Bitework Question: How should trainer progress. - Page 20

So this person also had success in getting progeny from Ulla that were very territorial. I mentioned Ulla as she is the full sister to Uncas ( the dog on which my dog is 2-3 ).

Fan the trainer does IPO, PSA, and PP and has titled many dogs.

GSDFan,

Completely understood & noted.

Thanks for the clarification.

2-3 inbreeding on a very territorial dog from untitled parents without a purpose for the results is not what I would consider responsible. I'd say if you are looking for "causes" or most significant contributor in the pedigree it's right there.

Mith: Fan the trainer does IPO, PSA, and PP and has titled many dogs.

GSDfan: More information is good, would have been helpful to state that when you mentioned his IPO credentials.

I just hope that this Trainer has the patience of a Saint, otherwise if Mithuna carries on with him the way he does here (see for instance what Koots posted on page 3), I predict Mith will very soon end up WITHOUT a Trainer any more.

Allan 1955 I wonder what Prager saw in the picture, i saw a nice dog. The reverse mask thing is a myth never proven to be accurate.

 

You see, that is the difference people see . One  sees things which other don't   see.

FYI, Reverse mask is a "myth"( as you say) which works almost 100% of a time. I have learned this from Jiri Novotny whose theories of "myths" made his dogs legendary ( created z Pohranicni straze).  When he talks I make notes. His knowledge is priceless. To say that this does not work is not true. This reverse mask -> Ex von Riedstern connection and subsequent temperament conection  works more then other phenotypic ( I mean markings)   traits I know of . Also people who think that dog from 11 generations back can not influence current dogs  has no clue about genetics  theoretically and practically. All bloodline theory AND practice  is based on the fact that dogs from way back are influencing current dogs. 

Point in case is that we can look at pictures of dogs all the way to Ex and see the reversed mask going back like a red line. That is basically - proof is in the pudding . The same way the reversed ( not "backwards")  mask is following through generations other traits like for example in temperament will also do the same. Reverse mask from Ex - especially if done over Ingo v Rudingen is then usually in high percentage dogs tied with specific temperament. Temperament of type 1 dogs.  I have seen literally tens if not well over hundred   dogs which, except in  rare exceptions, confirm this. 

 Some may not believe it and I do not care. Some  people learn from it and for them I am posting it.   

by BRADY BEE: on 29 June 2016 - 15:06

Jeeso Mithuna. I never suggested any such thing. I was trying to point out that if anyone had been interested in the pedigree, it was easy to find.!!!!
=======
Hans @ GSD fan and othjer conspiracy theorists. :

It does not matter if I would know the pedigree or not. WHICH I HAVE NOT! I am talking about reversed mask for at least 10 years now. Go to my forum and do search or even probably here. Years ago I did not know that Mithuna has dog or better yet will have dog with Ex and her dog will have reversed mask and thus I generated this for years going conspiracy.LOL . Ex v Redestern factor is a known fact to thousands of breeders. And all this conspiracy you are developing here is laughable to people who actually breed these dogs.

BW: Just to explain the math to you…there are 2046 possible ancestors in an 11 generation pedigree…of those 2046, people are pointing to a dog that shows up about 10 times in that pedigree.


Hans: This is amazing ignorance by someone who claims to know dogs. Genetics do not work like this. This is just too much for me to go into.

I hope the whole of you last post was not directed at me Prager, as I have zero interest in Mithuna , his bitch , or you. As I have already said, I was only pointing out that the pedigree was easy to find . Also , I said nothing about a conspiracy. You must have my post confused with someone else's, and I mentioned nothing about year's ago. I said a long time ago. Perhaps I should have been more specific and said months ago .