The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 5 of 18 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 171

Thread: Proven Chessie Studs?

  1. #41
    Senior Member Ken Bora's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Burlington, Vermont
    Posts
    11,417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by j towne View Post
    ..... Whenever there is a good chessie field breeding you have to be in the know to get a pup or they are all gone well before the litter is whelped.
    isnt that true for any breed?
    "So what is big is not always the Trout nor the Deer but the chance, the being there. And what is full is not necessarily the creel nor the freezer, but the memory." ~ Aldo Leopold

    "The Greatest Obstacle to Discovery is not Ignorance -- It is the Illusion of Knowledge" ~ Daniel Boorstin

  2. #42
    Senior Member Scott R.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Charlotte, NC
    Posts
    232

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Bora View Post
    isnt that true for any breed?
    True but good Chessie breeding seems to be much more elusive. As a newcomer to the Chessie world a few months back I was hopelessly lost until Julie R. came to my rescue.

  3. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Fall City, WA
    Posts
    4,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott R. View Post
    True but good Chessie breeding seems to be much more elusive. As a newcomer to the Chessie world a few months back I was hopelessly lost until Julie R. came to my rescue.

    Nothing elusive about it, you'll just be on a waiting list like everybody else for anything of significant FT x FT breeding. What is missed here? Folks active in FT see a FT dog working, say a young female running trials before she's even QAA'd. If they are in the market, they'll be talking to the young dogs' owner and express serious interest and get on an "unofficial" waiting list before a stud has even been chosen. Poof, first litter is sold. All of a sudden, this same dog becomes an AFC and all of a sudden, everybody and their brother who's "now" interested but, before never had a clue because they don't follow trials wants to get on a waiting list.....waiting list is now three litters deep which might be unlikely the bitch ever has three more litters because she's still running FT's.....

    Nothing elusive or secretive. You just have to be watching what is going on around you if you want something like that.... ACC puts out a publication of every FT placement by a Chessie. It's a good place to go if you'd like to get in on that type of information early and start following dogs you can't just go down the street to see run a trial.

  4. #44
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Aubrey TX
    Posts
    5,880

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul "Happy" Gilmore View Post
    No, T. I would not breed an at risk to a carrier. It is irresponsible breeding IMO. Sure, if people aren't educated they'll buy the pups because they don't know any better.

    If I had a high level, very special dog..... Something above a MH x JH/SH breeding, I would think "if" I had years and years of experience breeding and running dogs like a few people who we all know, I would say breeding a dog which was a carrier x carrier or even carrier x at risk "MIGHT" be acceptable. I say this with a very strong feeling that the person doing the breeding would need to have years of experience with the dogs and years of field trial success to know that what he/she might be breeding was "that special" and needed to be bred to contribute to the gene pool.

    There are way too many MH /SH dogs which are clear or only carriers to use as a stud than chance breeding any at-risk dogs x carrier dogs. I don't think that is responsible.
    I agree that breeding an affected, (lets call it what it is shall we), to a carrier or a carrier to carrier would be all right if the breeder really knew their dogs and were willing to cull the affecteds. To do anything else is irresponsible.

    I attempted to do a carrier x carrier breeding sometime ago, knowing darn well that was what I was going to have to do. It didn't take thank goodness. I now know I don't have the stomach for such things. But I will NOT condemn someone who does do this type of breeding.

    Angie

  5. #45
    Senior Member classact2731's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Gwynn's Island Va
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angie B View Post
    I agree that breeding an affected, (lets call it what it is shall we), to a carrier or a carrier to carrier would be all right if the breeder really knew their dogs and were willing to cull the affecteds. To do anything else is irresponsible.

    I attempted to do a carrier x carrier breeding sometime ago, knowing darn well that was what I was going to have to do. It didn't take thank goodness. I now know I don't have the stomach for such things. But I will NOT condemn someone who does do this type of breeding.

    Angie

    Angie, I agree with you. Dm is a very highly debated subject with a clear divide as to who accepts what science. As the so called expert geneticists say it should be used as a tool not an exclude r. Until they know more to do so is has the potential to do as much harm as the DM itself. We in the chessie world are split in two camps the out with the lepers and the lets not throw the baby out with the bath water. I do not think we should breed on a whim but if it compliments the bitch and you do not have a better fit then you breed and over the next few gen you work towards clear status.To rid DM is a multi year process not two generations so include all diversity and make smart choices and in time we will be where we all want healthy workable chessies that we know and love. JMO and we all have them
    Scott

  6. #46
    Senior Member Hunt'EmUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Angie B View Post
    I agree that breeding an affected, (lets call it what it is shall we), to a carrier or a carrier to carrier would be all right if the breeder really knew their dogs and [B]were willing to cull the affecteds. \
    How would you cull the affected? The disease doesn't come about until 7-8yrs approximately retiring age, until there is actually disease all dogs are only "at risk"

    Unless my understanding of DM is wrong; genetically You have clear>carrier>at risk (never shows, no disease)<at risk (affected shows disease), in some breeds there are even reported cases of individuals diagnosed with DM that carry no copy of the supposed affector gene, who are genetically clear. While a useful tool, until a test can absolutely diagnosis a condition it's results need to be taken with a grain of salt. Breeders know a lot more about the character of their lines than what can be diagnosis with an unreliable test, most keep excellent records, so if they have a few (at risk) or (carrier) individuals from several generations, who have never shown or produced a positive case of DM. They probably feel pretty safe in their breeding decisions on whether or not to breed (carrier or at risk) to each other. They've put the time in. On the other hand a breeder who knows of a case of DM in their lines they might be more picky in their choices of clear breedings.
    "They's Just DAWGS"
    "Hunting is a skill to be learned whether you do it early or late it still needs to be learned"
    "I train dogs, Not papers"

    GMRH HRCH Quick MH (most importantly Duck/Upland Enthusiast) Rip. July-2014
    MHR HRCH Lakota MH (most importantly Upland/Duck Enthusiast)
    HR Storm.. the Pup (Beginning Upland & Waterfowl Enthusiast)

  7. #47
    Senior Member classact2731's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Gwynn's Island Va
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hunt'EmUp View Post
    How would you cull the affected? The disease doesn't come about until 7-8yrs approximately retiring age, until there is actually disease all dogs are only "at risk"

    Unless my understanding of DM is wrong; genetically You have clear>carrier>at risk (never shows, no disease)<at risk (affected shows disease), in some breeds there are even reported cases of individuals diagnosed with DM that carry no copy of the supposed affector gene, who are genetically clear. While a useful tool, until a test can absolutely diagnosis a condition it's results need to be taken with a grain of salt. Breeders know a lot more about the character of their lines than what can be diagnosis with an unreliable test, most keep excellent records, so if they have a few (at risk) or (carrier) individuals from several generations, who have never shown or produced a positive case of DM. They probably feel pretty safe in their breeding decisions on whether or not to breed (carrier or at risk) to each other. They've put the time in. On the other hand a breeder who knows of a case of DM in their lines they might be more picky in their choices of clear breedings.
    Agree with you x2,
    Scott

  8. #48
    Senior Member Ken Bora's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Burlington, Vermont
    Posts
    11,417

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hunt'EmUp View Post
    How would you cull the affected?....
    buy the DM cheek swab test for all pups in litter and have a bucket of water ready when the tests come back
    "So what is big is not always the Trout nor the Deer but the chance, the being there. And what is full is not necessarily the creel nor the freezer, but the memory." ~ Aldo Leopold

    "The Greatest Obstacle to Discovery is not Ignorance -- It is the Illusion of Knowledge" ~ Daniel Boorstin

  9. #49
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Fall City, WA
    Posts
    4,622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hunt'EmUp View Post
    How would you cull the affected? The disease doesn't come about until 7-8yrs approximately retiring age, until there is actually disease all dogs are only "at risk"

    Unless my understanding of DM is wrong; genetically You have clear>carrier>at risk (never shows, no disease)<at risk (affected shows disease), in some breeds there are even reported cases of individuals diagnosed with DM that carry no copy of the supposed affector gene, who are genetically clear. While a useful tool, until a test can absolutely diagnosis a condition it's results need to be taken with a grain of salt. Breeders know a lot more about the character of their lines than what can be diagnosis with an unreliable test, most keep excellent records, so if they have a few (at risk) or (carrier) individuals from several generations, who have never shown or produced a positive case of DM. They probably feel pretty safe in their breeding decisions on whether or not to breed (carrier or at risk) to each other. They've put the time in. On the other hand a breeder who knows of a case of DM in their lines they might be more picky in their choices of clear breedings.

    In theory, you are right. I know of a breeder(FT, very well respected east) who's had two live to be 14. Died of old age. It was a third generation breeding. The breedings produced a few FC's and it was before the DM test was available. The problem is not the knowledgable breeders it's, the guys who are using the logic you explained although, have ZERO history of owning and training dogs for multiple generations before making the decision.

    The long time breeders are using it as a tool and recognizing the "potential". The short term thinkers are using the excuses for ignoring it.

  10. #50
    Senior Member dlsweep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    117

    Default

    The DM research paper by Dr. Bell states "it is obvious that the vast majority of "At-risk" dogs will not develop DM".

    50% decline in breed registrations over the last 10 years.
    60-65% of tested dogs are carrier or at-risk
    There is no test for temperament.
    Hip dysplasia occurs in the breed at twenty-something%
    All dogs will die of something. I had to put a dog down last year from cancer. She may have been at-risk, who knows. It is unfortunate when any dog dies.
    None of us are "pro-DM"

    So, knowing this, how could anyone condemn someone for doing a carrier to carrier breeding. Regardless of pedigree, titles, etc.

    The people above my pay grade will also talk about dillution of the gene pool via popular stud effect.

    Just to be clear, in this hypothetical breeding, each pup has a 25% chance of being at-risk for a disease that usually does not affect the dog until it is 7. And most at-risk dogs will not have DM. Yet, some still need to condemn others for this? If it is not something you would like to do, fine. If you want to only buy a clear pup, fine. But I think the moral high-ground being claimed here is shaky at best. Let's stay together, and not become split. Unfortunately, I think that toothpaste is already out of the tube.

    Let's support each others right to breed our dogs as we see fit. If you don't like my breeding choices, move on. I just don't see the need to condemn others.

    Damon Sweep
    Last edited by dlsweep; 07-02-2012 at 04:24 PM.

Posting Permissions

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