# "Foundation" dogs?



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Question....I was looking at a breeder's site and under their "foundation" sires and dams they had several dogs that they never owned or bred, but simply listed them because they were in their own dogs' pedigrees. Is that fair? I guess I always thought your "foundation" dogs were the ones that YOU owned and used to start your breeding program, not the dogs in the pedigrees of your dogs.


----------



## Chris Wild (Dec 14, 2001)

I agree. I would not consider dogs back in the pedigree to be a breeder's foundation dogs. To me, foundation dog is one that the breeder owned, bred from, and kept back pups from and later bred those, continuing on the line which traces back to that original foundation dog.


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Thanks, just wanted to make sure I was understanding it correctly. It seemed like tricky advertising to me but I wanted to make sure.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

hmmmm...maybe they are following the philosophy like foundation quarterhorses? I can look at Red's papers and he is almost 100% foundation quarterhorse with a couple of thoroughbred, like Man O War, in there. but I've never seen a quarterhorse breeder list all the sires and dams that they never owned unless it's a copy of the record from the horse they own.


----------



## Andaka (Jun 29, 2003)

On the other hand, if they chose dogs from specific bloodlines, as in sired by a particular dog, then they might call them "foundation" dogs. My Am line dogs are linebred on Sundance Kid and Kane, so I might be able to call them my foundation as I specifically chose dogs with those bloodlines to buy or breed to.


----------



## Doc (Jan 13, 2009)

Maybe it should read foundation bloodlines and the first dogs owned by a breeder in his breeding program would be his/her foundation dog(s)?


----------



## Liesje (Mar 4, 2007)

Daphne and Doc, that would make sense and I think would be better wording. However based on the dogs featured, they aren't really indicative of a select bloodline. I was just taken aback at first b/c I was on the "foundation sires" page and thought, "hey I think I recognize this dog..." and sure enough it was a famous/popular dog not ever owned by this kennel.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

I'm sure this is a silly question...

Does the AKC have a set of dogs they consider 'foundation' as in the AQHA does?

Here is Red's pedigree. Most of the horses in hid background are "foundation quarterhorses" (except a couple thoroughbreds that made a few appendix quarterhorses)

http://www.allbreedpedigree.com/rich+n+handsome


----------



## Andaka (Jun 29, 2003)

No, they don't. Since our breed was basically bred from one stud dog, Horand, then we don't have any other "foundation" dogs for the breed. And as split as the varieties are, you would have to look at more recent dogs for foundations of that type -- Lance, Bernd, Hein for the Am show lines; Canto, Quanto, and Mutz for German show lines, etc.


----------



## tuco (Sep 14, 2009)

I could see where someone would claim a certain well known dog, as the foundation dog for what they offer, as long as the well known dog or dogs are close in on the ped.

Years ago, I contacted a Lady named Heidi Hatfield in regards to her dogs. At that time Heidi had a big dog named, V Fanto vom Tankgraben. I saw what I wanted in him, and immediately purchased his 6wk old son.

I named his son Bennie. If anyone would have asked me, how Bennie was bred, I would not have said Fanto, because only a few would have known the dog.
Instead I would say that Bennie was a V3 Cello von der Römerau dog. Cello was Fanto's sire. I had never seen Cello, but Cello is a well known GSD. When I say a Cello dog, anyone knowledgable about GSD peds would know about the topside line my dog is from.


----------

