BEST STUD!!!! TODAY.

[Hare Chaser]

The best gun dogs are dead. Most anyone will tell you no dog alive today good run like old "what's his name" could. He just got better and better after he died.

[bigdogpace]

NEVER KEEP FEMALE U WOULD NOT BREED OR AMALE U WOULD NOT BREED TOO . THAT GETS RID OF ALL THE ME TOOERS . DONT KEEP DOGS JUST TO FILL A SPOT N YOUR KENNEL .U HAVE TO CULL HARD N BEAGLES TO HAVE GOOD DOGS . FEMALES R BACK BONE OF THIS KENNEL STUDS I GOT OR KNOW WHERE TO GO TO . GOOD FEMALES R VERY HARD TO FIND

[S.R.Patch]

Hare Chaser, you've struck on a real truth. A number of great producers are found out only after they've passed and are dead. The time it takes to qualify a hound worthy of breeding along with matching him with bitches, the offspring being born, growing and proving their transmitted talents to be sterling and possess by the majority.
Freezing semen and study of cloning is driven by the lack of time we have to make our choices an act upon them.

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!

I'm glad we can differ and still be friends, but I look around me and see all the scientific facts of breeding in motion. The blue birds nesting out front in the box hanging on the old maple tree, the beef cattle out on the hill, the holstein cattle with their great milk production down the road, the honey bees in the old split hollow sassafras in the back of the field. Nature in a constant struggle to keep things aligned but tireless and ever endearingly successful.
The old books going back to France and England tell of the development of many of our hound and hunting breeds. The size everyone seems to be hung up on was set at 16". AKC will register any hound from prior registered parents regardless of size, it is only those within the limited guidelines of AKC that are allowed to compete in AKC events tho(15"). The whole size limit thing became an issue only because sportsmen decided it was best not to over-match the intended game(rabbit/hare). They felt any hounds of quality should do a fine enough job limited to a height of 16 or 15 " depending what Country you in. Too big of hounds would catch their game to soon, the followers would have a hard time keeping up to see any of the sport of the chase. So, a limit was set and that's the short of it.

As far as the best studs today, the initial question and the request to stay on topic, lets go down to the "puppies for sale" and the "up coming litters" forum. Are they "one armed bandit" breedings or is there a method to their madness? The general consensus of the post on this thread do not bode well for the science of breeding, maybe mixing it up and fingers crossed is the best we can hope for?

[transman63]

lots of good info on hear. for all you guys looking too be a breeder or just interested in breeding . I hope u read this one. good stuff.

[BB Beagles]

I know name of thread is best stud today, but I've got a question?
I have read all these post and like anything else everybody has diff opinions. I think there are a number of things that play a factor in deciding if a hound is a good reproducer or if a female is top notch breeding quality. ( Stud, the female, the owner, advertisement, buyers invovlment with pups,trial record, ect...)

This is my question? I do not know exact numbers, but Maravics Blue Ninja died at a early age. 5-6 I think. He was bred 40 something times and produced over 50 FCs. To me them are numbers of good reproducer. What kind of females did he breed to, idk? Were they all grade a females?

Trialling dogs is only way we have to see an acommplishment record, but how many gundogs are out there that never get trialled that could stomp a mud hole in one of these FCs or LPGRCH?
If you breed a champion to a champion, will you get all champions? NO
If you breed a champion sire to your best female will you get what you want? Who knows

All we can do is breed the best we can to the best we got and hope for the best.

[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"

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.

That's a great example!! Reminds me of WC. Fox Creek Peppermint patty who came out of a female that I gave back to Frank cause she was crazy And a male that I should of shot when he was 8 months old. These 2 dogs went into the hall of fame as reproducers off 1 litter. Bet you my farm no body else in the world would have made that cross

[Brooksidebeagler]

Northbranch Rummer. I am sure you are right on that. It goes to prove that if you are honest with yourself about what your female is missing and find the male that has that and you have a lot of luck and wow what a cross.

[pcable]

Everyone has their own opinion and the right to have their own opinion. Facts are facts though. Offspring get 50% of the genes from the sire and 50% of the genes from the dam. Can we control which genes come from which? NO! What we can do is manipulate the odds in our favor. Look at each dog in the pedigree and try to learn as much as possible about their style, faults, and strengths. Look for the ones that pass on the good and not the bad. If your dogs ancestors are consistent( or the dog you are breeding to's ancestors) then you can judge partially what that individual will pass to his or her offspring. One thing that I have learned over the years is that linebred dogs tend to be more consistent, so that is what I do now. Do I own the best? NO I'm sure that I don't! Do I like what I have? Yes! Am I still looking to better what I have? Yes and I always will. I like the dogs I have now better than any I have ever owned and I am the one who buys the feed. Breed what you like and feed what you like!
To answer the original post. I would say that each stud dog out there has strengths and faults. It is all a matter of opinion!

[NorthBranch Rummer]

So now that we have every ones opinion on breeding- Who is your favorite stud to date?

[warddog]

Hare Chaser, you've struck on a real truth. A number of great producers are found out only after they've passed and are dead. The time it takes to qualify a hound worthy of breeding along with matching him with bitches, the offspring being born, growing and proving their transmitted talents to be sterling and possess by the majority.
Freezing semen and study of cloning is driven by the lack of time we have to make our choices an act upon them.

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!

I'm glad we can differ and still be friends, but I look around me and see all the scientific facts of breeding in motion. The blue birds nesting out front in the box hanging on the old maple tree, the beef cattle out on the hill, the holstein cattle with their great milk production down the road, the honey bees in the old split hollow sassafras in the back of the field. Nature in a constant struggle to keep things aligned but tireless and ever endearingly successful.
The old books going back to France and England tell of the development of many of our hound and hunting breeds. The size everyone seems to be hung up on was set at 16". AKC will register any hound from prior registered parents regardless of size, it is only those within the limited guidelines of AKC that are allowed to compete in AKC events tho(15"). The whole size limit thing became an issue only because sportsmen decided it was best not to over-match the intended game(rabbit/hare). They felt any hounds of quality should do a fine enough job limited to a height of 16 or 15 " depending what Country you in. Too big of hounds would catch their game to soon, the followers would have a hard time keeping up to see any of the sport of the chase. So, a limit was set and that's the short of it.

As far as the best studs today, the initial question and the request to stay on topic, lets go down to the "puppies for sale" and the "up coming litters" forum. Are they "one armed bandit" breedings or is there a method to their madness? The general consensus of the post on this thread do not bode well for the science of breeding, maybe mixing it up and fingers crossed is the best we can hope for?

I also understand that most of these conversations are based on opinion(s) and little to no science. As I have stated when a breeder can show me they can reproduce as good or better than the sire and dam each and every litter, each and every pup I will say any cross is a roll of the dice. Yes, mother nature provides for the survival of the fittest and any living species will do what it has to do to survive and reproduce. There is no science behind that but rather the way of nature. Even bacteria will mutate to survive man's onslaught of trying to kill them off so as to survive. If beef cattle are left to pasture with Holstein milk cattle they will cross and I have seen many, many good Holsteins make GREAT beef cattle and crosses being milked. FACTS are I would rather have a Holstein steer or heifer for my freezer beef as there is not as much fat waste. So here again we have come full circle back to opinion and personal preference.

[Ole Mule]

So now that we have every ones opinion on breeding- Who is your favorite stud to date?

Well I do not have a favorite but my friends beagles are as good as they come, there pedigrees are what I like so I would use his if I was going to breed. I will have a female pup from one of his breeding come Saturday and if I was to ever breed her I would breed her back to her sire. Her sire is the real deal and I would have to see how my pup turns out before I could determine if she was breeding material.

Now he has FC WFO Smokin Cheech at his place that I believe is going to be a good one time will tell. He also has Hustler Two the sire of the pup I am getting I believe he qualified for the World Hunt but he didn't get to hunt him in it. The last competition he was in was last month and he took first place. So I will give thumbs up on those two.

[pilotknob]

So now that we have every ones opinion on breeding- Who is your favorite stud to date?

My favorite one still alive would be Big Wheel

[Casey Harner]

FC Branko's Red River Runner

[transman63]

iv got some good ones out of Oliver and blazer II. why because there good.

[bigdogpace]

I DONT BELIEVE U CAN ANSWER THE ORIGINAL ? BECAUSE THERE R ALOT OF STUDS ADVERTIZED SOME NOT DOWN AN OLD DIRT ROAD THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN HEARD OF THAT PRODUCE ALOT OF GOOD DOGS WHO IS THE NUMBER 1 STUD I DONT HAVE ACLUE I GUESS THE 1 THAT PRODUCES GOOD PUPS FOR U AND YOUR FEMALES