Should dogs outside the standard be bred?

[STait]

I have no idea what the standard range is for "sled dogs", but I've heard it said over recent years that the best weight is around 55 lbs for their job. I'd bet that is at the small end of their standard since they have a lot more sporting dog blood in the current competitors, compared to older husky type dogs. Like Hicntry, I breed for what I believe is optimal for my breed to be the most efficient to do their job. I've found it very easy to produce males around 55 lbs, but females vary quite a bit between 40 lbs and 50 lbs.

[JTracyII]

I have no idea what the standard range is for "sled dogs", but I've heard it said over recent years that the best weight is around 55 lbs for their job. I'd bet that is at the small end of their standard since they have a lot more sporting dog blood in the current competitors, compared to older husky type dogs. Like Hicntry, I breed for what I believe is optimal for my breed to be the most efficient to do their job. I've found it very easy to produce males around 55 lbs, but females vary quite a bit between 40 lbs and 50 lbs.

What have you found the 55 Lb male and 45ish lb female to be able to do best for what you do? What have you found these general weights to be most helpful for? If I remember right you run pointers, so I assume you are referring to speed and endurance, but would like to hear your opinion.

[STait]

I have no idea what the standard range is for "sled dogs", but I've heard it said over recent years that the best weight is around 55 lbs for their job. I'd bet that is at the small end of their standard since they have a lot more sporting dog blood in the current competitors, compared to older husky type dogs. Like Hicntry, I breed for what I believe is optimal for my breed to be the most efficient to do their job. I've found it very easy to produce males around 55 lbs, but females vary quite a bit between 40 lbs and 50 lbs.

What have you found the 55 Lb male and 45ish lb female to be able to do best for what you do? What have you found these general weights to be most helpful for? If I remember right you run pointers, so I assume you are referring to speed and endurance, but would like to hear your opinion.

A lot of the cover I run in can be fairly tall and brushy and the bigger dogs(55 lbs) handle it better. Endurance and speed is a good reason to run a 55 lb dog. If I could consistently produce 55 lb females I might, but over time I'd be afraid of producing bigger males. 60 lb males are about the biggest I'd want to run. From my understanding the bigger dogs don't handle the punishment of rough terrain as well and don't have the endurance, nor the speed. I've never seen a 70 lb dog run like this for extended time periods. Maybe while chasing birds or whatever.

[JTracyII]

Those are my thoughts as well. In the two legged world, marathon runners are medium sized to smaller in size. Men who can run 6 minutes per mile or faster for 26.2 miles who are over 160 lbs are very rare. Those who run even faster are even lighter for the most part. I assume that generally speaking this is the case in the dog world from what I have seen. I wonder what the average weight of the male upland FC is?

[STait]

Are FC's judged against each other or against a standard? I can guess somewhat accurately that the average horseback field trial champion would likely weigh between 50Lbs to 55 lbs for pointers.

[hicntry]

The standard for Airedales was set by the show world and was not a working standard so I bred to different standards that worked for the purpose I was using them for. While the standard calls for a 55 lb dog with a flat back anf a high tail set at no more than 23" tall. It just wasn't suitable for a fast trailing dog covering miles pursuing running game in rough country. Most of my best dogs were 75 to 85 pounds, extremely low tail set and 4 to 6 inches taller than the standard. Their front feet, when standing had no more than 2 to 3 inches separating them while the back end was broad and powerful. ....no single trackers allowed. Most had a bit of a roached back.

[JTracyII]

HC,

You said the standard called for higher tail set, but you found your best dogs had a lower one. Did you find that the lower tail set vs higher made a difference in some way?

[hicntry]

Dogs with a high tail set have a tendency to have the back legs extend rearward as they would if the dog had been stacked for show, They lose some of the forward reach so they have a shorter quicker stride= more work.When compared to running dogs such as saluki, greyhound whippets ets, they all have very low tail and roached backs which takes the stiffness out of the back for fluid movement. With a low tail set, the back legs are rotated forward under the body so they can reach forward and to the rear for a full power stroke.. If a high tail set was the answer, the running dogs would all have high tail sets....but they don't.

[JTracyII]

That does make some since to me. I have noticed that greyhounds and the running dogs have the features you described. But, EP and other upland field specialists have a higher tail. This may be due to the AKC field judges giving points for style instead of a benefit to the dogs actual work. I don't know. But, it could also be because a higher tail and different reach with back legs benefits a dog that needs to run 20 miles a day vs shorter blasts? However, I know that you have run your dogs over long distances several days a week in the past, and if I remember right you found that the ones with the features you mentioned ran the distance better than a higher tailed dog. It is certainly interesting. I wonder if dogs in NASTRA where style is not as big a deal have a lower tail set, on average, than dogs that make it to the top in AKC field trials where it is very important to have a high tail set for style points? Maybe someone here has seen a difference? I know that dogs from both camps often compete in both, so there may not be a difference. But, what about those lines that have done well generation after generation in NASTRA and never needed a high tail to win AKC?

[STait]

High tails in bird dogs have been popular for more than 50 years, and to some degree it has been detrimental to the breeds, ie. sickle tail. Nowadays people (prospective buyers) are obsessed with high tails. Kinda sad really how much they care about the dogs tail compared to the important traits.

JTracy you're correct about the shorter, faster running dogs with the low tails and roached backs. My high tailed pointers can carry their gait to high speed on flat ground for an hour or so, and usually run for 3+ hours in the steep chukar hills, often times covering over 15 miles a day. I'm not bragging, it's just what my Garmin tells me.

[hicntry]

One thing I have noticed over the years is how misconceived the s of sprinters vs marathon runners when it comes to endurance. If a sprinter was going to run a 26 mile marathon he is obviously not going to start as if he were running a 100 yard dash. Dogs are no different. A dog will move a scent track for miles at a good clip, but, the only time you see that dog go all out is when the game is in sight.....that is when you get a perspective on what the dog can really do. Another misconception in regards to speed is coyotes vs dogs. You have all heard how when the dog gets close, the coyote picks up another gear and walks away from the dog. Only in someones mind. What actually happens id the dog slows down a bit because most dogs got no idea what to do if they catch the coyote.

[hicntry]

My view of tail sets is pretty simple. Pointing dogs were meant to point and the tail has much to do with what a nice point looks like.Why would a pointer person want to breed for a low tail set? I had no need of a dog pointing, but, I needed the low tail set.

[orhunter]

15 miles a day for a Chukar hunting dog is hardly a workout. I'd do close to that myself on the average day. Never put a Garmin on my Griff but she had to be doing well over 40 a lot of those days when she was young. She never did anything slow.

[STait]

15 miles a day for a Chukar hunting dog is hardly a workout. I'd do close to that myself on the average day. Never put a Garmin on my Griff but she had to be doing well over 40 a lot of those days when she was young. She never did anything slow.

That's why you really don't know what your dog was doing. If you're going out for 6-8 hours and not finding many birds then 40 miles is no problem. You go out for 3 hours (and put a garmin on) and have six coveys pointed where it takes you 10 minutes to get to each point and you'll see what's realistic. Show me a photo of your Griff fully extended. Here's one of a dog that moves. On flat ground a dog like this will go 15-20 miles in an hour depending on the number of bird contacts. In the chukar hills very few dogs average more than 6-7 miles per hour, and that's not including any finds. But, of course, that depends on the steepness of the hills.

[STait]

One thing I have noticed over the years is how misconceived the s of sprinters vs marathon runners when it comes to endurance. If a sprinter was going to run a 26 mile marathon he is obviously not going to start as if he were running a 100 yard dash. Dogs are no different. A dog will move a scent track for miles at a good clip, but, the only time you see that dog go all out is when the game is in sight.....that is when you get a perspective on what the dog can really do. Another misconception in regards to speed is coyotes vs dogs. You have all heard how when the dog gets close, the coyote picks up another gear and walks away from the dog. Only in someones mind. What actually happens id the dog slows down a bit because most dogs got no idea what to do if they catch the coyote.

Coyote vs dog...vice versa, I've seen a couple of dogs chased by coyotes and they can't catch them. One had two coyotes on him. Is that your experience also, coyotes not that fast?