'building Better Dogs' Seminar 11 Feb 2010

[WoofnHoof]

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?

Re the bolded point I did not say that my dog is not perfect for me, my example of his behaviour if I don't keep up with his requirements is to point out that there are some aspects (like escapology) which do not necessarily need to remain in the breed until the end of time.

I don't see why this is any different to any other artificial selection that has happened in the past, dogs within breeds have been selected for this and that trait for the show ring and for work what's the difference between selecting towards a more laid back temperament for pet homes? Since everyone seems to cope with the fact that working lines and show lines can be like chalk and cheese what difference does it make if someone wants to breed towards a 'pet' line?

[poodlefan]

Re the bolded point I did not say that my dog is not perfect for me, my example of his behaviour if I don't keep up with his requirements is to point out that there are some aspects (like escapology) which do not necessarily need to remain in the breed until the end of time.

I don't see why this is any different to any other artificial selection that has happened in the past, dogs within breeds have been selected for this and that trait for the show ring and for work what's the difference between selecting towards a more laid back temperament for pet homes? Since everyone seems to cope with the fact that working lines and show lines can be like chalk and cheese what difference does it make if someone wants to breed towards a 'pet' line?

Because in many cases you are fundamentally altering what the dog is bred to be.

You've got a breed with an independent enquiring mind, a high requirement for activity and incredible athleticism. They escape because they are bored and because they can. If you want a fairly dull couch potato, choose another breed.

If you want a dog that lives to function as a companion to people , then select a dog from the breeds developed for that purpose. This is what I normally advise novice pet owners to do.

There's no need to try to turn every breed into a Lassie dog because people make poor breed choices.

I've said it before if you want vanilla icecream then buy that flavour. Don't make everyone have to produce vanilla because some people don't like other flavours. I don't want a vanilla dog thanks. I'll stick with the breeds I love that I did my homework on and that suit my temperament and lifestyle.

Edited February 12, 2010 by poodlefan

[SilverHaze]

I don't see why this is any different to any other artificial selection that has happened in the past, dogs within breeds have been selected for this and that trait for the show ring and for work what's the difference between selecting towards a more laid back temperament for pet homes? Since everyone seems to cope with the fact that working lines and show lines can be like chalk and cheese what difference does it make if someone wants to breed towards a 'pet' line?

Because simply there shouldn't be a difference between show and working lines, let alone then creating a pet line!!!!

[WreckitWhippet]

I don't see why this is any different to any other artificial selection that has happened in the past, dogs within breeds have been selected for this and that trait for the show ring and for work what's the difference between selecting towards a more laid back temperament for pet homes? Since everyone seems to cope with the fact that working lines and show lines can be like chalk and cheese what difference does it make if someone wants to breed towards a 'pet' line?

Because simply there shouldn't be a difference between show and working lines, let alone then creating a pet line!!!!

a "pet line" ?

It doesn't happen very often but I am speechless. Actually I am dumbfounded to think that this is even being suggested, as the future of breeding dogs, let alone "better dogs".

The pets that I have, are the very dogs that step into the ring, who return home again to the house and the couch and it's being suggested that we dumb them down, calm them down, take the edge of them and make them more suitable for everyone. Oh dear lord, it's time for me to walk away.

[Erny]

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.

But I don't see how even Tammie's initial 'experiments' can go towards deciding if this aim is possible UNLESS prior learning and experiences are take into account. And even if they are, if science is about 'measuring' then surely these environmental experiences need to be able to be 'measured' as well. And the only way I can imagine that to be done would be to have a group of 'control' dogs who are born and raised in exactly the same way.

Thanks for the explanation Tammie, and my apologies if I am just being a bit dull in not comprehending how your aims are going to be able to be achieved with any great reliability.

[SilverHaze]

I don't see why this is any different to any other artificial selection that has happened in the past, dogs within breeds have been selected for this and that trait for the show ring and for work what's the difference between selecting towards a more laid back temperament for pet homes? Since everyone seems to cope with the fact that working lines and show lines can be like chalk and cheese what difference does it make if someone wants to breed towards a 'pet' line?

Because simply there shouldn't be a difference between show and working lines, let alone then creating a pet line!!!!

a "pet line" ?

It doesn't happen very often but I am speechless. Actually I am dumbfounded to think that this is even being suggested, as the future of breeding dogs, let alone "better dogs".

The pets that I have, are the very dogs that step into the ring, who return home again to the house and the couch and it's being suggested that we dumb them down, calm them down, take the edge of them and make them more suitable for everyone. Oh dear lord, it's time for me to walk away.

Glad i wasn't the only one that was struck speechless by this!

[poodlefan]

The pets that I have, are the very dogs that step into the ring, who return home again to the house and the couch and it's being suggested that we dumb them down, calm them down, take the edge of them and make them more suitable for everyone. Oh dear lord, it's time for me to walk away.

I agree. If I wanted a slothfull unintelligent dog, I'd not have poodles. I don't want them bred stupid so they don't get bored if not treated right and bark their heads off.

[Erny]

Since everyone seems to cope with the fact that working lines and show lines can be like chalk and cheese what difference does it make if someone wants to breed towards a 'pet' line?

Please define what you mean by "pet-line"? Are these ones that are "dumbed-down" for their various behaviour characteristics - characteristics that can be managed, shaped and directed with training but because people might prefer to not be bothered, prefer to have the 'gene' removed? (Note : I know that's putting it simplistically.)

Note : "training" in the above context doesn't have to mean formal training; going to classes; etc. If as much money was applied towards educating people about dogs and get people back to nature a bit, as it is towards changing dogs to suit people (so people don't have to think???), then I think many people would be able to manage and raise their dogs to be animals that accord with our society much better. I also think those who create the laws in this State and in others, need to think about what they are doing as well, as by their own very hands they are causing restrictions upon what we can do with our dogs to make them good dogs in society, yet demand that we make our dogs good in society.

If we begin breeding to remove the very characteristics many of our dogs were bred for in the first place, I do very much wonder what we will end up with. After all, it is already well known (and reiterated at the seminar) that when you breed for one trait/gene for trait, it is quite often accompanied with another. I think we need to promote "look at the big picture" rather than looking at one small defined characteristic.

I think it comes down to the fact that people need to be careful about what they wish for.

If my own dog didn't have some of the behaviours that I've worked to channel into different more acceptable behaviours (success in many areas; work in progress in others) then he wouldn't be the dog that I have, because I doubt much of what I really like and recognise as particularly special (with potential for some great stuff, IMO ) would be there either.

ETA: Having said that, this is not to take away from the fact that breeders do need to be conscious of what they are breeding, in terms of conformation; health and temperament. I think many do that already and know their dogs and dog breed well enough to be able to advise potential owners of their pups whether they would be suitable for their lifestyle. But I also know of others who don't do this and are not so strict about it, allowing their own ambitions to over-ride and cloud the ideals that I'm sure they would have started out with.

ETA: My dog is my 'pet dog' and companion too.

Edited February 12, 2010 by Erny

[mita]

I don't see why this is any different to any other artificial selection that has happened in the past, dogs within breeds have been selected for this and that trait for the show ring and for work what's the difference between selecting towards a more laid back temperament for pet homes? Since everyone seems to cope with the fact that working lines and show lines can be like chalk and cheese what difference does it make if someone wants to breed towards a 'pet' line?

Because simply there shouldn't be a difference between show and working lines, let alone then creating a pet line!!!!

Yes, the fact is that all dogs.....working, pet or show....are companions to people. So the socialisation required to live/work alongside humans is critical for every dog.

Look at the Military dogs being bred, raised & trained at Amberley in Qld.

The process by which they're raised is exactly the process which needs to be followed for each & every dog to go on to live alongside people.

First, the 'Military' puppies are bred from well-selected GSD dogs. Then, right from birth, they're handled by people. As young puppies, they live the life of happy little chappies around the base. The program director said he often has to detach a puppy from swinging on a passing lady's skirt!

Then, at about 4 months, the puppies go out to live with families (many with children) in the civilian world. They're treated like any family companion pet....& go on outings with their family, to the beach, to the football. Wherever.

After having such a great base in socialisation to be beside people.....all people....they return to the base for their training as military dogs, to be assigned to a handler.

So where is all this nonsense coming from.....that it's a totally separate venture to breed & raise pets? If any of those military dogs fail their specialist program....look what remains, a dog beautifully socialised as a pet. And where do many of these service & police dogs live? At home with their handlers' family.

My suspicion is that it relates less to knowledge about dogs (& purebreds, in particular). But more to beefing up a commercial market.....where a false consumer dream is peddled as the benchmark. 'Buy your ideal pet dog here! And only here. We're the only pet dog builders!'

Edited February 12, 2010 by mita

[centitout]

I don't see why this is any different to any other artificial selection that has happened in the past, dogs within breeds have been selected for this and that trait for the show ring and for work what's the difference between selecting towards a more laid back temperament for pet homes? Since everyone seems to cope with the fact that working lines and show lines can be like chalk and cheese what difference does it make if someone wants to breed towards a 'pet' line?

Because simply there shouldn't be a difference between show and working lines, let alone then creating a pet line!!!!

a "pet line" ?

It doesn't happen very often but I am speechless. Actually I am dumbfounded to think that this is even being suggested, as the future of breeding dogs, let alone "better dogs".

The pets that I have, are the very dogs that step into the ring, who return home again to the house and the couch and it's being suggested that we dumb them down, calm them down, take the edge of them and make them more suitable for everyone. Oh dear lord, it's time for me to walk away.

same here-my working trail dogs ARE my pet dogs,i dont have a problem with them.Dyson can be a smart arse,Millie is a raving food lunatic,Leila is simply just a sweetheart,the 2 pups both have different personalities and i love them all for it.I dont want bloodhounds in a cavalier or other lap dog suit (no offence cav owners ).I could take Bono out on a trail,come home and have him take over the lounge.

[Aziah]

I don't see why this is any different to any other artificial selection that has happened in the past, dogs within breeds have been selected for this and that trait for the show ring and for work what's the difference between selecting towards a more laid back temperament for pet homes? Since everyone seems to cope with the fact that working lines and show lines can be like chalk and cheese what difference does it make if someone wants to breed towards a 'pet' line?

Because simply there shouldn't be a difference between show and working lines, let alone then creating a pet line!!!!

a "pet line" ?

It doesn't happen very often but I am speechless. Actually I am dumbfounded to think that this is even being suggested, as the future of breeding dogs, let alone "better dogs".

The pets that I have, are the very dogs that step into the ring, who return home again to the house and the couch and it's being suggested that we dumb them down, calm them down, take the edge of them and make them more suitable for everyone. Oh dear lord, it's time for me to walk away.

Glad i wasn't the only one that was struck speechless by this!

Ditto! and like SBT123 my dogs are my pets and seem to have no problem jumping off the couch walking into the showring and return to couch...it's not rocket science?!

[poodlefan]

Breeders should definitely be aiming to produce stable temperaments. But all breeds with the same "easy" temperament? No thanks.

If I want to live with a dog that acts like a Golden Retriever, I'll buy one thanks. I don't want a Golden Retriever in a Whippet or any other breed shaped body.

Edited February 12, 2010 by poodlefan

[Aidan]

There are lots of breeds already who will happily lounge around all day and appear to require virtually no exercise, companionship or mental stimulation.

My personal opinion is that these dogs are not happy, willing participants in this lifestyle. It doesn't matter what you do to change a breed, to change a dog. It is still a dog, you can't change that. It's not a cabbage or a barnacle.

[centitout]

There are lots of breeds already who will happily lounge around all day and appear to require virtually no exercise, companionship or mental stimulation.

My personal opinion is that these dogs are not happy, willing participants in this lifestyle. It doesn't matter what you do to change a breed, to change a dog. It is still a dog, you can't change that. It's not a cabbage or a barnacle.

[WoofnHoof]

I'm not really sure how selecting for a slightly more laid back temperament within a breed has suddenly been interpreted as 'dumbing down' or producing 'slothful, unintelligent' dogs? Either way people seem to be attributing this debate as 'what I want', it's not it's ideas being thrown around because in some cases I think a bit of modification wouldn't be the end of the world and might help dogs.

Everyone acts like breeds are some sacred unchangable and unchanging gift from god when in fact they are a human construct, they have changed and are changing and will change in the future. Breeds were developed by humans, for humans, it's logical that the purpose and the nature of breeds will change as their role in society changes.

[WreckitWhippet]

There are lots of breeds already who will happily lounge around all day and appear to require virtually no exercise, companionship or mental stimulation.

My personal opinion is that these dogs are not happy, willing participants in this lifestyle. It doesn't matter what you do to change a breed, to change a dog. It is still a dog, you can't change that. It's not a cabbage or a barnacle.

Will "amicable" and "bidable' lead to additional dogs needs not being met ? I have to wonder.

The super race of docile dogs that lay around on the lounge, still need exercise and stimulation to maintain good health.

Dumb them down a bit, take the edge off so they don't whinge as much when you've failed to provide and watch the pounds pile and if I had to have a guess, there will be health issues associated with it.

[KismetKat]

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.

But I don't see how even Tammie's initial 'experiments' can go towards deciding if this aim is possible UNLESS prior learning and experiences are take into account. And even if they are, if science is about 'measuring' then surely these environmental experiences need to be able to be 'measured' as well. And the only way I can imagine that to be done would be to have a group of 'control' dogs who are born and raised in exactly the same way.

Thanks for the explanation Tammie, and my apologies if I am just being a bit dull in not comprehending how your aims are going to be able to be achieved with any great reliability.

Let's try a simple example.

OK you want a test that counts chicken pecks. You are checking for a single thing, i.e. chicken pecks. Initially it doesn't matter what colour the chickens are, of if they had a happy egg-hood, you JUST want the test you invent to reliably count chicken pecks. Once you have managed that THEN you can use it to see, for example, if brown chickens peck more than white ones.

[centitout]

My view is ,there are more than a hundred breeds out there,surely there is a breed that will suit AS IT IS . I love a lot of different breeds,but they dont suit my lifestyle etc.So i dont buy that breed-pretty simple.

I like the look of Arabs (horses) but again,too highly strung for me,so i stick to my appies(dont have them anymore though) and in the future i want a clydesdale,because that suits me.

I fail to see why an entire breed should be changed because a few want the look of a husky with the temp of a different breed entirely.People cant always have what they want,unfortunately todays society is exactly that way inclined.

[Erny]

Let's try a simple example.

OK you want a test that counts chicken pecks. You are checking for a single thing, i.e. chicken pecks. Initially it doesn't matter what colour the chickens are, of if they had a happy egg-hood, you JUST want the test you invent to reliably count chicken pecks. Once you have managed that THEN you can use it to see, for example, if brown chickens peck more than white ones.

You're right, KK. That's a simple example. To liken it a bit more to the study on dogs though, let's hypothesise that the number of times a chicken pecks is influenced by how it is raised.

With that in mind, how could you possibly think that you'd be able to determine, even later down the track, whether brown chickens peck more than white unless you remove and/or at the very least take into account how those chickens were raised?

[The Spotted Devil]

I must say I did not get the impression that breeders should be "dumbing down" dogs. It was about breeding from dogs of sound temperament and good health. Dr Mike Goddard (who owns 2 pure bred Goldens) pointed out that whether you breed pure or cross, you must select the best possible sire and dam and that, whilst cross breeding can produce hybrid vigour in terms of fitness effects (ie ability to survive and reproduce) it is not a cure all and 2 bad dogs will not make a good one. He talked about breeders needing to be honest with themselves to avoid kennel blindness. There was an outcry when he said that line breeding is in breeding but he is right in terms of scientific terminology. It's like the training threads that get out of hand because people don't understand that negative reinforcement/punishment doesn't mean you beat your dog!

There was acknowledgement that we need to build better owners but that does require a whole other seminar. Notably, student presentations did focus on the dog more than the owner factors so I imagine this guided the seminar structure. These types of seminars are not uncommon within the AWSC framework and are designed to inform stakeholders and encourage engagement and discussion.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread I am attempting to quantify human-canine interactions in a variety of settings but am in the development stages of my research and thus had little to present. Again I repeat that I would be happy to discuss what I'm doing with anyone interested. For those who don't know me, I was the person with the microphone sprinting around the theatre trying not to fall down the stairs