Would you let the blood die?

What would you do if you had an excellent dog-I mean absolutely superb and it didn't have papers, Would you let the blood die?

 

Great question, i look forward to the answers as i have wondered this myself..

 

You mean by not breeding it? No way in hell would I breed a dog with an unknown history. Breeding involves more than throwing two good dogs together.

Besides, how will you know what you are preserving?

 

I'm asking because of the Frisco crap. and because back in the old day's papers wern't alway's kept and alot of good dogs came about regardless of "paper"

 

Good point. In fact, many of the great dogs of the past were of "unknown" history.

As for letting the blood die, I don't know. Superb dogs are hard to come by. I think I'd just stick him to some proven pedigreed bitches & see what happened.

 

the only way i would ever breed a dog that has unknown blood is if he's of exceptional quality like gr. ch. 35 was, that dog was basically an ace but his bloodline was a mystery. If the dog was mediocre or even pretty damn good, i'd still be hard pressed to breed him because of the amount of unknown's like what blood should u breed him too, what blood will click with this dog and so on, its a hard decision but for the most part yea i would let the blood die off, or shoot maybe even do one breeding for myself just in case i got lucky who knows

 

What blood are you talking about? You don't know what the blood is so what difference does it make?

People did keep track of breedings and did have pedigrees on dog, just not many people used registries. You also have to remember that old peds with "unknown" those were import dogs that were either purchased at the docks or stolen from the docks, the original owner did know how the dog was bred. Peoples attitude was a little different back then, and APBT's weren't that common and usually the sport was kept on the DL even though it was legal at the time.
But today you can find good dogs all over. There is not reason to breed a dog of unknown background anymore.
I've known several people with REALLY good dogs that where from who knows where and never used them in their programs, what is the point. Why introduce and unknown when you have good stuff or can easily find good stuff.

I've never seen anyone question Frisco's ped, he came from a reputable person.

 

It's up to you. No one's going to stop you. Personally, if the dog was one of the best I've seen, I'd probably breed him once to a proven bitch with a history and observe the offspring. Culling would have to be a major factor, though. If the offspring showed the same traits, then you might have something going. Then again, with no history, you could also have some genetic defaults underlying. Eventually, your line would die out because not enough people would want to test an unknown stock.

Remember, it's not how exceptional a dog himself is, but how his or her offspring turn out. The same reason Gr. Ch. 35's blood never flourished.

 

If the breed were still in its formative stages and a dog of known pedigree was a rare commodity, that would be one thing. But since these dogs have been registered for over 100 years, no, I would not breed a dog of unknown ancestry. I know there are some that do, but I think its a practice which is suspect. If I were paying cash money to get a dog, I'd certainly want to know what was behind it.

 

Scotsman: Some ppl knew the peds on their dogs, but not all. For example, if you got a dog off Carver, who knew what you were getting! HE might know, but you wouldn't & thus would do all the breedings on the ped he gave you, which in all likelihood was incorrect.

Baha: Yeah, but most ppl who are going to do a breeding like that are going to keep all the pups between themselves & their friends anyway, not sell them off.

 

It's pretty well known pit dog breeders were among the first to keep pedigrees (often just for themselves) so I don't think it's a question of the dogmen of old not using registries, or import dogs going back to the beginning. You can still find missing ancestors in pedigrees more recent than that.....mostly because the breeder didn't want to reveal his secrets, or had something to hide. I'd be willing to bet some of those gaps in peds are because of dogs with unknown ancestry. I guess that's a more honest approach than hanging papers saying you'd bred to another dog on your yard that was from known parents. As far as the Frisco stuff, I don't think there's any question on his breeding, but there are those that question dogs down from him.

 

The way I look at this post is if you had a dog of "pure but unknown" background would you breed it, nope.

 

Good question.

My question is.....is it a male or a female?

It all depends on how much time you want to invest in this apparently quality animal.

With a female, you would have to wait much longer to see the quality of her offspring through different males. There is no way to breed her more often that what she is capable of. Then waiting for the offspring to grow and be looked at and so on through many generations of offspring to see if the blood gives you the same qualities consistently.

With a male, you could breed him to every female on your yard and see how the male produces through many litters aging at the same rate at the same approximate time. Instead of one or if you push it two litters a year with a female, you could have 3, 5, or more at the same time with a male.

You would also have to keep and look at every pup from every litter through at least about 4-6 generations worth to make sure the dog breeds pure. And cull hard to keep the blood worthy.

Is the dog good enough to invest that much time in? If so, by all means go for it, if not......why even start?

 

Yes. Because who knows what is in that blood. It's been shown that dogs that performed well but had an unknown background didn't produce shit when bred.

 

I got a male right now with an unknown background and I plan on breeding him to a bitch with a history although it's not my preference. She's just a good candidate. Of course we're just gonna spread the pup between my family and the owner of the other dog. From there I'm going to have my own breeding and culling program. My intentions are not to sell the dogs but to have good dogs on my yard without going through the hassle of wondering if the papers are hung, or did I just buy a $300-500 dog that should've been culled. Let's face it, people who are selling these dogs are mostly asking so much because of papers. That's the only reason I've ever heard them give. I know how much time and money goes into breeding and raising dogs. I also know that I will have to do the same thing and I may get a dog that represents what it ped says. IMO, that's a waste. So, what do papers mean? They mean you're getting a dog with some history and that's it. There are no guarantees and what you spent is non-refundable.

 

It works both ways

 

you just announced that you ate going to breed an unknown dog on this board?may the lord be with you.........lol!

 

Yeah, but the people making those breedings knew the dogs behind what they were breeding, be sure of that.

 

That's not necessarily so. Once again I use Carver for an example. HE might know how your dog is bred, but YOU don't. So if you begin your own breeding program, you are still breeding as blind as someone who's dog has no papers.

 

So you buy a pup from a guy in Wal-marts parking lot and it turns out to be a good dog, but you have no clue how this dog is bred or if it is 100% APBT.
You are saying this dog is no different than a dog of Carver's yard and you'd introduce it into your breeding program?