When researching a pups pedigree, BOTH parents should ideally be proven producers of desired traits, is that correct? Or is the dam more important? And, to know if they will be good producers, there must be some "mistakes" before it an be proven?
It definitely does seem like more emphasis is placed on the sire-when I took my pup to schutzhund people asked who the stud was-never asked who the dam was-I picked my female because I liked the mother line
Stud dogs seem to be more well known but the dams are equally if not more important IMHO.
Sires have a bigger impact on the breed as a whole because they can be used hundreds of times as opposed to the bitch being used 4-6 times, but the dam not only passes down her genes, she contributes to early imprinting those first 8 weeks of life.
THAT is exactly what I am beginning to understand. Many, here and in other countries, simply pick a nice female with good temperament and breed to an outstanding male. You are probably narrowing the resulting offspring to a 25% success rate.
There is a sure bias because the male dogs are usually stronger in the work and are therefore more likely to be titled because the best trainers will usually train and title males.
Good breeders and trainers know when a dog is solid and a nice prospect without having to "prove it on the field." This is at least the case for pragmatic people who are not emotionally invested in a dog and have on blinders because of it. When they have a good female they know it. She really does not have to be worked because when you play with her and put her under any kind of stress even if it is just for house pet training you can see what the dog is under the hood.
If the female has nice strong grips, nice drives, is solidly built and athletic, is confident in new places with new people and new situations, and doesn't wilt under sensible pressure with corrective tools you know you have a winner. No need to hit the field and title. Of course you need to know dogs and see a lot of them to have a frame of reference from which to make a good judgement. That takes experience.
Then you try a breeding and see what happens. If she produces nice then you can keep using her. If not then you don't.
There are a lot of breeders that treat the female more as an oven to "cook" the genetics of the males. IF you plan on working your females, though, I would rather see then prove their worth too and not just be a second thought. I do realize, though, that testing and not working the girls is quite common in the Mali world. They are looking for exceptional males and build their programs on those males. There used to be an old German shepherd that also depended on his males' genetics to continue his line of herding dogs. He wanted a sound female that would not hinder, but also would not influence, much, the genetics of his strong male lines.
Yes I read an interview with one of the top trainers( can't remember which one now:blush who felt the dam should be a nice friendly, healthy female and that was enough.
The old German Shepherd. Were you referring to Kirschental?
I know who you are referring to Lisa .
I don't think he was the rule though because if you look into the real old master breeders like "SO" Eiselen counted on the strength of the local working shepherd females.
If you look to the outstanding males , using popular v d Wolfen , Falk as an example --- you see the mother line , Fina, anchoring , and allowing for a wide range of combinations, where the strength of the genetics can be transmitted.
gsdluvr, no, Kirschental based his program on females.
Yes, Carmen, I think he was an exception.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
German Shepherds Forum
2.6M posts
121.9K members
Since 2002
A forum community dedicated to all German Shepherd owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about bloodlines, training, breeding, service dogs, and more!