
This is a placeholder text
Group text

by jc.carroll on 25 June 2008 - 14:06
>The genetics are there, he contributes just as much as the bitch
No one is disputing that. I don't view this as much as a genetic debate; more a discussion about terms and what they mean when we see/hear them used. If we were to branch into a genetic comparison, I think that would merit it's own thread.
I'm not saying the male doesn't contribute genetically, because obviously he does. But again -what- he contributes seems of less relevance when using the term "proven producer" than the fact that he can contribute... at least to fathering a litter.
"Produces notable offspring such as..." would be more meaningful than simply "proven producer." Especially if you're offering a male for sale/stud you'd want to play up the quality of his progeny from several litters/females, rather than just the fact he can produce. I've heard of crypt/monorchids that can produce offspring. Obviously the genetic contributions would be seriously skewed on allowing the breeding of Mr. One-Nut; but the fact that he could be honestly (if unethically) defined as a "proven producer" remains.
"Proven producer" is to dogs what "runs great but needs work" is to used cars.
Contact information Disclaimer Privacy Statement Copyright Information Terms of Service Cookie policy ↑ Back to top