how far back in a ped do you look
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Joined
·
9,147 Posts
if the dog is registered and has papers it is considered purebred. HOWEVER there are people who do things like paper hang , those that use one stud but register it to another ect very dishonest people out there so the only true way IMO to know what you have is to produce the dog yourself { meaning generations of breeding } , not telling you to go breed theres alot more involved then just that. I find it very hard to trust people these days and go by there word. If the dog is papered you can call it purebred though, anything without papers you never know what is in there .
Joined
·
9,147 Posts
thats what I said , but thats usually all you have to go on ,unless you can prove the person lied and have evidence to back it up and report it , { you would probably lose your papers in that case } thats really all you can go on , you have to take it with a grain of salt it is what it is.
Joined
·
314 Posts
You must do your own research here, and not listen to others. While there are many pretenders out there, there are still honest breeders. It's best to look to the breeders who have been at it the longest. A 30 year breeder knows more than a 10 year breeder, always. If any breeder speaks of "mixing" you can be sure they didn't produce much to begin with.
The only part of the ped that matters are the first 14 dogs, that's it. It shows "what's been done lately." Pups come out like their grandparents and great grandparents. Just because a dog way back is in ped, it don't mean nothing now.
BTW, I would question the respectability of any kennel who mentions "experiments."
And remember this: Never trust a breeder who breeds for a living.
im hoping lisa chimes in here. i was reading one of her posts the other day and she said that...but ive heard it many times before from other honorable kennels too. it just got me thinking of genetics etc.
Joined
·
776 Posts
maybe mixing different lines to get desireable traits . If you are breeding from a line that lacks something specific , finding a line that is strong with that trait and doesnt lack in the other traits you desire is the way to improve your line over time ... its something left to people that know the game .
right.
im actually asking a personal question here. how far back DO YOU go into a ped and still feel the dog is purebred? there has to be a limit or we would all have malosians-----thanks for your response eagle!
Joined
·
13,373 Posts
That is a personal question you have to ask yourself. How far back in the ped if there was a mixed breeding would you consider enough generations to have a purbred dog again. I think the answer will vary on every one who answers it and with no "right" answer. Some will say the dog never can be considered pure no matter how far back. Other might say 7 generations. I think there is no right answer to your question just opinions.
yeah, opinions is what i was lookin for
http://www.gopitbull.com/bloodline-discussion/31331-pitter-staff-what-reason-those-breedings.html
lol at what sadie said in that post
lol at what sadie said in that post
Joined
·
13,373 Posts
I do have a few dogs with pitterstaffs in the ped however I the ones have bred are true to the original form and structure of the breed. What I have a HUGE problem with is is these UKC breeders breeding AST's and APBT's and making these huge bully looking dogs. The few dogs I have in my yard are still true to the APBT and do show in the ADBA and have done really well. I use to be against pitterstaffs all together until I owned a few and have changed my mind. This goes back to not only breeding the pedigree but also the dog in front of you. Dixie may be a pitterstaff but DAMN that dog is all bulldog!
Now when I was talking about experimenting it was with different bloodlines I have in my house and they are a total outcross so we will see what they produce. What you were asking in your post was about mixing breeds right? Like mixing a American Bulldog with an APBT that would be a mixed breeding.
it was more about pitterstaffs, ive heard this name thrown around just rarely...and it always seemed to be by knowledgeable people, it just got me curious because i did a search and saw nothing but hate. your recent post got me thinking about it is all- that a genetics on a scientific level etc.
Joined
·
98 Posts
LOL this statement contradicts itself. I would hardly call any kennel respectable that (A) breeds dogs of mixed heritage, or (B) does a breeding to experiment!
Sounds like turd producers to me.
i used the word experiment in the same context lisa did, or at least i ment it that way-my bad. same with heritage...i guess the proper word would be bloodline.
Joined
·
98 Posts
Mixing 2 bloodlines would be referred to as an outcross. Nothing wrong with that IMO. Some of the best dogs on the planet are an outcross.
IMO a breeding should always be done with a plan and an intention. Not just to throw 2 dogs together to see what you get, AKA an experiment. If there isn't a solid reason to do it, then DON'T!
That's the way I look at it.
IMO a breeding should always be done with a plan and an intention. Not just to throw 2 dogs together to see what you get, AKA an experiment. If there isn't a solid reason to do it, then DON'T!
That's the way I look at it.
just a bad choice of words on my part. that and most of the people here are quick to jump on somebody...still better than the other pb forums though.
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Join the discussion
