Did successful dogmen ever breed curs?

Great post.

I am not a breeder by any stretch of the imagination.

I do believe that it is the average of the family that is important. A litter of five with 3 curs, a plug and an all out freak. When the freak that wins five or six is bred the odds of getting his brothers and sisters are pretty good.

On the flip side if there a a bunch of relatives that are game with skills then odds are that is what you get as well.

And of course, there are exceptions. Sometimes a pedigree is chock full of game and winning dogs and a dog throws nothing but curs, regardless of his mate.

The hard part to prove in the equation is that when a dog curs he seldom gets the chance to proof the rest of his family.

My buddy had a litter out of Patrick's Kasai to a Medlins Outlaw female called Schnatterly's Rabbit Foot. 7 dogs in the litter. We managed to buy them all back except for one female. The six we got back all made it to the show. The one female was deemed a brood dog from day one never really got a shot. I would have no problem doing a breeding with her and having something off of her.

Patrick's Kasai was bred to Fat Bill's Miss Two Eyes. I had two out of the litter. Both made it to the show. The female won one and lost one. The male collected a forfeit and went on to do big things in a camp that rode up and down the road with a lot of $$$ riding on each trip. He faired well.

His brother went to a pet home. I'd breed to him too.

We came home with a deep game losing bitch once and the winner was sold for a shit load of money pit side. I was asked what I thought and I said she was a cur looking for a place to quit. She was a tremendous biter and we did not have enough dog to find the cur I thought was there. She came back out for a boat load of cash and hung it up real early. Her brother did one in and walked away on top. She had another brother that won 4 times. I say he was a game dog. Knowing/seeing his brother and sister I would be hard pressed to breed to him. I can see where some people would breed to a winning/game dog and I can't find fault in that decision. If I just knew the winning/game dog I might take my chances. Seeing the family hang it up would be reason for pause.

Never heard the Sapelo story, only heard she quit.

I missed out on owning a male/female pair out of Huckleberry to his daughter Hannah. I was a little slow pulling the trigger and missed out. I never knew of a disconnect with Arrangadanga.

Sorry for the length. Babbling.

S

 

Freaks seldom throw more freaks. It happens but it is not the norm. I think you have to look at the family as a whole and then use words like typical and atypical.

If the family is chock full of game dogs with winning traits then getting the same from breeding them would be typical. And if one of those dogs out of that litter is a 'freak' that is atypical, then breeding to him will more than likely give him something more like the average of his relatives which could be looked at a freak not throwing more freaks.

The opposite is probably more true. When the family is chock full of curs, rank or walk away types, and then that freak winning dog pops up when he is bred he throws what his family is made of....freaks seldom throw more freaks. He will more than likely throw typical to what he is made of, not his atypical freakdom.

And then the conversation starts to define the term freak as it applies to dogs. Very few are referring to gameness when using the term freak. Most of the time it is mouth and ability. Mouth, ability and great conditioning can hide the cur. Nothing ever lasted long enough with Molly Bee to even hint at her being a game dog but she would be my pick as the greatest match dog of all time. She was a freak and although in a small number of breedings nothing never measured up to what she laid out in 8 different trips.

For me, the entire little get together in these dogs is winning. I never annointed myself nor expected anyone else to perpetuate the breed. I was really glad some people did so, but I just never remember anyone saying I am leaving home on a late Saturday night with all the money I can muster because I have a really, really deep game dog.

People discard all the basic principles and breed to freaks in hopes of getting the next freak. And I have seen a few that would want to make me go that route too. LOL

I wish as a younger kid I would have put some thoughts and efforts into breeding dogs. What little knowledge I have, and I stress little, came as I got older and things started to slow down. I look back and there were tons of dogs that should have been bred because they were game, they had winnable traits and most importantly they had those same type family members.

Great topic. I really enjoy reading about breeding dogs. I wish I had more real life experience in choosing partners and looking back I see there were a ton of dogs I should have bred and a few that I should have not.

S

 

I would venture a guess that there are a bunch that would last. I believe there is always one out there. Every couple of years the next great thing comes along. Then it is hard to compare eras and history.

I have seen a couple, maybe three all out freaks. Out of the three I thought only one would have proved game. The other two I thought would hang it up the first time things did not go there way, but they had so much mouth it would be hard for anything to take them to that 'no fly' zone.

I have never seen a dead game dog, what I have seen is a dead dog and a dumb ass standing there really proud of his own stupidity, and the kicker being him being too stupid to even realize how stupid. If that makes sense. It is not like it is a gunshot kill in an instant, there is always time to pick one up, always.

I think most pedigrees have curs. Not because I am thinking that deeply but because when dogs are tested more quit than stay. So the dogs usually fall into one of three categories, untested, checked and have someone's subjective opinion of being game and then curs. The number of untested and cur dogs are maybe 6:1. Maybe a little less and I am sort of hard on my bulldog brethren or maybe I am going light and it is maybe 10:1. Just way more curs and untested dogs so basic math says they are well represented in the dogs.

I think what clouds my thought process the most is that the few dogs I have bred I never factored in gameness in the equation. I always bred dogs that won. My approach was always that gameness had to be understood, it was a given. I was taught that removing curs from the gene pool had nothing to do with culling. Culling was used on game dogs that could not win. Looking back, a real dumb way to go about things. But the guy that showed me the dogs only cared about winning and nothing about breeding. I learned that way and just assumed that was the way everyone else thought as well. Luckily there were breeders who had a better understanding of the big picture than me. I grew up thinking if he was two years old and still around, he had won, was able to win again or on his way to his first shot. Other than that they simply did not get to hold down a chain space. Again, a brain dead way to go about things but it takes all kinds to make things go around.

So I think the greatest dogs of all time, freaks and aces and incredibly deep game dogs have the cur factored in somewhere. On the subject I guess I am the half glass empty thinker, and I liberally use the word 'thinker'.

Again, great subject. Great thread.

S

 

I like the sayings and cliches in the dogs, and I like when they are attributed to certain people, big names in the dogs. One of my favorites is that they will all quit at some point, or in so many words, from the Mountain Man. Another was told to me by the guy that turned me onto the dogs so many years ago, be surprised when they make it, not when they quit and he followed that up and said you have to love your dogs, but you can't be in love with your dogs.

Back to the post, if they will all quit then they all are from curs.

The problem with a lot of people they go in search of the curs thru shitty breeding, shitty raising, shitty care and then unnecessarily beating the shit out of them, or expecting them to turn on and turn off like a light switch.

The opposite should be the path. We should do everything we can to hide the cur deep down and thru selection in breeding and proper schooling and great conditioning the cur stays hidden.

I see the dog life as a triangle. The bottom is a very wide base. On each bottom corner are two dogs being selected for breeding. From that point anything and everything in that dogs life shapes him and whittles him down until the very tip at the top, the sharpest point of the top tip of that triangle. And when he is at that razor sharp tip there will be a man in the corner saying, "release your dog". From that point on for the next 30-60-90 minutes is where a person will see how to change the way he whittles down the sides of that triangle. It may go all the way to the bottom a change the selection process or it may be schooling or feed or care or conditioning. It may be all of them combined. Only, and I repeat, only that 30-60-90 minute window will define the course.

I know people who have raised the same family of dogs for a ton of years and they know the dogs they have. Sometimes Dog C gets a pass because dogs A & B did the exact same thing along with dogs D-Z. So he may skip a step here and there and still get to the top of that triangle. That experience can't be replaced nor substituted.

The problem arises is when I get a dog from so and so and I do not have the 6-8 generations of experience and I give that same pass because of the pedigree and the names on the pedigree. I quickly start walking down that slippery slope......

S