Joe Maitland
UKC Forum Member
Registered: Jun 2003
Location: Greenleaf, WI
Posts: 839 |
Jim-
you need to cuff yourself up side the head. The whole point is to uncover the guys who HAVEN'T taken a reproducing dud and spent a bunch of money to promote it.
I like the idea. It has merit. It would work for the smaller breeds especially- like Reds and Plotts. But it would put poor Sara under the table around walker issue deadline. There's probably 200 walkers tied for 2nd place with 2 nite champions out of 20-30 pups.
I know of a redbone that died a few years back. I believe his 6th or 7th pup just made nite champion and he had 28 or so on the ground. A guy ought to check UKC on him for sure, but I know he did cross well on the 4 or so bitches he covered.
One things for sure. It'll still have an asterisk behind it due to the lack of different matings. I can take my best male and best female, cross them, raise all the pups, and finish them all out to Nt.Ch. It still won't present a clear picture of my dog's reproducing abilities.
I still think like my idea of making UKC records open to the public for free (some how), so that responsible breeders could query their next cross based on %, #, breeding, and any other recorded stat. on a dog.
IE: I want to be able to go online and search a dog by UKC # to find a stud that: (Hypothetical here now) 1. Is a direct son of Tex 2. Has a 10%+ reproduction record 3. Has never been written up 4. Finished to Nt.Ch. in three hunts with 3 first place wins.
The point is, we pay to play and pay to register, so we ought to be able to utilize UKC's data.
Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged
|