bloodlines huh alot the old school men ended up with 4 or 5 lines in the mix

I remember what one of my main mentors, Ralph Greenwood related to me a hundred years ago. He said the dogs are already an admx of things which created the bulk benefits of what they are. In his many years with the dogs he felt that a 4 way lineal cross was best for both breeding and competition. Now, this has to be qualified a bit. He didn't mean that it was best because it was a 4 way. He meant it suited him best because it was a proper admix of 4 basic derivatives using the most complimenting of dogs. The best ones, the gamest ones. It also gave him his favored options of going back into the dogs he had by breeding them back in somewhere in the mix.

I was very young, and he used a term I hadn't heard before, yet when he said it, I understood what he meant. He said always bet on the "longer" bred dog. Not the tightest, not the one most popular, or the newest flavor of the month dog. The one with the most game dogs and winners behind it.

In saying that, he also warned that too many cooks can spoil the stew. Meaning to get awry of this selectivity by way of a large mish-mash of dogs isn't wise, as it takes the seam out of your breeding scheme.

I presumed he meant to practice good selectivity with as much pizazz as possible by way of having a scheme, and keeping vigor by way of select and discrete mixing of usually 4 great flows of dog lineage. With this, I see what Maniac is getting at. I doubt he had Mr. Greenwood's scheme in mind, yet I guess he is meaning to dispel many of the confusions as to what scatter breeding really is, and what it probably isn't.

Since all modern day "lines" are comprised of an admix of dogs behind them, it's rather funny how some react to a mixing of lines to try to form another select lineage of successful dogs. It having been done/accomplished is how ALL of our dogs came about. The main difference in my opinion is the discretion with which it is done. Too many entities can indeed constitute scattering, and cut down your good consistencies.

My family of mutts, for example, started by my putting together two distinct lineages. Neither lineage was pure on anything because there is just no such thing. Yet, they were both lined down from a few key individuals, hence, families of their own. As I continued selectively, I considered my mutts a family after a few generations of desired dogs. This, to me, was and still is how families are formed. The entities involved, being of discrete usage and continuance without helter skelter adding of just any old dogs that are available is the difference. What one considers good discretion in these acts is up to them and what they have seen and learned with their own dogs and the dogs of others.