The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 8 of 14 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 139

Thread: Will the EIC ignorance have a major negative impact?

  1. #71
    Senior Member John Lash's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Pittsburgh, Pa.
    Posts
    1,884

    Default

    To be successful at FT puppy placement is a consideration, but breeding is everything!

    Often times if someone says it's raining, it really is...
    John Lash

    "If you run Field Trials, you learn to swallow your disappointment quickly."

    "Field trials are not a game for good dogs. They're for great dogs with great training." E. Graham

  2. #72
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Pa.
    Posts
    5,317

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Lash View Post
    To be successful at FT puppy placement is a consideration, but breeding is everything!

    Often times if someone says it's raining, it really is...
    This is the nature v nurture argument ....here is a thread where it is discussed at length http://www.retrievertraining.net/for...nature+nurture

    john
    "i guess the old saying 'those of us that think we know everything annoy those of you that does' " --bobbyb 9/13/06

    "A Good Dog is a Good Dog"

  3. #73
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Lash View Post
    To be successful at FT puppy placement is a consideration, but breeding is everything!

    Often times if someone says it's raining, it really is...
    If breeding is everything, how do you account for the number of duds from some high profiled breedings and the amount of dyplastic dogs?

    Like I wrote, if winning FT' is your game, then by all means go for a pup that is clear or a carrier. But, lets not pretend the practice is bettering the breed!

    BTW, I would have zero problem owning a female "carrier" for hunting because I would have her spayed at two years of age and have no interest is raising a litter of pups. Whether I kept the dog would depend on her suitablity for actual hunting.
    Last edited by Franco; 12-15-2013 at 12:09 PM.
    It's such a shame that in the USA, defending Liberty has become such a heroic deed.

  4. #74
    Senior Member EdA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Franco View Post
    If breeding is everything, how do you account for the number of duds from some high profiled breedings and the amount of dyplastic dogs?

    Like I wrote, if winning FT' is your game, then by all means go for a pup that is clear or a carrier. But, lets not pretend the practice is bettering the breed!
    You might do a little research into the formation of the OFA, the Baker Institute for Animal Health Research at Cornell University (one of the first supporters was John Olin owner of King Buck whose image is a symbol for the Institute), and the impetus for the DNA tests for CNM and EIC, frankly Franco on this one you are as full if $hit as a Christmas turkey.

  5. #75
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EdA View Post
    You might do a little research into the formation of the OFA, the Baker Institute for Animal Health Research at Cornell University (one of the first supporters was John Olin owner of King Buck whose image is a symbol for the Institute), and the impetus for the DNA tests for CNM and EIC, frankly Franco on this one you are as full if $hit as a Christmas turkey.
    So, you think breeding carriers is "improving the breed"?
    It's such a shame that in the USA, defending Liberty has become such a heroic deed.

  6. #76
    Junior Member Handler in Training's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    24

    Default

    [QUOTE=Franco;1170968]I said, "many of today's FT breedings" I didn't say all. All of my Labs have come from well known FT dogs. I just lost the best HUNTING dog I've ever owned and trained. She was almost 15 years old, has FC NAFC MD's Cotton Picking Cropper as one grandsire and FC AFC Gunstock Butch as the other. Both were bred to bitches sired by FC's. I picked that breeding because I hunted with both the sire and dam for an entire season and wanted a level-headed hunting companion and that is what I saw in the sire and dam. That was what I got. But, I have also seen numerous dogs that were not suitable for hunting ducks out of a blind. Unless, one doesn't mind the constant corrections of "nick QUIET or nick SIT! I have seen too many experienced owners trying to justify their jacked up Labs. If that's what you want, more power you. I want a retriever that can turn it off and on and that is NOT a trait top FT breedings strive for. That trait is never considered![/QUOTE]

    You are certainly entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that you are making an overgeneralization. I'm certainly not saying there aren't breeders out there that get caught up and forget about the whole picture. However, I don't know any of them. The ones that I know, strive for the same traits you have said you are looking for, and more.

    I hear people say way too often that a FT dog is "too jacked up to hunt." It rubs me wrong. Are there FT labs that are too jacked up? Possibly. I don't personally know of a single one though. If you do, avoid those breedings. But, to generalize that, that trait is never considered is a poor generalization. The way I understand it is that this thread is about how it can be considered a poor choice to limit our breeding stock to only the dogs that are EIC clear. It has been very well pointed out by John and Tammy, as well as others, that focusing on any single trait is a poor choice. (Sorry to John and Tammy if I am overgeneralizing or misunderstanding. God I hate giving Fallon credit for being logical and not just arguing for the sake of argument.)
    Eric Webb

  7. #77
    Senior Member EdA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Franco View Post
    So, you think breeding carriers is "improving the breed"?
    That we can identify carriers and avoid producing affecteds has significantly improved the breed but then your argument was that breeding for performance was flawed resulting in your having flawed dogs while my experience dating to 1969 is very different than yours. No group is more concerned about health and soundness than those who breed for performance. Just because you have had bad luck or made bad choices does not entitle you to condemn the entire sport.

    How much of your financial resources have you contributed to what you identify as "improving the breed"?

  8. #78
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,669

    Default

    [QUOTE=Handler in Training;1170981]
    Quote Originally Posted by Franco View Post
    I said, "many of today's FT breedings" I didn't say all. All of my Labs have come from well known FT dogs. I just lost the best HUNTING dog I've ever owned and trained. She was almost 15 years old, has FC NAFC MD's Cotton Picking Cropper as one grandsire and FC AFC Gunstock Butch as the other. Both were bred to bitches sired by FC's. I picked that breeding because I hunted with both the sire and dam for an entire season and wanted a level-headed hunting companion and that is what I saw in the sire and dam. That was what I got. But, I have also seen numerous dogs that were not suitable for hunting ducks out of a blind. Unless, one doesn't mind the constant corrections of "nick QUIET or nick SIT! I have seen too many experienced owners trying to justify their jacked up Labs. If that's what you want, more power you. I want a retriever that can turn it off and on and that is NOT a trait top FT breedings strive for. That trait is never considered![/QUOTE]

    You are certainly entitled to your opinion. My opinion is that you are making an overgeneralization. I'm certainly not saying there aren't breeders out there that get caught up and forget about the whole picture. However, I don't know any of them. The ones that I know, strive for the same traits you have said you are looking for, and more.

    I hear people say way too often that a FT dog is "too jacked up to hunt." It rubs me wrong. Are there FT labs that are too jacked up? Possibly. I don't personally know of a single one though. If you do, avoid those breedings. But, to generalize that, that trait is never considered is a poor generalization. The way I understand it is that this thread is about how it can be considered a poor choice to limit our breeding stock to only the dogs that are EIC clear. It has been very well pointed out by John and Tammy, as well as others, that focusing on any single trait is a poor choice. (Sorry to John and Tammy if I am overgeneralizing or misunderstanding. God I hate giving Fallon credit for being logical and not just arguing for the sake of argument.)
    Focusing on a single trait is a poor choice, I agree. And, breedong carriers for FT might improve once chanes of taking home more ribbons.

    But, looking at the breed in general, in what the breed is intended for, I'm not buying into breeding carriers is improving the breed.

    Again, FT is a speciality game just as Bench is a speciality game. Both represent opposite extremes and breeding for those extreme's may make one more competitve. But, at what price does the breed suffer in playing games which was never the original intent of the breed?.
    It's such a shame that in the USA, defending Liberty has become such a heroic deed.

  9. #79
    Senior Member Franco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Lafayette, La.
    Posts
    10,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EdA View Post
    That we can identify carriers and avoid producing affecteds has significantly improved the breed but then your argument was that breeding for performance was flawed resulting in your having flawed dogs while my experience dating to 1969 is very different than yours. No group is more concerned about health and soundness than those who breed for performance. Just because you have had bad luck or made bad choices does not entitle you to condemn the entire sport.

    How much of your financial resources have you contributed to what you identify as "improving the breed"?
    First of all, I have never condemed FT's! If anythng I have served as an officer for two clubs and have contributed a lot of time and money to thier development! And, I approciate the level of work at the AA level. However, I know that what kind of dog is being produced for hunting is not a consideration. That FT potential is the goal.

    Bad luck, yes. The last 4 pups I've purchased have been dysplastic. The one I thought could win, though OFA Good, became dysplastic at 5 years.

    Those in the know can avoid breeding affecteds. What about the others who will continue to produce affecteds? I'll differ with you that the FT group is the most concerned with health and soundness. Just look at all the high profiled dogs in the past that where known dysplastic and/or produced a high number of dysplastic offspring because it gave them the best chance of winning a speaciality game.
    Last edited by Franco; 12-15-2013 at 12:53 PM.
    It's such a shame that in the USA, defending Liberty has become such a heroic deed.

  10. #80
    Senior Member Charles C.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Marshall, TX
    Posts
    1,549

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Franco View Post
    If breeding is everything, how do you account for the number of duds from some high profiled breedings and the amount of dyplastic dogs?

    Like I wrote, if winning FT' is your game, then by all means go for a pup that is clear or a carrier. But, lets not pretend the practice is bettering the breed!

    BTW, I would have zero problem owning a female "carrier" for hunting because I would have her spayed at two years of age and have no interest is raising a litter of pups. Whether I kept the dog would depend on her suitablity for actual hunting.
    I'm pretty sure hip, elbow and retinal dysplasia is way down over the last 30 or 40 years. The genetic tests have all but eliminated affected dogs (EIC & CNM) especially in field trial dogs. You probably would have an argument relating to cruciate issues, but to suggest that field trialers are focused on talent at the expense of health is pretty ridiculous.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •