'building Better Dogs' Seminar 11 Feb 2010

[Are You Serious Jo]

What is their definition of a good dog though?

[bryan_mannix]

What is their definition of a good dog though?

He He. I was wondering how long it would take for you to weigh in with some negative barb. My world is not as full of gloom and conspiracies

Probably a good idea to wait for the transcripts of the seminar before we all go off half cocked.

It is an interesting thought though that there is a problem when it is the responsible breeders (by my definition ones that are producing very healthy, well adjusted dogs) that are also desexing the majority of their dogs when the rotten breeders perpetuating health problems in dogs are also sending them off into the world entire and into the hands of BYB and puppy farms.

[Crisovar]

There were also some interesting points about desexing. You might not realise a dog is a truly great dog until it is mature (even up to 6 years of age) but if it's been desexed as it is a 'pet' you've lost that dog from the gene pool. Perhaps more sales on breeders terms????

This subject has come up before when the topic of mandatory desexing has been desexed, the removal of dogs from the gene pool is a concern. I'd be interested to hear where this went today.

[KismetKat]

What is their definition of a good dog though?

Varies from breed to breed but basically you don't want a dog that is fearful or bites people (or other dogs) or is generally a pain in the arse (this is my VERY loose interpretation, PLS wait for the full video). The point was made that dogs need to be flexible to cope with modern living - and many dogs DO do this very well. However how well a dog copes and adjusts is really not apparent until the dog is an adult.

Basically they were saying it is as important to select for temperment than it is for looks. They suggested that breed associations should get together and list what traits they think desirable for that breed and select for those as well as looks. They said that, genetically, selecting for a single conformation aspect can lead to unthoughtof consequences on other things (which can be problems) appearing in the breed. They said if you are breeding PURELY for show, you should not be in the business of selling pets. They said breeding for extremes in a breed causes problems.

Basically they were saying that breeders should look to how the dogs behave as well as how they look when selecting parent dogs.

[Crisovar]

Varies from breed to breed but basically you don't want a dog that is fearful or bites people (or other dogs) or is generally a pain in the arse (this is my VERY loose interpretation, PLS wait for the full video). The point was made that dogs need to be flexible to cope with modern living - and many dogs DO do this very well. However how well a dog copes and adjusts is really not apparent until the dog is an adult.

So, choose your breed carefully, yep, all breeds have different characteristics.

Basically they were saying it is as important to select for temperment than it is for looks. They suggested that breed associations should get together and list what traits they think desirable for that breed and select for those as well as looks. They said that, genetically, selecting for a single conformation aspect can lead to unthoughtof consequences on other things (which can be problems) appearing in the breed. They said if you are breeding PURELY for show, you should not be in the business of selling pets. They said breeding for extremes in a breed causes problems.

Good breeders know this, and do this, again though choose your breed to suit your lifestyle and ability.

Breeding true to the breed standard not to extremes is what good breeders already do.

[huski]

Varies from breed to breed but basically you don't want a dog that is fearful or bites people (or other dogs) or is generally a pain in the arse (this is my VERY loose interpretation, PLS wait for the full video). The point was made that dogs need to be flexible to cope with modern living - and many dogs DO do this very well. However how well a dog copes and adjusts is really not apparent until the dog is an adult.

So, choose your breed carefully, yep, all breeds have different characteristics.

Basically they were saying it is as important to select for temperment than it is for looks. They suggested that breed associations should get together and list what traits they think desirable for that breed and select for those as well as looks. They said that, genetically, selecting for a single conformation aspect can lead to unthoughtof consequences on other things (which can be problems) appearing in the breed. They said if you are breeding PURELY for show, you should not be in the business of selling pets. They said breeding for extremes in a breed causes problems.

Good breeders know this, and do this, again though choose your breed to suit your lifestyle and ability.

Breeding true to the breed standard not to extremes is what good breeders already do.

I agree, and I think it's so important to note that a dog that has come from a good breeder, who has good health and temperament, can still be a bad dog in the wrong hands.

I have a breed that is known for being more difficult to live with, I don't find him to be that way at all, however in the wrong home he would be a nightmare.

Environmental factors (i.e. how the dog is raised and trained) is more often the cause of aggression than the dog's genetics.

Desirable traits in one breed will not always be desirable traits in another, breeders should breed dogs with temperaments that are in-accordance with their breed not dogs who are going to suit everyone Joe Blow and his family's "modern lifestyle". This line of thought reminds me of Kate Schoefel's desire to breed a beagle (by crossbreeding it with a cav) that doesn't have the desire to scent - is it worth ruining a breed and breeding away from the very purpose they were bred for to make it (supposedly) easier for people to live with?

I hope there was as big an emphasis on how important training and socialisation is when it comes to shaping our dogs and what kind of dogs they grow into, as there was on how we breed them?

Edited February 11, 2010 by huski

[WreckitWhippet]

What is their definition of a good dog though?

Varies from breed to breed but basically you don't want a dog that is fearful or bites people (or other dogs) or is generally a pain in the arse (this is my VERY loose interpretation, PLS wait for the full video). The point was made that dogs need to be flexible to cope with modern living - and many dogs DO do this very well. However how well a dog copes and adjusts is really not apparent until the dog is an adult.

Basically they were saying it is as important to select for temperment than it is for looks. They suggested that breed associations should get together and list what traits they think desirable for that breed and select for those as well as looks. They said that, genetically, selecting for a single conformation aspect can lead to unthoughtof consequences on other things (which can be problems) appearing in the breed. They said if you are breeding PURELY for show, you should not be in the business of selling pets. They said breeding for extremes in a breed causes problems.

Basically they were saying that breeders should look to how the dogs behave as well as how they look when selecting parent dogs.

The buyer needs to select a dog that is suitable for their lifestyle, people lead varied lifestyles and there are many breeds. It's the buyers that need to choose the appropriate breed ( together with the breeders matching the finer aspects of the individual temperament ) not create or water down breeds into a one size fits all generic dog.

And on the second bolded point. They are a hundred or more years too late in most cases and it's called the "breed standard"

[KismetKat]

Environmental factors (i.e. how the dog is raised and trained) is more often the cause of aggression than the dog's genetics.

Environmental factors were discussed, yet they made the point that even in 'bad' hands a 'good' dog will still be a 'good' dog. Genetics are a factor that should not be ignored,

Desirable traits in one breed will not always be desirable traits in another,

Which is why they said the breed associations should get together and agree on the traits they want and select for them.

I hope there was as big an emphasis on how important training and socialisation is when it comes to shaping our dogs and what kind of dogs they grow into, as there was on how we breed them?

education socialisation and training were also mentioned as being very important, but the point was made that even 'good' owners find themselves with 'bad' dogs.

[poodlefan]

And on the second bolded point. They are a hundred or more years too late in most cases and it's called the "breed standard"

Yep, I had a little "WTF" moment about that too. I can't recall any standard that doesn't specify temperament.

For the Whippet:

Temperament: Gentle, affectionate, even disposition.

KK:

Environmental factors were discussed, yet they made the point that even in 'bad' hands a 'good' dog will still be a 'good' dog.

There are plenty of studies that suggest otherwise.

Edited February 11, 2010 by poodlefan

[KismetKat]

The buyer needs to select a dog that is suitable for their lifestyle, people lead varied lifestyles and there are many breeds. It's the buyers that need to choose the appropriate breed ( together with the breeders matching the finer aspects of the individual temperament ) not create or water down breeds into a one size fits all generic dog.

And on the second bolded point. They are a hundred or more years too late in most cases and it's called the "breed standard"

No-one suggested that breeds be 'watered down' or be a 'one size fits all generic dog'. I think the point is that many breed standards do not specify behaviour/traits of dog breed. They are saying that diversity of dogs is good, but when it comes to behaviour/temp thenbreeders should agree what the dog should be like in regards to behaviour/temp and select for those things as well as looks.

[Are You Serious Jo]

Environmental factors (i.e. how the dog is raised and trained) is more often the cause of aggression than the dog's genetics.

Environmental factors were discussed, yet they made the point that even in 'bad' hands a 'good' dog will still be a 'good' dog. Genetics are a factor that should not be ignored,

To a point, but a bad owner can ruin ANY dog, no matter how good the temperament of the parents is.

[WreckitWhippet]

The buyer needs to select a dog that is suitable for their lifestyle, people lead varied lifestyles and there are many breeds. It's the buyers that need to choose the appropriate breed ( together with the breeders matching the finer aspects of the individual temperament ) not create or water down breeds into a one size fits all generic dog.

And on the second bolded point. They are a hundred or more years too late in most cases and it's called the "breed standard"

No-one suggested that breeds be 'watered down' or be a 'one size fits all generic dog'. I think the point is that many breed standards do not specify behaviour/traits of dog breed. They are saying that diversity of dogs is good, but when it comes to behaviour/temp thenbreeders should agree what the dog should be like in regards to behaviour/temp and select for those things as well as looks.

What in the hell is this then ?

CHARACTERISTICS - Traditionally of indomitable courage and tenacity. Highly intelligent and affectionate especially with children.

TEMPERAMENT - Bold, fearless and totally reliable.

and a BSE that goes on to explain the desirable.

[KismetKat]

Environmental factors (i.e. how the dog is raised and trained) is more often the cause of aggression than the dog's genetics.

Environmental factors were discussed, yet they made the point that even in 'bad' hands a 'good' dog will still be a 'good' dog. Genetics are a factor that should not be ignored,

To a point, but a bad owner can ruin ANY dog, no matter how good the temperament of the parents is.

Sorry - my bad - the point was made that even in 'bad' hands a 'good' dog MAY still be 'good'. For instance, why don't abused dogs savage their owners?

and just on breed standards - any I look up and I get internet file not found error messages. So I went to the US, can't see anywhere on the US breed standard a description of desirable temperament and behavioural traits of a couple of breeds I checked at random.

[WreckitWhippet]

Environmental factors (i.e. how the dog is raised and trained) is more often the cause of aggression than the dog's genetics.

Environmental factors were discussed, yet they made the point that even in 'bad' hands a 'good' dog will still be a 'good' dog. Genetics are a factor that should not be ignored,

To a point, but a bad owner can ruin ANY dog, no matter how good the temperament of the parents is.

Or an ignorant owner or even the well meaning owner, who simply doesn't understand what the breed/individual requires to be raised as a well rounded canine citizen.

[WreckitWhippet]

Environmental factors (i.e. how the dog is raised and trained) is more often the cause of aggression than the dog's genetics.

Environmental factors were discussed, yet they made the point that even in 'bad' hands a 'good' dog will still be a 'good' dog. Genetics are a factor that should not be ignored,

To a point, but a bad owner can ruin ANY dog, no matter how good the temperament of the parents is.

Sorry - my bad - the point was made that even in 'bad' hands a 'good' dog MAY still be 'good'. For instance, why don't abused dogs savage their owners?

and just on breed standards - any I look up and I get internet file not found error messages. So I went to the US, can't see anywhere on the US breed standard a description of desirable temperament and behavioural traits of a couple of breeds I checked at random.

Give me an example of a breed that you can't find any details of temperament in the breed standard

[WoofnHoof]

It may end up being about breed survival in the end, after all if you breed every beagle to have a high scent drive according to the original purpose of the breed (which is pretty much 99% redundant) and that is what makes them so challenging and ultimately what lands them in pounds. You can say to prospective owners if you can't handle it don't get that breed but where does it leave the breed in the end? How many 'ideal' beagle owners exist? How relevant is the scenting instinct to most pets? Some working breeds can adapt to being easy going pets but many breeds with strong working instincts are going to prove challenging for a lot of owners and the pound stats suggest that most owners aren't that committed.

I love the husky breed, I love their independence and I love the fact that they are challenging but I know that many many people are not suited to owning huskies, I doubt I'd be able to cope with more than one. Even Dr Harry says 'you have to be a special person to own a siberian husky' so how many people are 'special' (or should that be thpeshal? lol) enough to own a husky and is that enough to keep the breed alive?

I think what breed fanciers will have to decide is whether it is worth compromising on the historical signficance of certain traits, in order to keep the breed going in the future. There is no need to 'create' a generic dog as they all have different qualities but IMO some of the working breeds who are mostly going to be pets couldn't hurt to be bred towards a slightly less 'challenging' temperament.

[KismetKat]

Give me an example of a breed that you can't find any details of temperament in the breed standard

Ok. Airedale

and yes woofnhoof - the point was made that many jobs that dogs were originally bred for no longer exist and that modern living conditions of dogs (who predominately are pets) is vastly different from what it was in yesteryear. They even made the point that many aspects of dogs just being dogs are now considered 'problems' (eg. barking).

[Lhok]

I think what breed fanciers will have to decide is whether it is worth compromising on the historical signficance of certain traits, in order to keep the breed going in the future. There is no need to 'create' a generic dog as they all have different qualities but IMO some of the working breeds who are mostly going to be pets couldn't hurt to be bred towards a slightly less 'challenging' temperament.

Isn't that what dobe breeder's did a little while go when they had a lot of bad press?

I guess it didn't hurt them but the stigma is still there

--Lhok

[poodlefan]

Give me an example of a breed that you can't find any details of temperament in the breed standard

Ok. Airedale

ANKC Breed Standard for the Airedale Terrier. What the Americans choose to specify is of no concern unless the USA is the dog's country of origin

Characteristics: Keen of expression, quick of movement, on the tip-toe of expectation at any movement. Character denoted and shown by expression of eyes, and by carriage of ears and erect tail.

Temperament: Outgoing and confident, friendly, courageous and intelligent. Alert at all times, not aggressive but fearless.

Edited February 11, 2010 by poodlefan

[WoofnHoof]

I think what breed fanciers will have to decide is whether it is worth compromising on the historical signficance of certain traits, in order to keep the breed going in the future. There is no need to 'create' a generic dog as they all have different qualities but IMO some of the working breeds who are mostly going to be pets couldn't hurt to be bred towards a slightly less 'challenging' temperament.

Isn't that what dobe breeder's did a little while go when they had a lot of bad press?

I guess it didn't hurt them but the stigma is still there

--Lhok

I don't know but I've met a few lovely dobes I would love to know if their presence in pounds decreased after the changes were made but I suppose we don't have the data?