Game-'bred'?

I love Pappadeaux fried gator!! I wonder if that's considered game breaded or not? I'll have to ask next time I'm there.

 

If anyone read my post on likelihoods being the supreme commander of what we do and want, then it should be clear that likelihoods are all we have when we breed two dogs. There's no such thing as "game bred'. What we have are those likelihoods as we see them by knowing the dogs, their consistencies rather close behind them and the dogs around those dogs..........their trends we have monitored and know by having seen them. We try to load the dice to attain those traits, but that is no assurance we're making a breeding of pups that will turn out to be game in a decent percentage. Some breedings are just more "likely" to produce game dogs than others. There is never anything involved but your best calculated possibilities based on those trends I mentioned above, and the quality of the individual dogs being bred. "Game bred" is a mere catch phrase which to me, means nothing in reality.

 

I'm a bit confused by your proposed scenario. But.....I never said, nor do I believe that "good dogs are where you find them" without extending that statement to also say: "but you are more likely to find them in some places than in others."

If I'm reading you correctly, your asking me if likelihoods should include trying to lasso the moon. And my answer is of course, NO. Things wich are POSSIBLE are not commensurate with what things are PLAUSIBLE or LIKELY. Why would anyone seriously breed two of these dogs based on incredibly low likelihoods?

I suppose anything is possible. And surely I can't begin to fathom how many times you'd have to breed those two dogs in the class you mention or any of the same ilk, in order to achieve even a remote chance of having any success. So how it applies to high standards in judging your likelihoods, I have no concept but to think it's rather pissing into the high winds.

Your question does seem to ask if I believe breeding dogs of predominantly weight pull, conformation showing, etc would, with their "foundations" would be also likely to produce game dogs. Again, NO. Foundations, however far back you are talking about, and what you have today, are miles apart. And if you're speaking in terms of genes, again, NO, as in our newest generations of dogs, we have a COMPLETELY different configuration of genes than those did way back in what you are calling foundation dogs.

Breeding backward is a fallacy, as no matter what you breed, you are moving FORWARD with new configurations whether one likes it or not. Can you key or bulk on certain recent dogs? Yes. But you cannot deem it as breeding backward as you are recreating forward. It's an absolute inevitability. We can't change the fact no matter how much we may theorize.

"Likelihoods" should be based on the positive side of what the word means if one intends to gain some success.

No. The catch term "game bred" does NOT exist, apply, or have meaning in any reality. What does apply in reality, is the increasing of likelihoods by conventional and proven means, to achieve a decent percentage of game dogs.

With more reading I seem to think you are also asking if that my answer is NO, they aren't as likely to breed some game dogs by such a long shot, if the ones we do deem to have good likelihoods should be deemed "game bred" by virtue of margin. NO. I do not. It's still a matter of which dogs are the more LIKELY to do so, which to me means the true meaning of the word likelihood, with no meaning with reality of the term "game bred", only bred, and more likely to have a decent percent of game dogs in the "get" than with others. That's the reality. No catch phrase applies.