These things are a lot more complicated than breeding for color, or other phenotypical triats...

Hopefully you will be able to contribute in some form to the board, aside from talking about rescue animals and mixed breeds, where do think that will come in? 

Just curious...have you ever done tracking, scentwork, sportwork, or protection training? any real stockwork with your dog? From what I can tell, you have a dog that you play around with herding, at a gentleman's farm, with a dog that would not have the drive to do real herding work, competitive or not. Real world working dogs that have real jobs, have real drives, especially for herding. Anything that is real world performance, or sport performance with any dogs?? Or just pets?

I would be willing to bet that this gentleman's farm that you manage is not breeding anything that does anything besides eat and get slaughtered. I am sure there are places to talk about the things that you DO know about that would be better than talking here about things you have NO clue about.
take you time if you answer, because so far you are not appearing to know anything about what topics are discussed here...Have you ever even bred a litter of dogs?

Oh yeah, welcome to the board...glad to have you here, if you can contribute anything to help us with our working dogs..



Chris McDonald said:


> There is some dude on here that has a pic of a small plane, WTF is that all about?




Sure thats not a scooter yer looking at, that looks like a plane? 
I know, I got too much time


----------



## Ashley Campbell (Jun 21, 2009)

But Secretariat never threw any off-spring nearly as good as him. A few winners here and there, but it's like a stud dog that throws very average litters, even if he's excellent all the way around.



> Today, the normal weight of a horse’s heart is 8.5 pounds. Even though Secretariat’s heart was not weighed at autopsy, Dr. Thomas Swerczek, head pathologist at the University of Kentucky, estimated it at 22 pounds after finding the second-largest heart in Sham (Secretariat’s Triple Crown rival) and weighing it at 18 pounds.
> "I have done thousands of autopsies, and I had noticed differences in heart size in horses before we did Secretariat," Swerczek said. "I had picked up the difference in the male and female hearts and noticed that some were bigger than others.


http://www.horsesonly.com/crossroads/xfactor/heart-1.htm




That's like racing a stock 4 cylinder against a turbo boosted 8. 


There is improvement, it's just in times on average. Apparently, Secretariat didn't throw his abnormal sized turbo booster to all of his offspring. 
The same could possibly be argued for dogs that we do have improvement overall (health and whatnot) but that's not something I'm well versed in.
However, if you had a greyhound that blew everything off the track, and upon it's death you find out it's a medical anomaly with a larger than normal heart, it's not fair to compare every other greyhound to it.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Ashley Campbell said:


> But Secretariat never threw any off-spring nearly as good as him. A few winners here and there, but it's like a stud dog that throws very average litters, even if he's excellent all the way around.
> 
> http://www.horsesonly.com/crossroads/xfactor/heart-1.htm
> 
> ...


Ashley I take it you are not a big fan of horses with huge hearts...LOL J/K
I think that horse had a huge heart in more than one way...

In the mile and a quarter, at racing speeds, no horse has been clocked increasing his times in each successive quarter besides him, ..regardless of what those times were. He accelerated from start to finish...

I am not a horse person, don't pretend to be. But I do like horse racing.
I am not gonna talk about reasons to hate on perfection ...not that I think yer hating on him....

If the X factor is what made him great,,,, thoroughbred people are aware of this..It is not a random thing, It has been well mapped out, genetically. And there are plenty of horses with large hearts..Just none a big as his...Why have they not been able to breed more horses with "huge" hearts? All the breeding and money involved, you'd think they could do it...They have not been able to because it is "complicated". It is also stated that it "might" be an anomaly, time will tell on that one, I'm betting they can breed one with a whopper sooner or later, but that still won't guarantee another secretariat..

That being said, the large heart is only 25% of what makes a champion horse..if all the factors line up and the stars are right, you have a Super Horse. Which does happen..I did call him a beastly freak of nature, did I not? 

It is still genetics, and still very difficult to do, just as in performance dogs, some dogs are very special, because all the stars were in alignment, including the complicated genetic factors..

I am not wishing to argue about horse genetics, or even horses at all, just an example, that is not the point I am trying to make, the point is, it is not easy to replicate greatness or improve on it, in horses or in dogs, As Andrew is implying.


----------



## Brian McQuain (Oct 21, 2009)

We're still continuing this conversation? I gave up many posts ago…it doesn’t matter what you show him, how you explain it, what studies done you send links to, experience, proof, common sense…he’s not gonna get it, he just doesn’t get it, he doesn’t want to get it….holy shit, halleluiah…where’s the Tylenol?


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I would say Brian summed it up nicely.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Didn't see it until later last night, I was dumfounded when I read it. If the guy was not real, I would assume it was someone else, messing with people, that is how off the wall it is.
my apologies.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I was a HUGE fan of Secretariat. Still have the Newsweek mag with him on the cover. I have a pic of my son and one of my terriers (of course) in front of his statue at the Ky Horse Park. 
His get basically sucked in relation to him.
And to think they nutted John Henry just to calm the crazy bastard enough to race. ](*,)](*,)

Horse racing trivia;
Only the heart, head and feet of a race horse are buried. heart for the desire to win, feet for the speed to win and head for the brains to win........or somthin like that. :-k:-D
Man 'O War was the exception to that. He was buried in a HUGE coffin with front page news.


----------



## eric squires (Oct 16, 2008)

As i understand it the Big Red horse did end up being a pretty broodmare sire.


----------



## Andrew Hyle (Dec 19, 2010)

Interesting post.
Plenty of good well thought out points to.
Now if you were really interested in my opinion , why wouldnt you of just sent a private message to me?
I've been on internet forums long enough to know when a person is just looking for a fight. 

Your looking for a lynching and no matter what I say you will do your best to get it. I stand firm on my thoughts in the previous thread.
If you were looking for anything OTHER then a public roasting you wouldnt of titled the thread the way you had.

I didnt come here to push buttons , if that was all I wanted to do I wouldnt take the time to put actual thoughts into my posts. I could settle on name calling and trashing a person I have never met or know anything about. I came here because I have a great love of working dogs , while I do not currently have a serious working dog that does not mean im not familer with them nor that im unappreciative of an experienced handler/trainer.
But I do have an opinion on some topics and I will stand by it.

and yes im well aware that you will take my post as me "admiting im wrong and just not brave enough to to try and defend my stance" at which point I refer to my previous points.

If you wanted a discussion , you could easily have gotten it. Instead your looking for a fight , which im just not that interested in. =)


----------



## Jim Engel (Nov 14, 2007)

Joby Becker:

"The goal of breeding is an overall increase in quality over the mean of the population as a whole, this is done, or not done, according to selection over the entire breed population, over time."

This is a very important point. As a specific example, success in breeding German Shepherds, or any other breed, according to the Schutzhund trial should mean that the process as a whole produces litters with an increasing expectation of good police dogs on the street.

"Good" here has to to include cost effective, for training many young dogs to finally find one which can be truly effective on the street is not cost effective in the long run and is thus not "good breeding." Viewed in this way, the production of a line with a high percentage of pups that can go on to be good, cost effective police dogs is really better than a line which can produce an occasional very impressive individual but also many pups which ultimately are unsuccessful.

I think what Mr. Becker is saying is that for a breed to be good and in the process of becoming better you need to look at the whole population rather than just the occasional, exceptional individual.

I think this is the correct and useful way to look at it.

This is why the SV, and USCA, are failing the German Shepherd dog. By dividing the breed into "show" lines and "real" lines they are no longer trying to improve the breed as a whole, and any breeding between these populations can only degrade the aggregate quality.

Unless they are willing to take the final, logical step and formally divide the breed into Martin Shepherds and German Shepherds and forbid cross breeding this situation is going to continue to degrade.


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Hey Joby what year did they start testing for performance enhancing drugs in horse racing? Iv come to the conclusion that the best athlete doesn’t always win, the person/ hoarse with the best chemist wins. I think Lance Armstrong had a good chemist that kept him juiced up and below the radar. Maybe Secretariats was as mid pack as the offspring, the offspring just didn’t get the right injections? Maybe? Im on conspiracy theories tonight!


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

eric squires said:


> As i understand it the Big Red horse did end up being a pretty broodmare sire.


The very recent movie was cool also!


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: This shows great naivety, the averages ideally get better, that does not mean that even if you have a special, super performance animal, that he is gonna produce himself, or better than himself at all, and if he does it is not all that common.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ9zvR2lhRQ

Here is an example. He was a really nice dog. Where are all the great pups coming from him ? LOL 

That is a Mal pedigree joke. : )


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Andrew Hyle said:


> Interesting post.
> Plenty of good well thought out points to.
> Now if you were really interested in my opinion , why wouldnt you of just sent a private message to me?
> I've been on internet forums long enough to know when a person is just looking for a fight.
> ...


Did you PM Jeff, when you were discussing his breeding program?
I could've posted it differently..but it is a free country..your tone really pissed me off, and yes, Jeff pisses all me over quite often too..

You aren't interested in a fight on "this" board....

If you care to discuss training or breeding, I can forgo any personal stuff. Your decision to not engage in what could be a learning opportunity is your choice.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Andrew Hyle said:


> Your looking for a lynching and no matter what I say you will do your best to get it. I stand firm on my thoughts in the previous thread.
> If you were looking for anything OTHER then a public roasting you wouldnt of titled the thread the way you had.
> 
> 
> If you wanted a discussion , you could easily have gotten it. Instead your looking for a fight , which im just not that interested in. =)


Hey Andrew, whilst you may appear a little wet behind the ears on some of your opinions (well most of them ), I reckon you've been quite astute here, got Joby in one LOL.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

maggie fraser said:


> Hey Andrew, whilst you may appear a little wet behind the ears on some of your opinions (well most of them ), I reckon you've been quite astute here, got Joby in one LOL.


Maggie,

I find it refreshing that Andrew believes scientific research and not some anecdotal stories a bunch of old geezers tell him on the internet ;-)


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Maggie,
> 
> I find it refreshing that Andrew believes scientific research and not some anecdotal stories a bunch of old geezers tell him on the internet ;-)


Thomas,

The scientific research he can only access via a quick google search?

I find Andrew really earnest....and funny:smile:.


----------



## Andrew Hyle (Dec 19, 2010)

Joby - I didnt message him privately about the matter because he is the one that decided to throw his own program into the "ring". 

Im really not interested in fighting period , argueing online doesnt get anyone anywhere , if you noticed I never made a personal attack against anyone nor did I use foul language. I stuck with what made the most sense , did I convey my message clearly? Apparently not. Reading back on a few things I easily could of stated things differently but there would still of been the same issues because I had a different opinion.
If my tone angered anyone then it was their choice to get upset over it , I did not attack anyone personally. Just merely stated what I was taking from the discussion.

I enjoy every kind of *civil *discussion and im absolutely certain I will partake in many more on here. I spent quite a few days reading the forum before registering and check back regularly. I even told a friend that IS involved with schutzhund that she should join.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Andrew Hyle said:


> Joby - I didnt message him privately about the matter because he is the one that decided to throw his own program into the "ring".
> 
> Im really not interested in fighting period , argueing online doesnt get anyone anywhere , if you noticed I never made a personal attack against anyone nor did I use foul language. I stuck with what made the most sense , did I convey my message clearly? Apparently not. Reading back on a few things I easily could of stated things differently but there would still of been the same issues because I had a different opinion.
> If my tone angered anyone then it was their choice to get upset over it , I did not attack anyone personally. Just merely stated what I was taking from the discussion.
> ...


Quit whining about fighting and what he said, you said Andrew. No one learns much when everyone agrees with easch other. The best info comes from disagreement. This is especially true when it comes to "ethical" discussion. Everyone has dofferent thought and we all get a clearer picture through voicing them. Then there is the question of experience vs scientific. Even science sets out with an agenda to prove what they want to prove.


----------



## Andrew Hyle (Dec 19, 2010)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Quit whining about fighting and what he said, you said Andrew. No one learns much when everyone agrees with easch other. The best info comes from disagreement. This is especially true when it comes to "ethical" discussion. Everyone has dofferent thought and we all get a clearer picture through voicing them. Then there is the question of experience vs scientific. Even science sets out with an agenda to prove what they want to prove.


I have stated a few times now that im all for discussion. There was no discussion in that other thread.

I agree with the rest that you said. 
Science can easily find a way to make one theory fit the bill.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

maggie fraser said:


> Thomas,
> 
> The scientific research he can only access via a quick google search?
> 
> I find Andrew really earnest....and funny:smile:.


What's wrong with Google? I wish the Internet and Google had of been around when I was Andrew's age 
Of course I'd still want the benefits of my years of experience too


----------



## eric squires (Oct 16, 2008)

Secretariat did become known for being a "broodmare sire" meaning his daughters tended to produce well and were sought after as broodmares


----------



## Skip Morgart (Dec 19, 2008)

I remember watching a TV documentary about Secretariat. Jack Nicklaus was there at Belmont when the horse won by 30 lengths. He started to cry because he had pursued perfection in his own sport, and he felt he just saw it for the first time at that race.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Skip Morgart said:


> I remember watching a TV documentary about Secretariat. Jack Nicklaus was there at Belmont when the horse won by 30 lengths. He started to cry because he had pursued perfection in his own sport, and he felt he just saw it for the first time at that race.



Skip,

Are you sure Jack wasn't crying because he had bet a lot of money on another horse?


----------



## Skip Morgart (Dec 19, 2008)

Thomas Barriano said:


> Skip,
> 
> Are you sure Jack wasn't crying because he had bet a lot of money on another horse?


If he bet any money, I'm sure it was just a drop in the bucket to him...and he was a fan of Secretariat, so that's probably where the money (if any) was bet on. I remember (YEARS ago) sitting next to his wife at the Firestone Tournament of Champions while Jack was practicing on the short 125 yard hole by the clubhouse. She had a HUGE solid gold ring in the shape of a bear's head on her hand (Jack's nickname- Golden Bear). A buddy was with me watching Jack practice. Practically every one of Jack's shots were within 15 feet of the cup. My buddy said "Hey Skip, we hit shots like that"..."yeah Gary, but EVERY shot of his is like that". Jack was one of the greatest that ever lived, and he saw Secretariat do something that was about as close to perfection as anyone will see in a sport at Belmont, so I'm sure a lot of people teared up that day.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Andrew Hyle said:


> Joby - I didnt message him privately about the matter because he is the one that decided to throw his own program into the "ring".
> 
> Im really not interested in fighting period , argueing online doesnt get anyone anywhere , if you noticed I never made a personal attack against anyone nor did I use foul language. I stuck with what made the most sense , did I convey my message clearly? Apparently not. Reading back on a few things I easily could of stated things differently but there would still of been the same issues because I had a different opinion.
> If my tone angered anyone then it was their choice to get upset over it , I did not attack anyone personally. Just merely stated what I was taking from the discussion.
> ...


Andrew, your conduct on other boards leaves a lot to be desired, seems like you don't mind publicly roasting others to me...or arguing...or giving out personal information about people...or being uncivil. ( I got too much time on my hands, it is well known)

Thought that it might be a precursor to how you will post here...Maybe I was wrong..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEb1pPFfD0Q


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I got a little choked up watching it again..LOL 

Females from his lineage were/are sought after, the X FACTOR (large hearts) genes are carried by the females....


----------

