lines of dog?

why is it that so many people are only interested in the lines of a dog? for me the lines dont make the dog the dog makes the line, dont see how its so important to have a dog from certain lines, yes it could be from famous lines but could still be a shit dog but because its from that line it is considered one of the best dogs. one example is tug people dont know his ped so wouldnt give him a second look, but for the people who know him and have seen him work would probably say he is one of the best around, i bet if he was from the famous lines and never done anything i could have sold all his pups for £600+ before they were even born.

 

I have the same feeling, just look at some of the posts people asking "what do you think" etc too much emphasis and lines and strains, im not an experienced dog person, but by my limited experience in staffords iv seen just good constant outcross or scatterbred kc dogs out perform dogs from physco line dublin red etc. Its good on paper to have a great pedigree but from personal experience it doesnt mean shit, just there to make money for some. The best dog i have is my riff dog, now he has beanie stuff in there but also kc stock. Recently i decided to stop looking for fancy pedigrees and old stories of past dogs and aim to just use proven dogs with my own eyes regardless of pedigrees. Il soon be taking a pup from kc stock nothing fancy but i reckon i have more chance of him working out than some of the other stuff i had/have.
For me Darkside i believe you have some cracking dogs, not just tug but your kc dogs are quality and it seems that they will produce too!!

 

I have seen Tug and really appreciated what I saw. He was a first class dog, but from what I understood he got behind if you let him work for a longer stretch. I agree with every word you say. People breed pedigrees, and when that is done generation after generation there is no qualities left in the dogs. I have seen very wellbred dogs, even US imports with pedigrees most wankers would die to have, perform like crap!

Pedigrees means nothing if the blood is not managed the right way. I came to think about the Heinzl quote from the 1950´s where he talks about colour breeding. From my point of view the same applices to breeding papers.

I believe that we need to think differently if the working Staffords shall have any chance to continue to exist. Paper breeding dogs that hardly has any papers is just plain ridicilous...

 

Thats where tugs size and frame hinder him, a work horse and very rough but just a little too muscled, burning that oxygen too quick, maybe he will pass his traits to some lighter framed proven bitches for a nice blend. Time will tell.

 

What you say really makes sence, that was my impression. I found him to be a lovely little dog with a great character. I also know that I am not the only visitor that where at his previous owners yard and where impressed by him.

 

I think maybe people just want a dog from certain lines so they can brag about it. It's great to know where you're dog come from but what matters is if the dogs parents can perform. Lines does'nt always mean something, coz good dogs can come out from 2 shitty parents as well.

 

its just nice to have one off of a respected line.esp when buying a pup,good tested parents a must but to know its ancestry and that there production is good also helps.when i started my yard i bought adults that i liked not for there papers but at the same time i wanted something known.the pups iv produced now may be scattered breed some,but its turned to be what i expected(knock on wood).

 

ive seen tug....n he is impressive.....

 

thing is matty.....just even by hearing it or reading it might catch sum1s ear to tug being a decent staff....so if you ever use him as stud t one of yours....which would be a good idea imo...if those around are looking for a young one....they would be well in taking heed whats been said of the little red bomber...just my 2 shakes on the subject lol....:dogtongue:

 

Dogs either produce or they dont,look how many dogs down the years have been inbred on their own lines, only to be found later on that they them selves were not bred the way their papers have been shown. But the dog has still produced. Its nice to have a honest dog with an honest ped,but the latter is not a must have. If your in it for the long haul the only person who knows how the dogs are truly bred are you the breeder. Its not hard to weigh up what one dog excells in or lacks in,then you find a dog which can compansate the other in.
Any breeding is a gamble but i'd rather see what the two dogs that are being bred have done,rather than reading a pedigree that has x amount of Ch's in it yet never seeing what one or either (if anything) has ever done .:rolleyes:

 

truest statement ive read on this site.Around 10000 greyhound pups are bred every year usually from top performing parents ,yet every generation theres only a small percentage that make open class.sometimes the best trackers are shitty producers and vice versa.AT the end of the day the only breeder you can really trust is yourself,and over the course of a few generations you can get to know your line(how they acted at a certain age etc) and be better able to recognise a good one when he comes along.