# Stoned Progeny



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

I moved this over here, because it is getting way OT for the new puppy thread. But this post did get me thinking.



> Kadi, you asked about Stoned progeny competing in PSA. Darryl will have beter knowledge of this but I can give you a few. The sire to my pup, Jexx, is a Stoned Grt.Grandson. Jexx has finished his level 1 and will trial in the 2's in the future as has/will his littermate owned by Sammy Blondin, Crash and a female littermate Asja owned by Greg Williams. While I can not say the same for Asja because I am not that familiar with her but Jexx and Crash are not the typical point dogs that succeed in sports. They are tough dogs that in the wrong hands could hurt an unsuspecting handler. Darryl also owned a Stoned Grandson, Jaeger (an Uncle to Jexx and Crash), that was competing in the 2's. I believe this dog is now working w/ a police department. If my puppy Jayde has 1/8 of the drive that her father has...I'm in trouble.


Why would Jexx, Crash, Asja be considered Stoned progeny? And to a lesser degree, why would Jaeger? In the case of Jexx and his littermates, Stoned is his great grandfather. That means out of the 14 dogs that appear in their 3 generation pedigree, Stoned is 1 of them, and appears in the 3rd generation. There are 7 other dogs in that generation that could have had just as strong of a genetic influence on these dogs. Stoned has more potential influence on Jaeger, as his grandfather, but there are still 3 other dogs in that generation with as much potential influence.

Without doing some linebreeding at this point, I would suggest that Stoned doesn't have that much influence on most of these dogs at this point. Except Jaeger, as there are some things that seem to skip a generation and a dog who is strong genetically will still be putting his/her stamp on their grandkids.

On a more general note, I always find it interesting when people talk more about who their dogs distant ancestors are than the ones up close. I hear that a lot with the GSD people when they are talking about their dogs. "he's a Mink grandson" "she's a Fero great granddaughter" Or in Malinois "he goes back to Elgos (3 generations back) Are these dogs really considered that strong of producers, that they are the strongest genetic influence in the pedigree and therefore the one worth mentioning? Or is it case of there not having been any dogs of note any closer up in the dogs pedigree, so that's the closest recognizable name to mention?


----------



## Darryl Richey (Jul 3, 2006)

They would still be considered Stoned Progeny beacause the lines are still in the Genetic gene pool. It is very possible that they are not the most predominate/influential in the genetics, but they are still there. This is of course just my opinion, I have no scientific proof. I wouldn't bother to look at a pedigree past the mother father otherwise. Yet , I'm not the only one to look at the genetics past mother and father. I wish genetics were a little more clear cut. It would make things a little easier. 
Long story short.....It's still in the gene pool.


----------



## Darryl Richey (Jul 3, 2006)

Sorry I still had some other thoughts but I seem to always have to fight my key board(just ask Tammy about my typing skills).

You also mention how people to tend to talk about the more popular or recognised names when talking about the pedigree.
I think that goes back towards something you mentioned in another post that I agree with. The best producers are not always the best performers. That would mean they might not be in the spot light as much as others and hence they would be a little less known . For instance, Jexx's father was Yunnas v. Joefarm. He was out of Roe v. Joefarm a well known dog in Belgium. Yet Yunnas was a moderatly known dog in certain circles. He was a fantastic dog, yet not necessarily a point dog in some cases. He did though produce some very nice pups. Yet I might be a little more inclined to mention Roe other then Yunnas because of people knowing Roe more so then Yunnas. 
Just some thoughts.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Kadi, this same sort of idea showed up a few months back when I got aggravated hearing how this dog is true breeding for this behavior and this dog is true breeding for that entire complement of physical traits. To a biologist, true breeding means homozygous in their alleles for a particular trait, but dog folks don't necessarily have their terminology right. Especially when I hear completely absurd statements from otherwise presumably knowledgeable people at trials like good temperament is recessive and bad temperament is dominant and it pretty much all comes from the dam. Where's that brickwall head banging emoticon when I need it? There is some merit to genetic imprinting (i.e.-the father's genes control much of the fetal and postnatal growth of the pups, not the mother, as it is in the father's best interest, not the mother's...well known phenomenon in beef cattle), but it's usually going to be a 50/50 split in regards to the genotypes with each dilution on down. So perhaps that's why it troubles me that some folks don't care about the drives of the female all that much as long as her pedigree is acceptable. As long as the male is extreme, that's all that counts, right? *scratches head* Maybe's it's just an excuse not to have to work females that don't quite have it and just keep them for brood bitches? But then again, I'm a scientist, not a breeder. ;-)


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Maren, genetics also tells us that our dogs came from wolves, something that is a complete crock as well.

I have never understood why the actual occurence of breeding has NOTHING really to do with genetics in the end result. I also really wonder about the 50/50 male female contributions, as I swear, I have had males that there is nothing to lead you to believe that the female did more than raise them.

I also do not think that great grandfathers and such have much to do, unless they are heavily linebred. Besides, I would have to look to see if the definition of progeny included grandchildren.....pretty sure it doesn't.

Anyway, the more I bred, the more I wondered what genetisists were smoking.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

The more I read, the more I wish breeders had to take a basic college course in genetics. Not a knock on you, Jeff, but the things I hear come out of people's mouths sometimes. Anyways, a dog has 78 chromosomes (as do wolves...humans have 46) that come in 39 homologous pairs. In each homologous pair, one is originally derived from mom and one is originally derived from dad. There is no discussion: that *is* how it works. Depending on who you ask, dogs are not wolves in the same way we are not chimpanzees. But dogs share a common ancestor with modern wolves just like we share common ancestors with the other great apes. I think of dogs as house wolves or the diet Coke of wolves. 

The other thing to remember about certain behaviors with your males is that there are a number of traits, either physical or behavioral, that are Y linked so yes, the dam wouldn't express those. And afterall, genes aren't textbooks waiting to be read. They are more like Choose Your Own Adventure books with the environment pulling the strings. To give you an example from humans, some scientists have found genes for alcoholism. But like any behavior-based trait, you're not an alcoholic if you never start drinking.


----------



## Al Curbow (Mar 27, 2006)

Does that make us the diet coke of chimps? No wonder they look at us funny..........................


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Al Curbow said:


> Does that make us the diet coke of chimps? No wonder they look at us funny..........................


Yeah, but what explains the poop-throwing thing?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

So, Maren, time to start breeding with all this knowledge and produce the uber dogs that a basic course of genetics can create. LOL

I have taken these courses, and while cute, and seem to work pretty well for color schemes.........I had no luck with it in breeding.

Unless I have all my dogs genetically decoded, your simple genetics class is "F"in worthless.

On the other hand, I really wish it was that easy........not.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> On the other hand, I really wish it was that easy........not.


Oh no, I 110% agree with you on that. I didn't mean take a genetics class to figure out how to breed the Uberhund or anything by just doing a simple Punnett square. Yup, definitely doesn't work that way, especially for something as complicated as getting a desired behavior, which in a way, is exactly my point. I hear "as long as the dog is genetically correct, it should be fine" tossed around so many times without anyone saying "hold on a second, what does that actually mean when we say things like that?" 

However, I mean more so that working and show breeders both will understand exactly what they mean when they call something true breeding, homozygous, dominant vs recessive, how to breed for a particular color if due to a relatively simple monohybrid or dihybrid cross (if they are so inclined, that is).


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Most dog breeders are "true retards" that is where the problem comes in. Smart people are rarely breeders. 

I am saying this with the thought in mind of ALL dog breeders.


----------



## Amber Scott Dyer (Oct 30, 2006)

I have seen very good dogs that never produce anything. 

I have also seen one bitch with moderate-to-high drives that, when bred to three different males (all high-level SchH 3 competitors, all very different pedigrees) consistently produced dogs much stronger than herself. 

All that means is that breeding is a crap shoot - you have to look at the pedigrees AND the performance of both parents, and make a match accordingly. 

I will say that a dog that is nervy, insecure, and fearful will almost always pass those traits on to her puppies - but that's "nurture", not "nature". Nothing to do with genetics, just simple imprinting - the puppies learn from the mother to be fearful.


----------



## Al Curbow (Mar 27, 2006)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Yeah, but what explains the poop-throwing thing?


They're genetically predisposed to pepsi i guess.......lol


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: I have seen very good dogs that never produce anything.

Describe a "very good dog"

The bitch thing is something I have seen many times. This kind of bitch is invaluable. This is also why I could care less if they have titles.


----------

