This is a placeholder text
Group text
by workingdogz on 04 January 2012 - 15:01
Thats the problem, is that people will spout "son/daughter/gr son/daughter of ________" and THAT dog was a great producer of hips/drive blah blah.
Look at the immediate dogs in front of you, then look behind them, what have those dogs produced, what lines do those dogs cross well to and NOT well to,
then, once you have researched it to death, roll the dice and hope for the best. But don't throw a cheap tough old round steak on the grill and expect it to come out like Wagu beef.
Even with all the BEST ingredients shit can happen, there are hundreds/thousands of ways genes can "click", but why not try to start with the best?
Look at the immediate dogs in front of you, then look behind them, what have those dogs produced, what lines do those dogs cross well to and NOT well to,
then, once you have researched it to death, roll the dice and hope for the best. But don't throw a cheap tough old round steak on the grill and expect it to come out like Wagu beef.
Even with all the BEST ingredients shit can happen, there are hundreds/thousands of ways genes can "click", but why not try to start with the best?
by beetree on 04 January 2012 - 15:01
About the meaning of "judiciously cull". Should that mean destroy? Or sell to unsuspecting persons?
I am just guessing but could this be the emotional accusation part Hans complains about when one brave soul was talking about Chrissy's experience, that has since been deleted and denounced by Hans as an attack? As if the truth can be an attack!
It sure sounds like he wants to sue everybody for speaking the truth. Like a broken record he continues harping on about his fab "replacement" warranty. And nothing about how their negligence invalidates it. I have no doubt there are plenty of suckers out there who will still believe that replacement warranty is protecting them.
And it also appears to me, the breeding goal is to produce what was called ... "super dogs" by one poster on the Alpine thread, and that the by product of genetic disasters are no surprise in that quest.
I am just guessing but could this be the emotional accusation part Hans complains about when one brave soul was talking about Chrissy's experience, that has since been deleted and denounced by Hans as an attack? As if the truth can be an attack!
It sure sounds like he wants to sue everybody for speaking the truth. Like a broken record he continues harping on about his fab "replacement" warranty. And nothing about how their negligence invalidates it. I have no doubt there are plenty of suckers out there who will still believe that replacement warranty is protecting them.
And it also appears to me, the breeding goal is to produce what was called ... "super dogs" by one poster on the Alpine thread, and that the by product of genetic disasters are no surprise in that quest.
by workingdogz on 04 January 2012 - 15:01
I thought Hans never deleted comments on his board?
Something about proud to be American and embraced our rights to "free speech"?
I guess thats a selective "free".
Something about proud to be American and embraced our rights to "free speech"?
I guess thats a selective "free".
by Blitzen on 04 January 2012 - 15:01
Cull = select carefully, and place in pet homes with no breeding agreements. In the dog world, cull doesn't mean to kill, it means to evaluate and select accordingly.
Wikipedia:
Culling is the process of removing animals from a group based on specific criteria. This is done either to reinforce certain desirable characteristics or to remove certain undesirable characteristics from the group. For livestock and wildlife, the process of culling usually implies the killing of animals with undesirable characteristics.
Wikipedia:
Culling is the process of removing animals from a group based on specific criteria. This is done either to reinforce certain desirable characteristics or to remove certain undesirable characteristics from the group. For livestock and wildlife, the process of culling usually implies the killing of animals with undesirable characteristics.
by aaykay on 04 January 2012 - 15:01
About the meaning of "judiciously cull". Should that mean destroy? Or sell to unsuspecting persons?
"Judiciously cull" essentially means that the members of the litter where the problems showed up, should not be bred, but can be placed as normal pets. Only use the members of the litter without any of the problems (the "super pups" so to say) for further breeding.
People who are talking strongly against close line-breeding etc., should go back and look at the history of the breed and analyze how it was developed and strengthened. People need to realize that these are not humans. Out-crossing is great and will not result in breeding between relatives, but what is the predictability of the members of such a litter ? Unless it is a multiply repeated litter, you have absolutely no control over HD or any other defect that might be thrown up via the breeding. In case of line-breeding, it is a technique to deliberately bring out the hidden problems into the surface (and also the strengths), so that future breedings can be done in a more informed manner......as long as "judicious culling" is done and weaker elements are religiously weeded out from the breed-stock.
People who talk about "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" should realize that this is a human intervened version of "natural selection", intended to strengthen the breed. If people were to analyze the members of a wolf-pack, the people who are against line-breeding, would probably be apalled and go into a PTSD mode at the amount of "line-breeding" or "inbreeding" taking place there.....of course both "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" would kick in in the wild, and uncompromisingly remove the weaker members of such breeding, allowing the strong to procreate and move the pack onward....of course with periodic out-crosses that introduces new blood and vigor into the pack.
"Judiciously cull" essentially means that the members of the litter where the problems showed up, should not be bred, but can be placed as normal pets. Only use the members of the litter without any of the problems (the "super pups" so to say) for further breeding.
People who are talking strongly against close line-breeding etc., should go back and look at the history of the breed and analyze how it was developed and strengthened. People need to realize that these are not humans. Out-crossing is great and will not result in breeding between relatives, but what is the predictability of the members of such a litter ? Unless it is a multiply repeated litter, you have absolutely no control over HD or any other defect that might be thrown up via the breeding. In case of line-breeding, it is a technique to deliberately bring out the hidden problems into the surface (and also the strengths), so that future breedings can be done in a more informed manner......as long as "judicious culling" is done and weaker elements are religiously weeded out from the breed-stock.
People who talk about "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" should realize that this is a human intervened version of "natural selection", intended to strengthen the breed. If people were to analyze the members of a wolf-pack, the people who are against line-breeding, would probably be apalled and go into a PTSD mode at the amount of "line-breeding" or "inbreeding" taking place there.....of course both "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" would kick in in the wild, and uncompromisingly remove the weaker members of such breeding, allowing the strong to procreate and move the pack onward....of course with periodic out-crosses that introduces new blood and vigor into the pack.
by workingdogz on 04 January 2012 - 15:01
To keep this thread related to Chrissy's pup, how about the breeder/broker or anyone else with factual knowledge of this breeding come on and give an update as to how the rest of the litter of 6 turned out? Obviously Chrissy's pup fell out of the "super dog" tree and hit at least (so far) two branches of the "shit luck/bad genetic click" on the way down. What about the other 5?
Sure, one might say, "well one out of six" isn't "bad" odds. At least they would say that if they didn't have that "one" of the six.
What about the rest? Not to say both sire/dam should be removed from the gene pool, but is there more pups like this out there? Have similar breedings been done, if so, what was the result?
Had Chrissy's pup been "culled" by means of placing as pet over there in Czechland, this whole drama would not have come to light. But instead, the pup was shipped to America, and fingers were crossed hoping the buyer could be baffled with lines of bullshit and would eventually "go away", as that seems to be the direction that Alpine K9 takes when a problem comes up. And before you supporters jump on that, go back and read Hans' wife's OWN words..she has also "made a mistake" and shipped the "wrong pup" as well. Thats just the stuff that has come to the surface thanks to this thread.
So, what about it? Anyone else privy to what this breeding has produced to date?
Sure, one might say, "well one out of six" isn't "bad" odds. At least they would say that if they didn't have that "one" of the six.
What about the rest? Not to say both sire/dam should be removed from the gene pool, but is there more pups like this out there? Have similar breedings been done, if so, what was the result?
Had Chrissy's pup been "culled" by means of placing as pet over there in Czechland, this whole drama would not have come to light. But instead, the pup was shipped to America, and fingers were crossed hoping the buyer could be baffled with lines of bullshit and would eventually "go away", as that seems to be the direction that Alpine K9 takes when a problem comes up. And before you supporters jump on that, go back and read Hans' wife's OWN words..she has also "made a mistake" and shipped the "wrong pup" as well. Thats just the stuff that has come to the surface thanks to this thread.
So, what about it? Anyone else privy to what this breeding has produced to date?
by beetree on 04 January 2012 - 15:01
| but can be placed as normal pets. |
I just want to say, what Chrissy got is not a "normal pet".
by Blitzen on 04 January 2012 - 16:01
If I bred a puppy with a severe overbite, I would not have it put down. I would either keep it myself or try to place it in a companion home AFTER I repaired the damage. Limited registration and a neutering agreement. And I would not use any of that litter for breeding.
by Schaferhunden on 04 January 2012 - 16:01
I do not see anything wrong with placing any pups like this and do not think any person would either but selling puppies for $2000-$3000 is just wrong. The only two options are placing or PTS.I sure this was no first time thing
by Blitzen on 04 January 2012 - 16:01
Well, yeah. 2K for a dog with a severe overbite is excessive and then factor in the dental bill. I'd love to find a vet who would do any type of surgery for under $90.00. I paid $87.00 for a rabies vac, a h-worm check and a lyme test.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top