Titles vs pedigree on parents when choosing pup - Page 3

arra, with the level of outcrossing, or lack of inbreeding these days, pedigree says next to nothing as well,

I see and test dozens of dogs every week, you dont want to know how many crap dogs and healthproblems I see with great pedigrees.

certainly, when I see pedigrees filled with weaker dogs I expect weaker dog, as shit rearly falls upwarts

Yes, that's what I meant Hundmutter. Thank you for making my statement more detailed. I just figured everyone could read my mind. LOL
And by "crap shoot", I didn't just mean that the pup would be a failure. I also meant it could turn out not to be what you either expected or what you wanted it for.
Something to also consider when choosing a pup, is what YOU want. Who cares what others think.
On the other spectrum, if a pound/rescue/Heinz 57 dog can be healthy and trained for SAR, agility, obedience, police, etc., why be focused on just titles or pedigree or health. Don't misunderstand me, all can be important and for breeders it should be. And when paying thousands for a pup, it should be. Me personally, I'd categorize importance. Out of titles, pedigree, and health, health would be my number 1.

Looking at parents and looking at healthrecordes wont guarantee anything either....just sayin🙂

Also, “ great pedigrees” differs depending on who is reading or looking at the pedigrees....just saying

90% of people I know can look at parents and not see or understand a lot of what they are seeing...the cliche sounds good, but if you don’t know what you are looking at????, and that’s not even considering that what you are looking might be the exception in the litter and not representative of the dog’s primary genetics.....but looking at the parents sounds great, if everybody KNOWs what they are looking at and where it comes from.

i have personally seen countless dogs over the years that never produced what they were....some do, many don’t.

That's why I used lots of should, could, would, probably. Lol. Hence why I also said crap-shoot. Lol.

It is all about layers, and likelihood. A rescued dog, with absolutely no ancestral aptitude, OR a rescue dog which had loads of worked and titled ancestry somewhere behind it, but the humes just don't get to know that - either COULD be something great, in the hands of the right handler / trainer. Or it could be mediocre. No way to predict that 100%. You just have to try teaching it to do things, and see if it can; likewise, to see what offspring you might get from it, you have to have some way to decide whether it is breedworthy, and then breed with it, and see what you get.

OTOH, a dog which is bred from acknowledged and 'proven' (ie award winning, title bearing, health-cleared) stock will clearly have much better and more obvious POTENTIAL to do great things itself. But as Cliff says, countless dogs fail to reproduce their good qualities. This is equally true phenotypically in the conformation world; you can have a truly beautiful, well put together dog, mated to an equally wonderful bitch - whether or not either or both have actually been seen by competant Show judges and been given top awards. But not all their offspring can be GUARANTEED to be as good as their parents. Some no doubt will be; some may be even better. It is getting results like that which keep the true 'hobby' breeder persevering in their attempts to continue and improve the (any) breed. But anybody with any sense and knowledge of what they are doing knows darn well a LOT of those puppies, probably a majority of them, will just go to non-Show homes because they will fail to live up to the potential.

If I were to be seeking to buy a new dog tomorrow and looking at puppies, these are the things I would do:
Find out which litters are currently available. Find out what lines they come from. A good and honest breeder will not mind advertising that or telling you. Review those lines to decide if dogs in them were dogs I knew anything about, either personally or by repute. If I liked the sound of the likely inheritance of a litter based on that, I would go and see the pups. I would take into account, but not be swayed by, the titles which dogs in the pedigree had won, especially the parents and their parents. I would assess the pup(s) offered, and meet the dam so I could see her interact with the pups and assess her too (whether she lives up to any hype). If at any point I was not satisfied with what I was seeing, I would walk away. If the pup seemed potentially what I was looking for, and the breeder was informative and paperwork seemed in order (I'd check that, not just take it on faith), I would buy the pup. But I would not expect and believe that nothing could go wrong, or that I have a charmed existence, or that either of us could absolutely guarantee that this pup would grow up to do all that I want of it, or win everything I compete in with it. Shit happens. But at least I would know I had tried the best way I could to get a suitable pup.

So in my book, the best thing to do is not decide 'titles are better than genetics', OR the inverse of that statement. The best way to get a puppy is to do your prior research and meet the actual dogs and breeder, not just answer an ad and wait for the plane to land.

Simple facts:
The chance to get a good working dog increases in case you choose parents able and willing to work.
The chance to get a "good looking" dog increases in case you choose good looking parents.
The chance to get a healthy dog increases in case you choose healthy parents.

Something a lot of people (want to) forget: There is no "perfect" dog, but a lot of dogs that are able to fit ones need in case they are trained accordingly...
In a lot of cases it's not the dogs fault, but the humans (raising, lack of training).

Back to the topic: The best pedigree is not able to "guarantee" a good dog.
Genetic reproduction is ALWAYS a loss of 50% of the genetics (no inbreeding, no cloning).
How the heck does a breeder want to know about those 50% in case he or she doesn't actively train and test the own breeding stock? Not in the backyard, but visible for everybody interested, be it in the club, or be it in real life jobs?

Nobody would allow the son of a famous surgeon to do surgery only because of the father - did he really inherit the basics (dexterity, concentration, coolness, the will to learn his job ...)?
But as soon as you talk about dogs a lot of people think a pedigree is able to guarantee everything...

i have personally seen countless dogs over the years that never produced what they were....some do, many don’t.

 

that's not totally true. main factor to reach desirable results lays in objectives, set for breed and in environment in which breeding took place (breeding for breed's betterment vs. breeding for commercial purpose). to succeed in this, foremost must be considered genetic material used in breeding program and ensuing it will fit for objectives, which were set as target.

this is what did Werner Dalm and result was more than impressive. the one breed which did happen to be isolated in different enviroments, did produce different results.

comparison of 20 top producers in DDR and SV

interesting approach Gustav, you advise to go by pedigree but not put much weight on actual parents and healthtesting

we see tons of ads stating grandkids or great great grandkids of so and so,

most famous dogs produce a greater percentage of dogs that dont come near their quality so for me that is of no value to have a great dog in the third or fourth generation