UKC Forums - Reproducer List

Show all 18 posts from this thread on one page

UKC Forums (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/index.php)
- UKC Coonhounds (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/forumdisplay.php?forumid=4)
-- Reproducer List (http://forums.ukcdogs.com/showthread.php?threadid=928517836)

Posted by AAThoundhunter on 04-24-2019 06:46 PM:

Reproducer List

Currently percentages are taken from overall number of pups produced. I would think you should only compute percentages based on the number of pups registered. It is not the fault of the sire, dam, or breeder that those pups did not get registered and it could make a difference within the rankings. Also I do not have a dog that would benefit from any of this, it is just something I thought about as I was looking through it. What are your thoughts?

Posted by Redneck Mafia on 04-24-2019 07:11 PM:

The question I've always had is why the historical list is based off of the dogs with the most Nitech & Grnitech and the current list is off of highest percentages.
Our old dog when we retired him from breeding was the #1 Walker (highest on the list of any breed) on the current list with right at 21% his number now is over 30%. Dogs like him will never be recognized even though their numbers blow the historical list away. I think it would be nice if even once a year the dogs that meet the qualifications (100 for sires and 20 for dams) are recognized for their overall percentages in reproduction. Give credit where it is due. These dogs may not have 3,000 pups on the ground but made an impact within their breed.

*As someone who has several sets of pup papers from decesed dogs and know of many others that have died young I do see your point.
Ukc ? If I were to send these registrations back do they come off the total number of pups?

__________________
Cheyenne & Jennifer Cummings
Seneca , MO
(417)317-4815
"TEAM MAFIA"
*NATIONAL GRNITECH GRCH GRNITECH(5) HALL OF FAME PKC PLATIUM CH REDNECK BACKWOODS SHACK
2014 OK STATE CH, 2015 MO PKC LEADER, 2016 PKC NATIONALS SEMIFINALIST, 2016 UKC TOP 20, 2O17 UKC WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP 3RD PLACE, 2018 PKC SENIOR SHOWDOWN TRUCK HUNT FINAL 4, 2018 MO PKC STATE CHAMPION, 2019 AUTUMN OAKS NATIONAL GRNITE CH, 2019 PKC WORLD CH SEMIFINALIST. 2021 PKC SENIOR SHOWDOWN TRUCK HUNT FINAL 4.
*PKC WORLD CHAMPION PLATNIUM CHAMPION GRNITECH SHACK'S HEATHER ISLAND SOUTHERN STOGIE
2021 OKLAHOMA STATE CHAMPION, 2022 PKC WORLD CHAMPION, 2022 MO PKC STATE LEADER PRO SPORT TRUCK WINNER

RIP
*GRNITECH PKC SCH REDNECK MAFIA PKC HALL OF FAME REPRODUCER INDUCTED 2022
*GRNITECH CH PKC SILVER CH REDNECK SHACK ATTACK aka TAC 2018 OKLAHOMA STATE CHAMPION, 2020 MO PKC STATE LEADER

Posted by AAThoundhunter on 04-24-2019 11:35 PM:

I agree everything should be based off percentages and if you meet the 100/20 qualification then that dog should be listed on the historical list. Personally for me I will always look at percentages over total number just for that reason not all dogs have 1000+ pups.

Posted by Richard Lambert on 04-25-2019 01:22 AM:

The Historical Reproducers List is a list of the 10 dogs who have produced the most titled offspring. The Current List is the Top 10 dogs with the highest percentage. Why would you want 2 lists that went by percentage? Is the "Top" dog the one with the most or the one with the highest percentage?

Posted by Dave Richards on 04-25-2019 02:18 AM:

Mr. Lambert

My guess us the one with the highest percentages, that tell us more than just numbers tells us. A dog with 3000 pups may have higher numbers but smaller percentages, now which do you think is more relevant? Dave

__________________
Dave Richards Treeing Walkers Reg American Saddlebred and Registered Rocky Mt. Show Horses

Posted by Redneck Mafia on 04-25-2019 02:43 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lambert
The Historical Reproducers List is a list of the 10 dogs who have produced the most titled offspring. The Current List is the Top 10 dogs with the highest percentage. Why would you want 2 lists that went by percentage? Is the "Top" dog the one with the most or the one with the highest percentage?

Why would you want the top reproducers today's and historical to be based on different criteria? Never made much since to me.
And I personally along with MANY others would like to see historical by percentages not the dogs that happen to have the most pups. Even if it is a once a year list of the all time best percentage reproducers let's see them. Of course I also think this should be a true all time list not limited by time. Give those dogs that are deserving a little recognition.

Posted by Richard Lambert on 04-25-2019 04:57 AM:

So which dog is the Top Reproducer (not the best). The dog that produces 2,000 pups and 100 are titled or the dog that produces 100 pups and 10 are titled. I guess that they should have a Best Reproducer List.

Posted by shadinc on 04-25-2019 05:07 AM:

If both lists were done by percentages wouldn't there be only one list?

__________________
Donald Bergeron

Posted by Travis Brown on 04-25-2019 05:42 AM:

The problem I see with just doing percentages is you get dogs with a low number of pups that didn't cross well on several females. They just had one good cross made 5 times. They had a niche cross but weren't good reproducers if they couldn't produce off several females.

__________________
Travis Brown
brownt@capetigers.com
573-579-3853
Home of :
Gr. Nt. Ch. Browns Peggy 4/91-1/02
Gr. Nt. Ch. Browns Little Peg 6/98-3/08
Gr. Nt. Ch. Browns Haley 8/02-11/13
Gr. Nt. Ch. Browns Taylor 3/05-11/17
Gr. Nt. Ch. Browns Rotten 10/08-2/13
Gr. Nt. Ch. Browns Midge 12/10-1/21
Gr. Nt. Ch. Browns Jessie 4/14-
Gr. Nt. Ch. Browns Lilly 5/19-

Posted by Redneck Mafia on 04-25-2019 05:45 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by shadinc
If both lists were done by percentages wouldn't there be only one list?

No when dogs haven't produced any pups for 1 year they fall off the current producers list. I believe the historical last for 25 years but could be wrong, regardless they can be on it for a long time.
In the Walker historical there is only one dog with less than 1,000 pups on the ground. Even the current list there are several with higher percentages than some of the historical. I'm sure other breeds also reflect this. I know of an English dog (now dead) that is around 30% also and though he has over the 100 required pups will never make the historical list even though his percentage is nearly double that of the highest on the historical.
Just because some didn't try to breed the &@//$ off their dogs or were more selective in breeding doesn't mean they haven't had a positive effect on the breed and don't deserve recognition.

Posted by Kenneth Tavares on 04-25-2019 04:51 PM:

My dog only has 2 pups and both are titled, it’s at 100% and should be leading the list! 😳😂

__________________
🇺🇸TAVARES' FIRST CLASS BLACK & TANS...🇺🇸
HOME OF THE FUTURE...POWERED BY:
GRNTCH GRCH FIRST CLASS SMOKIN' JETS-"SON"
1/24/02---5/21/12
Manning, South Carolina
Ph. 803-840-2013
If you text this number you won’t get a response unless you include your name.

💰💰Click blue link to check us out on Facebook💰💰
👉🏼 Tavares' First Class Black & Tans 👈🏼

Tone it down guys, or they will delete another good topic...

Posted by Redneck Mafia on 04-25-2019 08:27 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Travis Brown
The problem I see with just doing percentages is you get dogs with a low number of pups that didn't cross well on several females. They just had one good cross made 5 times. They had a niche cross but weren't good reproducers if they couldn't produce off several females.

Which is why they should stick to the 100 for sires and 20 dams.

Posted by Richard Lambert on 04-25-2019 09:06 PM:

Maybe the Current List goes by percentages because female owners use it as a tool to help pick a stud and pup buyers use it to see where to go for a pup with the best chance of becoming a coon dog. But the historical list is just to recognize the dogs that have produced the most titled offspring.

Posted by Blaze P. on 04-25-2019 10:02 PM:

I had a dog in the top 5 for 4 years straight, didn't have big numbers. No way did she compare to some of the bigger names in reproduction ability, even though she had a higher percentage. Far as I'm concerned that list is just to make you feel good if you make it, but not a solid tool to go by.

Posted by Travis Brown on 04-26-2019 04:33 AM:

I think the historical should be the ones with the most hunt titled dogs. Yes, they have more pups but there had to be a reason more people were breeding to them. The ones with the most titled offspring are most likely to have the greatest impact on the breed. I think that is the dogs that belong in the historical list.

I do like to know of sires that are producing high percentages of winners so long as they aren't about all from the same cross. I'm just not sure it should replace what is already there. Maybe another category.

Posted by Redneck Mafia on 04-26-2019 04:58 PM:

I have suggested a once a year list of the overall highest percentages from dogs both sires and dams that meet the criteria of 100 for sires and 20 for dams not limited by time. We know that there are sires that have 30 + % and I suspect that their are some who may even be much higher.

Posted by Richard Lambert on 04-26-2019 06:45 PM:

Jen they will research and send you a list using whatever parameters you request and then you can post it on here. A Redbone guy did that a few years back.

Posted by Redneck Mafia on 04-26-2019 08:38 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Richard Lambert
Jen they will research and send you a list using whatever parameters you request and then you can post it on here. A Redbone guy did that a few years back.

I would think they could post it here and in Coonhound Bloodlines without my request.

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:32 PM.

Show all 18 posts from this thread on one page