If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
I Got Bitten Today
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Melanie L Chang" wrote in message ... Debbie S ) wrote: You may not lose all of it -- but you lose enough of it to change it into something else. There is a vast difference between a dog who has all the puzzle pieces necessary to do the job, and one who does not. There's a vast difference between a dog who has enough drive to work all day, and one who likes to chase sheep around the pen a little bit, but gets tired and decides it's more fun to eat sheep poop after a while. I honestly don't think you can state this categorically. While it's generally true that dogs not bred for a certain task MAY lose the ability to do that task, and dogs bred FOR that task tend to retain ability better, there are dogs from pure show backgrounds who can work, and dogs from pure working backgrounds who can't. When you've been in a breed as long as some of us have, you start to see things that make beliefs like yours untrue. For instance, I know of a Schutzhund 3 dog, fully titled by age 3, who is from pure American show lines, with nary a German dog or even an American-bred working dog within his pedigree *anywhere* unless you want go to back 60-70 years. A few CDs here and there, and that's it. I know several schH 1 and 2 dogs from non-working backgrounds. Are they common? No. But you can't say that dogs not bred to work will instantly lose all ability to do so. It simply isn't true. I know several dogs from strong working backgrounds who aren't worth diddly in the protection arena. Likewise, I know of a BC from some top working dogs, who belongs to a local who owns sheep and trains and trials. He told me flat out that she didn't have ANY sheep sense or instinct whatsoever. None. It's just not as black and white as you're trying to make it Melanie. Not selecting for herding ability isn't a good thing, but not selecting for it doesn't mean it disappears, pouf, within an instant. Or a generation, or as can be seen by my friend's SchH 3 dog Jack, even in 60 years. You ARE looking at probabilities though. If I was looking to buy a schutzhund dog, would I go with all American bloodlines? Nope. I'd go with a mix of American and European. Likewise, if I was going for a conformation dog, I probably wouldn't go all-German--though it's been done, and with spectacular results. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Melanie L Chang" wrote in message ... Debbie S ) wrote: You may not lose all of it -- but you lose enough of it to change it into something else. There is a vast difference between a dog who has all the puzzle pieces necessary to do the job, and one who does not. There's a vast difference between a dog who has enough drive to work all day, and one who likes to chase sheep around the pen a little bit, but gets tired and decides it's more fun to eat sheep poop after a while. I honestly don't think you can state this categorically. While it's generally true that dogs not bred for a certain task MAY lose the ability to do that task, and dogs bred FOR that task tend to retain ability better, there are dogs from pure show backgrounds who can work, and dogs from pure working backgrounds who can't. When you've been in a breed as long as some of us have, you start to see things that make beliefs like yours untrue. For instance, I know of a Schutzhund 3 dog, fully titled by age 3, who is from pure American show lines, with nary a German dog or even an American-bred working dog within his pedigree *anywhere* unless you want go to back 60-70 years. A few CDs here and there, and that's it. I know several schH 1 and 2 dogs from non-working backgrounds. Are they common? No. But you can't say that dogs not bred to work will instantly lose all ability to do so. It simply isn't true. I know several dogs from strong working backgrounds who aren't worth diddly in the protection arena. Likewise, I know of a BC from some top working dogs, who belongs to a local who owns sheep and trains and trials. He told me flat out that she didn't have ANY sheep sense or instinct whatsoever. None. It's just not as black and white as you're trying to make it Melanie. Not selecting for herding ability isn't a good thing, but not selecting for it doesn't mean it disappears, pouf, within an instant. Or a generation, or as can be seen by my friend's SchH 3 dog Jack, even in 60 years. You ARE looking at probabilities though. If I was looking to buy a schutzhund dog, would I go with all American bloodlines? Nope. I'd go with a mix of American and European. Likewise, if I was going for a conformation dog, I probably wouldn't go all-German--though it's been done, and with spectacular results. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Robin Nuttall wrote:
To me,it's just as offensive to breed for *only* working ability as it would be to breed for *only* drive or *only* a perfect head. Even breeding only for genetic health is bad, beause it ignores working ability and structure. I'd argue that it's more offensive to breed for *only* working ability. A sound, healthy dog without a drive in its character is useless and possibly inconvenient, but the dog doesn't care. A dog with a lot of working desire, whose instincts write checks its body can't cash, is misery on 4 legs and painful to watch. Yes, working ability is important, but only to the extent that the dog's structure and genetic health allow it to be expressed. -- Mary H. and the Ames National Zoo: Regis, Sam-I-Am, Noah (1992-2001), Ranger, Duke, felines, and finches |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Robin Nuttall wrote:
To me,it's just as offensive to breed for *only* working ability as it would be to breed for *only* drive or *only* a perfect head. Even breeding only for genetic health is bad, beause it ignores working ability and structure. I'd argue that it's more offensive to breed for *only* working ability. A sound, healthy dog without a drive in its character is useless and possibly inconvenient, but the dog doesn't care. A dog with a lot of working desire, whose instincts write checks its body can't cash, is misery on 4 legs and painful to watch. Yes, working ability is important, but only to the extent that the dog's structure and genetic health allow it to be expressed. -- Mary H. and the Ames National Zoo: Regis, Sam-I-Am, Noah (1992-2001), Ranger, Duke, felines, and finches |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Robin Nuttall wrote: "Mary Healey" wrote in message ... Robin Nuttall wrote: To me,it's just as offensive to breed for *only* working ability as it would be to breed for *only* drive or *only* a perfect head. Even breeding only for genetic health is bad, beause it ignores working ability and structure. I'd argue that it's more offensive to breed for *only* working ability. A sound, healthy dog without a drive in its character is useless and possibly inconvenient, but the dog doesn't care. A dog with a lot of working desire, whose instincts write checks its body can't cash, is misery on 4 legs and painful to watch. Yes, working ability is important, but only to the extent that the dog's structure and genetic health allow it to be expressed. -- Excellent point, and let me add to it. Dogs bred for working ability and drive *only* are often bred by people who really don't have a deep understanding of what good drive is. Many breeders mistake hyperactivity for drive. So they simply breed "high as a kite" to "high as a kite" and totally disregard that tiny little thing called livability. A dog without drive may not be much of a working dog, and certainly shouldn't be bred, but he's also going to make a nice quiet pet for somebody. Dogs bred for drive without consideration of livability are likely to be dead on a table right quick. Not only are they a misery to live with but they can also be dangerous in the wrong hands. I 110% agree with this POV as well. Totally! I have sen it first hand. Gwen |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Robin Nuttall wrote: "Mary Healey" wrote in message ... Robin Nuttall wrote: To me,it's just as offensive to breed for *only* working ability as it would be to breed for *only* drive or *only* a perfect head. Even breeding only for genetic health is bad, beause it ignores working ability and structure. I'd argue that it's more offensive to breed for *only* working ability. A sound, healthy dog without a drive in its character is useless and possibly inconvenient, but the dog doesn't care. A dog with a lot of working desire, whose instincts write checks its body can't cash, is misery on 4 legs and painful to watch. Yes, working ability is important, but only to the extent that the dog's structure and genetic health allow it to be expressed. -- Excellent point, and let me add to it. Dogs bred for working ability and drive *only* are often bred by people who really don't have a deep understanding of what good drive is. Many breeders mistake hyperactivity for drive. So they simply breed "high as a kite" to "high as a kite" and totally disregard that tiny little thing called livability. A dog without drive may not be much of a working dog, and certainly shouldn't be bred, but he's also going to make a nice quiet pet for somebody. Dogs bred for drive without consideration of livability are likely to be dead on a table right quick. Not only are they a misery to live with but they can also be dangerous in the wrong hands. I 110% agree with this POV as well. Totally! I have sen it first hand. Gwen |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Mary Healey wrote:
A sound, healthy dog without a drive in its character is useless and possibly inconvenient, but the dog doesn't care. A dog with a lot of working desire, whose instincts write checks its body can't cash, is misery on 4 legs and painful to watch. Damnit, Mary, you just made me cry. Until you have lived through that with a dog you love, who lives to work and keeps trying to do so through terrible pain even as his legs collapse beneath him--you cannot possibly imagine how horrible it is. Dianne (in memory of K.C., 12/23/1989 - 4/24/2002) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Mary Healey wrote:
A sound, healthy dog without a drive in its character is useless and possibly inconvenient, but the dog doesn't care. A dog with a lot of working desire, whose instincts write checks its body can't cash, is misery on 4 legs and painful to watch. Damnit, Mary, you just made me cry. Until you have lived through that with a dog you love, who lives to work and keeps trying to do so through terrible pain even as his legs collapse beneath him--you cannot possibly imagine how horrible it is. Dianne (in memory of K.C., 12/23/1989 - 4/24/2002) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
dianne marie schoenberg wrote: Mary Healey wrote: A sound, healthy dog without a drive in its character is useless and possibly inconvenient, but the dog doesn't care. A dog with a lot of working desire, whose instincts write checks its body can't cash, is misery on 4 legs and painful to watch. Damnit, Mary, you just made me cry. Until you have lived through that with a dog you love, who lives to work and keeps trying to do so through terrible pain even as his legs collapse beneath him--you cannot possibly imagine how horrible it is. Dianne (in memory of K.C., 12/23/1989 - 4/24/2002) Indeed. I am seeing this with Blade. Though he is in no pain. And what he has is not known whether it is inherited or not. But it is similar in some ways to MS. So more than likely he will progress. So while there isn't much pain involved there will be in high possibility of inability to walk. Gwen |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I Got Bitten Today | Deb | Dog behavior | 6 | September 5th 03 12:33 AM |
I Got Bitten Today | Sionnach | Dog behavior | 4 | August 25th 03 02:52 PM |
I Got Bitten Today | Leah | Dog behavior | 6 | August 25th 03 06:27 AM |
I Got Bitten Today | Sionnach | Dog behavior | 0 | August 24th 03 08:50 PM |
I Got Bitten Today | Leah | Dog behavior | 0 | August 23rd 03 01:59 PM |