Gundog Training Forum

Who on the forum will hold their hands up and say my bitch is not worth breeding from?.Before people start to dissect a stud dogs worth they have to have a close look at the bitch they want linning because i can tell you one thing there aint many good enough to be bred from.Regarding the new phenomenon of health testing it is certainly a good thing to pursue,especially if your dogs are crap in the field and you need a new angle to sell pups

i didnt want to be the one to mention that..... but i dont see none of the top people bragging about health tests, im all for them, but its the same people banging on about it in every thread.

i have a kennel of 8 dogs, 5 of which are bitches, one is not old enough to breed from, and from the other 4, i only have one labrador i would breed from, and she is now 6, so its looking quite unlikley.

scot-ish wrote:but i dont see none of the top people bragging about health tests,

I think this is a seperate thread and should be headed 'why do lab triallers healthtest and spaniel triallers dont....

This thread is about what makes a top stud dog, and Im argunig Id like us all to have full access to breeding info and any results (performance or health) that exist for dogs, or have I missed something (which I may have)

do the top owners then only allow there stud dog to mate a bitch which is kc Reg'd?? not from my knowledge, so these would never be counted, so you would never see the full picture from the start.

there is then the fact that if none of the dogs are sold to trialing homes, these dogs will never enter a trial, so how do you know the true value of the results, of 100 pups, where only 3 were trialled and one became a champ. does that mean only 1% of the offspring made it?

its all well and good asking for the KC to produce the information, but it will never give a true picture of the dog, so instead we still have to do it as we do now, research yourself, get yourself into the right circles, listen to the "Pro's" and heed their advice, If they are using certain dogs, there are reasons for it.

for Example, Mr Openshaw has now taken on Beggarbush Boris, which means he see's something special in that dog, and if i were looking into a springer stud, i would look at this dog, see how it compliments a bitch i had, and decide from there.

unfortunately, us "noobs" getting into the sport, need to look at the top guys, take advice, and learn from them, and follow on what they are doing. its seems to be working, after all we are not re-inventing trialling.

Seems to me as soon as anyone mentions Health testing & top triallers weather good or bad points (not nessaceraly about the trailers themselves) people get touchy.
There is a database on the KC website for Health testing It would be intresting to see collated results for the trails the dogs enter under KC rules.

I agree with the offspring comments above from scot-ish thats the same comment i mentioned ealier in thread.

Another good topic: Do top triallers check pedigrees for bitches who uses their stud dogs?

If all KC info is made available you could actually make better sense of the original post. of the 100 pups a dog sires you could see which had entered trials...you could then see the results of those entries, so instead of the original post saying xxxx had 50 litters and xxxx had 15 therefor the second is better?? you could say xxx of dog As pups and xxx of dog B's pups trialled and see really which produced the most winners etc..... as it is we dont really know it its a 'winning by volume' game or not. I dont know but Id like to.

Agree.

arwesa wrote:If all KC info is made available you could actually make better sense of the original post. of the 100 pups a dog sires you could see which had entered trials...you could then see the results of those entries, so instead of the original post saying xxxx had 50 litters and xxxx had 15 therefor the second is better?? you could say xxx of dog As pups and xxx of dog B's pups trialled and see really which produced the most winners etc..... as it is we dont really know it its a 'winning by volume' game or not. I dont know but Id like to.

that is right, but my point being, if i took my dog to a top stud, but my bitch wasnt KC, i paid the £500 stud fee, as the rest, i then had a litter of seven, sold to my mates, and these dogs worked like a dream on the local shoots, and plenty of people say, as you hear all the time " they would have trialled no bother" this info is not on the KC, and still requires us, to research, and even with research, we still might not hear about these dogs.

again, a litter produces 7 pups, and these all go to trial men, but at 6 months, these people decide these dogs wont be "Top" dogs, and punt them on, whereas. yourself for example, was told your dog wouldnt make it(apologies if im wrong, but i remember you mentioning you wer told it was soft or shy or something) but you've now put the time into the dog, and made it the dog it is now. whats to say these 7 pups couldnt have made something, with enough time and effort from the top folks?? butinstead they decide to move onto the next litter, and again, and again, untill they find that dog which will be a champion.

im all for the info on the KC, but i think it would take a long long time, before it was worth anything for research.

Good post Scot-tish, heaps better than some of the sweeping generalisations on this thread which seem to me to be utter tosh....

scot-ish wrote:

arwesa wrote:If all KC info is made available you could actually make better sense of the original post. of the 100 pups a dog sires you could see which had entered trials...you could then see the results of those entries, so instead of the original post saying xxxx had 50 litters and xxxx had 15 therefor the second is better?? you could say xxx of dog As pups and xxx of dog B's pups trialled and see really which produced the most winners etc..... as it is we dont really know it its a 'winning by volume' game or not. I dont know but Id like to.

that is right, but my point being, if i took my dog to a top stud, but my bitch wasnt KC, i paid the £500 stud fee, as the rest, i then had a litter of seven, sold to my mates, and these dogs worked like a dream on the local shoots, and plenty of people say, as you hear all the time " they would have trialled no bother" this info is not on the KC, and still requires us, to research, and even with research, we still might not hear about these dogs.

again, a litter produces 7 pups, and these all go to trial men, but at 6 months, these people decide these dogs wont be "Top" dogs, and punt them on, whereas. yourself for example, was told your dog wouldnt make it(apologies if im wrong, but i remember you mentioning you wer told it was soft or shy or something) but you've now put the time into the dog, and made it the dog it is now. whats to say these 7 pups couldnt have made something, with enough time and effort from the top folks?? butinstead they decide to move onto the next litter, and again, and again, untill they find that dog which will be a champion.

im all for the info on the KC, but i think it would take a long long time, before it was worth anything for research.

Ive no idea if my dog will make it...I believe she will, her breeder believes she will, I think I may have made a comment at some point about how another pro trainer I went to made a generalisation after 20 mins which he has since changed his mind on (point being dogs dont always do their best when in strange places and very young), or you may be referring to the other comment I may have made about a championship winning bitch that the trainer was told by another very famous trainer to 'move her on' at 14 months....


As for the 'that dog would have trialled comment'....I hear guns saying that about every peg dog mutt just for picking up a bird...I dont think you can base an argument on shoot day niceties.

The measure of a top stud dog should be producing top dogs which prove they are top dogs. for triallers thats trial results. health scores etc. are another angle for some, in both cases being able to look at all aspects is important. you dont choose your stud from pedigree and paper results alone, but surely youre better off with a balance of all. as it is the KC is restricting that balancethrough not opening up information and in so doing isnt helping its own desires to improve genetic diversity in all breeding.