BigGameHoundsmen.com

I don't think either one of us said we had perfect dogs or the perfect way of breeding. But if you are going to breed for the best results It is hard to with success

What is perfect?

Dad has not had to remove one from the Gene Pool in a while!

Are they perfect? don't know, but in the other thread where this subject was hashed out, we pointed out to Mr. Dan that it has been several years since every Pup in a litter did not make a Hound worth feeding, some better than others but all worth feeding.

Now 30 or 20 years ago this was not the case. Dad had misfires and Hounds were frequently removed from the Gene Pool for a variety of reasons. Now he can predict with cautioned confidence what Pups from a 1st mating will be as Hounds.

Will let this reply finish our input on this subject as there are plenty of others who have more knowledge and expierence than Dad and he would like to hear what they have to say!

CJC

Catch wrote:Mr. pacojack, I'm not picking a fight, just want to make some points I believe. What I'm about to write is only my opinion.

1st- I have not read Kyle's book nor do I plan to, but isn't his theory about show dogs not hounds.

2nd- The father/daughter thing holds little water. The only reason one should do this is to keep his/her blood alive. If you want to find out if a dog is a reproducer, bred he/she to a lot of dogs in the same family and that will answer the question. It is not possible to know if the father and daughter have the same genes to begin with.

3rd- You wrote: Too much praise is put on a stud and Fact is the female passes on more traits than the male.
I have heard this time and time again. This is not true, and if it was we all would be hunting perfect dogs. All you would have to do is find the best female reproducer in each litter, bred them ect. ect. ect. The finish produce would be perfection.

4th-Males are as much as reproducers as females. I have seen it over and over.

My short summary:
When breeding above average, consist dogs it involves two things.
1st- Cull hard and breed the good ones with in a family of dogs. Before breeding a bitch, be honest with yourself and find her weak points. Find a male in the same family of dogs and find his weak points. Try to match each others weakest points with over powering traits from its mate. That is how above average, consistent pups are made. Line breeding is the best way to make consistent dogs. Unless you have 50 or so dogs, inbreeding is the best way to get out of dogs

To many breeding programs are the quick and easy ones. Now, it is possible to make above average dogs, but the consistency is not going to be there.

2nd- 50% of breeding is the dogs and 50% is just luck!

JMO

Sorry I didn't see your post. But the studies I have seen and read and studied they all disagree with you and Larry. So many studies have been done on male to female passing on traits. And the biggest common mistake that we all make is breeding to cover up faults and I am guilty as anyone, but they say we should be breeding for strenghts not weeknesses, cull the weekness you don't like and breed for the strenght don't gamble on one will cancel the other one out.
A quote from Onstott's book.
One must resolve to dipose of all dogs which do not promise to be useful for the breeding operations of the kennel or do not fit into the proposed breeding program . It is not vast hordes of dogs which make a kennel successful, but rather the excellence of the few. In the large kennel of whatever breed , the most excellent progeny will have come from a limited parental stock. Great numbers of dogs in a kennel are usually indicative of the owner's failure or lack of courage to clean out the culls that are mere parasites upon his good stock and his food bill.

How is it possible to not breed a males strenghts over a females weakness and vice versa. The only way to not follow this practice is to breed two perfect dogs, without any flaws to try and improve on. There is no perfect dog, they all have flaws, and have to be compensated for when mating two dogs together. Your theory is great, in theory, but unrealistic.
Any dog with a drastic untolerable weakness that dominates should not be alive to pass on that weakness. A dog that weak should not even be in the breeding equation. Yes concentrate on the strengths, but also try to improve on the slight weakness each dog possesses

cjc, thanks for you and your fathers input. As you guys that are more experienced hash out this subject it makes things much more clear to those of us that do not know. thank you James G. Moore

Tell me something. How many big game dogs did Onstott hunt or breed. Further more, did Kyle write the female passes more genes than a male? No one knows who passes what. Kyle's book sounds like a good guide line, but it is not fact. His book is nothing more than a educated guess at best. From what you are saying, it is only possible to get better dogs each time you have a litter. Before long you should have the perfect hound, each identical in color, build, trailing, treeing and personality. Identical in every way.

Who is covering up traits? What you are doing is taking a weak trait, adding to it, and making a strong trait.

You are funny. Again I do not claim to have the perfect dog but the exact flip side. And yes this is a guide line to any breeding. You are wanting to not discuss anything and believe me if I were to follow a breeding program that you or Onstott set up I think I would have to go with his. Not saying it would be right or wrong. But for some strange reason I think he has more expeirence than you do with Genetics and Breeding. Sorry just a hunch.

I'm not arguing at all, just giving my opinion. If I was to bet who's dogs will be at the tree, mine or Kyle's, I'll take mine!

Catch wrote:I'm not arguing at all, just giving my opinion. If I was to bet who's dogs will be at the tree, mine or Kyle's, I'll take mine!

Well if it makes you feel any better I would bet on yours too. I will let you in on a little secret....Mr. Onstott has been dead for a great number of years.

And he didn't hunt or breed big game dogs did he?

Catch wrote:And he didn't hunt or breed big game dogs did he?

Now you wouldn't want me to spoil the end of the book for you, would you? No. Now go spend the money on the book , you may learn something.

Mr.pacojack wrote:

Catch wrote:And he didn't hunt or breed big game dogs did he?

Now you wouldn't want me to spoil the end of the book for you, would you? No. Now go spend the money on the book , you may learn something.

Wow, no lack of confidence there paco. I'm sure we could all learn something from those books I guess. They were written in the 40's and 60's, I would think that the science of genetics has uncovered some new info since then? Maybe not. Sounds like you wanna argue more than anything, haven't seen Catch throwing any little quips like you have towards him, go figure. I'm willing to bet he'll be the bigger man and just let you, hopefully there will be some more qualified input from someone who has done more than read a book. When is yours getting published?

The following is from Cross country with horse and hound By Frank Sherman Peer, 1902.

THE foxhound has attained his present degree of perfection after two hundred years and more of the most careful selecting and breeding. It is owing to the persistent striving of English masters of hounds, generation after generation, to produce the highest standard of utility, combined with beauty and symmetry of form, colour, and markings, the nicest balancing of tongue and nose, and the utmost uniformity in pace, that these and the dozen other qualities that go to make a perfect hound have been achieved. There is no animal in the world, not even the horse, that has had such attention paid to its breeding as the foxhound has had in England. Few families can show an unbroken pedigree of such length as may be traced in those of thousands of foxhounds, and, when it comes to breeding, equally few in the nation can produce such purity of blood and such an untarnished escutcheon as the foxhounds of the present day in England. Indeed, there is none in the whole list of domestic animals whose standard of excellence can be compared with that of a hound. The foxhound is the only animal of which it cannot be said

One genius will but one body fit;
So wide is art, so narrow human wit.


In cattle and horses, as in all other domestic animals, one quality beyond symmetry and beauty is about all one breed can be asked to develope. Occasionally a zealous breeder will set up a claim that his breed of cattle is superior in two points of excellence, as, for instance, in both butter and milk, or in both beef qualities and in milk. Such animals, however, cannot compete with either the trained dairy or the trained beef breeds. Some breeder of sheep may set up a claim that his particular breed of sheep is superior for both wool and mutton. Such sheep, however, are in the one case always beaten at a sheep-shearing contest, and in the other, again, in competition with a mutton breed.

To say of a horse that he is good for speed and draft means that he excels at neither.

One breed of dogs may be noted for its beauty, another for its symmetry, another for its grace or uniformity in colour and markings. The English foxhound is the equal, if not the superior, of any family, however distinguished in any one particular. As to endurance and muscular development, nothing approaches him. The Duke of Rutland's champion stud-hound Belvoir Dexter measures eight and a quarter inches around the forearm, and is muscled throughout in proportion. In general hunting ability a foxhound possesses the fling and drive of a pointer and the speed of a race-horse. He has the keenest of noses and the most musical of tongues. Indeed, there is not a single desirable quality to be imagined in a dog that he does not possess; not a single attribute of an ideal hound for hunting hares, foxes, or deer that he has not had bred into him. Yet, wonderful as it is to find so many qualifications in a single animal, they are but the foundation of what an English breeder is satisfied with for his pack. A first-class pack of hounds consists, on an average, of fifty couples. Any man who has had experience in breeding pointers or setters knows what it means to grow a single pair of dogs that work properly together after birds; what, then, must it mean to produce a hundred hounds " with but a single thought" ?

The following imperfections would draft a young hound, no matter what his other qualities might be : a coarse head; a head lacking in character; a short neck; a throaty neck; a slackness behind the shoulders; a weak loin; a stern set on too low or not properly carried; a narrow chest; legs lacking bone; crooked legs; weak joints; large flat feet and long toes; defects of colour or markings; a lack of general robustness.

Any one of these defects is almost certain to draft a hound without even a trial in the field. Passing the examination for these defects is like passing the masonic " first degree." Out of one hundred puppies that come in from their "walks" from thirty-five to forty per cent, are thus drafted, and of these first-draft youngsters some are killed at once. In doing this, to be sure, the huntsman or master may be destroying some of the best working hounds of the pack, or the best in breeding, and it takes a bit of courage to kill a fine upstanding youngster because he is badly formed in some essential. Occasionally a drafted hound of very superior breeding is given a chance of a field trial; but he is half doomed to start with, and unless he should prove himself something above the average in field work, he would be the first to go in the second draft.

It would seem that after hounds had passed such rigid examinations as the above they were entitled to admission without more ado. The hardest examination, the supreme test, however, is still to come. The first draft was by a standard of " Handsome is that perfect is." The second test is " Handsome is that handsome does," and elevates the candidate from a dog to a hound. The hound that is finally found good enough to become a member of this most aristocratic family must be:

Not too tall or too short; *

* Twenty-three or twenty-four inches is the standard. If a hound is over that he is classed as a staghound and is in demand for packs that chase the stag or hunt the wild deer. If below that standard he finds his way into the harrier packs. The beagle hounds are still smaller than the harriers, and are used to hunt the hare on foot. They are nevertheless members of the foxhound family, the difference being principally in size.

(x) Neither too slow nor too fast;

Not too free in giving tongue.

(x) He must not give too little; a hound that runs mute is killed without further delay, and so is a confirmed babbler.

He must not be a line hunter—one that insists on following with his nose the very track of the fox.

(x) He must not be a skirter, or one that runs too wide and is content to let the other hounds do the hunting; he must be a worker in every respect and not a hanger-on.

He must have a melodious voice, neither too high nor too low; of such a pitch, that is, as makes no discord in the melody of the pack.

(x) He must never tell a lie by giving tongue to a line until he is absolutely certain.

(x) He must not take to running the scent or line of any other animal. A hound that is at all given to running riot has the death-warrant read to him, with little chance of a reprieve.

A cross (x) in the above enumeration means that for a defect in that particular the sentence is death. Hounds that fail in this second test go out in what is called the second draft, and are usually sold for a nominal sum to form the nucleus of some foreign pack, or to some neighbouring pack which wishes to obtain good blood for a little money.

By the time the second draft is completed, fifty per cent, of the year's crop of puppies have been weeded out. This does not take into account the distemper, a malady to which, of course, all are subject and of which many die.

Next comes the third degree. The requirements are quite as rigid as in the first and second degrees. The hound must prove himself to be:

Neither quarrelsome nor timid.

Neither slovenly nor too fastidious.

Neither a glutton nor a poor feeder.

Neither sulky nor quick-tempered.

Neither too meek nor disobedient.

Having passed this critical test under the watchful eye of the kennel huntsman, who has little indulgence or inclination to excuse, and being thus duly and truly prepared, the dog is permitted by the master to pass into the inner court, the holy of holies, as master workman, with the enviable distinction of being thereafter styled a thoroughly qualified foxhound.

Well Mr. PacoJack has spoke the gospel! I haven't read any books about breeding dogs but my experiences or experiments have shown me he is correct. Traits get watered down after each breeding, period. Only way, only chance of improving those desired traits is compound upon them. Linebreeding, breeding closely as possible in a certain gene pool with dogs that exhibit the exact same desired traits. Here's the kicker you can't compromise a trait or its watered down after. So perfection or darn near it has to be obtained and then compounded. To see it over and over again for generations. The old saying "best to best" is meant to mean the same thing (best similar desired traits you can find blended) just without the linebreeding. Linebreeding just doubling your odds. Aligned traits and aligned genes, should be about the same product.
Which is probably how breed specific registry's were started?

Now you can still take those "best to best" hybrid vigor lightning strikes and with one or two close breedings establish a gene pool to linebreed out of and maybe keep your head above water for a while. As long as the desired traits are never compromised. Standards being the same similar outcrosses can be made and again maybe keep your head above water. Compound it again. Maybe. You aren't helping a specific breed then usually because color isn't considered.


Fact is most of us will be the latter bunch. We could have better odds of being in the same bunch if the folks at the forefront of the breeds followed Pacojacks methods. Trying to cover or add one trait from another is BS. You'll end up with several that have the undesired and desired traits in sometimes usable/coachable but frustrating ways at best. Typically not usable. Might have the one super hero. Typically its all that was desired minus one of the major desired. 2+2 does not equal 4 in dog breeding. The right 2+2 might give another 2 though, if you know what you got and how to use it. Should be a line thats producing.

Great info there on breeding Dad's Dog Boy,like I said previously just too much for me and my lifestyle.
Gotta give it to those that are trying to improve on our hounds through years of dedication...Hats off!