Importance of Bitches? - Page 2

One of the best views I read on this point was; for a certain kennel the fore and most important is the female, for the breed as a whole the male is more important.

Ibrahim

We don't see the expression 'mother typical' at all, no, but I've known a lot of
dogs that were exactly that !   Perhaps we have not got that expression
partly 'cos of the whole thing of the males being more prolific (if used a lot) than a
bitch ever can be,  and partly because of the good ol' MCP-ism rife in society &
language ?  Waddya think ?

irahim, I like that saying !  Think it sums up nicely.

Ok, I know sire/dam contributes 50/50. I just don't know how to word what I'm trying to ask. My mistake.

Ibrahim writes "that for the breed as a whole the male is more important".   I would agree with that only as far as keeping up the numbers for future breeding is concerned simply because theycan be used more.

The faults that we see today i.e. character weakness, oversize and too heavy at maturity, roach back, overangulation, unsoundness comes from the overuse of just a few males leading to a reduction in the gene pool.  By using a top male it certainly makes puppy sales much easier but has it really improved the qualities and breed standard required of this breed.   I think the anwer must be NO.  Too many males are coming to the top group too young and sometimes before they have progeny, or, enough progeny on the ground to help us make a proper assessment of their breeding worth.   The continued use of inbreeding on just a few males is that the females are carrying the same blood which is exacerbating the problems in the breed.  The worth of the males will only come if the gene pool is widened for the benefit of the breed as a whole.   In my opinion, if we see the continuation of the bottlenecks that we have seen in the past then the decline rests firmly with the males.   Also, it is my opinion that with so many males (thousands) the future of the breed rests with less than approximate thirty males.

I would argue that the strength of the females is where the future lies until the male gene pool is widened.

Mackenzie

Yes it isnt the MALES who aren't central to the breed, though - its the undiscriminating
over use of some of them that's the problem, down to people I'm afraid !

Mackenzie and Hundmutter I agree. I call it "flavor of the month". One thing I liked about my boy when I was shopping for a male was he didn't have all the flavors of the month in his pedigree--he had a lot of versitile dogs in there--titled and good hips--hunks too and I don't understand why they aren't used more. But I'm not complaining. I had looked at others and there was too much of the same linebreeding in them. I know they are-were-good dogs but I didn't want that bottleneck. I agree also about the females being the future and strength of the breed......................

My "opinion" is that BOTH are as equally important.
A good, strong bitch in pedigree and in the *physical* is extremely important in a breeding program.
You choose what strong males to breed your female to......in the direct hope that she will produce *the father type*.
If you breed FROM or TO a "less than" dog....you can not honestly expect to produce anything "more" than what you bred from.....if you are "lucky", you may get a nice pup or not.   *Not a chance to gamble on, and build your foundation from.*

Bitches are important to contribute 1/2 of the genetics, which "includes" her known character, nerves & the nuturing of her puppies.......
Males are as equally important to contribute 1/2 of the genetics, which includes the "type, strengths & weekness" of himself and his lineage.
*The goal is to always produce "better" than......

JMO...nothing more.....everyone has their own beliefs.

Importance in WHAT aspect?

Importance is ALWAYS a matter of PERSPECTIVE.

A female can have two litters a year... a male could have a litter a day.  HUNDREDS of times more progeny, and potentially MUCH more prolific.  Should the significance of such broad influence be lost on anyone?

While genetics can be for the most part attributed to roughly 50/50 each parent, the female holds the dietary, prenatal, and early developmental deck of cards.  That influence of course does not affect any puppy's ACTUAL genetics.

So, being the goal of linebreeding (causing bottlenecks, if you will) is to create CONSISTENCY, it makes fair sense that the broader influence of the prolificly tested parent, and career accomplished MALE should set the tone from that aspect.  Though I'm sure if a female won the WUSV, she'd be bred for all she's worth.

I have to disagree with Darylehret.  His first sentence is just stating the obvious. I agree that the males are producing hundreds of times more progeny than the females and are much more prolific.  The significance of this is that the faults we see in the breed i.e. character weakness, oversize and too heavy at maturity, roach back, overangulation, unsoundness comes from the overuse of just a few males leading to a reduction in the gene pool.   These males are considered to be the best based on show reports and Sieger placings.  Because of this their value as breeding material should be questioned more closely.  The bottlenecks (linebreeding) that has been followed has produced consistency in this way and in producing most of the dogs with the same colour.

He goes on to say that "Though I'm sure if a female won the WUSV, she'd be bred for all she's worth." which if care is taken is not too bad.  The point here is that even if a female won the WUSV she could still only have two litters per year until her breeding programme is fulfilled however long that may be.

I have not read anything here to change my opinion which is the females are the strength of the breed at this time.

Mackenzie

.