UKC Forums (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/index.php)
- UKC Coonhounds (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=4)
-- A Breeding Experiment Explained (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/showthread.php?threadid=928272824)

quote:

---

Originally posted by bob country jr
What you are saing is that they are timid.

---

__________________
Joe Newlin
UKC Cur Advocate
Home of Oak Ridge Kennels

First thing first, I would never tell someone what they should do with what they feed and breed especially if that person is responsible. Now with that stated, Dave, I would like to share my failed experiment with you.

I research dogs line back quite a bit. I found out that one of the main dogs that I have line bred back to had a son that was repeatedly bred to one female. I got me an offspring report from UKC. On a side note, I really like these reports. Anyway, I called several people who got the pups. I don't think I have ever heard such glowing reports ever on any stud dog or cross. In fact many of those owners flat right out quit when their dog passed on.

So i set out to find out more about this female's blood line. It works out that she is from a highly line bred line of dogs. I contacted the breeder of these dogs. I then worked out to go hunt with his dogs. They were extremely nice coon dogs. They had all the traits I like and look for in a coon dog. So I bought a female pup to cross with my male. She turns out to be a nice coon dog who was extremely accurate. The problem was a hated her kennel behavior.

None of her relatives had or exhibited that behavior. In fact, I checked to see if her siblings had it. Nope, they did not. I really wanted to breed my old male (extremely bad). I was hesitant and didn't breed her for 2 years. In the meantime my male was getting older. It didn't quite feel right to me, but I rationalized that she came from a highly line bred family with no other dogs who had her behavior. After all, she had to have her families genes behind her. Now, this line was more line bred than Joe's dogs.

I made the cross. The results were each and every pup had her annoying behavior!

The difference in my experiment and your experiment was the female's bad behavior finally drove me nuts to where I could no longer put up with it. In your case, it does sound like the irritating trait is something you can of overlook.

Anyway, moral of the story is I will never breed a dog that has any faults that I can't live with whether it is a good coon dog or not.

I hope your experiment goes better. Good luck!

__________________
Larry Atherton

Aim small miss small

quote:

---

Originally posted by Larry Atherton
It didn't quite feel right to me,

---

__________________
Bad decisions make good stories.

Ok… I’m back.
Joe is right, in that he had some sarcasm in his post that I read and didn’t take offense to. Joe and I often bring our friendly banter onto this forum. I respect all of Joe’s opinions and agree with most of them!

Shane is right, in that he’s taking a 5000 foot view of the situation, which is where I was coming from. You can dissect all of this as much as you want, but unless you had THE perfect hound, and he/she was line bred, to a line that was available for more line breeding, you are not going to reproduce another perfect hound, even if perfection is all from your perspective.

Joe had a stud, that as I understand was pretty talented and from what I’ve seen, heard and according to the statistics was capable of reproducing other highly talented hounds. And I know Joe is not alone, as I’ve seen similar results with other breeds and breeding programs. But what I have not seen in those various programs, with all of those breeders’ diligence, science and understanding is those talented reproductions, in turn creating carbon copies of themselves or their daddy, or better yet a progression in talent. I hunted with another long time breeder with even more years (hard to believe) than Joe. From what I understand, he had a talented stud many years back and has been line breeding on that pedigree, with some strategic out-crosses, for a multitude of generations. And what I hunted with were talented dogs, and saw pups with very predictable and desirable traits. But what I didn’t hear and wasn’t told was how all this knowledge led to dogs as capable as or better than that patriarch. Joe is right, in that if you don’t want another one just like them, don’t breed them, as that’s likely what you would get. But how many people have actually reproduced generation after generation of that same dog? Not the same type of dog, but the same dog or better.

So I hear what everyone is saying, and I believe in Joe’s and Larry’s experience and knowledge, but here’s how I’m interpreting it in my mind… if you want consistent, explainable results generation after generation, then line breed or out-cross to another line-bred dog. But if you want exceptional, breed to that dog that is exceptional and a dominant reproducer of exceptional dogs, and roll the dice with hopes of landing that exceptional pup in the litter. Because the perfectionist in me, wants exceptional, not explainable. And until someone shows me a 3-generation pedigree, of line bred dogs, and can honestly point to the great granddad and say he was mine and was exceptional, then I made some strategic decisions and produced the granddad and he was equal or a bit better, then more science and decision making produced the dad who was outstanding, and now the pup who is phenomenal. Then what’s the point??? We line breed to remove variation and establish consistent traits in a line of hounds that never produce as fond of memories as that old dog way back when?!?

So what did I do… neither of the above. I didn’t find a dominant reproducer (as I have no idea what Boom is capable of) and I didn’t make an out-cross to another line-bred dog. I took a dog that I do truly love, but frustrates me to no end from time to time, and bred it to a dog who’s granddad was one of those dominant reproducers, and who happens to be Boom’s great, great, great… granddad. My thought being that there’s chaff in both gene pools, but the female has potentially less chaff in hers since Lipper is closer in generation.

Dave

Glad your back Dave....

So....let me ask you a hypothetical question...and one that I already know is going to cause me at least a ton of grief.....

What if...and remember folks this is purely hypothetical, I'm ot throwing stones at any ONE dog....what if the part of Boom that you HATE is a product of the dog you love? What if the jealousy issue is from your beloved Lipper dog?

As you know, I'm a fan of the Clover bred dogs...Stylish or Wild, it doesn't matter to me. I've had a bunch of them both over the past several years, and I'm a student and fan of both "strains" if you will.

I can say with 100% certainty that the one big issue that I have with your Boom dog is the jealousy thing. Over the years of following Clover bred dogs, I have seen that repeatedly out of the STYLISH Clover dogs, and not in the WILD Clover strain. What difference does that make you say? Well, the Stylish Clover strain are descendants of Lipper! Stylish Clover's mother was a daughter of Lipper.

Now, I can't blame it on Lipper, cause I don't have enough experience with families of Lipper dogs, it could have come from the Banjo or House's Tom Tom on her bottom side.

But what I'm saying is that as you continue with your "experiment" to watch for Lipper traits, and if you see the dogs that most exhibit what you feel are traits of the old Lipper dogs, and they exhibit the negative traits that you see in Boom...then likely by doubling up on the Lipper, you may be doubling up on the "Negative".....

Just a thought.

To answer your question about making carbon copies....

Dogs have 39 chromosomes, and the number of genes residing on those chromosomes numbers in the BILLIONS of combinations. The likelihood of getting even a very close combination is astronomical. Even if you were breeding a dog to ITSELF.

The true difference is prepotency, and prepotency is the ability of a dog, or a cow, or a human to reproduce it's own likeness. We simply haven't perfected the art of animal husbandry to the point of including prepotency in our breeding decisions. Nobody knows what causes a sire to produce dogs more like themselves than any of the other ancestors. Truly prepotent sires are as "rare as hen's teeth". And given the nature and history of hound breeding they are not likely to become popular.

__________________
Joe Newlin
UKC Cur Advocate
Home of Oak Ridge Kennels

Joe, you have a valid point, as I even said it a couple posts back...

"The Seeker - you're right and it could be that the traits I dislike could be recessive Lipper traits that other breeding brought out, and I'm about to double back on!"

Since we don't know for sure if this issue is nature or nurture, recessive or dominant, we don't know. But one thing that has formed my decision, is that on more than one occasion I've had people in casts witness Boom's quirck and literally say, "He's Clover bred, isn't he?" Those words were literally said, without any prompting. Now... I have limited experience with Clover dogs, and you certainly have a great deal, but something led these folks to forming that opinion. And maybe it is the Lipper influence on Stylish Clover.

As far as Lipper is concerned, I'm not necessarily in love with him, I just recall my teenage years where I, and a few others, had Lipper and Clint bred hounds, and they were solid coondogs without these "quircks", but none of us were line breeding against it either.

So here's my rationale on that... since I never saw it in my old House bred dogs, it was at least a recessive trait. And if so, it would be the CLover line breeding that brought that recessive trait to a more dominant trait on the Stylish Clover dogs. So, that would be another reason to not line breed back on it, but cross back to the Lipper gene pool prior to the more recent line breeding influence. Or at least that's how it played out in my head!

Dave

quote:

---

Originally posted by deschmidt27
Joe, you have a valid point, as I even said it a couple posts back...

"The Seeker - you're right and it could be that the traits I dislike could be recessive Lipper traits that other breeding brought out, and I'm about to double back on!"

Since we don't know for sure if this issue is nature or nurture, recessive or dominant, we don't know. But one thing that has formed my decision, is that on more than one occasion I've had people in casts witness Boom's quirck and literally say, "He's Clover bred, isn't he?" Those words were literally said, without any prompting. Now... I have limited experience with Clover dogs, and you certainly have a great deal, but something led these folks to forming that opinion. And maybe it is the Lipper influence on Stylish Clover.

As far as Lipper is concerned, I'm not necessarily in love with him, I just recall my teenage years where I, and a few others, had Lipper and Clint bred hounds, and they were solid coondogs without these "quircks", but none of us were line breeding against it either.

So here's my rationale on that... since I never saw it in my old House bred dogs, it was at least a recessive trait. And if so, it would be the CLover line breeding that brought that recessive trait to a more dominant trait on the Stylish Clover dogs. So, that would be another reason to not line breed back on it, but cross back to the Lipper gene pool prior to the more recent line breeding influence. Or at least that's how it played out in my head!

Dave

---

__________________
Joe Newlin
UKC Cur Advocate
Home of Oak Ridge Kennels

Ole Lipper

People need to distinguish (sp) the difference between Clint bred dogs and Lipper bred dogs . There was a reason Joe House sold Lipper and didn't incorporate him in his breeding program very much . I didn't say at all , just not very much . Clint reproduced alot better coondogs and dogs that reproduced what Joe felt represented his strain of dogs than Lipper did . This is in no way a Lipper bash . Alot of people like it some don't . We all probably have some if we go back far enough .

The trait you are talking about is TIMID I'm assuming and moody. That trait does NOT go back to anything I've ever seen in houses breed dogs. Especially Lipper dogs... I owned a bunch in the 80's. To tell you the truth I never like anything, yes anything, directly out of Lipper. You could hit them over the head with a shovel and not get their attention. However, I owned a lot more of Finley dogs directly out of Dan and most were moody. I never hunt any female anymore at all because the FR females were soooo moody that they broke me from ever hunting one again. On the other hand the FR males (although moody) were great hunting dogs and I wish I had some today. The FR dogs back then could drag the Lipper dogs around through the woods like they were sick. But temperamental they were.

Joe - it may be a crap shoot, or depending on the results, a step in the direction of answering all these questions. I'll have to keep an eye on all the pups, to know the results, but it could help sort through some of this debate, right? I mean if all the pups have a jealousy streak, with this out-cross, the only common denominator would be the heavy Lipper influence. If they're all stable, maybe I was right and managed to dillute that trait, on this cross. Maybe this could be considered a public service to the walker breed! Ok, that's probably over the top...

Bluff Country - you do have a valid point, as what I recall was that the Clint dogs were more grounded than the Lipper ones I hunted and hunted with. Now depending on your goal, maybe a person was looking for a more high strung hound.

Dave

Dave , you are thinkin' in the right direction as far as the difference in Clint and Lipper .

quote:

---

Originally posted by deschmidt27
Joe - it may be a crap shoot, or depending on the results, a step in the direction of answering all these questions. I'll have to keep an eye on all the pups, to know the results, but it could help sort through some of this debate, right? I mean if all the pups have a jealousy streak, with this out-cross, the only common denominator would be the heavy Lipper influence. If they're all stable, maybe I was right and managed to dillute that trait, on this cross. Maybe this could be considered a public service to the walker breed! Ok, that's probably over the top...

Bluff Country - you do have a valid point, as what I recall was that the Clint dogs were more grounded than the Lipper ones I hunted and hunted with. Now depending on your goal, maybe a person was looking for a more high strung hound.

Dave

---

__________________
Joe Newlin
UKC Cur Advocate
Home of Oak Ridge Kennels

Joe... Timid is an ugly word an I don't mean it as it sounds for sure. Smart is better. I don't know you or your dogs but I'm familiar with clover/bozo/and FR dogs and I like them a lot and have for30 years. Those dogs are uncommonly smart and they don't require a heavy hand which I'm in favor of. I'm too old for that crap anymore. You've got good ones I'm sure but every dog had its own personality even one from the same litter. All I'm saying I guess is that out of the FR dogs I've own (it's been quite a few) all had very distinguishing moody traits... Unusual, no, genetically linked. They are still my fav. And if you didn't live so far from me I take one of those dogs of yours and show 'em all what a real gone but not forgotten FR blooded dog can really do in competition hunts. Can you say drag all the other dogs through the woods!!!

Wait a minute... so when arguing against a breeding decision, we can talk about recessive and dominant traits and what a dog will therefore pass on. But when we're trying to explain traits, with the resultant puppies, we can't make any determination??? We can blame nature or nurture or the dad or the grandad? How has this argument, led us to both sides of the debate? Or is that the crux of the argument???

If all we can do, in a breeding decision, is really judge the dogs directly invovled, then I can decide against any and all crosses, because again, I've never met the perfect hound. So line them all up, and I'll give you a reason why I wouldn't really want one EXACTLY like them. There are some that are very good, but if we were honest with ousleves, we would be asking for a slight tweak here or there.

But the answer is, that although there are the odds of having one just like them, they will also likely be a product of the mix of genetics and traits. And again, since nobody has shown me how the line breeding approach consistently produces a progression of hounds generation after generation, then the ability to acheive an improvement must involve some other compromise, like predictablity.

Now maybe Joe and Larry are right, in that it's a mix of out-crosses to other line breeding programs, then show me the consistent progression in that approach...

Dave

quote:

---

Originally posted by deschmidt27
THE perfect hound
Dave

---

__________________
Larry Atherton

Aim small miss small

You're right Larry, on both accounts!

Maybe the differnce in perspective on this topic, is the difference in goals. I may accept that perfection is not acheiveable, but I would like exceptional. And maybe that's not the goal of line-breeding.

There have been numerous exceptional hounds throughout the years, and when I think of them, I think of their talent in treeing coon, consistently winning hunts, or simply the ability to bring pleasure to their handler. I don't measure them in their innate ability to reproduce a given set of traits, when bred to the right lineage of dogs.

To me, line-breeding seems to equate to a reduction in variation and therefore predictable results, and one would think that would or could equate to consistently producing exceptional hounds, but perhaps we're too early in the process.

In this cross, I knew there would be variation. Heck there's a whole quarter or third of the pedigree we haven't even discussed. But... I was assuming that on average, the pups produced would be a blend of traits that I found desireable in many of the dogs in that gene pool. And amongst those dogs, there may be one or two exceptional dogs. If I line-bred Boom, I would get more of the same, or perhaps a whole lot of jealousy issues, but I wasn't quite satisfied with more of the same. I wanted a blend, so I ran the risk of a mix!

I'm not here to change the face of the Walker breed, and I'm quite certain that I couldn't have that impact. But at the same time, I didn't think I was doing anything so drastic, as to risk it either. But if there's any sanity in my rationale, I may end up with a pup that I like even better than Boom, and so may a few others. If so, you'll here of my successes on here, if not, I'll try to pretend it never happened. Until Joe sorely reminds me, that is!

Dave

It's hard to translate livestock and plant formulas into the mongrels we are using .. Mendel himself wouldn't wanna touch coonhounds and come out looking smart.

The best tool we have for knowing what the genetics are is to raise em' hard and not overtrain them .... hunt them hard and hope the fire burns out the impurities ...

If after all that you still have a dog you think is worth breeding ... then you can start the next step of finding a mate ..... and hope you do while that dog is still around ....

yall have lost me in the translation

not knowing what quirks etc are showing up when and where, but I will throw in some things that I have discovered over the past 30 plus years of breeding my own line of walkers.

I like line breeding and it has proven very successful for me. I have line bred, inbred, and outcrossed so I can come at it from all respectives.

One thing that is often over looked and that is a lot of breeders dont understand that when a cross is made instead of getting a blend of the sire and dam, many many times you get some like the sire and some like the dam. More often than not. I dont know that I have seen a perfect blend produced.
case in point...breeding a silent mouth dog to a full open mouth dog trying to get the perfect opening dog on track. you most often get a full open mouthed pup or a silent pup. You dont get the blend.

The thing that gets in most breeders way is they get emotionally attaced to a hound and refuse to accept their is a problem. NOt throwing stones. I have done this myself so I am speaking from my own personal experience. It is better to just start over with a different line or dog than get so attached you lose control of what you are trying to breed for.

NOt sure what some of the undersirable traits you are concerned with Dave, but I have heard that Queen that was crossed on clint to get lipper had a bad kennel trait of pacing like a lion. That trait hides something back there that can manifest itself in different ways. including agression, man shyness, nervousness, gun shyness and the list goes on. I know first hand that trait can be passed on genetically. I have seen it. I have seen it show up from a mom in just one pup out of 7 and then manifest itself in multiple grandpups as fighting over food, covering food up and hiding it, barking at strangers etc.
Dna in dogs is a lab full of experiments that will never be totaled figured out.

I could go on for hours on this cause I have seen it all for sure. I am hunting the 10th generation of dogs I started back in 1981 so I have had some failures and lots of success.
I havent had time to read all the posts enough to get a clear understanding of what you are really wanting to accomplish. Ill get back on later and try and give a more detailed opinion.
unless you have a perfect dog, dont hesitate to start over.

__________________
Grand Champion Stevenson's "Little Bone Peep"
2016 Miss. State Gr. Show CH.
Overall Miss. State Show CH.
Grand Champion Stevenson's "Johnny Jet,"

__________________
Team Bible Thumper
Palms 18:39........You armed me with strength for battle; you made my adversaries bow at my feet!
Two questions sum up life....
Why am I here ? And Where am I headed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by deschmidt27
Wait a minute... so when arguing against a breeding decision, we can talk about recessive and dominant traits and what a dog will therefore pass on. But when we're trying to explain traits, with the resultant puppies, we can't make any determination??? We can blame nature or nurture or the dad or the grandad? How has this argument, led us to both sides of the debate? Or is that the crux of the argument???

If all we can do, in a breeding decision, is really judge the dogs directly invovled, then I can decide against any and all crosses, because again, I've never met the perfect hound. So line them all up, and I'll give you a reason why I wouldn't really want one EXACTLY like them. There are some that are very good, but if we were honest with ousleves, we would be asking for a slight tweak here or there.

But the answer is, that although there are the odds of having one just like them, they will also likely be a product of the mix of genetics and traits. And again, since nobody has shown me how the line breeding approach consistently produces a progression of hounds generation after generation, then the ability to acheive an improvement must involve some other compromise, like predictablity.

Now maybe Joe and Larry are right, in that it's a mix of out-crosses to other line breeding programs, then show me the consistent progression in that approach...

Dave

---

__________________
Joe Newlin
UKC Cur Advocate
Home of Oak Ridge Kennels

Joe and I took this off-line, and determined that much of the gene pool in this cross, is not terribly dissimilar from Boom's first litter that had some very good results. However, we will still be at a loss to explain any outliers, given the amount of variation in genetic combinations of this cross.

We also decided that perhaps the only way to determine if Boom's faults are nature versus nurture, would be another experiment where I might cross him to a litter mate sister. If I raised pups out of that litter without the whoopings, we beleive Boom received during his first year, then we would know that any personaility faults were driven by nature. Their absence, would mean nurture, and I have the potential of producing another Boom without the quircks!

To elaborate on why it's so difficult to grade a dog... if I and /or others hunt Boom by himself he looks great. And 50% of the time, with company he looks good and some times outstanding. But the other 50% is a crap shoot. If he doesn't like another dog in the cast, for whatever reason, he won't tree with them. In fact he'll avoid them, which could mean a lot of plus points, unless that dog is inclined to cover another dog. If that happens, Boom will leave trees. Now... he'll go deep (Mr. Wilson can attest to that) and get treed, but he's already taken that 125 minus and often times, left a coon behind for another dog to plus on.

But... as we discussed at length, we don't know if this is nature but a recessive genetic trait with the potential to be passed on, or nurture. Now, I could flip a coin, decide it's nature and never breed him. But if I'm wrong, then I forgo the opportunity to pass on all those traits that I love. Now I'm not going to run a bunch of stud adds and take that risk with other's money and programs, but I will try out a couple litters of my own.

The counter to all of this, is just don't run the risk at all, as there are plenty of other stud dogs out there. My response (and maybe I am just too emotionally attached to this dog) is that if I knew of another dog that I liked as much as I like Boom by himslef, I would do just that. But I honestly don't, and it's not for a lack of talent out there, it's the intelligence I see in this dog that I want in others. I'm not going to say that I have extensively hunted with stud dogs across the country, and ruled them all out, I'm just saying that I have hunted with a lot of dogs and haven't seen what I wanted to see. AND I don't have the time to extensively travel the country to find the other one that may be out there, and then see if they don't have any faults either.

Dave

That's exactly what I said yesterday

Cody - the part about over-looking faults to get the intelligence, or breeding back to a close sibling?

Dave

Breeding back to his half sister. I actually said, (since Boom is already bred to some gyp he bought) take the best female (out of that litter) and breed it back to your male...Booms brother. Far enough away from Boom but locking in good traits. You'll see 3/4 of Booms blood and (I think some by hybrid vigor) from the 1/4 out cross gyp. If the Lipper influence is that strong you'll still see it in the pups. My experience is the undesirablres will still show up. However, by doing this, I think you'll see what traits you have (Boom has) and it will lock them in good or bad.

The potential would be to breed Boom back to a full littermate sister. But you're right, that would magnify all traits! It would clear up the nature versus nurture debate on the negative ones in question, though.

Dave

One thing about Joe, he'll get you deep into thought when it comes to breeding discussions. One conversation with him got me into thinking in some different directions than I had prior to talking with him. If it doesn't work out I plan on blaming him. JK.

__________________
John Smith
Ohio Valley Bluetick Kennel