BigGameHoundsmen.com

TomJr, thanks for your input But I think what we are looking for is isolating a specific trate and makeing it better. I have good enough dogs but I want great dogs. I catch lots of lions, bear, and bobcats, but my dogs have limits. I want to push those limits. more nose, more brains, more speed. Thanks James G Moore

Sorry TomJr, and your point does bring a a long term issue on whether genetics or environmental impacts have a greater outcome on behavior. If a dog that was bred for something other than a trail and tree hound can learn that behavior, how much of the finished product is truly a bred or genetic trait rather than a learned one?

My wife and I have spoken on this issue with humans, and the debate as to whether genetics or environment has greater influence is still up in the air. If that can be applied to a hound, that is if training and activity takes the place of environment, is it less than, equal to or greater than the genetic make up of the package?

Ike



http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... tml?cat=25

Environment VS. Genetics: Which Best Determines How a Child Will Turn Out?
September 05, 2007 by
J. Ellen Fedder
J. Ellen Fedder
J. Ellen Fedder

* Published Content: 1
* Total Views: 1
* Fans: 12

View Profile | Follow | Add to Favorites
Single page
Font Size
Post a comment Share
More topics
Genetics | Environment
Environment verses heredity. Which is a greater determining factor of the way a child will turn out? Do children inherit character flaws or are those tendencies learned from environment contributors? This debate has gone on for years, perhaps centuries. In fact, I even had to write a
college term paper on the subject. That was years ago, but my view has changed little.

Genetics provides the clay, but environment shapes us. That's my stand on the issues. Heredity give us something to work with and probably solidifies our potential IQ, but the environment in which we are raised, the company we keep, and the parents who rear and guide us, probably have the greatest impact on what we turn out to be.

For this reason, I believe children born of rape or incest are not destined to repeat the behaviors - just because of genetics. Many babies, offspring of that situation, have been adopted and raised in a nurturing environment - which in turn rear the next generation in a nurturing environment. I believe my adopted daughter lives nothing like what might have been her lifestyle, had she remained in the home situation into which she was birthed.

Yet, children with all the promise in the world can be neglected or abused, and a cycle of violence begins. The cycle of violence we so often see, might lead people to assume that genetics determines behavior, when in fact it results from negative environmental factors. Three generations of great human character can dislodge a forth generation with simple neglect. Abuse seems little respecter of persons and abuse in its many forms can find its way into even the most distinguished of homes.

Which one has the greatest impact on human character and behavior, environment or heredity? This issue has been contested for generations and will most likely be contested indefinitely. As for me, I believe people are a product of the environment in which they live - the homes in which children are raised, the schools in which children are educated, even the families that people marry into and the work places where adults find employment.

Ike thats what I was trying to get at.

Also no I don't expect my dogs to take a 10-20 hour track and I don't want them to because I don't have the time to follow them most days. Maybe I will get a true hound that can do that in a few years when I have that kind of time to spend. Reading some of these posts makes it sound like fun!

That's cool Tomjr, and I'm just throwing stuff out there and not making any claims as to what or who is right. If what you are doing works then great, and I didn't mean to put you or your dogs down just asking questions is all.........

ike

Ike wrote:I've always wondered why anybody would breed a big game hound into a bloodhound or an airedale or pit bull, cause the results could be a bunch of culls. I read a book one time and the writer warned against those type of crosses, stating that the breeder took the chance in producing offspring that didn't have any hunting drive or were not game hungry.

If he was correct, then a breeder takes the chance of only getting the fighting aspect from the airedale or pit bull and not getting the trailing, treeing and track driving traits that are so needed in a trail hound. Now those were his arguments and not mine, but common sense would tell me that those are real concerns when outcrossing to bring in grit or nose. Likewise, bloodhounds were bred to trail people not game. And although a bloodhound may well throw a better nose into offspring with a lion or bear hound it may lesson the desire traits of big game hound, like trailing, sticking to a track and treeing.

Just more food for thought...........

ike

Ike, thank you for writing this post. I understand well why one would this. It falls into what I have been saying.
I'm talking about big game hounds only. If a hound is perfect in every way but lacks grit/nose, the owner must breed to something that has grit/nose. There is no other way to get that trait, that has been lost or never there. Dogs are not magical, they can't make something appear that is not there. With selected breeding, the owner can and has made great hounds with the use of Blood Hounds or Airedales. Yes, you are correct about possibly having a handful of culls. Take a pup from the litter that has the most desirable trait you want, breed it within the same family. Now you might get two or three you like. Keep doing this and you can accomplish anything. Hounds did not just appear one day. Someone had to start with ingredients, and then started making the cake. If the cake didn't taste just right, he/she added this or removed that until the cake tasted the way they liked. If they didn't have ingredient they wanted, they found it and added it in. Line breeding or inbreeding is the only way you can keep your consistency (ingredients) the same. Breeding to Ole Blue down the road may change the ingredients in the cake, there for changing the taste

There is no doubt that lots of dogs were bred to make a trail and tree hound since they all came from wolves (in their distant past) at one point Catch. But why would anybody in these modern times try to reinvent the wheel? It would appear to me that breeding to another trail and tree hound that had more grit or a colder nose would be a hell of a lot less risky than out crossing to a different breed. Odds are a person could find a gritty, colder nosed hound in any we hunt and that that hound might contribute those new attributes along with other desirable traits like the want to trail and tree our other hounds already have.

All I'm saying is I don't ever want anything in my backyard like an out cross to a pit bull, airedale or bloodhound.

ike

I'm hearing you and almost agree with you. lol

I hear what both of you are saying and agree only to the fact that no matter how much work you put into any breeding program if those pups are not hunted to their "potential" it's all a waste anyway.
I see this sort of noncomittal from hunters around these parts all the time,well bred pups going sour from being tied on the end of the chain and not hunted.

I'll buy into that Eric, and that is why any of the breeders that are selling pups on this board are looking to put those pups in the hands of serious hunters. How else would they every find out if the breeding was any good? I was extremely lucky an had a handful of young men take a pup out of the cross I made last spring between my Choco and Rui Li dogs. In my opinion, I couldn't have chosen a better bunch of young, hard hunting men to take those pups. I only hope that the cross I made doesn't let those guys down..........

ike

high desert hounds wrote:Ike thanks for the read your first post made a ton of sense. Now that we are getting a sense of line breeding and inbreeding. Explain to me how we pic the right stud dog once we have chosen a line. I am going to use topper and sampson as examples only because we hear so much about them. Why do they produce so many dogs that are better than they are. Can't all be the female. We know that both topper and sampson have huge holes in them, yet their offspring are some of the elite in the sport. Could we make an educated guess just by looking at papers? Unless you hunt with the dog everyday it would be a crap shoot. either you take a mans word or you look at his breeding. Just kicking around some ideas. Thanks for all the input and links.
James G. Moore

James,

I'd also like some of these breeders to answer that question about selecting the right stud dog for breeding. Your interest is in the Topper and Samspon dogs and I have no knowledge, nor have I ever hunted with either of those dogs. If it were me, I'd try and hunt as much as possible with the stud dog(s) that I was interested in breeding to and choose one that has the stuff I like, then find a female that has the same traits and qualities of the sir if possible. From what I've read, and I sure ain't no expert, breeding dogs with similar traits would help increase the things you want magnified.........

Good luck,
ike

Here is another thing to mull over while trying to find the right combo to breed.

Some traits come from both parents but are only turned on from one. And to make it even harder some will come from the mother and only be experessed in the male offspring. And Vise versa.

A comonly known trait like this among humans is the most common form of male pattern baldness. Its passed down from the mothers side yet is only expessed in her sons.

Ike why invent the wheel? I agree somewhat, but I sat back and looked at my situation which is different then most and thought I could use a hound or two that is quick, has lots of drive but does not have to have a cold nose, and takes limited training. So I crossed my black and tan to my Border Collie,Lab , shepard cross and got some great pups. At 17 months old they have caught 36 bear and five lions, leading almost every race . The best thing about them is they have never been on a leash, and I can call them off with little effort. I don't need to trail a 2 day old track so a little less nose is not a big deal. I read about all these fellows on this site using trainers and scent to train dogs. I figure if the dog is really worth the food in its bowl none of that is neccessary, get it out hunting at six or seven months you will know in short order what that dog can do. After this winter if they hunt lynx and lion like they do bear I will make the cross again.

Something that hasn't been addressed that I think is important, is on the breeders side. Having a few litters of pups and seeing their progress into dogs is a huge advantage over just a shot in the dark. Example: The person gets to read the pups and gauge them against previous successful litters before they leave. That said, only those pups that the breeder deems worthy will go to hunting homes, and propagate. And I don't care who you are, you can't tell at six weeks what they are going to be. They advance at different stages, and some turn on very early and some don't. I had a six week old puppy trail his momma out and I thought he was a goner, around 10:00am I heard him on the ridge headed home. Early starter. Another pup earlier this summer didn't make it home. It broke my heart, but he didn't have what the others did to make it home. Hope I didn't ruffle any feathers with my generalizations, just what I think.

chilcotin hillbilly wrote:Ike why invent the wheel? I agree somewhat, but I sat back and looked at my situation which is different then most and thought I could use a hound or two that is quick, has lots of drive but does not have to have a cold nose, and takes limited training. So I crossed my black and tan to my Border Collie,Lab , shepard cross and got some great pups. At 17 months old they have caught 36 bear and five lions, leading almost every race . The best thing about them is they have never been on a leash, and I can call them off with little effort. I don't need to trail a 2 day old track so a little less nose is not a big deal. I read about all these fellows on this site using trainers and scent to train dogs. I figure if the dog is really worth the food in its bowl none of that is neccessary, get it out hunting at six or seven months you will know in short order what that dog can do. After this winter if they hunt lynx and lion like they do bear I will make the cross again.

So what you're saying chilcotin hillbilly is there is some truth in the theory that the environmental influence of exposure and time in the field hunting may have a greater impact on the dog than the breeding does? Personally, I've always figured that pounding out cold tracks on mountain lions involved more field experience than bred in trait, meaning a guy has to get that dog out and let it learn to do the work cause it isn't built into very many dogs. I never figured a person could take a dog that wasn't bred to trail and teach it to do that. If those dogs of yours do a good job on snow lions and lynx this winter let us know, cause I sure think this stuff is interesting. If a pet dog other than a hound can put it's nose to the ground and pound out a dirt lion track or cold bear track that would be interesting......

ike

True story...it sure would.