mnp13 wrote:Actually the reason for that breeding makes a lot of sense. Instead of judging it, why don't you just ask?
I did ask once in the past, and got no answer. A Tacoma/Sierra cross seems extremely peculiar to me. I persoanlly think that both Harold's dogs and the Sierra dogs are overdone, so it seems like a very strange combo if it was working dogs that were the desired result. It's also a weird outcross if the goal is to preserve the Tacoma line, as you are getting a long ways away from type. The only thing I could come up with was to make Harold's strain of Tacoma dogs a bit prettier, while keeping the very bully look. But, that isn't the style of Harold or Chris. Therefore, I'm stumped!
I personally love the Tacoma dogs, and would like to see them return in all their former glory. When that happens, I'll be standing in line for a dog.
Why don't you start by telling me exactly who thinks that breeding is just "tossing together two dogs"?
Look around the breed. That's what most of them think. How often do you see actual plans with uniform type? Not often at all. The vast majority of what is out there is scatterbred dogs with only short term goals in mind. It typically fits the plan, as most breeders are in and out in 5-10 years. But, it's not what is best for the breed. Most of today's big shots will be gone in a few years. The Pascoes, Greys, Harpers, Boudreauxes, Sorrells, etc, are the exception, and not the norm.
Actually, let's back right up: I have had the dog for a total of FIVE days. I am a loooooooong way from even considering the thought of maybe breeding him. You and Karen are acting like I have a female in heat in the back yard wating for him.
Actually, Chris and Karen were discussing breeding the dog. I don't think you will breed the dog at all, just from what you have shared your beliefs to be in the past. My post was to Chris, not you.
Riggs is a healthy, happy boy. Right now my only plans for him are to train him and have a good time doing it.
I hope he exceeds all your expectations
