BEST STUD!!!! TODAY.

[Ole Mule]

The bottom line for any stud dog is one which possesses and passes on excellent breed type. But he will not do this with every female he is mated to. When making your selection for a stud dog the pedigree should be considered. The genes are what you are considering; the stud dog is the custodian of what was passed down to him so you need to look at what was before him.

There isn’t such a thing as a perfect stud dog for all females. The choice of the right stud dog for your female is your most important consideration. A study of pedigrees and knowledge of what has been produced by the studs in a given pedigree is of utmost importance. To breed your female without studying the whole pedigree would be breeding in the blind. The stud dog owner should consider the females pedigree as well. I would think a line-bred breeding would produce better results than an outcross would. Consider what both the dog and female has produced. You need to base your breeding’s on pass results and they are not necessarily available all the time so the pedigree may be the only fact finding you can do. Remember the stud dog of choice may not be the best match for you female and you will not know this until after the pups are on the ground and being worked with. But this does not make that stud dog a bad stud dog he just wasn’t a good match for your female. He may still be considered a top stud dog when bred to females comparable with him.

Titles in a pedigree are of value to a certain extent. It does show that dogs from these breeding are able to produce. But remember titles are not a make or break thing. Not every dog in litter is campaigned and all dogs in a litter are not born equal either. Knowledge and experience are needed when setting up a mating with out both you are breeding in the blind. Just my 2 cents.

[BCBeagles]

I am not disputing in any way that titles don't run a rabbit, cause they don't...but how do you measure success by looking at just what any gun hunter says? You can go watch the dog that is the product of a good untitled dog, but that is it.

The stats on Viagra, and the list of multiple others show they are reproducing a dog that can perform. IF you say well, those dogs winning, placing, and/or being trials aren't a good judge of what you get from any of the males on that list....then where do you go to find information?

With what the AKC records, ARHA, UKC, and or whatever other registry you have they have statistics. Whether you gather them yourself or they collect the information for you it still gives you information as to what types of competitive dogs these studs throw. Like it or not, HOW do you know what ole Buck down the road throws without statistics?? Yes, you sure could go see 10 pups off of him run and they could be dynamite, not denying that at ALL,,,BUT am I just gathering stats in a sense???? I am looking at percentages anyway you look at it.

**Lets take Viagra, say he produced 200 pups, 10 of which get trialed 6 of which finish.....this still gives us a stat....How in the world can we track what others make rabbit dogs or culls??

IMPOSSIBLE, unless you keep track of every pup and that is extreme.

**Lets take ole Blue from down the road, owned by a houndsman of 97 years, throws rabbit hounds off of every bitch that comes down the pike(jack russells, fox hounds, coon hounds...LOL. ) you get the idea. NONE trialed, but just gun hunted.......how in the world is any one, I mean anyone supposed to know what type of hound he can throw other than by visual inspection or "hear say"??? EVERYONES likes and dislikes are not the same....some good old boy jumps on the computer and says ole Blue's pups are the finest in the land.
Where can I see those results..?? Am I traveling all over to prove it to myself, can I see ole Blue's pups at a local hunt, I DON'T know that???

Neither does anyone else....that is why I say the stats mean something in the bigger scheme. In the small circles most of us operate on, other this board, we are exposed to what we see, what is around us or what our buddy has. That is all HEARSAY....the stats show definitive results....whether you would feed the hounds or not is irrelevant....but at least you know the dog reproduces something that can run a hare or rabbit well enough for someone to take it to a trial first, then it be competitive at times.

Titles do not make hounds, but the guys who tote the hounds to trials give us measures...like it or not. The gunhunters can jump, kick, scream all they want, and I AM A GUNHUNTER first....but we have NO way to show stats for rabbit dog reproduction other than by visual or hearsay as I said earlier....I cant see it any more plain than that. These are simply my thoughts and opinions. Not meant to offend, ALL welcome here to run at any given time. We will have a good day in the field, may not run a straight stick up a goats butt, but will have a good time!! LOL.

Good points by many and happy running to all!!!

[Casey Harner]

What makes a good stud dog??

Location is very important, if your in a area or close by one that holds a lot of trials then your stud and his pups will be seen by many. If your in a state where there are very few trials then your stud won't be bred as much. Today people are busy with work, family, and other things. It's hard to get away from daily life to breed to a certain stud. I feel location helps out a lot.

[NorthBranch Rummer]

Man, all that scientific mumbo jumbo gives me a dang headache. I just find a male that I like and fills the holes in my bitch, and if he has the ability to "hit the hole" ill call him a stud dog!!!

P.S. If I can breed to this dog for free I'll call him the "BEST STUD!!!!TODAY"

[Newt]

Man, all that scientific mumbo jumbo gives me a dang headache. I just find a male that I like and fills the holes in my bitch, and if he has the ability to "hit the hole" ill call him a stud dog!!!

P.S. If I can breed to this dog for free I'll call him the "BEST STUD!!!!TODAY"

I wish folks who give advice would first state the number of champions they have produced using their breeding technique, if FC is the goal.

What did the pedigree of California Chrome look like? I heard that he was out of an $8,000.00 mare and a $2000.00 stud of stud fee.
Wonder how many on the board would have made that mating.

[mn_beagleboy]

My advice is to take advantage of the public studs. Its cheap and most of the title dogs are excellent hunting dog. They past their prime but they could still pass their trait. No stud is perfect and not one is better than another. They all have their own strengths and weaknesses. Always remenber there is something better out there.

[Ohiohntr]

I have tried complementing my female and have also tried filling the holes....in my limited experience I have found complimenting only increased the size of the holes whereas filling the holes tended to create consistency, sometimes too much as a big hole in my female is patience and control.

Therefore, I will continue to try and find studs that are patient and tight on the line but still have enough foot to compete and hope for the best. Although, it will always be in the back of my mind "what if I went power x power"....could it ever = greatness??...possibly, but who should or would want to sort through the craziness to find the "one".

Just my .02

[Norshore]

The choice of the right stud dog for your female is your most important consideration.

If you reverse that we may be further ahead in this game.JMO

[warddog]

If I truly believed breeding were a crap shoot, I'd never breed again and only buy running hounds. Way more simple, cheaper and a lot less headaches.

I really don't understand how anyone who is considered a top breeder could make such a statement unless they were a puppy mill or didn't have any understandings of the arts in scientific production. But it does make an excellent excuse for those failures that were charged big money.

The history of breed development is there for each of us to study and learn from. The crap shoot theory is there for those to lazy to learn or those to embarrassed to admit they've been duped out of their hard earned cash, wasted valuable time, or have no idea how to make a proper start. jmho

I will agree that there many books out there on genetics BUT the books are only great tools on theory because in practice I have yet to see a single breeder be able to reproduce their best dog or any animal for that matter time after time again or with any consistency within an individual litter, let alone several different litters. The history of animal genetics is recorded only in what has occurred after man got involved and therefore that is rendered such to being subjective and there has been NOT a single person able to reproduce the best even in their eyes. If so we would NOT be having this conversation time after time so minus the ability to reproduce the likeness of any animal consistently time after time, after time there is NO true science. YES, there is theory but so far NO ONE has been able to take that theory and make it happen in practice other than with a few minor traits when breeding any animal. The ONLY true science in reproduction is called CLONING in which exact replicas are produced time after time after time as far as the physical attributes but I have not seen how that may impact an animals ability to perform tasks that such is bred for. I would think that being exacts the offspring would have all the tools to be as good as BUT I don't know how it would get better as that would probably come when man learned how to clone and then remove and or add traits. IMHO anything less than being able to reproduce ones likeness each and every time, in every offspring be it from the same litter or differing litters there is no science and therefore rendered as a pulling of the one armed bandit or rolling of the dice commonly called a crap shoot. One last thing in this equation is the subjectivity involved in the entire mindset of what is the best. Individual people are the judges be it in their own animals or as individuals that judge them in competition in their campaign to earn a title. There is absolutely no way to totally remove subjectivity from the equation be it in personal preference or in rules interpretation during competition. We have all read the many, many arguments on the very simplest of breed violations such as the beagle breed standards on size which is also a man made registry, subjective, standard. We all also know that the size standard must have some valid significance in the grans scheme of things as the 15" height limit is the same for nearly ALL beagle registries. If in fact it is a standard of such importance that it is the known standard that all registries have set to meet the beagle breed standard then I question why any registry would then recognize ANY beagle over the 15" standard THEY have set as their registry breed standard! Science is a matter of fact(s) that when followed should in turn be able to replicate the outcome consistently time after time after time which proves the theory or hypothesis as factual. So far I have seen nothing but crap shoots and when someone is able to do the above put me down for a pup!

[Ole Mule]

The choice of the right stud dog for your female is your most important consideration.

If you reverse that we may be further ahead in this game.JMO

The female is the back bone of your kennel " I was thinking everyone new this" and if you did your homework right when choosing your female then I think the choice of the right stud dog for your female is your most important consideration.

[big mike 50]

So what you guys are saying is you haven't ever seen a nice dog and we might as well just give up on the breed all together. Holy $#!/ you would think there isn't a decent dog out there and no man has ever bred more than one champion. And while trials are not perfect they are the best thing available to evaluate hounds and a title does mean something.

[big mike 50]

And as far as you have to have a great female. If you have a great stud dog and consistently have nice males you would have your pick of pups out of the nicest bitches. I have seen a lot of guys do this and they have nice hounds regularly.

[Shady Grove Beagles]

Old Mule
I thought your most recent post on this thread was well stated and right on.

[Casey Harner]

I have tried complementing my female and have also tried filling the holes....in my limited experience I have found complimenting only increased the size of the holes whereas filling the holes tended to create consistency, sometimes too much as a big hole in my female is patience and control.

Therefore, I will continue to try and find studs that are patient and tight on the line but still have enough foot to compete and hope for the best. Although, it will always be in the back of my mind "what if I went power x power"....could it ever = greatness??...possibly, but who should or would want to sort through the craziness to find the "one".

Just my .02

Agreed...

[BCBeagles]

Females are the building blocks, but I feel multiple ones greatly improve your chances of good pups. FEW are reproducers of hounds better than themselves as are ALL the studs on the market, they very likely won't reproduce better than themselves either.

Females must fill the 95% criteria for me, this is simply my choice. They must satisfy 95% of what I want, they can have "weak" areas, but NO glaring faults, and faults have to be minimal. Meaning they all have holes, I just want to start with a female with minimal holes....just the way I am trying to do this breeding thing, I enjoy it.

Also picking the brain of the EXPERIENCED ones at all times. That is the most useful information...I am not too proud to ask what someone with valuable experience thinks!!