Janet, you have brought out some interesting reponses about resource
guarding.
I freely admit I am not a dog training expert, but I have owned dogs
almost all of my adult life. I have titled dogs in obedience. (not
recently). I read new methods of dog handling from time to time and
have learned a lot of new opinions right here at RPDB.
I have tried to recall when I first felt the need to test my dogs as
far as guarding their food goes. It seems I have always known that. I
have always done it. I have never had any lasting problems with dogs
that do that. I make sure of it. Common sense has taught me not to try
to test a half starved street dog on his first day at the house. I
don't feel the need to assert myself daily (with food).
I have 2 elderly dogs that I still touch (lean on) when I am giving
them their food. It is not to test them. I have 2 PBT mixes that I
test by touching them or taking their food up every couple of months.
My old dogs don't do toys. The young dogs "do toys in". They are not
a toy's friend. My point about toys is that I take their toys away and
put them up when we are through playing. I make the decision when to
put them up. They do not have access. Yes, it makes the toys last a
little longer. It makes them more of a treat and yes it is one of
those things that I can control. I need to stay on top with those two,
I just wanted to share my experience. I think it may be what someone
else said. I think there is a new breed of poorly bred and mixed breed
dogs.
It is something everyone should learn "Don't bite the hand that feeds
you". Man and dogs!


Be Free.....Judy

diddy wrote in
:

in thread :
(Judith Althouse) whittled the following words:

...I think there is a new breed of poorly bred and mixed
breed dogs.

I think the poorly bred and mixed breed dogs have always been there.

Since exactly when has "mixed breed" been synonymous with "problem
behavior"?

In article ,
Mary Healey wrote:


Since exactly when has "mixed breed" been synonymous with "problem
behavior"?

Somehow I missed this. I'm curious as well. Is mixed breed = "poorly
bred"? All of the time? Some of the time? Or is it that some poorly
bred dogs just like some mixed breeds, are problems, where others are
not?

Granted, the GRs I see with severe behavior problems, tend to be poorly
bred ones. Maybe because I see more of that ilk in classes to begin
with, and definitely what we see in rescue. Mixed breeds are so all
over the map, that I'm not sure how one would gauge poorly bred (i.e. -
if the parents had great temperaments, etc, would that still be poorly
bred? Not the same as responsibly bred BTW).

I have one well-bred purebred, one poorly-bred purebred and one mixed
breed. They are all delightful and sweet. Maybe I'm just lucky ;-D

--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com

In article ,
Janet Boss wrote:
Is mixed breed = "poorly
bred"? All of the time? Some of the time?

Honestly, it's probably somewhere between "usually" and
"almost always." That doesn't guarantee a crappy result but
let's face it, with some notable exceptions mixed breed dogs
are usually the result of some appallingly bad decision-
making process or just plain old negligence.
--
Melinda Shore - Software longa, hardware brevis -

If you can't say it clearly, you don't understand it yourself -- John Searle

In article ,
(Melinda Shore) wrote:


Honestly, it's probably somewhere between "usually" and
"almost always." That doesn't guarantee a crappy result but
let's face it, with some notable exceptions mixed breed dogs
are usually the result of some appallingly bad decision-
making process or just plain old negligence.

Hmm - maybe I didn't write my post right. I can have an IRRESPONSIBLY
bred dog, who comes from healthy, sane, temperamentally sound
background. POORLY bred is not the same - to me it indicates the pup
came from dogs who were not stable and sound. Does that make any sense?

--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com

Janet Boss wrote in news:janet-
:

In article ,
(Melinda Shore) wrote:


Honestly, it's probably somewhere between "usually" and
"almost always." That doesn't guarantee a crappy result but
let's face it, with some notable exceptions mixed breed dogs
are usually the result of some appallingly bad decision-
making process or just plain old negligence.

Hmm - maybe I didn't write my post right. I can have an IRRESPONSIBLY
bred dog, who comes from healthy, sane, temperamentally sound
background. POORLY bred is not the same - to me it indicates the pup
came from dogs who were not stable and sound. Does that make any sense?


It does, but I think its an odd distinction, since a random breeding is,
IMO, at the very least a poorly thought out and poorly implemented
breeding. Those are factors as important in whether or not a dog was
"poorly bred" as the temperament of the parents.

Besides, I've certainly seen random mixed breedings (or "oops" litters) as
well as crappy planned breedings (of purebreed dogs) where the parents were
sound, but that threw *horrible* puppies. So the temperament of the parents
really can't be the determining factor in whether or not a breeding is
"poor", IMO.

Tara

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 10:01:45 -0500, Janet Boss
wrote:

In article ,
Mary Healey wrote:

Since exactly when has "mixed breed" been synonymous with "problem
behavior"?

Somehow I missed this. I'm curious as well. Is mixed breed = "poorly
bred"? All of the time? Some of the time? Or is it that some poorly
bred dogs just like some mixed breeds, are problems, where others are
not?

Mixed-breed = greater chance of the dog having a poor temperament,
especially if you know absolutely nothing about the dog's parents.

Which is just one reason why most people prefer pure-breds.

Granted, the GRs I see with severe behavior problems, tend to be poorly
bred ones. Maybe because I see more of that ilk in classes to begin
with, and definitely what we see in rescue. Mixed breeds are so all
over the map, that I'm not sure how one would gauge poorly bred (i.e. -
if the parents had great temperaments, etc, would that still be poorly
bred? Not the same as responsibly bred BTW).

I have one well-bred purebred, one poorly-bred purebred and one mixed
breed. They are all delightful and sweet. Maybe I'm just lucky ;-D

Bingo!

--
Handsome Jack Morrison

'The Great Global Warming Swindle' Set to Rock Climate Debate...
http://www.channel4.com/science/micr...dle/index.html
John "Breck Girl" Edwards. Feeling pretty.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2AE847UXu3Q&eurl=
Why so much medical research is rot:
http://www.economist.com/science/dis...ory_id=8733754
Anatomy of the Iraq War:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...xOWQ=&w= MQ==
More Democrat-Islamist convergence:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/webl...gence#comments
Rosie O'Donnell and Mel Shore. Assholes separated at birth?
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/03/0...quit-the-view/
Got some spare time?
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/02/1...g-heroes-home/
Repent, sinners!
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk...he_planet.html
Remember these words - Al Gore's "Generation Investment Management":
http://www.ecotality.com/blog/?p=350
Every family has a different carbon footprint - And here's The Goracle's!
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006966.htm
The Goracle's hypocrisy exposed (Hey, Tara, didn't you once date Al?):
http://www.economist.com/debate/free...win_for_al.cfm
"Reality-based community" more about faith than reality:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

In article ,
Handsome Jack Morrison wrote:


I have one well-bred purebred, one poorly-bred purebred and one mixed
breed. They are all delightful and sweet. Maybe I'm just lucky ;-D

Bingo!

Well....... I'd like to think I had SOMETHING to do with it! Everyone
loves Lucy, but would she be the same dog had I not channeled her energy
well? Would Franklin, who most people would not have chosen in a
bajillion years, and still don't think they'd want to live with
(although most see him when he's on "high" rather than his home
couch-potato behavior)? And what about the very sweet and
adored-by-many Rudy? His first two homes, as well as the shelter,
didn't think he was delightful and sweet.

When life gives you lemons.........

--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com

Handsome Jack Morrison wrote in
:

On Mon, 05 Mar 2007 10:01:45 -0500, Janet Boss
wrote:

In article ,
Mary Healey wrote:

Since exactly when has "mixed breed" been synonymous with "problem
behavior"?

Somehow I missed this. I'm curious as well. Is mixed breed = "poorly
bred"? All of the time? Some of the time? Or is it that some poorly
bred dogs just like some mixed breeds, are problems, where others are
not?

Mixed-breed = greater chance of the dog having a poor temperament,
especially if you know absolutely nothing about the dog's parents.

That is simply untrue. With the sheer volume of crappy breedings of
purebred dogs, I'd say the numbers would be roughly equal.

Of course, if you limit the discussion to "crappy mixed breed vs.
responsiblely bred purebreed dogs" you might have a point. But that wasn't
the discussion.

Which is just one reason why most people prefer pure-breds.

Um, I doubt that.

The people that *really* prefer purebreed dogs for their reliable
temperaments tend to know enough to at least somewhat look for a breeder
that can actually insure that temperament. Someone who goes to a pet shop
or a BYB who knows nothing isn't setting out for a solid temperament. It
may be on their "wish list", right alongside a pony and a magical 10 pound
weight loss, but they're not actually selecting for it. And they're not
likely to get it either.

Crappy breeding is crapy breeding. Some get lucky, and some don't. But the
odds are about even in my book if we're actually going to compare oranges
to oranges.

Granted, the GRs I see with severe behavior problems, tend to be poorly
bred ones. Maybe because I see more of that ilk in classes to begin
with, and definitely what we see in rescue. Mixed breeds are so all
over the map, that I'm not sure how one would gauge poorly bred (i.e. -
if the parents had great temperaments, etc, would that still be poorly
bred? Not the same as responsibly bred BTW).

I have one well-bred purebred, one poorly-bred purebred and one mixed
breed. They are all delightful and sweet. Maybe I'm just lucky ;-D

Bingo!

Its not all luck. She, like many here (me included) has passed on plenty of
dogs that wouldn't fit into her household. Then, once the dog has been
selected, the work begins.

But luck? Only a little bit. I've turned down plenty of dogs, as have many
of the people here who work with dogs in some capacity. At that point, luck
means a lot less.

Tara

In article 6,
Tara wrote:


Its not all luck. She, like many here (me included) has passed on plenty of
dogs that wouldn't fit into her household. Then, once the dog has been
selected, the work begins.

Yup. I've picked some dogs that everyone would want (well, people who
wanted that breed/type maybe), and some that few would want. Some of
the pups I've fostered have been perfect for their home, while they were
less than ideal for mine, no matter how much I loved them. I *know*
that shy/fearful/reserved dogs are not a good match for my home. And
you can bet that my 3 are so opposite of that it's not even funny! I
think they took it to an extreme ;-D

--
Janet Boss
www.bestfriendsdogobedience.com