What still constitutes a bloodline

[RiverBottom]

Bev, you kind of proved my point. How are those guys supposed to know about Mr. Backtracker? Do the papers say (backtracker) under his name? If they had first hand knowledge they would have known, without it ALL breeding is a shot in the dark.

You can make some informed guesses how the pups will turn out, just like the weatherman makes informed guesses. But you will never really KNOW until you take that shot in the dark. By the way, in the hands of a good breeder, the Mr. Backtracker line would have ended with him, there should have never been a second generation of Mr. Backtrackers. Another example of people breeding papers instead of taking a hard look at the dog himself?

I agree with Pete's point about looking sideways, in a general way. Chances are, a dog from a good litter will produce better than the star from a bad litter SOMETIMES. Not always. Also, how do you know which dog in the litter is the best producer? I've bred littermates from "good litters" and some throw much better pups than thier littermates do.

A well documented exception to the "good litter" rule is the treeing walker Rock River Sackett Jr. His sire never produced much worth note, aside from Sackett Jr. Sackett Jr.'s littermates were never heard from (culls maybe?) Yet Sackett Jr. produced more Nt CHs and GR NT CH's percentage wise than any other dog, ever, in his short life. He is darn near a legend for his ability to produce dogs that win hunts. If you had studied his pedigree inside out and sideways you would not have gone near him with a bitch in heat.

Here is the latest thread on the coonhound board about JR. http://forums.ukcdogs.com/showthread.ph ... did=248133
Interesting to note how much MISINFORMATION it contains about those pedigrees

[JUDE]

CONSISTENCY
THAT IS THE KEY,I DON'T INBREED I LINE BREED,AND AS FAR AS OUT CROSSING THIS IS ABOUT AS CLOSE AS I COME TO OUT CROSSING----A POSSABLE BREEDING----------- LET'S SAY YOU HAVE A FEMALE HOUND THAT HAS MT ZION PETE 6 TIMES IN A 5 GEN-PED-3 TIMES ON THE TOP AND 3 TIMES ON THE BOTTOM IN THE 4 TH AND 5 TH GEN.-----NOW YOU HAVE A MALE HOUND THAT HAS NORTHWAY SPUR 3 TIMES ON THE TOP SIDE AND DINGUS MACRAE 3-TIMES ON THE BOTTOM SIDE ALSO IN THE 4TH AND 5TH GEN'S,,,, NOW SINCE I KNOW THAT NORTHWAY SPUR AND DINGUS MACRAE,,,BOTH GO BACK TO MT ZION PETE THAT TELLS ME I NOW HAVE 12 CROSSES OF MT ZION PETE IN THE" PUPS" IF I DECIDED TO MAKE THE CROSS....... MOST WOULD SAY'' THAT IT IS TO FAR BACK TO INFLUENCE THE PUP'S EITHER WAY AND(" I RESPECT YOUR OPINION") BUT THE THE PUPS WILL HAVE 8 OR 10% MT ZION PETE IN THEM(I GUESSED AT THE % WITHOUT LOOKING AT MY PED PROGRAM SO 8 OR 10 -MIGHT NOT BE EXACT).BUT TO MAKE A LONG QUESTION SHORTER HOW CAN YOU GET THE CONSISTENCY IF YOU DON'T KNOW THIS.AND ANOTHER POINT ---WOULD YOU SAY THESE PUPS WERE NORTHWAY SPUR BRED OR MAYBE DINGUS MACRAE,BRED ----WHAT ABOUT MT ZION PETE BRED....WHAT DO YOU THINK???????????
KEEP'EM RUNNING
PINE MT BEAGLES

I think Rufus knows what he's talking about .

[Bev]

Bev, you kind of proved my point. How are those guys supposed to know about Mr. Backtracker? Do the papers say (backtracker) under his name? If they had first hand knowledge they would have known, without it ALL breeding is a shot in the dark.

I think you might have overlooked this part:

You must consider the paper before you make a breeding. Even if most of the dogs are gone now, you must do your research and talk to those who did see them run, or have pups from them, or even grandpups. Anything else is just a shot in the dark...

You don't have to have first-hand knowledge, but you can get it from those who do.

[Pine Mt Beagles]

BEV
I THINK YOU EXPLAINED IT, A LOT BETTER THAN I DID' AND GOT THE POINT ACROSS THAT, I WAS TRYING TO MAKE.ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE'S.AND A HOUND'S INFLUENCE EVEN THOUGH IT IS BACK IN A PED'S. 4TH OR 5TH GEN.I LIKE TO SEE 7 GEN'S IF POSSABLE.BUT THANKS FOR HELPING CLEAR IT UP.
KEEP'EM RUNNING
PINE MT BEAGLES

[S.R.Patch]

I think there were some early American so called beagles here before the English imports. There was a picture of acouple one being called Ringlet, I think.
I think an English Beagles has his citizenship in England. Those English beagles bred here and whelped would have their citizenship in America but be of direct decent. It stands to reason that those bred and used on different game other than the European hare and not in the same mannor of hunting as in England would evolve, through different requirements into somewhat different structure and quality hounds.
A wise old packmaster once told me, "a few hundered beagles and one life time is hardly enough to learn much about breeding hounds".
How lucky are we to be blessed with so many experts on this forum...

All beagles in this country go back %100 to english beagles. Does that make them English bred?

"HOW CAN YOU GET THE CONSISTENCY IF YOU DON'T KNOW THIS."

Kowing it or not doesn't make any difference. The only thing that matters is what you know first hand.

If you raise a litter of pups and keep four of them, they will all be different. Line bred, in bred or outcrossed, no two pups are the same. None of these pups will be just like either of the parents. Yet all four of these pups have the same pedigree. Now you pick one of these pups to breed the next generation. You just changed the line to make it what YOU think it should be like. If you had picked a different pup to keep, your line would have gone a different direction. Multiply that change by how ever many generations Mt. Zion Pete is away from the dogs you have now and you can see how much things could have changed.

It is darn near impossible to breed a dog that turns out just like old superdog even if you know everything there is to know about him. Now if you never actualy hunted with old superdog, your chances of getting one like him are close to 0. You might end up with one that is better than old superdog ever was, but you won't ever get the same.

Rufus, you have bred more good dogs than most ever will. You should quit giving credit to some dog that's been dead for 50 years. When someone asks you how your dogs are bred, tell 'em they are PINE MT. BRED

[Bev]

And although alot of these older lines may have been diluted the buyer can still do their homework to some extent. Just like anything we do with our dogs... the results are often a product of how much work we put into it. And that work should start before you even buy the dog.

Mike McCollough

Absolutely. We wouldn't buy a car without doing a little research to identify possible flaws.

[Bev]

A wise old packmaster once told me, "a few hundered beagles and one life time is hardly enough to learn much about breeding hounds".
How lucky are we to be blessed with so many experts on this forum...

I will try to ignor the obvious slam about the "experts" on this forum, and say that not all packmasters are wise. Some are wise, some are imaginary, and others are full of crap.

[NorWester1]

A prepotent bloodline is based on traits and characteristics not names printed in ink on fancy paper.

I have to wonder if one can even separate the two? Traits and characteristics are wholly dependent on the names printed on the fancy paper. Who do you think owns those traits and characteristics? The dogs on the paper. You must consider the paper before you make a breeding. Even if most of the dogs are gone now, you must do your research and talk to those who did see them run, or have pups from them, or even grandpups. Anything else is just a shot in the dark because no matter how good your male or female is, you cannot rely on that to get you quality pups. There's no guarantee he/she can produce like kind. Many dogs cannot reproduce the same traits that make them world-beaters. Conversely, many an average dog produces get much better than they. They were blessed with the ability to throw the best traits of their ancestors. You can't know where it's coming from without the pedigree.

Consider this. A man decides to make a breeding of his best rabbit running machine to his buddy's new stud dog who is also a rabbit running machine. In fact, that male has many good traits just like his female. Good decision, right? He doesn't need papers. He's breeding the best to the best, and that's what you're supposed to do, right? The first litter of pups turn out to be average at best, and a few of them have a problem with their GPS system. They backtrack. He keeps the best - the ones that don't backtrack and he does the old fashioned thang of taking a female back to the sire. Or crosses the female out, and then takes that litter's female back to the grandsire. All of the pups are garbage, and he's scratching his head. Three generations have passed, and he can't figure out why he couldn't get a single exceptional pup from breeding the best two dogs in his world together.

Out come the papers. Guess what? His original female rabbit running machine and his buddy's original male rabbit running machine had common ancestors. Mr. Backtracker showed up twice in her pedigree and showed up twice in his pedigree. Now everybody knew that Mr. Backtracker got his FC title because he was a front-runner, blessed with speed, and on good scenting days he didn't backtrack -- he didn't get caught by the judges. It was okay to have him show up once in the pedigree because he would throw that foot and hunt, and one could always cull any offspring that might backtrack. But wait, now we have Mr. Backtracker crossed 4 times in a pedigree, then 6 times in a pedigree. And we wonder why we couldn't get good dogs from good dogs.

I know that's a long way to say it, but even in my own breeding/buying decisions, I know of dogs (I never saw run) that I will accept once in the pedigree, but not twice - not once on top and once on bottom. The dog appears more than once, I won't make the cross (or buy the hound).

How far back do you have to go before the dogs or bloodlines have no influence? Depends on percentages. If you have one dog or bloodline show up 9 times in a 5-gen pedigree...like Ozzie. That dog is 31.25% Dingus MacRae. His relationship to Dingus is somewhere in between direct son and grandson. In this case, those 8 instances of Dingus in the fifth, and one instance in the 4th has a TON of influence in the current dog.

Just my thoughts.

The best breeders of ANYTHING base their programs on trait selection first and formost. They are looking for specific traits and characteristics and breed with that directive in mind. If I was to breed into the line of hounds behind your name I want to know the whats and whys of your program. The individual dogs are meaningless to me.

You use this Ozzie dog and his relationship to Dingas Mcrae as an example and I'm curious with that much influence of Dingas, Ozzie must surely run and hunt just like Dingas did, no?

The difficulty I have with pedigrees is that they will not tell you what traits are being selected for in a breeding. They might provide a clue but thats about it, unless of course one has seen every hound personally in the pedigree. How often is that the case?

As for how far back you have to go before the dogs or bloodline has no influence, i'm not sure I understand the relevance of that. If the dogs within the first three generations DO NOT carry the characteristics and traits you're looking for then what difference do the following 6 generations make? Likewise if the first 3 are EXACTLY what you are after then it's also likely the following generations contained enough of what you like to heavily influence that bloodline up close......where it really counts!

[Bev]

The best breeders of ANYTHING base their programs on trait selection first and formost. They are looking for specific traits and characteristics and breed with that directive in mind. If I was to breed into the line of hounds behind your name I want to know the whats and whys of your program. The individual dogs are meaningless to me.

How is this different from doing one's research? Dogs are known for their traits, right? So individual dogs are not meaningless. They all contributed traits. they were not all homogenous. Some contributed foot, some contributed color, some contributed exceptional nose, etc. What you really want to know is why I chose this particular "collection" of hounds (those in the pedigree) to build my kennel upon. I chose them because they created the traits I enjoy in my hounds today. My dogs, your dogs, everyone's dogs are no more than the sum of their ancestors.

You use this Ozzie dog and his relationship to Dingas Mcrae as an example and I'm curious with that much influence of Dingas, Ozzie must surely run and hunt just like Dingas did, no?

I would say that the other 69.75% of Ozzie has quite a bit of influence on his style, but the question was about "influence" and whether or not dogs beyond the 3rd generation can influence what's on the ground now. When they comprise 31.25% of a dog, I'd say you betcha. Good, bad or ugly, 31% is still almost a third of a dog's total makeup. It has influence.

The difficulty I have with pedigrees is that they will not tell you what traits are being selected for in a breeding. They might provide a clue but thats about it, unless of course one has seen every hound personally in the pedigree. How often is that the case?

That may be, but pedigrees are the best we have to go on. It's a starting point. 50% of good information is better than none. So what is the alternative? Disregard the pedigree and just breed what you think will nick up? That's fine, too, I guess -- if you have the rest of your life to work the bugs out. Why keep re-inventing the wheel? The wheel has been invented. The idea is to improve upon it without losing the good work done so far.

As for how far back you have to go before the dogs or bloodline has no influence, i'm not sure I understand the relevance of that. If the dogs within the first three generations DO NOT carry the characteristics and traits you're looking for then what difference do the following 6 generations make? Likewise if the first 3 are EXACTLY what you are after then it's also likely the following generations contained enough of what you like to heavily influence that bloodline up close......where it really counts!

I don't disagree with this philosophy. I think influence over generations is only relevent when a dog or dog's family appears many times in the pedigree. Then it's relevent.

If one will maintain the thought of percentages, it will thwart that tendency to give all the credit to a FC that appears one time 3 generations back, and has no other family members in the pedigree. That's what people tend to do, give all the credit or place all the blame on the "best known" dog in a pedigree. A soup that is 13 parts chicken and 1 part turkey is chicken soup.

[S.R.Patch]

It seems your view of anything I say is taken in a dim light.
You distain for me should not draw public critic of a little light humor I inject. I only ment to offer it takes many breeding and hounds raised to know much of what your doing.
Please don't hate me to much for not being a card carring member... ...I do enjoy your attention tho...

A wise old packmaster once told me, "a few hundered beagles and one life time is hardly enough to learn much about breeding hounds".
How lucky are we to be blessed with so many experts on this forum...

I will try to ignor the obvious slam about the "experts" on this forum, and say that not all packmasters are wise. Some are wise, some are imaginary, and others are full of crap.

[RiverBottom]

Patch, your english friend got it right

With over 30 years, I have just enough experience to tell you how many things can go wrong when breeding hounds. I'm still working on trying to figure out the right way, maybe if I live to be 110 I'll get it down

Mybeagles mentioned a 90% cull rate, I've had periods of several years (back in my pedigree days) that I culled EVERYTHING (that would be 100%). NOTE for PETA: CULL does not mean KILL, it means that dog did not show up on any pedigrees.

Now days, my cull rate is much lower, but still a lot higher than most of you get When I keep a pup, I EXPECT that the chances are low that it will turn out just the way I want it to.

More and more, I try to follow the method most English hound breeders use. Raise lots of pups off the top 1% of your own hounds and cull heavily. Pedigrees are very valuable to them because they bred, trained and hunted almost every dog on the pedigree as long as it lived.

Give me another 40 years or so and I might get somewhere. If only I hadn't wasted so many years chasing pedigrees

[Bev]

I don't take everything you say on this forum in a dim light, Patch. Just the things that are designed as a dig...like this:

"How lucky are we to be blessed with so many experts on this forum... "

That was a dig, period. Just because you put a smiley face after it doesn't make it humor.

Now please answer a direct question with a direct answer. A card carrying member of what?

[NorWester1]

How is this different from doing one's research? Dogs are known for their traits, right? So individual dogs are not meaningless. They all contributed traits. they were not all homogenous. Some contributed foot, some contributed color, some contributed exceptional nose, etc. What you really want to know is why I chose this particular "collection" of hounds (those in the pedigree) to build my kennel upon. I chose them because they created the traits I enjoy in my hounds today. My dogs, your dogs, everyone's dogs are no more than the sum of their ancestors

I think we're saying the same thing....somewhat. I just don't consider the pedigree as imperative or important a piece of research material, especially when dealing with dogs I know nothing about.

I would say that the other 69.75% of Ozzie has quite a bit of influence on his style, but the question was about "influence" and whether or not dogs beyond the 3rd generation can influence what's on the ground now. When they comprise 31.25% of a dog, I'd say you betcha. Good, bad or ugly, 31% is still almost a third of a dog's total makeup. It has influence.

Hmmmmm.... you say "you betcha" yet Dingas influence cannot be seen in Ozzie's hunt or running style. Although an interesting tid bit of statistical trivia, the figures you present do nothing to provide me with any insight into the traits Ozzie possesses or what he will pass to his offspring. In fact referencing the % of perceived influence of Dingas is actually misleading.

Obviously the traits and characteristics selected from Dingas descendants differ greatly from the ones Dingas was probably originally known for. I'm sure you could use any number of prominent dogs in pedigrees as an example like this. Like was mentioned previously dogs down from Lumberjack could be fast, or medium speed. Close checking or reaching in the check......it depends on the traits drawn and selected in the breeding process much more than the name in a pedigree.

That may be, but pedigrees are the best we have to go on. It's a starting point. 50% of good information is better than none. So what is the alternative?

I don't think a pedigree is the short cut you and everyone else hope it to be. The ONLY alternative in my opinion is to select dogs from a bloodline that carry the traits and characteristics you favor, watch them with your own eyes and if they possess the traits you want, breed them. Cull the undesirables and breed what's left and go on repeating the process.

That's fine, too, I guess -- if you have the rest of your life to work the bugs out

It is EXACTLY that for anyone wanting to seriously "work the bugs out" .... a lifes work. Take a close look at all the most successful breeders of dogs, horses, cattle, etc etc.....it's a lifetime endeavor to create a bloodline of consistent and predictable traits.

[Tim H]

Question for those who think the papers should just be discarded, why do you seem to know so much about so many pedigrees?

[S.R.Patch]

I don't take everything you say on this forum in a dim light, Patch. Just the things that are designed as a dig...like this:

"How lucky are we to be blessed with so many experts on this forum... "

That was a dig, period. Just because you put a smiley face after it doesn't make it humor.

Now please answer a direct question with a direct answer. A card carrying member of what?

Ok, I'll explain, remember when we were going on about the unions? union card..union dues..just a little more humor that escaped you...sorry i wasn't more plain but it wasn't directed at you, you humped on me...
Now, back to my hole...