'building Better Dogs' Seminar 11 Feb 2010

[Cosmolo]

Read this, particularly Sol's post- http://www.dolforums.com.au/index.php?show...=dog+aggression

[huski]

WnH- what makes you think that reducing drive in a siberian would make them more trainable? More trainable than what? They're already far more trainable than some breeds and less trainable than others. I met two at a shelter yesterday that are there through no fault of their own and are LOVELY dogs.

It might just be what I am used to, but I find my Siberian and the ones I have met quite trainable. Higher drive makes a dog more trainable, not less, IMO.

[Cosmolo]

I agree Huski- i've found sibes generally very good to train in most areas, with a variety of techniques too.

[Keshwar]

Also, anyone who doesn't research a breed and find out exactly what that means shouldn't have a dog.

I didn't research my breed, should I not have a dog?

If you were looking at buying a new TV or a car would you do any research or would you just go out and buy the first one that looked nice?

If you research buying an inanimate object surely there should be some research done before buying a living being?

If having done no research on buying a car or TV would you then decide to make changes to the one you ended up buying because it didn't turn out quite right? The car goes to fast, the TV is too loud, better get it changed!

FFS dogs are living breathing beings I think it behoves anyone to at least do basic research before they buy one. This is one of the major objections to pet shops, they encourage impulse buying. People get a dog without knowing anything about it. These are the dogs that end up in pounds or rescue.

[/soapbox]

[Quickasyoucan]

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.

It's also what makes them the breed of choice for AQIS.

What makes the Beagle an attractive breed for many people is the affability deliberately bred into a dog kept and hunted in a pack. It's the fact that he IS a scent hound that give him his character.

If you don't want a scenthound then don't buy one. You don't need to stuff up a breed just so any idiot can own one.

Beagles are trainable. The simple fact of the matter is the many owners with "problem" beagles don't bother to.

The issues with many dogs are owner created. Start by changing the owner's behaviour, not buggering up the breed.

PF you always put things so succintly.

If I want a breed of dog the first thing I would do would think how happy can I make this dog (and conversely how happy would I be sharing my life with this dog) given the way in which I live.

For example, I love the look and athleticism of many HPR dogs (GSP's, Viszlas etc) but at the moment I don't have the time, space or opportunity to devote to their energy and exercise needs. The answer, I simply wouldn't buy one in my current situation, I would look for a breed that is better suited to how I currently live. I don't want a watered down version of an HPR, if and when I get one I want the real thing. I don't want something that looks like a GSP but doesn't act like one it makes no sense to me.

For the record, I actually own a crossbreed but I got him through rescue at 10 months and it was pretty obvious the kind of dog he was going to become and that we would be suited. I would actually never buy a crossbreed pup, too much uncertainty in that.

And I'm with Warley on the staffords, take out the "bold, fearless" and you could be in for a whole heap of trouble. A weak nerved dog can be a very dangerous one.

[Erny]

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????

I found this to be a somewhat contradicted point of view expressed within the presentations given on the day. On one hand they are saying "desex, desex, desex" yet on the other hand they say that's not good because the effect of desexing reduces the gene pool, and to desex a dog so young means that we don't really know if we're desexing the really good dogs who could have contributed good things back to the 'line' later on.

[Natsu chan]

Spike's Puppy here's the temperament section for the collie rough from the current UK standard. The ANKC hasn't caught up yet. There was a a description of temperament in the standard for a long time then at some point it disappeared. It looks to have been reinserted now.

Temperament

Friendly disposition with no trace of nervousness or aggressiveness. A great companion dog, friendly, happy and active, good with children and other dogs.

I think some people are forgetting that drive and nerve and temperament go hand in hand. Dogs need good nerves, it's essential you only have to look back and see how many breeds have become infamous for fear biting during periods or great popularity to see how closely connected they are.

Some dogs will always end up in the wrong place I don't see how we can change that to be honest. We aren't perfect nor is the world and you can strive for perfection but you shouldn't expect it. Some dog owners do the wrong thing, some breeders do and some dogs no matter what you do will be born with issues of some sort be it physical or other wise. You can only do the best you can, right?

[Erny]

I also found Tammie's studies difficult to see the point of. In response to my question to her, Tammie confirmed that "teasing out the prior environmental experiences of the dogs who were used for the purpose of her studies" (which of course could and probably would have had an influence on their reactions/behaviour in the practical component of her 'test') was "not the point [of her study]".

If that aspect of the dog is not being considered (note : it was acknowledged, but not taken into account) then I can't see what she is striving to achieve from the rest of her study. What bothers me is the amount of Government funding that is going into studies such as these. I mean, good on Tammie and the rest of the other students for studying and researching, but I don't see what value there is to either their 'learning' or to our community of dogs and people if the results of the studies are meaningless. I'm sorry, Tammie, if I have lost the point of what you were trying to achieve.

There was one girl (I'm sorry - forgotten her name) who did a study the results of which indicate that a "Jump Test" can help predict which dogs would do well as a Guide Dog. I found that concept very interesting and to me, that study is very worthwhile because if the results remain true, it can save the community a lot of money, time and effort and ultimately help the very people for whom these dogs are trained.

Edited February 11, 2010 by Erny

[centitout]

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????

I found this to be a somewhat contradicted point of view expressed within the presentations given on the day. On one hand they are saying "desex, desex, desex" yet on the other hand they say that's not good because the effect of desexing reduces the gene pool, and to desex a dog so young means that we don't really know if we're desexing the really good dogs who could have contributed good things back to the 'line' later on.

All of my pups going as pets have it made quite clear they are to be desexed by 8 mths,as the males can sometimes be a bit of a handful(like any breed) when they reach sexual maturity.If i trust the person and they wish to put it off until abit older because they have a health objection to desexing at that age,i dont have a problem with that either.

If there is a nice pup ,and i trust the owner,i will ask they hold off on desexing until after 14 mths or older,so i can see if they have something that would be beneficial to the line later on.So far there is only 2 that i have done this with that have gone as LR from the last 3 litters.

[WoofnHoof]

WnH- what makes you think that reducing drive in a siberian would make them more trainable? More trainable than what? They're already far more trainable than some breeds and less trainable than others. I met two at a shelter yesterday that are there through no fault of their own and are LOVELY dogs.

Surely there are enough breeds to select the traits you want in a dog? And if you want a cross breed, go to the shelter or pound- plenty there!

I think the standards should reflect temperament ideals too- can those involved in breeds that don't have this detail in the stabdard do anything about it? Who decides to add things to the standard?

I am going to try and find the stafford thread- it was really interesting

Not necessarily more trainable there is no doubt that sibes are trainable it's more the drive to run which makes them great sled dogs but less suitable for the homes they find themselves in.

I wouldn't pay much attention to what people say when they surrender their dogs either, my sister surrendered her malt crosses to the RSPCA and told them they were moving and couldn't take them - translation - they bark too much and grooming is too hard.

[Erny]

I think it's entirely unrealistic to expect every dog owner to have done research before getting a dog. It doesn't even cross the minds of many dog owners. They just want a dog, so they go out and get one from somewhere convenient.

When I was a young child and my parents decided my brother was old enough and sensible enough to have a dog, they 'researched' before they opted for a breed. Research wasn't as easy then as it is now - no computers; internet and so forth. Their 'research' relied on asking around of others who had dogs; seeing other dogs in the neighbourhood; speaking to the breeders.

So, even back then, there was "research". By everyone? Probably not. But people (going by others in our neighbourhood) did tend to take a more conscious and sensible approach to it.

My opinion is that we keep excusing society for not thinking and seeking to change dogs from what they are, to something else is another way of removing responsibility away from people feeling as though they should retain some amount of common sense and rational forethought by getting at least a bit educated before they make decisions that affect life.

It's not their fault and it doesn't make them unworthy of having a dog. It's just the way a lot of people have been brought up to deal with dogs.

Are you saying "it's not their fault" because they didn't think?

I disagree. It is their fault. But unless laws and authorities stop making it to seem as though bad dog behaviour is about the dog and has next to nothing to do with the owners and the owners' living conditions/requirements and lifestyle, people won't adopt responsibility. Many humans, I think, are inheritantly lazy in that department and the more we make it that they don't have to think, the less they will do so.

ETA: I don't much like comparisons of dogs to inanimate objects, but sometimes the analogies can help to clarify a point. When I got my driver's licence and needed to buy a car, I did a bit of research. I knew nothing of cars. I was advised by people who knew (by their own experiences) and I shopped around to find the one that would suit what I needed it for and that would fit within the constraints of my budget etc. etc. No-one told me "you should think about it and shop around".

When it came time for me to purchase my own home, I researched. I knew what I wanted, but that didn't mean it was suitable. Too far away from where I worked? Too costly? Too little? Too big? Too much maintenance required? All of this, I knew - "common sense" dictated it. Why? Because it was a BIG financial commitment. THAT liability alone MADE me think. Made me put aside the homes that were out of my reach and/or would have landed me in trouble financially. The pressure of taking on such a commitment MADE me think; MADE me shop around. No-one MADE me do this (although I was lucky to have some good people around me who could advise me when I "thought" I'd made the right decision).

So, why don't people see having a dog as such a BIG commitment. A commitment that with next to little forethought could land them a liability instead of joy that it is supposed to be. A liability that would be theirs to sort through and bear responsibility for?

BECAUSE "we" make it so "it's not their fault". We make it easy for them to consider things going wrong as NOT being THEIR mistake, or if they do, then at least a mistake that someone else will or should sort out. And of course, dogs are so dispensable in many people's eyes.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Erny

[SilverHaze]

Not necessarily more trainable there is no doubt that sibes are trainable it's more the drive to run which makes them great sled dogs but less suitable for the homes they find themselves in.

Duh - they are SLED DOGS - bred and built (mentally and physically) to RUN! If someone can't deal with that they shouldn't have a siberian - it's as simple as that.

[megan_]

Not necessarily more trainable there is no doubt that sibes are trainable it's more the drive to run which makes them great sled dogs but less suitable for the homes they find themselves in.

I agree with this statemetn but not with your solution. Surely the solution is to educate people more on what sibes are really like. They aren't suited to the family taht want to take their dog to the park for a play and run-around. I would imagine that a lot of the poundie sibes were bought because of their looks.

[poodlefan]

WnH:

Not necessarily more trainable there is no doubt that sibes are trainable it's more the drive to run which makes them great sled dogs but less suitable for the homes they find themselves in.

When those homes have no understanding of the dog's origin and needs, it is the HOME that is unsuitable for the dog, not vice versa. If you don't want a dog that wants to run, then don't buy a Sibe.. it's not that hard to grasp is it? You want to change a breed that you admit you did no research into before acquiring because the dog is not a perfect fit for you. The solution is perfectly simple - find a more suitable breed.

The perfect dog already exists for those who choose not to educate themselves before acquiring an animal that may be a part of their lives for up to 20 years. It looks like this:

What's next? A smooth coated poodle for those who didn't bother to find out that the breed needs to be groomed?

Edited February 12, 2010 by poodlefan

[Quickasyoucan]

I think it's entirely unrealistic to expect every dog owner to have done research before getting a dog. It doesn't even cross the minds of many dog owners. They just want a dog, so they go out and get one from somewhere convenient.

When I was a young child and my parents decided my brother was old enough and sensible enough to have a dog, they 'researched' before they opted for a breed. Research wasn't as easy then as it is now - no computers; internet and so forth. Their 'research' relied on asking around of others who had dogs; seeing other dogs in the neighbourhood; speaking to the breeders.

So, even back then, there was "research". By everyone? Probably not. But people (going by others in our neighbourhood) did tend to take a more conscious and sensible approach to it.

My opinion is that we keep excusing society for not thinking and seeking to change dogs from what they are, to something else is another way of removing responsibility away from people feeling as though they should retain some amount of common sense and rational forethought by getting at least a bit educated before they make decisions that affect life.

It's not their fault and it doesn't make them unworthy of having a dog. It's just the way a lot of people have been brought up to deal with dogs.

Are you saying "it's not their fault" because they didn't think?

I disagree. It is their fault. But unless laws and authorities stop making it to seem as though bad dog behaviour is about the dog and has next to nothing to do with the owners and the owners' living conditions/requirements and lifestyle, people won't adopt responsibility. Many humans, I think, are inheritantly lazy in that department and the more we make it that they don't have to think, the less they will do so.

Well said Erny. I think a better seminar and topic for study might be "Building Better Dog Owners". IMO the biggest problem facing dogs currently has nothing to do with breeding, it has to do with lack of responsibility and poor ownership. A lot of dogs end up in pounds because people don't think before they buy, because people are lazy and because people think that animals are disposable, not because of anything inherently genetically wong with the dog.

IMO, for example, if it hit people somewhere hard to own a dangerous dog ie proper enforcement of dog laws heavy fines and jail terms for repeat offenders, they might think twice about their choices.

Instead of this we get "the dog suddenly turned", so it gets branded the offender and for the most part, owner gets away scott free and goes and buys another dog and so the cycle continues.

Until we change peoples attitudes I fear for many many poor dogs in today's society.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Quickasyoucan

[BJean]

Not necessarily more trainable there is no doubt that sibes are trainable it's more the drive to run which makes them great sled dogs but less suitable for the homes they find themselves in.

I wouldn't pay much attention to what people say when they surrender their dogs either, my sister surrendered her malt crosses to the RSPCA and told them they were moving and couldn't take them - translation - they bark too much and grooming is too hard.

What do you mean, "the drive to run"?

Edited February 12, 2010 by lilli

[SilverHaze]

Woofnhoof

don't you think that if someone less prepared for the extreme aspects of sibe characteristcs were to buy a sibe it would be better to offer them one which was not so challenging?

Yes, if the breeder knew of a line of mild sibes, and some are. If someone had told you all about sibes before you bought, you may not have bought - or you may have been better prepared. Additonally, if you remove the drive, you will probably remove a few other things which make sibes unique. The drive and temperament has been developed over hundreds of years - if you remove that, what do you have? A different dog.

The reason sibes are in the pound is because people bought them without knowing what they were getting, particularly in the way of fencing. Because they bought the cosmetics, not the personality, they were disappointed. Someone should have educated them. But pf only want the money, not the responsibility, so no one talked to them about the responsibilities involved.

All dogs, all breeds, including cross breeds have positives and negatives. The art to being happy with your breed is to choose one which has more positives FOR YOU. And that will mean research. Dog's aren't disposable, people need to choose wisely, there are heaps of breeds out there all different, it is simply a matter of choosing, and doing to research.

The majority of owners of sibes from registered breeders are happy with them. They accept the temperament, and work with it or around it.

Although YOU see some problems, there are thousands of sibe owners who are totally happy with their dog. I don't think any breeder would consider changing the temperament of an entire breed for ONE disgruntled puppy farm purchaser of a sibe.

As far as I am aware, all registered breeders of sibes sell as many as they breed.

I find your posts terribly contradictary. On one hand, you expect all dogs to be tested in their traditional role. If sibes were tested, and only those who passed tests were used for breeding, it would be likely that the dogs would be even more prey driven, and likely to climb out more often, because only the high drive dogs which could place in sledding events would be used for breeding.

You can't have it both ways.

No one purchases a Siberian from us with any delusions about what they are purchasing. They go home with every horror storry imaginable stuck in their head. If they are taking a puppy home from us, it's because they have understood what a Siberian is, what it is bred for, and why they are the way they are.

If they aren't happy with that, we suggest they look into a different breed.

I will not change what the breed is because there are irresponsible byb's and purchasers out there who don't think past a quick buck or a desire to have that good looking puppy with no thought to the conseqences.

If you start selecting for undesirable (though perhaps in your mind more easy to live with traits) then you start to change the breed. You may not see it in the first or second generation, but i bet by the 5th you have a dog thats remarkably different from the original Siberian.

All our dogs run well in harness - they also live happily in the house and in their packs - as they should, and as they were bred to do. So what that i can't expect it run off lead at the local unfenced dog park - i'll live.

That said - our dogs are pretty mellow, we select for great temperaments, and our dogs all respond well to an environment with great leadership and discipline, which is what a Siberian thrives on. Thats not to say they can't be difficult bastards. We are there for our puppy buyers, to help them through the tough times with their dogs, so that they emerge out the other side with a great dog. Most of the siberians in the pounds are there because the breeders weren't there to help the owners out, with advise, training and a shoulder to laugh and cry on.

And Jed your right - we never have a lack of people wanting to purchase pups

[kingsfolly]

I also found Tammie's studies difficult to see the point of. In response to my question to her, Tammie confirmed that "teasing out the prior environmental experiences of the dogs who were used for the purpose of her studies" (which of course could and probably would have had an influence on their reactions/behaviour in the practical component of her 'test') was "not the point [of her study]".

If that aspect of the dog is not being considered (note : it was acknowledged, but not taken into account) then I can't see what she is striving to achieve from the rest of her study. What bothers me is the amount of Government funding that is going into studies such as these. I mean, good on Tammie and the rest of the other students for studying and researching, but I don't see what value there is to either their 'learning' or to our community of dogs and people if the results of the studies are meaningless. I'm sorry, Tammie, if I have lost the point of what you were trying to achieve..

Hi Erny,

Thanks for attending the seminar yesterday I hope you enjoyed the day. It was really good to see so many people there.

In regards to my study and the question you asked, I think I may not have answered your question clearly enough when asked yesterday. So I shall try to do so here a bit better.

In regards to the point of my research which you say you are having trouble understanding, I am trying to establish whether or not we can accurately measure a particular component of dog behaviour in a scientific (objective, valid, repeatable, realistic, etc. ) manner. We all know that both genetics and environment play a role in how a dog behaves but in my study I am not interested in separating the two components. I just want to see if we can measure the behaviour in an accurate way which will then help develop further assessments which look at other behavioural attributes.

Of course, a dog’s experience will affect how it performs in the assessment and this is expected. I may not have clearly described that there are sections of the questionnaires which ask about the dog’s training history, attendance at puppy pre-school, age of acquisition, place of acquisition etc. to try and give us as much information as possible about the dog and it’s ‘environmental’ background. During the data analysis I will be examining these variables to see how they relate to the behaviour observed during the assessment. I suspect this is probably more about what you are talking about and this will be something that I will be discussing in my thesis also.

I hope that helps clarify the research for you and please don’t hesitate to let me know if you have further questions about it.

Tammie

[KismetKat]

Firstly I've just received an abstract (with clickable further reading) which I will try and attached. (sorry, too big to attach)

jdavis - I am not 'promoting' crossbreeding, I am reporting what was said. Kissandra - stats were shown that a good proportion of dogs are relinquished to pounds due to behavioural issues (not shedding).

I also found Tammie's studies difficult to see the point of. In response to my question to her, Tammie confirmed that "teasing out the prior environmental experiences of the dogs who were used for the purpose of her studies" (which of course could and probably would have had an influence on their reactions/behaviour in the practical component of her 'test') was "not the point [of her study]".

Erny - Tammie's project is about IF a test can be developed which is objective and gives measurable outcomes. That's it. It's about IF a test is possible, so really the dogs used, their backgrounds/breeds/etc. is totally irrelevant.

To clarify on the behaviour thang to all concerned. It gets down to the nature/nuture argument and whether its people or dogs I think most people would agree that it really is a bit of both.

IF the scientists can clearly define certain traits, then IF they can create tests that objectively measure those traits, and then later on they MAY discover a gene (or series of genes) that creates that behaviour/trait. Then those behaviours/traits which are proven heritable, you can use the tests to assess dogs for that behaviour/trait as a selection tool for breeding dogs.

For instance, if Tammie CAN develop an objective test for 'amicability" (which she has defined) then GR breeders could use the test GRs should be "amicable". Afghan breeders could also use the test as Afghans should be aloof, and not TOO 'amicable.

[Keshwar]

For instance, if Tammie CAN develop an objective test for 'amicability" (which she has defined) then GR breeders could use the test GRs should be "amicable". Afghan breeders could also use the test as Afghans should be aloof, and not TOO 'amicable.

Any experienced breeder of Afghan Hounds, or other breeds for that matter, don't need a test for 'amicability." They have the experience/knowledge to see their dogs/puppies temperaments. In fact, in Afghan Hounds there has been a move in recent years to make them less aloof and more amicable. (If this is desirable in the breed or not is a whole other debate.)

I can see the need for this test with dogs of unknown origin but not for purebred dogs.