Originally posted by Deanna Thompson:
Jeff, have you ever really looked at what makes the difference between the 10th place dog and the 20th place dog? It can be as little as a sleeve bump, crooked sit, one mouth of the dumbbell, etc. There is a lot more to it than just the top ten dogs are the best dogs. Luck plays a major factor as well. Exactly, I don't think anyone is capable of breeding for those things(no sleeve bumps, perfect sit, perfect grip on the dumbell), as there are countless variables and training issues that have an affect on those things as well as total points awarded. All a breeder can do is try and create the ideal foundation to start with. Then it's up to the handler to put fourth the effort on the training field, give a little extra, and cross his fingers. But with the right genetics, you have the edge over the competition.

If memory serves, we had this conversation once before. Like anything else wothwhile,( a good breeding for example) it deserves repeating.

Kevin once used the 1-10 scale in reference to matching mates. Breeding a pair of tens will hardly ever result in a 10. Chances are better with a pair of eights or nines.

Schutzhund scores are OK for selecting mates. I look at breeding as I do criminal investigations.....its a totality of the circumstances. Numbers in a book are like any other number or statistic. No single aspect of evaluation, in this instance, Sch scores, should be used independently of all others to make a decision as important as choosing a breeding pair. To breed untitled parents is neither unwise or unsafe; it takes more experience and courage than I have. How many GREAT working dogs never competed because of a catastrophic injury prevented title completion and resultantly, were never bred? I don't think we will ever know the answer to that. I do agree that there is a disgusting degree of informallity bordering on disregard for desired outcome in certain circles, although I don't believe anyone on this board would be so casual.

To be a responsible breeder, it takes time, lots of it. Study time with pedigrees. Interview time with other breeders regarding thier lines, desires, experiments both failed and acomplished, time at trials to make personal assesments of potential mates. Time on the training field to learn what character flaws might be hidden by a particular training technique. Time to think about character tests that are unconventional and outside of the proverbial box.

It also takes uncommon honesty and integrity. Many breeders breed their animals not because they have potential for contributing to the breed on a whole but because "they are special in their own little way". My Trooper has a stellar pedigree and works well, but I know that at 23 inches for a male, I am not contributing to the gene pool as a whole if he were to sire a litter or 12. And let's face it, if it isn't a contribution, it will hurt the breed as every litter has an impact.

It is noble to want to contribute to the breed. Let's take the time to teach the neophytes instead of calling for public beheadings. It benefits us all in the end.

P.S. Deanna, the red and black beast thing...ouch that hurt. I had a Cliff Huhnegrab son that was incredible, granted the exception, not the rule. G.

By the way, Meghan, your dog's pedigree looks great.

Originally posted by Gordon Beyer:
... I had a Cliff Huhnegrab son that was incredible, granted the exception, not the rule. G. You lucky dog! I'd kill for a Cliff son - that dog was AWESOME!!

Nice post Gordon. Thats what I was trying to say in a nice way. Like I said I own a littermate to Meghan's. I've talked to the helper of another littermate. I've talked to the breeder of the litter. I've talked to a guy who worked Anna in Germany. I've seen Anna's offspring with Troll v Haus Melinda (which were super). I know what is produced by THESE dogs not just the pedigree. Each dog is excellent and produces excellent, but this litter just didn't meet the breeders expectations. I love my dog to death, and I think she is a good worker, but I will not breed her because I feel there are better females out there who can offer much more to the breed. For example, we have a Lewis grandaughter at our club. The first time I saw her work, I said in my mind: "That will be the mother of my next dog" (assuming she ever learns to out the sleeve <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> )

 Quote:

Originally posted by Brandi Adkins:
Meghan,
Many people didn't/don't like Fero. Why I don't know and don't want to, because if he was for whatever reason "bad" why did SO many breeders use him. Not to mention all the great dogs he produced. Brandi

Brandi - this statement just shreeks of close-mindedness!!!!! Aren't you here to learn?????

IN GENERAL - ANY stud - dog or other animal - who has been bred so extensively is going to produce alot of bad stuff along with the "great" ones....after one or two outstanding progeny, every one who has a female who needs improving upon will run to the "hot" stud - and the stud cannot do it all! There are some great Fero dogs - and there are alot of not so great ones too!!!!!

Fero produced Troll and Timmy v d BN - and besides them them produced over twelve hundred other puppies!!!! A cursory run through on a database of his progeny kicked up about half a dozen names that I recogized as producing or winning at high levels OTHER than Troll and Timmy. Those two in turn have produced many, many good dogs and some of THEIR sons like Aly are in turn producing....At the same time, there are literally hundreds of Fero progeny who did not produce worth a dead fly!!! The WHOLE pedigree counts - not just one dog in it!!!!

JMHO

Lee you mention the 1200 other pups...

Fero was bred 241 times producing 1181
Troll was bred 198 times producing 973
Yoschy was bred 206 times producing 1041
Aly was bred 163 times producing 755

Thats an awful lot of puppies. 3950!!!

out of which we have 110 BSP competitors. or a whooping 2.7%.

Now I know we all lok for something different in our dogs. The above to me doesn't say to me...fantastic producer. Now, there are other considerations as well, how many of the pups went to people w/o a clue? and so forth...but I just don't jump up and down when I hear Fero this or Fero that. I do have a dog 4-5 on Askia, and 3-5 on Fero. why, because I liked the dog and the breeding...not because of Fero.

I agree with Todd; what's new? It is my opinion that when one studys a pedigree for breeding or purchase reasons or for the purpose of edification alone, the WHOLE pedigree should be considered. There are dogs I would die for in a pedigree; Andy Bildsule, Timmy Bosennachtbarshaft,Queck, Karlo, Kevin's CJ and others but I would NEVER make a decision (again, having done this once) based on a single animal in a pedigree. Nobody buys a car because it has nice rims. I have selected the father of my next puppy, hopefully I can pull it off but the mother is yet to be determined. However, I would pass on the father in the evnet the mother is not what I'm looking for. Try to talk to people who DON'T like the breeding / parents you're looking at and ask them why.

The Fero debate is rhetorical. He was bred indicriminately, in my opinion, and he is going to pay for that forever. Statistically, I've seen Todd break it down like this once before. It's really hard to argue with a 'success' rate of less than 3%. When I see Fero in a pedigee, I don't dismiss or discount that particular decendent because of Fero's presence.

Todd, what are the chances of you providing the statistical analysis for the following:
Karlo Peko Haus
Uwe Kirschental
Sagus Buseckerschloss

This may support our theory for the pros / cons of Fero.

Lee, as far as my Cliff son, I managed to put a 3 on him ( by the grace of God and 'Ronny's' strengths)and he went V14 at the 94 Seiger Show. He is the dog I wish I had known then.......
V-Uran Von Burbrink Sch3, KKL1(life)
12 December 1988 - 21 Septemeber 2001

Fero was bred 241 times producing 1181
Troll was bred 198 times producing 973
Yoschy was bred 206 times producing 1041
Aly was bred 163 times producing 755

Look at it this way: Take any of those dogs you just named out of the GSD breeding equasion and see how many high level competitors you have. That tells more than direct progeny from these sires.

Thats an awful lot of puppies. 3950!!!

out of which we have 110 BSP competitors. or a whooping 2.7%.

Please tell me which modern day breeding dogs have done better???? Of that 2.7%, how many of those dogs WON,,WON,,WON the BSP? That should mean something shouldn't it?

Now I know we all lok for something different in our dogs. The above to me doesn't say to me...fantastic producer. Now, there are other considerations as well, how many of the pups went to people w/o a clue? and so forth...but I just don't jump up and down when I hear Fero this or Fero that. I do have a dog 4-5 on Askia, and 3-5 on Fero. why, because I liked the dog and the breeding...not because of Fero.

People's first instinct is to repeat what everyone else says. Fero's BAD?? oh my god!
Fero was a Anderl grandson I believe, which makes him a Mutz great grandson. That's great blood! Please inform us what dog does make you jump up an down?

Mike Williams, please properly quote parts of other people's posts that you put in your own responses.

That makes reading the posts a lot more simple, and also is the correct way to borrow someone elses words.

I'll delete any post in the future that does not follow that basic rule of courtesy.


There are two easy ways to do it. . .


Robert VanCamp wrote: "I'll delete any post in the future that does not follow that basic rule of courtesty."

or

Just use the quote button in the Instant UBB Code section next to the Instant Graemlins.