Ray, I have not read the thread on pits...but I will read through it today. I work on a cattle ranch. Because the the dollars put into genetic studies, I pay close attention to what is going on in the cattle industry. While the info is invaluable, the one big drawback they have is they are studies to develop the highest production with the least loss since the norm is a single calf per year. Dogs are a touch different in my mind. I keep brood bitches that have a 12 to 15 pup litter, I am quite satisfied with a litter of 50% healthy pups and more so if it is better. The last few litters were 80% and then came a 33% cross that normally produces 50% to 75% viable pups. These are probably the tightest bred Airedales you will find. As you may guess, many to not like my outlook on some things but, if anyone has any thoughts to breeding close, cull any pup that is not crawling and crying as they hit the ground or within a few seconds. The first sign of a healthy pup can be seen right then as they are born. Don't hand feed and don't interfere for the first 4 weeks. Good pups are not benefited by handling from day one, it only conditions the less confident pups. Handling makes it close to impossible to tell the best pups in a litter because it conditions them all so they are used to being handled.
Qaz, I am not going to take offence at your opinions as long as you don't take any about mine. I never said or implied that Airedales bred as true to type as bulldogs, they don't. The 50 lb bitch, show lines mind you, had a 100lb brother. There is probably more size variation in Airedales than most any breed. I have seen them from 40lb to over 120lbs. Most of you opinions are formed from a lack of knowledge of the breed. The standard was set by the show people and I can guarantee you it was not a working standard....it was designed to make the dog look good walking in the ring on a flat floor. I have numerous books from the twenties that say within less than 5 years of the show people taking the airedale under its wing, it was readily apparent that the power was lost in the rear end and was no longer fit for the working class. There we go to the flat, short back, high tail set . You say you are in genetics so lets get on the same page.....if most all of the standards are based on recessive traits, which in my observations they are, how long do you suppose it will truly take to set a type on size, cauliflower ears, short backs high tail sets, yadda yadda yadda, when the dominate genes keep pushing it the other way. Without dragging out the history books, the standard was set close to 1900. It is a very young breed compared to many. Before the show people set the standard, they were called Airedales but from individual to individual, they looked like separate breeds. A very high percentage of way over the standard Airedales, such as the 100lb brother I mentioned are produced by show breeders who, for all intent and purpose, have lines basically made of of dogs carrying recessives. We hyave actually discussed slitting the bred to get shed of the show breeders. Now, unlike yourself, I have roaded these dogs for thousands of miles over the years in twos and threes. You learn a lot about movement and such when you can watch multiple dogs move day after day, up steep inclines and down, across flats, at a run, walk and easy lope. When I picked a dog, it was for the endurance, ease of movement in varied terrain. The dog in the rear was always the one the closest to the standard in both size and build. They metamorphosed right before my eyes. They were picked for working ability Qaz,, not because I think I know genetics and it doesn't make sense or any thing else. They were picked because over the years, this is what worked, irregardless of your genetic theory . You say they are fat mutts, I say you need some real life experience at close breeding. These dog are DNA'ed if that helps because I suspect that is the kind of info you believe. Qas, I tend to get a bit wound up when discussing these thing with someone that hasn't no idea of the breed or anything. You have a bulldog and I could have guessed that right off the bat. Because of this I will give you a pass if you don't understand what I am talking about regarding the back and tail sets and such. Bulldogs were never meant to be greyhounds. I have a question for you , since you work in a lab at a university I will assume you are a student, regarding HD(Hip Dysplasia). In genetics, things are normally in pairs if there is a pair.....such as arms legs and so on. Since the club foot is the one anomaly I can really think of that contradict this paired theory, where if you have one abnormally short arm, you will have two, same with legs ears and so on. Club feet can be on one foot only. So, how can a dog have rated excellent hip while the other is rated fair or fail? The science field crawfishes and says "oh my, it is more complex than we first thought, and not only is there a possibility of multiple genes involved, it may be heavily influenced by diet also" How about this theory I have from working dogs so long( I have 26 in the yard right now). It is much more likely that it is due injury or trauma after birth and has little to do with genetics. HD run amok when people decided they knew more about having pups than the bitch did. Brought them in the house an put newspapers down on a hard flat floor. Mom applies some of her weight on a pup and spreads the socket against the flat floor. Natures whelping area was a rounded hole where all the pups gravitated to the bottom and seldom got laid on....even partially.
This is really a difficult area to discuss when we are not all on the same page either because of a basic understanding of genetics(which I can get by on) or the other party has no practical experience regarding the subject matter.....such as Airedales. By the way, Airedales started out as working dogs, not show dogs, I am just putting them back where they belong Qas.
