# Breeding Question



## Buckhunter (Jan 13, 2015)

-----------------Ok guys I am going to ask a silly question and show my ignorance, feel free to call me an idiot or any other appropriate inappropriate names


I have a 9 year old Chocolate Lab that I have never trained for hunting. Long story short, he was bought for me as a pet and I did not have any interest in Duck hunting until a couple years ago. He is full blooded(I never sent papers in) and his parents, brothers and sisters were/are hunting dogs. Well now I would like to get a puppy and work with it. I have no delusions of grandeur, but I now have access to nearby water, and a lot more time. So now that you have the back story, here is the ignorant part. Are there other people/hunters out there that breed or would breed full blooded labs that do not have papers? Was just thinking if someone had a female in the same situation that wanted puppies then it would just make sense. Also, if I were to just absolutely need to get documentation as to his being a purebred before someone would consider it, how would I even go about it? I would assume that most people are looking for big money dogs, breeders, papers , lineage, etc, but are there actually people out there that participate in what I described above? 

Fire away


----------



## SJA (Jan 13, 2015)

http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/show_contents.php?page=Breeding+Your+Labrador?

This doesn't even mention EIC or CNM tests either.


----------



## Buckhunter (Jan 13, 2015)

SJA said:


> http://www.thelabradorclub.com/subpages/show_contents.php?page=Breeding+Your+Labrador?
> 
> This doesn't even mention EIC or CNM tests either.



 Yeah that was what I meant by most are probably looking for the high dollar dogs. Like I said, I am in the dark when it comes to breeding, but is this site saying that if two purebred labs breed without having all these tests and such that the litter will lack the ability to be trained


----------



## king killer delete (Jan 14, 2015)

If you do not have blood. How about health. Hips ,eyes and anything elese.


----------



## GSURugger (Jan 14, 2015)

Buckhunter said:


> Yeah that was what I meant by most are probably looking for the high dollar dogs. Like I said, I am in the dark when it comes to breeding, but is this site saying that if two purebred labs breed without having all these tests and such that the litter will lack the ability to be trained



Not at all...the tests (eyes, hips, etc.) have absolutely nothing to do with train-ability; what it's saying is breeding without appropriate health clearances is not only irresponsible but unethical.


----------



## Buckhunter (Jan 14, 2015)

GSURugger said:


> Not at all...the tests (eyes, hips, etc.) have absolutely nothing to do with train-ability; what it's saying is breeding without appropriate health clearances is not only irresponsible but unethical.



 Ok, i can see that. If the point of breeding pure bred dogs is to eliminate "bad" litters, shouldnt dogs with a papered lineage be healthy? Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand. If my dog had bad hips or eyes, shouldnt it have shown up by age 9? I am trying not to look at this like a $1500 auto vs $300 pump debate, but I would have assumed there was a (for lack of better terms) a secondary market for dogs as well. Btw, I fully realize dogs are not inanimate objects so I hope people understandb the shotgun analogy for what it is instead of what its not.


----------



## GSURugger (Jan 14, 2015)

Buckhunter said:


> Ok, i can see that. If the point of breeding pure bred dogs is to eliminate "bad" litters, shouldnt dogs with a papered lineage be healthy? Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand. If my dog had bad hips or eyes, shouldnt it have shown up by age 9? I am trying not to look at this like a $1500 auto vs $300 pump debate, but I would have assumed there was a (for lack of better terms) a secondary market for dogs as well. Btw, I fully realize dogs are not inanimate objects so I hope people understandb the shotgun analogy for what it is instead of what its not.



The tests look for inherited genes...doesn't necessarily show up physically every generation.  
There is a market, be it unethical.  


I know little more than I've stated; I'm sure Mr. Overby will jump in soon.


----------



## Joe Overby (Jan 14, 2015)

Regardless of there being a secondary market or not doesn't make the breeding of these unproven animals ethical, moral, or even basically right. The facts are this: you cared so little about breeding 9 years ago you neglected to even register your "papered" dog. Now, because you love your dog and he's a great pet that in your mind makes him good breeding stock and regardless of the fact that you never registered him, you are willing to go a less desirable route just make puppies...talk about perpetuating the cycle. I say all of this not as a personal attack or to sound "holier than thou"...I say it all to make you think. And no, just because at one time your dog had papers does not make him breed worthy. Just because a dog has papers doesn't mean they can or should hunt. Just because it's a "lab" doesn't automatically make it a duck dog. And just because your dog is a good pet doesn't mean you should breed him. It's a hard truth bit nobody else on here is going to say it. Ask yourself honestly "what does my dog bring to the world that necessitates him being bred?" If all you can come up with is that the kids love him or he was easy to house break then if having a gun dog is your goal, buying a puppy with all necessary health clearances and a proper working line pedigree is your best bet. I realize that by posting all of this that many are going to consider my stance insensitive, rude, arrogant, and basically mean. That is not my intention. My intention is to educate. Very simply if you want to breed your dog it is your dog and there is absolutely nothing anybody can do about it to stop you...but, that doesn't make what you are considering right. It may in some people's opinions be none of mine and ruggers business but somebody needs to quit sugarcoating things and just be man to man honest with you. It's not if you CAN breed your dog it's SHOULD he be bred and why? Sorry if I offend you.


----------



## GADawg08 (Jan 14, 2015)

this isn't directed at you Buckhunter, and I'm no expert when it comes to dogs (far, far from it).....but I see so many folks breeding labs just because they are a popular breed and they think they can get $500 (or more) a pop for them....yeah (most) labs make great pets, but not every one is gonna be a great hunting dog.


----------



## ghadarits (Jan 14, 2015)

GADawg08 said:


> this isn't directed at you Buckhunter, and I'm no expert when it comes to dogs (far, far from it).....but I see so many folks breeding labs just because they are a popular breed and they think they can get $500 (or more) a pop for them....yeah (most) labs make great pets, but not every one is gonna be a great hunting dog.



A lot of those breedings are dogs with a questionable health lineage. I know several people who have Labs that aren't that old and are experiencing sever hip and health issues. Its sad because the dogs want to go but you can see it really is hurting them just to walk.

I also hate seeing big fat labs. Most dogs will eat as much as you will give them and that aint healthy either.


----------



## SJA (Jan 14, 2015)

Buckhunter said:


> Yeah that was what I meant by most are probably looking for the high dollar dogs. Like I said, I am in the dark when it comes to breeding, but is this site saying that if two purebred labs breed without having all these tests and such that the litter will lack the ability to be trained[/QU.
> I didn't see a price chart in the link I provided?


----------



## Buckhunter (Jan 14, 2015)

Joe Overby said:


> Regardless of there being a secondary market or not doesn't make the breeding of these unproven animals ethical, moral, or even basically right. The facts are this: you cared so little about breeding 9 years ago you neglected to even register your "papered" dog. Now, because you love your dog and he's a great pet that in your mind makes him good breeding stock and regardless of the fact that you never registered him, you are willing to go a less desirable route just make puppies...talk about perpetuating the cycle. I say all of this not as a personal attack or to sound "holier than thou"...I say it all to make you think. And no, just because at one time your dog had papers does not make him breed worthy. Just because a dog has papers doesn't mean they can or should hunt. Just because it's a "lab" doesn't automatically make it a duck dog. And just because your dog is a good pet doesn't mean you should breed him. It's a hard truth bit nobody else on here is going to say it. Ask yourself honestly "what does my dog bring to the world that necessitates him being bred?" If all you can come up with is that the kids love him or he was easy to house break then if having a gun dog is your goal, buying a puppy with a ll necessary health clearances and a proper working line pedigree is your best bet. I realize that by posting all of this that many are going to consider my stance insensitive, rude, arrogant, and basically mean. That is not my intention. My intention is to educate. Very simply if you want to breed your dog it is your dog and there is absolutely nothing anybody can do about it to stop you...but, that doesn't make what you are considering right. It may in some people's opinions be none of mine and ruggers business but somebody needs to quit sugarcoating things and just be man to man honest with you. It's not if you CAN breed your dog it's SHOULD he be bred and why? Sorry if I offend you.


 Rest assured I do not offend that easily. I would  caution you about making assumptions and blanket statements however, as that only hurts your cause when acting as an authority on a subject. I was/am asking questions, thats all. Given your reply there are some more questions I would like to get opinions on. When i get home later I will return to the conversation.


----------



## king killer delete (Jan 14, 2015)

Do it in a PM. Everybody be civil.


----------



## Joe Overby (Jan 14, 2015)

Buckhunter said:


> Rest assured I do not offend that easily. I would  caution you about making assumptions and blanket statements however, as that only hurts your cause when acting as an authority on a subject. I was/am asking questions, thats all. Given your reply there are some more questions I would like to get opinions on. When i get home later I will return to the conversation.



I understand your position...that's why I hesitated in giving my reply. I was merely asking the "hard" questions. Food for thought so to speak. Ask all the questions you can, that's the only way you learn...just remember there are a lot of uneducated zealots out there that operate under the guise of expert. Just because dogs can be bred doesn't necessarily mean they should...that's all I'm saying. 

You have to ask yourself "what will I be producing"? Will they be healthy, intelligent, willing and able puppies. You also have to ask "what is my market"? Who is going to purchase your puppies?? Also ask "why would someone want MY puppies over the thousands out there already for sale"? These questions often don't have easy answers. 

Finally, consider the ease of being able to hand pick the litter of your new puppy, both sire and dam, as opposed to having to "settle" for breeding your unregistered male to whichever other unregistered female happens to decide that your male is the stud du joir. You would get to choose from a venerable plethora of health tested, well pedigreed puppies from titled parents, grandparents, etc...and hedge your bet so to speak that your new addition would be the best hunting partner you could find. Again, just food for thought.


----------



## king killer delete (Jan 14, 2015)

I am going to say this. It is bad when you have a young dog with tons of drive and he is 5 years old and broke down in the hips. I had a dog, puppy that could not see marks.  Back in my dog days we did not have all the health certs that are out there today. The OFA was about all we had and some of my first dogs had health issues. They were never bred.  Take my word for it have your dog checked before you breed. Good Luck


----------



## Joe Overby (Jan 14, 2015)

Buckhunter said:


> Ok, i can see that. If the point of breeding pure bred dogs is to eliminate "bad" litters, shouldnt dogs with a papered lineage be healthy? Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand. If my dog had bad hips or eyes, shouldnt it have shown up by age 9? I am trying not to look at this like a $1500 auto vs $300 pump debate, but I would have assumed there was a (for lack of better terms) a secondary market for dogs as well. Btw, I fully realize dogs are not inanimate objects so I hope people understandb the shotgun analogy for what it is instead of what its not.



I felt the need to answer these questions directly...
NO. Just because a dog has papers does not mean the litter is healthy. Registration is simply that...a proven, unbroken chain of pure blood dogs. Whether they are healthy or not is a completely different ball of wax. This is where testing comes in. That said, one of the most prolific studs of our time has a propensity to produce dogs with weak cruciate ligaments. Pedigrees do not make healthy puppies. Pedigrees do show a propensity for learning through the generations but generations upon generations of helth certified dogs shows a low probability of potential major health issues. Further, it would be impossible for you to tell that your dog has retinal folds without a cerf exam. In the same regard, there is no way to know of your dog has femoral remodeling in his hips or ununited anconial process in his elbows without xrays. Also, if none of the dogs in your dog's pedigree have been checked for EIC or CNM there is no way to know if your dog is clear, carrier, or even affected without a genetic test as many, many cases of EIC NEVER present themselves. Thus, the importance of health screening BOTH parents. Now, you can go crazy with health certs and have patellas checked, cardiac certified, pra(retinal atrophy) and OSD (oculoskeletal deformation and dwarfism), DM (in chessies), and thyroids checked but the industry standards are EIC, CNM, OFA hips and elbows (though I like Penn hip better), and eye cerf done annually.


----------



## jparham (Jan 14, 2015)

I agree that breeding your dog at this point, with little to no experience with breeding, training, or even duck hunting in general, is a bad idea. I also agree with 99% of what Joe and rugger are saying. However, to say its unethical is a bit much. Embezzlement is unethical, baiting a swamp is unethical, paying a heisman worthy running back for autographs and then blowing the whistle on him is unethical. In my opinion it would only be unethical if you were tauting the pups as championship quality hunting stock while knowing they are not.

All this being said. I would not buy a pup unless the sire and dam were proven and had all the health clearances.  Also I would not breed a dog unless it had proper paperwork and health clearances. However nothing says you cannot get a dud from a proven breeding pair,  you are simply decreasing the odds exponentially of having a dog with health issues and in most cases ensuring that you are getting an intelligent, driven, athletic dog that is going to perform for you rather than cause problems.

Remember this. You get what you pay for, and the initial price of a pup is nothing compared to the money you spend over the life of your dog, so would you rather feed a hunting partner or a nightmare?

Regardless of my opinion. My advice would be to talk with some one like Joe, who has experience with breeding and training. Learn all you can about the process before you jump in over your head!


----------



## 1982ace (Jan 14, 2015)

Some of the best dogs DONT have papers!  That being said I do think there are a lot of people breeding that don't need to be like for financial gain. So if u find somebody that has a lab and u want some puppies I see no problem with that.


----------



## Joe Overby (Jan 14, 2015)

jparham said:


> I agree that breeding your dog at this point, with little to no experience with breeding, training, or even duck hunting in general, is a bad idea. I also agree with 99% of what Joe and rugger are saying. However, to say its unethical is a bit much. Embezzlement is unethical, baiting a swamp is unethical, paying a heisman worthy running back for autographs and then blowing the whistle on him is unethical. In my opinion it would only be unethical if you were tauting the pups as championship quality hunting stock while knowing they are not.
> 
> All this being said. I would not buy a pup unless the sire and dam were proven and had all the health clearances.  Also I would not breed a dog unless it had proper paperwork and health clearances. However nothing says you cannot get a dud from a proven breeding pair,  you are simply decreasing the odds exponentially of having a dog with health issues and in most cases ensuring that you are getting an intelligent, driven, athletic dog that is going to perform for you rather than cause problems.
> 
> ...



So if the potential breeding between these 2 unregistered, un health certified dogs produced EIC or CNM affected dogs, or dogs with juvenile cataracts would it then be considered unethical??? To take that risk IMO is unethical...especially when it's avoidable.


----------



## Joe Overby (Jan 14, 2015)

1982ace said:


> Some of the best dogs DONT have papers!  That being said I do think there are a lot of people breeding that don't need to be like for financial gain. So if u find somebody that has a lab and u want some puppies I see no problem with that.


Your opinion. And you're entitled to that however let me ask you: why?? Why are they the best dogs? Let me also ask why in your opinion is it OK to produce more unregistered "mutts" when the local pound is full?? Lastly, if the dogs aren't registered, odds are they're not competed. So on what basis are they "better" per se than a registered, titled dog??


----------



## GreatWhiteTurkeyHunter (Jan 14, 2015)

I guess the moral or the story is... Spend 1k to 1,500 and get a pup with the cert. or have a free pup and run the risk of spending more than that down the road when problems occur (regardless of whether the bloodline has some trial winners in it). I ran into this when my wife decided to get a lab from the shelter. I had no interest in hunting this particular lab but I did play with it in the yard a little and it looked fine and was only 2 years old. But within 3 months of having the dog she started limping and we found out it had hip dysplasia  which ran us over 1k on the surgery. Not that I was looking for a hunting dog but if I had been I might have gotten this lab, who looked fine, had a good attitude, and was smart, and would have been cheap... only to pay up later.


----------



## 1982ace (Jan 14, 2015)

I personally have had great dogs without papers. Meaning healthy, smart, and took training well. The man is wanting a young pup, all I am saying is he don't have to spend a grand to get a good dog. Like I said the dogs I feel that have problems are the ones that bred continually by incompetent breeders.


----------



## Joe Overby (Jan 14, 2015)

1982ace said:


> I personally have had great dogs without papers. Meaning healthy, smart, and took training well. The man is wanting a young pup, all I am saying is he don't have to spend a grand to get a good dog. Like I said the dogs I feel that have problems are the ones that bred continually by incompetent breeders.



I'm not willing to take that risk. And I refuse to advise others to do so.


----------



## jparham (Jan 14, 2015)

I think we're arguing over semantics. Would it be irresponsible?  Yes. Would I advise someone to go ahead with Iit? Absolutly not! But to say that it is moraly wrong to do so is just too much IMO.


----------



## 1982ace (Jan 14, 2015)

Not arguing I just think when choosing a puppy money is a big factor for a lot people. If you don't get a dog from champion bloodlines that you are going to get a poor dog. That's all I am saying guys.


----------



## Joe Overby (Jan 14, 2015)

Buying the puppy is the cheapest part of the entire equation 1982. I spend thousands on health tests, vet bills, food, and entry fees by the time the dog is 5... $1500 for a puppy is a drop in the bucket. Figure it like this. 12 months of pro training is on average $7200. On average it takes 18 months to finish a dog out. Now how significant is that $1500 purchase price???


----------



## SJA (Jan 14, 2015)

Joe Overby said:


> Buying the puppy is the cheapest part of the entire equation 1982. I spend thousands on health tests, vet bills, food, and entry fees by the time the dog is 5... $1500 for a puppy is a drop in the bucket. Figure it like this. 12 months of pro training is on average $7200. On average it takes 18 months to finish a dog out. Now how significant is that $1500 purchase price???



And if you want to train the dog yourself, to the same level, without directly using a pro - it costs about the same amount.


----------



## Buckhunter (Jan 14, 2015)

GADawg08 said:


> this isn't directed at you Buckhunter, and I'm no expert when it comes to dogs (far, far from it).....but I see so many folks breeding labs just because they are a popular breed and they think they can get $500 (or more) a pop for them....yeah (most) labs make great pets, but not every one is gonna be a great hunting dog.



Didnt take it that way Dawg and I can understand that being an issue, in no way was I interested in any monetary gain. 



SJA said:


> Buckhunter said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah that was what I meant by most are probably looking for the high dollar dogs. Like I said, I am in the dark when it comes to breeding, but is this site saying that if two purebred labs breed without having all these tests and such that the litter will lack the ability to be trained[/QU.
> ...


----------



## wray912 (Jan 14, 2015)

1982ace said:


> Not arguing I just think when choosing a puppy money is a big factor for a lot people. If you don't get a dog from champion bloodlines that you are going to get a poor dog. That's all I am saying guys.



Cant agree witg that...i dont know much about the world of champ dogs and i can see the arguement of not breeding health risk dogs just for the life of the life of the dogs sake but i have a bordrr collie beagle mix that will retrieve toys and what not..now dont take that as a comparison to a champion blood retriever cause im sure there is a diff in high pedigree dogs and pet labs but just because its not the highest pedigree dont doesnt mean it wont make an excelent huntin dog and to say without a shadow of doubt that a mut wont hunt is rediculous


----------



## Buckhunter (Jan 14, 2015)

jparham said:


> I agree that breeding your dog at this point, with little to no experience with breeding, training, or even duck hunting in general, is a bad idea. I also agree with 99% of what Joe and rugger are saying. However, to say its unethical is a bit much. Embezzlement is unethical, baiting a swamp is unethical, paying a heisman worthy running back for autographs and then blowing the whistle on him is unethical. In my opinion it would only be unethical if you were tauting the pups as championship quality hunting stock while knowing they are not.
> 
> All this being said. I would not buy a pup unless the sire and dam were proven and had all the health clearances.  Also I would not breed a dog unless it had proper paperwork and health clearances. However nothing says you cannot get a dud from a proven breeding pair,  you are simply decreasing the odds exponentially of having a dog with health issues and in most cases ensuring that you are getting an intelligent, driven, athletic dog that is going to perform for you rather than cause problems.
> 
> ...



Good Points!



1982ace said:


> I personally have had great dogs without papers. Meaning healthy, smart, and took training well. The man is wanting a young pup, all I am saying is he don't have to spend a grand to get a good dog. Like I said the dogs I feel that have problems are the ones that bred continually by incompetent breeders.



This is one of the things I don't understand. Not saying it is the case, but reading through this thread would make one think if you do not have a few thousand dollars to spend on a puppy then you shouldn't even get one for hunting purposes.



GreatWhiteTurkeyHunter said:


> I guess the moral or the story is... Spend 1k to 1,500 and get a pup with the cert. or have a free pup and run the risk of spending more than that down the road when problems occur (regardless of whether the bloodline has some trial winners in it). I ran into this when my wife decided to get a lab from the shelter. I had no interest in hunting this particular lab but I did play with it in the yard a little and it looked fine and was only 2 years old. But within 3 months of having the dog she started limping and we found out it had hip dysplasia  which ran us over 1k on the surgery. Not that I was looking for a hunting dog but if I had been I might have gotten this lab, who looked fine, had a good attitude, and was smart, and would have been cheap... only to pay up later.






Joe Overby said:


> Buying the puppy is the cheapest part of the entire equation 1982. I spend thousands on health tests, vet bills, food, and entry fees by the time the dog is 5... $1500 for a puppy is a drop in the bucket. Figure it like this. 12 months of pro training is on average $7200. On average it takes 18 months to finish a dog out. Now how significant is that $1500 purchase price???



I can only assume you show your dogs and such, but surely you do not think the average person can do what you describe above in order to have a hunting dog. I said originally that I did not have visions of an award winning dog, but can a person not train their own dog to be sufficient for hunting?


----------



## Joe Overby (Jan 14, 2015)

Buckhunter said:


> Didnt take it that way Dawg and I can understand that being an issue, in no way was I interested in any monetary gain.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Joe Overby (Jan 14, 2015)

Buckhunter said:


> Good Points!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I do not "show" dogs. I train hunting retrievers. You would be surprised how many "average" people choose to spend their money on their duck dog...Yes they can train their own BUT is your time worth nothing??? Dogs are not a cheap endeavor and anybody that tells you otherwise is misguided. They require time, effort, and resources such as land and water to effectively develop a non slip retriever...all of which are not cheap...


----------



## Joe Overby (Jan 14, 2015)

Also, what is your definition of "sufficient enough for hunting"??? I guarantee your definition, rnelsons, 1982's, and mine ALL differ greatly. Life is too short to hunt with an unfinished retriever...I'll also say this, a good dog will get you more invites to hunt than a winning lottery ticket...a poor dog will get you exiled as if you had the plague...


----------



## across the river (Jan 14, 2015)

Buckhunter said:


> Ok, i can see that. If the point of breeding pure bred dogs is to eliminate "bad" litters, shouldnt dogs with a papered lineage be healthy? Not trying to be difficult, just trying to understand. If my dog had bad hips or eyes, shouldnt it have shown up by age 9? I am trying not to look at this like a $1500 auto vs $300 pump debate, but I would have assumed there was a (for lack of better terms) a secondary market for dogs as well. Btw, I fully realize dogs are not inanimate objects so I hope people understandb the shotgun analogy for what it is instead of what its not.



Pure breed dogs were bred for a particular trait or characteristic so dogs were inbreed  with close relatives with desired traits to "create the desired dog breed."   For this reason, pure breed dogs will typically have more genetically related issues than your average dumpster mutt.  Some breeds are prone to hip issues, some are prone to skin issues, some have seizures, etc….  AKC papers only mean the dog meets the standard for what the dogs should "look like" based on the standard and have nothing to do with health.  Even if your dog is nine, had  papers, and no apparent health issues, it doesn't mean he doesn't have "bad genes."   Just like an adult with brown eyes can have a kid with blue eyes, a dog  with no issues can still have offspring with bad hips, health issues, etc…  The true breeders these guys are talking about have strived to breed the "bad genes" out of there line, which is why they test hips, breed dogs with good temperaments, breed dogs with a good desire to retrieve, etc….  It doesn't mean they are perfect dogs and none of the puppies ever have issues, but the chances are relatively low in most cases.  Your average home breeder does none of this, so you are kind of playing Russian roulette genetically.  You may not have issues, but the chance of having issues is much greater.  I'm sure you could find someone with a lab that they would be willing to breed with your dog, and you may even be able to get $300 a dog.  However, it doesn't mean you should do it.  If you want a puppy, I would recommend going one of two routes.  Save up the money and buy a lab from a reputable breeder.  If you don't want to spend the money to buy a dog from a true breeder, I would go to shelters and search for a dog to adopt before I bought a "lab" out of the newspaper for a couple of hundred bucks.  Many shelters will let you play with the dogs, and you can see if they have any drive to retrieve and see their temperament before you even take them home.  I have hunted over more than one "mutt" lab or golden with  that retrieved as well as any pure breed dog.     They didn't have papers or run field trials, but they were some of the best "meat dogs" I've ever seen.


----------



## Scrapy (Jan 14, 2015)

What happens when you buy a registered pup that the parents have not been all these certifications? the Pup is coming along fine, even being trained by a professional, and you want to get the certifications done on the pup. What happens when the owner gets $5,000 into the certification process and there is only one other health certification for another $1,000 and the pup fails it?  Does the owner just act like he never had that test performed or what? Say tested for carrying puppy mange for example or maybe a worse fault but not as bad as hips?


----------



## Joe Overby (Jan 14, 2015)

Scrapy...read ALL of the posts...posts above advocate thorough and complete health certifications on BOTH parents. And if you actually read my posts you would see where I already answered what happens when reputable breeders offer health guarantees. Further, there isn't a genetic test for mange...guarantees don't cover training costs...that's why it's important to make sure the parents and grandparents were as healthy and tested as they could be...


----------



## Buckhunter (Jan 14, 2015)

across the river said:


> Pure breed dogs were bred for a particular trait or characteristic so dogs were inbreed  with close relatives with desired traits to "create the desired dog breed."   For this reason, pure breed dogs will typically have more genetically related issues than your average dumpster mutt.  Some breeds are prone to hip issues, some are prone to skin issues, some have seizures, etc….  AKC papers only mean the dog meets the standard for what the dogs should "look like" based on the standard and have nothing to do with health.  Even if your dog is nine, had  papers, and no apparent health issues, it doesn't mean he doesn't have "bad genes."   Just like an adult with brown eyes can have a kid with blue eyes, a dog  with no issues can still have offspring with bad hips, health issues, etc…  The true breeders these guys are talking about have strived to breed the "bad genes" out of there line, which is why they test hips, breed dogs with good temperaments, breed dogs with a good desire to retrieve, etc….  It doesn't mean they are perfect dogs and none of the puppies ever have issues, but the chances are relatively low in most cases.  Your average home breeder does none of this, so you are kind of playing Russian roulette genetically.  You may not have issues, but the chance of having issues is much greater.  I'm sure you could find someone with a lab that they would be willing to breed with your dog, and you may even be able to get $300 a dog.  However, it doesn't mean you should do it.  If you want a puppy, I would recommend going one of two routes.  Save up the money and buy a lab from a reputable breeder.  If you don't want to spend the money to buy a dog from a true breeder, I would go to shelters and search for a dog to adopt before I bought a "lab" out of the newspaper for a couple of hundred bucks.  Many shelters will let you play with the dogs, and you can see if they have any drive to retrieve and see their temperament before you even take them home.  I have hunted over more than one "mutt" lab or golden with  that retrieved as well as any pure breed dog.     They didn't have papers or run field trials, but they were some of the best "meat dogs" I've ever seen.



Awesome explanation! This is exactly the type of info I was looking for


----------



## Buckhunter (Jan 14, 2015)

Joe Overby said:


> I do not "show" dogs. I train hunting retrievers. You would be surprised how many "average" people choose to spend their money on their duck dog...Yes they can train their own BUT is your time worth nothing??? Dogs are not a cheap endeavor and anybody that tells you otherwise is misguided. They require time, effort, and resources such as land and water to effectively develop a non slip retriever...all of which are not cheap...



Ok, not trying to get into your business as it is non of mine, just assumed you were doing something to recoup your expenses that the "average" person wouldn't. Everything is relative, but the average people I know cant drop anywhere close to 10 grand on a hunting dog in a years time.



Joe Overby said:


> Also, what is your definition of "sufficient enough for hunting"??? I guarantee your definition, rnelsons, 1982's, and mine ALL differ greatly. Life is too short to hunt with an unfinished retriever...I'll also say this, a good dog will get you more invites to hunt than a winning lottery ticket...a poor dog will get you exiled as if you had the plague...



Oh I have no doubt that my definition pales in comparison to most. My pump shotgun, ten year old truck, and mix and match camo does as well, but its what I got.


----------



## Joe Overby (Jan 14, 2015)

I get where your coming from...I do...however its not about definitions "paling in comparison". It's about whether or not the dog can get the job done or not...and to me a dog that requires a pocket full of rocks isnt something I am willing to hunt with. Your pump shotgun kills birds just as dead and your mix N match camo hides you just as well BUT a half trained, ill behaved dog costs you more grief and more birds than the other. I'm not wilLing to spend my morning watching someone holler at the dog a beg and plead with him to get him to retrieve birds while other ducks are coming in...it's too easy to teach a dog to handle and make him sit for all of that. It simply requires lots of time and effort on the off season to get to that point.


----------



## GreatWhiteTurkeyHunter (Jan 14, 2015)

Buckhunter said:


> Good Points!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Trust me, I don't "show" dogs and I have trained mine myself so I didn't put thousands of dollars in him. In fact I paid $300 for him. But I'm speaking from experience when I say I should have paid more from a reputable breeder. I love that dog but I didn't know when I got him that he had red mange (which is genetic so I won't be able to breed him). He also had some other issues which we cleared up fairly easily, but I spent close to 1K on medicine to get rid of the red mange (for now). I'm one of those who learns the hard way and next time, I'll spend a little extra.


----------



## Buckhunter (Jan 14, 2015)

GreatWhiteTurkeyHunter said:


> Trust me, I don't "show" dogs and I have trained mine myself so I didn't put thousands of dollars in him. In fact I paid $300 for him. But I'm speaking from experience when I say I should have paid more from a reputable breeder. I love that dog but I didn't know when I got him that he had red mange (which is genetic so I won't be able to breed him). He also had some other issues which we cleared up fairly easily, but I spent close to 1K on medicine to get rid of the red mange (for now). I'm one of those who learns the hard way and next time, I'll spend a little extra.



If you don't mind me asking, what would you have gotten out of breeding him. Money, Puppies, both? Just trying to figure out how it works. If people are spending thousands of dollars on these dogs per year, do they not try and offset that cost. I said by showing them, but guess I should have said breeding them.


----------



## SJA (Jan 14, 2015)

Buckhunter said:


> No price chart, but I would assume that all these tests are one of the things leading to a dog being expensive(at least to me)



I was just trying to point out that the price is not determined by the health tests themselves, and that categorizing well bred labs as high dollar is the wrong mindset.  Healthy and proven litters do tend to cost more because of the additional costs the breeders pay. However I could go on the www and find as many litters of untested labs as you wanted for prices that are higher than health tested ones.  Heck I can go find mutts that cost 2-3x as much as a well bred lab (some of them even have cool names http://www.mnn.com/family/pets/stories/designer-dogs-8-popular-pups)   If you calculate the costs of breeding correctly and then see how much the breeders make from puppy sales, I think you would be surprised that they are not in it for the money and that $800-$1200 price tag is a steal.


----------



## SJA (Jan 14, 2015)

Buckhunter said:


> If you don't mind me asking, what would you have gotten out of breeding him. Money, Puppies, both? Just trying to figure out how it works. If people are spending thousands of dollars on these dogs per year, do they not try and offset that cost. I said by showing them, but guess I should have said breeding them.



The breeding game is controlled by the owners of the females.  If someone decides they want to breed their female then they can go out and pick whichever male dog is willing to breed.  The owners of the male are then compensated with money or a puppy - the amount of money is usually equal to or less than the price of a puppy.  So if you have a male and are wanting to make money, the dog will need to be bred many times to equal the amount made by the owners of the female (the male also has a lot less risk in the breeding game).  This means you will have to prove to multiple owners why your male should be bred and not the other 100.  Very few male dogs, even proven/health tested ones, ever get the chance to breed.

The thousands of dollars spent a year is because doing all this dog stuff can be addicting.  It's like any other hobby where you throw money at it to have fun.  I don't think about the money spent on hunting, dogs, or golf because I don't want to go crazy.  Recouping any money would be nice, but the likely hood of that happening is slim to none.


----------



## Buckhunter (Jan 14, 2015)

SJA said:


> I was just trying to point out that the price is not determined by the health tests themselves, and that categorizing well bred labs as high dollar is the wrong mindset.  Healthy and proven litters do tend to cost more because of the additional costs the breeders pay. However I could go on the www and find as many litters of untested labs as you wanted for prices that are higher than health tested ones.  Heck I can go find mutts that cost 2-3x as much as a well bred lab (some of them even have cool names http://www.mnn.com/family/pets/stories/designer-dogs-8-popular-pups)   If you calculate the costs of breeding correctly and then see how much the breeders make from puppy sales, I think you would be surprised that they are not in it for the money and that $800-$1200 price tag is a steal.





SJA said:


> The breeding game is controlled by the owners of the females.  If someone decides they want to breed their female then they can go out and pick whichever male dog is willing to breed.  The owners of the male are then compensated with money or a puppy - the amount of money is usually equal to or less than the price of a puppy.  So if you have a male and are wanting to make money, the dog will need to be bred many times to equal the amount made by the owners of the female (the male also has a lot less risk in the breeding game).  This means you will have to prove to multiple owners why your male should be bred and not the other 100.  Very few male dogs, even proven/health tested ones, ever get the chance to breed.
> 
> The thousands of dollars spent a year is because doing all this dog stuff can be addicting.  It's like any other hobby where you throw money at it to have fun.  I don't think about the money spent on hunting, dogs, or golf because I don't want to go crazy.  Recouping any money would be nice, but the likely hood of that happening is slim to none.



Gotcha, thanks for the time and information. Have learned a lot today!


----------



## 91xjgawes (Jan 15, 2015)

Wow... unbelievable...


----------



## Scottyhardison (Jan 15, 2015)

Buckhunter,
First off I'd like to say kudo's to you for asking the questions and educating yourself before jumping into the Ole "I want  pup from my dog and if I breed him I'll get one for free" crowd. 

This happens every day and more often than not the owner of the male dog is the only person lined up to get a pup. Intentions are harmless but outcomes are tragic more times than they need to be. These types of breeding are often originally advertised overpriced and with no waiting list of would be buyers the pups get 8 to 10 weeks old and start costing money and time so the owner drops the price. Now this grabs a couple buyers, but still there's 6 pups left at a 12 weeks of age and mama's sick off them tearing stuff up so off to Walmart parking lot he goes with a sign that say 50$ full bred lab pups. Now here's where the impulse buys happen and kids bat their eyes and dad's buy a couple more, then there's 2 left and he just gives those away to the next couple of folks cause the game starts at 4 and he doesn't want to miss kick off. 2 years later half those pups have been turned over to the pound and the other half are in someone's back yard and haven't had so much as a tennis ball thrown for them in 6 months.

You see is stuff like above that makes guys like Joe passionate about what he says about situations like this and I for one respectfully echo all his comments.


----------



## Buckhunter (Jan 15, 2015)

91xjgawes said:


> Wow... unbelievable...



Great insight!



Scottyhardison said:


> Buckhunter,
> First off I'd like to say kudo's to you for asking the questions and educating yourself before jumping into the Ole "I want  pup from my dog and if I breed him I'll get one for free" crowd.
> 
> This happens every day and more often than not the owner of the male dog is the only person lined up to get a pup. Intentions are harmless but outcomes are tragic more times than they need to be. These types of breeding are often originally advertised overpriced and with no waiting list of would be buyers the pups get 8 to 10 weeks old and start costing money and time so the owner drops the price. Now this grabs a couple buyers, but still there's 6 pups left at a 12 weeks of age and mama's sick off them tearing stuff up so off to Walmart parking lot he goes with a sign that say 50$ full bred lab pups. Now here's where the impulse buys happen and kids bat their eyes and dad's buy a couple more, then there's 2 left and he just gives those away to the next couple of folks cause the game starts at 4 and he doesn't want to miss kick off. 2 years later half those pups have been turned over to the pound and the other half are in someone's back yard and haven't had so much as a tennis ball thrown for them in 6 months.
> ...



Perfectly understandable. Passion is great and we all need Someething to be passionate about, but that doesn't mean your way is the only right way. Not saying that this is how you, Joe or anyone else feels, just giving my honest assement of the situation after my first round of information gathering. For the record I have no plans to find a breeding partner and quite honestly would probably look more into the adoption process at this point. However, just like a person doesn't need to breed "bad" dogs, I don't think a person has to spend thousands of dollars a year to have a great hunting dog. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. I will continueto research and make a decision in the spring. Thanks for the advice/information.


----------



## king killer delete (Jan 15, 2015)

Buckhunter said:


> Great insight!
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly understandable. Passion is great and we all need Someething to be passionate about, but that doesn't mean your way is the only right way. Not saying that this is how you, Joe or anyone else feels, just giving my honest assement of the situation after my first round of information gathering. For the record I have no plans to find a breeding partner and quite honestly would probably look more into the adoption process at this point. However, just like a person doesn't need to breed "bad" dogs, I don't think a person has to spend thousands of dollars a year to have a great hunting dog. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. I will continueto research and make a decision in the spring. Thanks for the advice/information.



Good post. unless I was going to hunt hard I would adopt. Some of the best dogs I have ever owned were in need of a home and the love was and is a great return.


----------



## krazybronco2 (Jan 15, 2015)

Buckhunter said:


> Great insight!
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly understandable. Passion is great and we all need Someething to be passionate about, but that doesn't mean your way is the only right way. Not saying that this is how you, Joe or anyone else feels, just giving my honest assement of the situation after my first round of information gathering. For the record I have no plans to find a breeding partner and quite honestly would probably look more into the adoption process at this point. However, just like a person doesn't need to breed "bad" dogs, I don't think a person has to spend thousands of dollars a year to have a great hunting dog. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. I will continueto research and make a decision in the spring. Thanks for the advice/information.



just FYI going and throwing a bumper for a dog does not make a "great" dog. just in food and a yearly vet bill i am right at a grand that doesn't include bumpers/birds, gas to train in different places, and all the other little things. 

also your definition of a "great"dog and my definition might be two different things. I will give you me definition of what a "great"dog is. first has to be able to run and blind retrieve any condition poison bird, breaking ice, doesn't matter go and take the proper cast. second pick up multiple marks watch 2,3 even 4 birds go down and pick them up. third honor another dog that is working. fourth diversion birds that is holding a bird in its mouth and watching another bird drop. and really this should be the first but hold on to the bird till it is in the handlers hand. these are the things that make a "great" dog in my opinion

i can personally say it take a lot more than a couple grand a year to make and maintain a "great" a dog. gas to go to places to train, unless you have have a willing wife or kids you need bird boys or wingers and electronics and they cost something, and if time is money then i would be out a lot more. (just guessing at least 30mins a day for 7 months a year).  and i will say i have a pretty darn good dog but she is not great when it comes to my standards.


----------



## Buckhunter (Jan 15, 2015)

krazybronco2 said:


> just FYI going and throwing a bumper for a dog does not make a "great" dog. just in food and a yearly vet bill i am right at a grand that doesn't include bumpers/birds, gas to train in different places, and all the other little things.
> 
> also your definition of a "great"dog and my definition might be two different things. I will give you me definition of what a "great"dog is. first has to be able to run and blind retrieve any condition poison bird, breaking ice, doesn't matter go and take the proper cast. second pick up multiple marks watch 2,3 even 4 birds go down and pick them up. third honor another dog that is working. fourth diversion birds that is holding a bird in its mouth and watching another bird drop. and really this should be the first but hold on to the bird till it is in the handlers hand. these are the things that make a "great" dog in my opinion
> 
> i can personally say it take a lot more than a couple grand a year to make and maintain a "great" a dog. gas to go to places to train, unless you have have a willing wife or kids you need bird boys or wingers and electronics and they cost something, and if time is money then i would be out a lot more. (just guessing at least 30mins a day for 7 months a year).  and i will say i have a pretty darn good dog but she is not great when it comes to my standards.



Everything is relative my man. Sounds like you have an amazing dog to me, and it would far exceed my definition of great. Not that it matters and I see your point, but I was not speaking of food, gas, or time when talking about the money spent per year. You, Joe, and some of the other guys in this thread are obviously on a different level and I have nothing but respect for that, but that would not be what I need. Actually the more I have thought about the information in this thread, the more I realize an adoption dog is probably in my future. A trainer that has no clue paired with a dog that nobody wants, how could it not be successful


----------



## across the river (Jan 15, 2015)

krazybronco2 said:


> just FYI going and throwing a bumper for a dog does not make a "great" dog. just in food and a yearly vet bill i am right at a grand that doesn't include bumpers/birds, gas to train in different places, and all the other little things.
> 
> also your definition of a "great"dog and my definition might be two different things. I will give you me definition of what a "great"dog is. first has to be able to run and blind retrieve any condition poison bird, breaking ice, doesn't matter go and take the proper cast. second pick up multiple marks watch 2,3 even 4 birds go down and pick them up. third honor another dog that is working. fourth diversion birds that is holding a bird in its mouth and watching another bird drop. and really this should be the first but hold on to the bird till it is in the handlers hand. these are the things that make a "great" dog in my opinion
> 
> i can personally say it take a lot more than a couple grand a year to make and maintain a "great" a dog. gas to go to places to train, unless you have have a willing wife or kids you need bird boys or wingers and electronics and they cost something, and if time is money then i would be out a lot more. (just guessing at least 30mins a day for 7 months a year).  and i will say i have a pretty darn good dog but she is not great when it comes to my standards.



Your average georgia duck hunter who is hunting woodducks on his beaver pond does not need to spend thousands buying a dog and running all over the country doing field trials to have a "good hunting dog."  In strictly terms of drive, the best dog I have ever seen was a spaniel size lab mix a buddy of mine was given.  She might not run a perfectly straight line to and from, and she was never going to win any hunt tests with her blind retrieves, but I watched her pick up over 40 birds on a hunt more than once.  She was a"great huntingdog" The man doesn't need to go buy some high dollar dog or spend time running fields trials to have a good hunting dog.  As long as he find a dog that has that inherent desire to retrieve, he has already fought half the battle.   A pure breed lab has no more ability to learn commands than a stray mutt you find at the dumpster, but it typically does have is a inherited desire to retrieve.  Whether he gets a pure breed dog or a mix, as long as he works with it and teaches it to obey basic commands, he can have a "good hunting dog."  For most weekend hunters, how their dog  turns out typically has far more to do with how much the owner spends with it than it does with how much he spends on it.  I've seen too many worthless high dollar dogs and too many good half breed and low rent dogs to think any different.


----------



## Joe Overby (Jan 15, 2015)

I tell you what my man...I disagree with your last statement. I disagree with you thinking you know what you want....or even need. I disagree with "good enough"...and I disagree with not accounting for food, gas, and time...so here is what I'm offering: come train with me. Spend one day with me. I'll even only do hunting stuff and no competition concepts. I'll just do gun dog mutt huts, stands, 8 birds falling at once, shotguns, calls...it'll just be an srs event...one day...come train. And THEN you'll have an idea of what you THINK you need.


----------



## Joe Overby (Jan 15, 2015)

across the river said:


> Your average georgia duck hunter who is hunting woodducks on his beaver pond does not need to spend thousands buying a dog and running all over the country doing field trials to have a "good hunting dog."  In strictly terms of drive, the best dog I have ever seen was a spaniel size lab mix a buddy of mine was given.  She might not run a perfectly straight line to and from, and she was never going to win any hunt tests with her blind retrieves, but I watched her pick up over 40 birds on a hunt more than once.  She was a"great huntingdog" The man doesn't need to go buy some high dollar dog or spend time running fields trials to have a good hunting dog.  As long as he find a dog that has that inherent desire to retrieve, he has already fought half the battle.   A pure breed lab has no more ability to learn commands than a stray mutt you find at the dumpster, but it typically does have is a inherited desire to retrieve.  Whether he gets a pure breed dog or a mix, as long as he works with it and teaches it to obey basic commands, he can have a "good hunting dog."  For most weekend hunters, how their dog  turns out typically has far more to do with how much the owner spends with it than it does with how much he spends on it.  I've seen too many worthless high dollar dogs and too many good half breed and low rent dogs to think any different.


Speechless


----------



## chocolate dog (Jan 15, 2015)

There is nothing more entertaining than watching those who THINK they know what they are taking about argue with those who actually DO know what they are talking about lol. 

Good stuff I tell ya.


----------



## krazybronco2 (Jan 15, 2015)

Joe Overby said:


> I tell you what my man...I disagree with your last statement. I disagree with you thinking you know what you want....or even need. I disagree with "good enough"...and I disagree with not accounting for food, gas, and time...so here is what I'm offering: come train with me. Spend one day with me. I'll even only do hunting stuff and no competition concepts. I'll just do gun dog mutt huts, stands, 8 birds falling at once, shotguns, calls...it'll just be an srs event...one day...come train. And THEN you'll have an idea of what you THINK you need.



i want to come and watch and heck i want to see if belle can do it!!!


----------



## across the river (Jan 15, 2015)

Joe Overby said:


> Speechless



Why are you speechless?  So you really think this man who is going to hunt probably 5 or 6 times a years needs a grand champion to retrieve the 10 wood ducks and 4 hooded mergansers he is going to kill a year?  Get real.   I said earlier that he shouldn't breed his dog as I think the common man has no business breeding any type of dog, regardless of breed.  However, he doesn't want to run hunts test and post pictures of his dog with his ribbon.  I'm sure he could care less if the dogs runs a straight line, or can run multiple blinds.  Heck, he may even have to walk his dog over to where a bird when down so he can find it, heaven forbid.   I don't think he cares.  There are plenty of dogs already born, in a pound, or being ignored somewhere that will do what he wants.  You and your grand champion may never share a blind with him, but I really don't think he would care. I guess next you are going to tell me that people with riveted john boats with outboard motors can't be real duck hunter either.


----------



## Joe Overby (Jan 15, 2015)

Nope. But you are wrong on all accounts. Why in the world would a man own a dog he needs to walk up to every bird to retrieve?? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having a retriever?? You get real...your delusions of "good enough" perpetuate the cycle of people having half trained "meat dawgs" instead of folks spending the necessary time, money, and resources to have a non slip, blind worthy retriever. Call it what you want with your no child left behind mentality. I'm not an elitist nor am I condescending enough to claim he needs a "grand champion" but, who are you to call me out because I refuse to hunt with a bang, splash, fetch dog...one that requires a pocket full of rocks to get the job done?? Who are you to say that because I demand a higher level of performance out of my dogs that I have no business advocating that a man seek the same for his hunting partner? Shame on you for thinking that your way of thinking...and for advocating that "good enough" actually is. Yall are quick to jump on those of us that take our dog work seriously...as if we were "that guy" with face paint, drake stickers, and fancy gear...all the while all we are trying to do is advocate a better hunting partner...yeah...but I'm the bad guy. I suppose next you'll tell me you've been doing this since ducks and dogs came off the ark and that Mike Lardy learned everything he knows from you??? Seriously man... speechless.

As for the riveted John boat...I don't care what you choose to sink in whatever wood duck hole you deem boat worthy...they still haven't drug the Titanic up from the bottom...


----------



## Buckhunter (Jan 15, 2015)

Joe Overby said:


> I tell you what my man...I disagree with your last statement. I disagree with you thinking you know what you want....or even need. I disagree with "good enough"...and I disagree with not accounting for food, gas, and time...so here is what I'm offering: come train with me. Spend one day with me. I'll even only do hunting stuff and no competition concepts. I'll just do gun dog mutt huts, stands, 8 birds falling at once, shotguns, calls...it'll just be an srs event...one day...come train. And THEN you'll have an idea of what you THINK you need.



Would love to see you and your dogs work. Would have to be over the summer, but I am the type take you up on the invite so as long as it stands I will circle back closer to summer. As to the disagreeing part, I really think you are giving me much more credit than I deserve. I am a novice that has little to no intention of having a dog that meet the standards of yourself and some others in this thread.   I started this thread and stated very clearly that I was about to ask a silly question and show my ignorance and that is exactly what I did. I had no idea how the breeding process worked for dogs like mine and most definitely did not know about the litany of issues "common" bred labs can have. Now that I know these things, and being unable to spend what I consider to much money on a pure bred dog, I think I will go a different route. Regardless of anything else I do appreciate the information you have shared!       



chocolate dog said:


> There is nothing more entertaining than watching those who THINK they know what they are taking about argue with those who actually DO know what they are talking about lol.
> 
> Good stuff I tell ya.



Not sure if you are referring to me, but way off base if you are.


----------



## 91xjgawes (Jan 15, 2015)

Some do not take it with the same attitude as you Joe. Some people could care less if their pet is the picture of a trained retriever. They just enjoy being in the outdoors and hunting with their dog. Everyone has different expectations. There is nothing in the world wrong with that! I enjoy messing around with my dogs, I enjoy going to hunt test, by no means what so ever am I an expert. The hunting experience is much more pleasurable with a finished dog, I have never hunted with a dog I thought was perfect though. To you its a must, but not for everyone. I'm sure you will argue my points, that's just the way I see it. This horse has been beat to death...


----------



## mcarge (Jan 15, 2015)

Dang...I thought I might have something to add...

I guess I can admit I got my last 8 week old pup 11 years ago from a guy on a farm in Aiken, SC for the astronomical price of $250. The owner of the pups said to me..."these dogs ain't never hunted before Mr. but they don't know when to quit"..."they will wear you out".  That was all I needed to hear...best dog I have trained in over 25 years .

You can take it out of them...but you sure can't put it into them. They either got it ..or they don't!


----------



## Buckhunter (Jan 15, 2015)

mcarge said:


> Dang...I thought I might have something to add...but ....what the heck was I thinking!


----------



## mcarge (Jan 15, 2015)

Buckhunter said:


>



Late night entertainment value


----------



## 91xjgawes (Jan 15, 2015)

Buckhunter said:


>


----------



## Scrapy (Jan 16, 2015)

An old black female I had was not much for looks. Her daddy had one eye so he could not judge distance good . He had one eye because he stick it on a chicken wire crawfish trap edge being curious. Not genetic. The black daughter was ugly too.  We would shoot our corn field duck pond about twice a year, all two acres worth.  One son would be two hundred feet downstream and the other son was a hundred feet up stream. The dog chose always to stick with me. We would wade out. and she woud stand beside me. When the ducks started coming in she would fetch one and drop it at me and go get another one. I never took the time to line her up and give commands and make her sit and hand me a duck and then jump in her chair above the water line. She never wore a life vest in her life. She would have drowned me before I could have drowned her . There sure is a whole lot of showing off going on. Looking good .She would just go fetch and drop ducks at me and when the pile of ducks got high enough I would hollow at the boys that we had enough and be gone in 15 minutes all tole. When we got back to the house I would tell her she was a good dog.  She needed no tree chained up chair nor life vest to mess around in. I just shot ducks and she stacked them. We never said  a word to each other for we were very busy doing our own thing.


----------



## king killer delete (Jan 16, 2015)

share your thoughts. Be respectful.


----------



## SJA (Jan 16, 2015)

Joe Overby said:


> I tell you what my man...I disagree with your last statement. I disagree with you thinking you know what you want....or even need. I disagree with "good enough"...and I disagree with not accounting for food, gas, and time...so here is what I'm offering: come train with me. Spend one day with me. I'll even only do hunting stuff and no competition concepts. I'll just do gun dog mutt huts, stands,* 8 birds falling at once*, shotguns, calls...it'll just be an srs event...one day...come train. And THEN you'll have an idea of what you THINK you need.



Be mindful that everyone can't shoot as good as you.


----------



## Joe Overby (Jan 16, 2015)

I've never missed one out of a winger with a popper gun...


----------



## king killer delete (Jan 16, 2015)

Tom Quinn in his book The Working Retriever that he always wanted to think that a Field Champion would be in the hands of a Grocery boy.   This is a paraphrase of his words.


----------



## gunslinger33 (Jan 16, 2015)

I'm going to add my 2 cents.

First I don't know Joe from Adam but we have had some conversations. What I do know is Joe passionate about what he does and his breed.


I bred and showed Akitas for 15 years before I changed directions with breeds. I still love Akitas but the general public wants Akitas for the wrong reason.

As breeders we own every dog we breed and every offspring they produce. We own the genetic faults that we produce , so we try our hardest to produce an animal that is as free from genetic failure as we possibly can. This means knowing where the dog came from and where the CensoredCensoredCensoredCensoredCensored came from. We do our homework to follow up on all the puppies that have produced by the other animal. Sometimes two OFA excellent animals can produce displatic offspring and two OFA fair can produce an OFA excellent but knowing the lineage helps to make the right decision. Hips are just one of several genetic concerns , you also need to check elbows , knees , eyes and other breed specific genetic health concerns.

I wanted a GSP as my second breed but after looking at several breeders I walked away thinking they all look different compared to the breed standard. I didn't want a GSP that looked like a pointer , I wanted a GSP that looked like a GSP. I also wanted a versatile dog , most just focused on upland hunting and no water work. Basically the only control in the States is the person doing the breeding. I found the DK and I was sold not because it had a name I couldn't pronounce Deutsch Kurzhaar but because the breeders and the NADKC only allow animals to be bred if the have passed hunt tests , conformation evaluation and hip evaluation. This along with other research made my decision.

Since we are talking labs currently on gundogbreeders there are 1606 lab breeders. Are all of these breeders breeding for the right reason? Perpetuating strong genetic represetatives that meet the breed standard? Probably not but the ones that do are very passionate about breeding for the right reason and not because I have a male and you have a female. As a breeder you own that puppy that went to the house two counties over that is being put to sleep because it has a fault that can't be fixed, you own the defistation that the kids feel when their dog is gone and an ethical breeder will replace that dog because they own it from day one until the end. Our passion and joy is to see a loved family campanion or to see our lineage win or excel in the events they are competing in.


----------



## SJA (Jan 16, 2015)

Joe Overby said:


> I've never missed one out of a winger with a popper gun...



I've never hunted with a winger or a popper gun.  What's a winger?


----------



## chocolate dog (Jan 16, 2015)




----------



## across the river (Jan 16, 2015)

Joe Overby said:


> Nope. But you are wrong on all accounts. Why in the world would a man own a dog he needs to walk up to every bird to retrieve?? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of having a retriever?? You get real...your delusions of "good enough" perpetuate the cycle of people having half trained "meat dawgs" instead of folks spending the necessary time, money, and resources to have a non slip, blind worthy retriever. Call it what you want with your no child left behind mentality. I'm not an elitist nor am I condescending enough to claim he needs a "grand champion" but, who are you to call me out because I refuse to hunt with a bang, splash, fetch dog...one that requires a pocket full of rocks to get the job done?? Who are you to say that because I demand a higher level of performance out of my dogs that I have no business advocating that a man seek the same for his hunting partner? Shame on you for thinking that your way of thinking...and for advocating that "good enough" actually is. Yall are quick to jump on those of us that take our dog work seriously...as if we were "that guy" with face paint, drake stickers, and fancy gear...all the while all we are trying to do is advocate a better hunting partner...yeah...but I'm the bad guy. I suppose next you'll tell me you've been doing this since ducks and dogs came off the ark and that Mike Lardy learned everything he knows from you??? Seriously man... speechless.
> 
> As for the riveted John boat...I don't care what you choose to sink in whatever wood duck hole you deem boat worthy...they still haven't drug the Titanic up from the bottom...



I don't know why I bother but here we go.  Respond if you like, but I'm done with this thread after this.   I am sure you are a great dog trainer and have top notch dogs.  I'm sure you are passionate as you can be about them. Here is my problem though.  It was obvious the man who originally started this post doesn't duck hunt that much.   I would be willing to bet he hunts ducks a few time of year tops and shoots primarily wood ducks.  To suggest that a man who kills a handful of ducks a year and is new to the sport needs to drop top dollar or have a hunt test capable dog is lunacy.  I've got a good friend that thought he caught duck hunting fever a few years ago hunting wood ducks on his hunting club.   He bought a high dollar dog from a line of champions, sent it off to a professional trainer for months, and now it sits in his back yard and he might have taken it hunting once this year.  This high breed dog is now a so called "boom, splash, fetch dog."   I have another friend that has a "lab" with a white mark on his chest(i realize you would not share a blind with this mutt) that is solid as a rock.   You should know as well as anyone on here the well breed dogs aren't born with obedience training engrained.  This man doesn't need a champion retriever,he needs a pet that will retrieve  the few ducks he kills each year.  He doesn't care if it runs down the bank, or won't make a 200 yard blind retrieve.  I said earlier that I don't think any common person should breed dogs, regardless of the breed.  But there are plenty of dogs out there already born, that this man can teach to sit, stay, not break, and even train to run simple blind retrieves.  He can adopt a dog to do this, and then if he doesn't hunt keep it as a pet.  
You said in your post, "Who are you to say that because I demand a higher level of performance out of my dogs that I have no business advocating that a man seek the same for his hunting partner?"  I guess I would in response ask you some questions.  Do you think a man who plays golf, is a 3 handicap, and is a member of one of the nicer private clubs in the area has the right to tell the guy that is an occasional golfer, is a 30 handicap, and plays at the local public cow pasture club that he shouldn't be playing?  Does the man with a $50,000 customized truck, have the right to tell another man he should not be driving a 1980s model rusted out Chevy Pickup?  Does the man with a brand new bass boat have the right to tell the new guy in the beat up fish and ski he shouldn't be fishing in the club tournament?   I would hope you would answer no, and in turn see that your statements are coming across the same way.
I hate the fact that when new guys with little to no duck hunting experience come on here to ask what type of shotgun they need, they get told to they need a $1000+ automatic that starts with the letter B.  If they ask what kind  of boat they need they get told they need a all welded duck boat with a mud motor.  If they ask about a dog, they are told they need to drop thousands on a dog that is field trial ready.   I don't know about everyone else, but I started hunting wood ducks on creeks with a 20 gauge Stevens, in army camo.  The first dog I ever had was not well trained, but I was a proud as I could be when he brought a duck back.  Even if this man ends up with a dog that is below you standards, I highly doubt he and his dog are ever going to end up in a pit blind with you hunting over a rice field in Mississippi.  Why not offer him some advise in his effort to train his dog instead of spending all of your time trying to convince him that he needs a dog that meets your expectations for a "higher level of performance."


----------



## Joe Overby (Jan 16, 2015)

ACR, I applaud your efforts for stickin vm to your guns. However, your comparison of my advocating the man strive for better than busch league to telling a golfer to stop golfing, or a fisherman to stop fishing is a bit of a stretch. I hold that if someone is going to bring a dog hunting that it be properly trained. I'm sorry if that offends you.  The fact that youve overlooked every other argument disproving your theory to argue with me is interesting though. 

In my professional opinion, I believe the ability to perform even rudimentary blind retrieves is necessary for hunting.  I believe the dog need be steady to wing and shot. And i believe the dog need be able to mark and remember multiple birds. The part of this i just cannot get over is why you so passionately argue that more people should hunt with an unprepared, half trained mutt...I cannot wrap my brain around your logic. 

Lastly, the man didn't ask for training advice. He asked if breeding his dog was a viable option. Had he asked for training advice I'd likely of offered some...and then argued with you as to why you thought I was wrong....that his "meat dawg" didn't need to do all of that fancy field test crap...

FWIW, a white blaze on a labs chest is acceptable per AKC breed standards...why you think i would not hunt with a dog based on outward appearance shows just how little you actually read and listened to my arguments. I don't care what your dog looks like...but it better do the work.


----------



## krazybronco2 (Jan 16, 2015)

SJA said:


> I've never hunted with a winger or a popper gun.  What's a winger?



i have not hunted out of a winger but have shoot quite a few birds out of a winger and i have even heard of someone killing a quail with a popper load!!!!


----------

