Welcome to Verdugo's 

                    Game Fowl Farm

We are VERY proud of the fowl we raise, and are sure that we will make you a believer that a good rooster comes in all colors. Especially Henny Feathered.

Most people don't like Henny Fowl, but where we show Most people have learned to Hate them.

 Thanks for looking, and hope you enjoy the page.


Although we recognize the importance, and advantages of a SOLID Fundation bloodline. We Don't believe on "TALES", the word "PURE" , nor in          "NAME  BREEDING".  We believe in proper selection, and the  breeding  of  oustanding individuals, combined with the use of breeding methods, and proper rearing is the road to establish the characteristics on a superior family of  GameFowl.

Here is an Article I found.  it best describes our opinion about the concepts of: "Pure", "Strain", and "Name Breeding"

it was written by a man named Darren U. Talissen please read this and enjoy it as articles like this are gold in my opinion.

We frequently see in the gamefowl journals, on the forums, and in person, debate regarding the authenticity of various gamefowl strains. These debates often go in many directions, and rarely have a decided conclusion. In the end, any beginner that is privy to this debate walks away even more thoroughly confused than he was before the conversation began.

Today, I would like to discuss my take on the situation, and while some may disagree, I believe that tonight I will have many cockers nod their head as they read and realize that I am giving a fair representation of their thoughts on the subject.

To begin the discussion, let us imagine a completely fictional, but very plausible scenario. Two cockers are at the show and one asks the other what strain his fowl are. The man replies that they are Kelso. The beginner may wonder, how can these fowl be Kelso, as Walter Kelso passed many years ago. I’m not sure of the exact date of Mr. Kelso’s demise, however I am sure it was in excess of 30 years ago. Since Mr. Kelso has not touched a feather in over 30 years, I really doubt that he had much input to the breeding of this particular cock. So, who deserves the credit for his victory? Should Mr. Kelso receive the credit or does the man who has maintained the strain for decades and still breeds the strain deserve the credit?

Many people argue that there are not true Hatch, Kelso, Kearney or Bacon fowl left in existence. I agree with this thoroughly. Colonel Bacon created a strain of fowl that were very inferior, the name Warhorse was not given to this strain until many years after they left Bacon’s hands and through skilled breeding had developed into a strain that was arguably unbeatable for many years. So why would anyone call their fowl Bacon Warhorse?

In my opinion, there are few that truly believe that there is a true line of any of these strains in existence, including their own fowl. A beginner, at this point might wonder why in the world the man would say his fowl are Kelso if he has no belief that a true Kelso strain exists. The answer can be summed up in one single word “reference”. The name of the strain provides us with a point of reference. If a man says that he has Claret fowl, he is not claiming that his rooster was owned by Colonel Madigan himself, and in most cases, he is not implying that this rooster is identical to the fowl that Colonel Madigan raised. Instead he is simply giving us an idea of this fowl’s traits.

When a man tells me he raises Claret fowl, I know that he has a line of black breasted red fowl, with straight combs, legs that are probably white, but may be yellow, and is an all around athlete. When another man tells me that he raises Lacy Roundhead, I don’t assume that he claims to have been pals with Judge Lacy, but that he is giving me a point of reference regarding the traits and ancestry of his fowl.

Your last name may be Jones. If we go back into history hundreds or thousands of years we might find the first of your ancestors to call himself Jones. Technically, he is the only true “Mr. Jones”, and you may only carry far less than one percent of his blood in your veins. When you tell us that you are Mr. Jones, you are not implying that you are a clone of the original Mr. Jones, nor are you implying that you are 800 years old. You are simply giving us a descriptor, which gives us an idea of your ancestry.

Your name may be John Jones. John tells us exactly which of the Jones bloodline you are, you may elaborate further by telling us that you are John Jones Jr., this further describes exactly which Jones you are, and tells us who your father is (John Jones Sr.).

If I tell you that I raise Jumper Lacy Roundheads, view Roundhead as the last name, or surname of my fowl. Jumper is the first name, this elaborates further, and tells you who was the most recent person to maintain the breed (Mr. Jumper). Finally “Lacy” serves in the same way that Jr. does in John Jones Jr.’s name, in that it elaborates further into the ancestry of the fowl.

Suppose that I bought those fowl from Mr. Jumper 20 years ago. Can I still call them Jumper Lacy Roundheads? If I have added any foreign blood to them, I cannot, as they are no longer the exact strain that Mr. Jumper bred.

Let’s assume that my Jumper Lacy Roundheads are 15/16 of the Jumper line, and I added 1/16 of another strain of roundhead to them. Many will tell you that 15/16 is close enough to pure. My response is that if I have 5 gallons of water, and add 1 teacup of urine to it, is that water pure? Of course it isn’t, and I certainly don’t plan to drink it. The truth of the matter I should rename this strain. I should call them Darren Roundheads, or something similar.

On the other hand, let’s assume that my line of Marsh Butcher have also been in my hands for over 20 years, but have had no outside blood added to them. Can I truthfully call them Marsh Butchers? The answer to this question is debatable, one side says that I can because they are pure, while the other side says that I surely use different techniques than the Marsh family in breeding and rearing, therefore they are no longer exactly what the Marsh family would produce.

In my opinion, the proper way to describe these fowl would be either to call them Darren Butchers, or maybe to call them Marsh Butchers, and further elaborate that I have had them for 20 years, but have added no outside blood.

We will always have among us the “chicken peddlers” who will not have any intentions of honesty. Most of these peddlers are very ignorant of our history, and you may help to protect your wallet from them if you were to brush up a bit on gamefowl history. Then, when a 25 year old man tells you that he bought his Hatch fowl directly from Sandy Hatch, you will know him to be a liar, and when a 50 year old peddler tells you that he bought his Warhorse from Colonel Bacon in 1975, you will also see his true colors.

Fortunately, those individuals are the minority in our ranks, and most cockers have every intention of honesty. It is those fine gentleman whom I hope to have provided benefit with this post. In a nutshell, call your fowl whatever you wish, but the best method to maintain your integrity is to give short description of the fowl, in the event that the name may be somewhat misleading.

I wish to add

About "PURE" Breeders.  Those are Breeders that Put more attention on breeding "PURE" Individuals  than to the QUALITY of the FOWL being Breed.  Most believe that by breeding  the same "PURE" will perpetuate the quality of such family, without considering the REAL QUALITY of the Individuals being breed.

THERE ARE NO "PURE" Fowl.   ALL so called "PURE" FOWL  began as a cross of 2 different individuals/families.

"NAME BREEDERS" merely Breeding by "NAME" as a Sales Pitch. As Long as the Fowl Look Alike and from a "FAMOUS NAME" will continue to Breed/Sale them as Such.


(although I have not real way to know) 

Old Time Cockers/Breeders such as;

Kelso, Hatch, Law, Madigin; (to name a few)

Breed "NAMES" or "PURE FOWL"








Newest Members