Using a yound dog for breeding under a year old.

JIMMIE ABSHIRE · Post by **JIMMIE ABSHIRE** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:15 am

How bout ur super pup? Got any on the ground yet ?

Mclurkn3 · Post by **Mclurkn3** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 11:24 am

It wasn't me with the pup. But, I hear he's doing good in the field still.

Thanks!

blackdirt beagles · Post by **blackdirt beagles** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:43 pm

i own the male in question and he is doing a very good job... NO ONE reading this has enough $$ to convince me to sell him, lets put it that way.

JIMMIE ABSHIRE · Post by **JIMMIE ABSHIRE** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:54 pm

Whats the stud fee? Bag of puppy chow ! lol

yellowdog · Post by **yellowdog** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:06 pm

everything is for sale...surley somebody here has a little dough...

Farwest · Post by **Farwest** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:27 pm

blackdirt beagles wrote:i own the male in question and he is doing a very good job... NO ONE reading this has enough $$ to convince me to sell him, lets put it that way.

blackdirt, you would sell your mother for a few hundred bucks, who are you trying to kid????

beerdrinking bob · Post by **beerdrinking bob** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 8:24 pm

to me if the pup has the geans in the pedegree whos to say the 8 month old pup wont reproduce them. im a beleaver in a pup is as good has the handler makes him. the more time you work with them the better they will be. i think every dog has a chance to be the next ifc. dont get me wrong not every dog has the heart. and even the best stud dogs in the world wont reproduce a top notch dog every litter. just my veiw on the subject.

blackdirt beagles · Post by **blackdirt beagles** » Thu Jun 01, 2006 10:26 pm

at a year old, his DNA isnt going to be any different than if he was 6. if your familiar with a dogs background and he is what you want, then its no less a gamble than breeding to an older dog.

farwest - i probably would sell my mother but not this male

.

yellowdog - nope, not for sale regardless of how many "ben franklins" are put up. is he a world beater or perfect... heck no! but for a nice young male, i cant ask for anything more. he pleases me.

JIMMIE ABSHIRE - sorry but im picky about who i stud out to... you should look elsewhere.

JIMMIE ABSHIRE · Post by **JIMMIE ABSHIRE** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 6:15 am

Brian , first off i would not bred to your dog , He is a grade dog that does not interest me at all . I like to look at pedigrees on ink not wrote with a pencil . As far as a stud dog I GOT HIM . I am in this to help the bred not to go backwards , so if i can help you let me know . I got a bunch of 22bullets . we can help your breeding program tremendously i am sure .I am with farwest and yote hunter I will be breeding my male in 2008 and i am now taking deposits.

gus · Post by **gus** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 11:03 am

Anyone ever heard of FC Grey's Linesman. He was nine months old when in an accidental maiting he bred a bitch called Grey's Solitary. She produced four pups, two died of distemper. Elmer Grey sold one male pup and the pup was never heard of again. He kept the other and and named him Grey's Captan. Captan placed in seven of first nine trails entered. Captan finished for his championship a few years later. I'll bet EG wishes he had been more responsible and not kenneled Linesman with his good bitches.

Norwester, making a bad breeding to a young dog is no different than making a bad mating to an all age hound. If it doesn't nick it's a bad breeding no matter the pedigree or the ability of the parents.

S.R.Patch · Post by **S.R.Patch** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 12:09 pm

Gus,
I agree with everything you said, "but", did you happen to notice the pedigree behind GL? All from quality hounds, bred by top houndsmen.
But still, a practice of breeding unproven hounds will get you out of the game quicker, than if you select from what shows it'self to be of the desired traites required of a top hound. It's the odds we try to keep to our advantage, in selecting from what's proven. By selecting from what's expressed in the breeding stock, we build a "stamp" of what comes through as dominate in the offspring.
Otho Paget, in his book, The Art Of Beagling, says, The most direct line in breeding will have the greatest impact upon the pups. They always bred and kept the direct female line and outcrossed on the male side. They believed, You breed only the best bitches of field ability, to the best males of strong masculine constitution, with those same good field abilities, from different packs. This allowed you to keep the sterling hunting qualities of the bitch line without the pups becoming weedy, as they felt the dog hound contributed more to the constitution of the pups, and when breeding close for to long the tendency is to get light on bone or weedy, and the bitch contributed more to the hunting qualities of the offspring... But, the important thing to remember is, these hounds were on an island and from a closed association(AMHB), so they were all somewhat related and they were all hunted in the same manner...So other than the size, that might suit one area of country over another, they were all pack run to catch type hounds.
I remember Randall saying in his sales pamphlet that, "if your line has gone weedy, there's no need to start over as one of our patch hound dogs will put the constitution back in your hounds, as they are strong for it".

So, all things must be tested and bred for, else we're driving blindfolded...

blackdirt beagles · Post by **blackdirt beagles** » Fri Jun 02, 2006 8:25 pm

good posts (except jimmies

)

thats why you stick with a proven line.

TomMN · Post by **TomMN** » Sat Jun 03, 2006 7:13 pm

Breed to a 10 month old male?

I've got one here now that's a better rabbit dog than 90% of the beagles I've hunted with for what I like in a beagle. His sire is a top rabbit dog in anyone's book and his dam is the best dog I have owned. He's got litermates and half brothers and sisters that are doing well.

Just bred a female to him today. Why wouldn't I?

Alabama John · Post by **Alabama John** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 7:32 am

Tom

No reason!

Many folks that have a stud that is proven to produce wishes they had started earlier than have a great producer at 8-9 years old.

Normally do not breed that early, but things happpen!
Two months ago, I had a dog box accidental breeding. Opened the box to unload and there they were. Only male I own, 10 months old.

Both AKC registered. Three lemon males and two liver female pups.
Both sire and dam both outstanding, both just now a year old, two weeks difference in age, and even worse, have the same sire who is a Grand Champion in LP. Never would have done this myself.

I intended to cull quickly, but granddaughter found them. Oh well, best time of year to happen as running will be slow for a few months in this heat.

Might be the best I ever had?

WE'LL SEE!

HatterasBob · Post by **HatterasBob** » Sun Jun 04, 2006 7:56 am

Well, Some years ago, I trialed Brittanys. I remember reading some statistics about Brittany stubs. The data concluded that the age of the stud was very important, in fact as the age of the stud increased, the percentage of FCs produced decreased. This is counter intuitive to me. The age of the stub that produced the best was 3 years old. As a Zoologist and having studied Genetics, I don't understand this. I just lay it out there for you to ponder.