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
|
|||
|
|||
Provocative
This probably belongs on .breeds, but more likely to get the treatment it deserves here. Just started reading 'Dogs are from Neptune' from Donaldson. Came upon this: "It's an interesting discussion that to breed for anything other than extreme ease of socialization is to breed genetically unfit pet animals." This was in the context of dealing with dogs who are aggressive towards strangers, what "adequate" socialization means and plasticity of the dog. I could come up with quite a few reasons why this logic is flawed, although the general sentiment behind it is one that I stand by. What do you think? Suja |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I suppose if you don't mind your pet only living 1/4 of it's lifespan
because of some genetic health defect, that's a valid statement. But IMO, health is more important than being "easy to live with". -- Emily Carroll *Dumpee Kittens Available in SE/Mid Michigan* *E-mail for details* Website: www.geocities.com/diamonds_in_her_eyes "Suja" wrote in message news:dMehb.70220$a16.8997@lakeread01... This probably belongs on .breeds, but more likely to get the treatment it deserves here. Just started reading 'Dogs are from Neptune' from Donaldson. Came upon this: "It's an interesting discussion that to breed for anything other than extreme ease of socialization is to breed genetically unfit pet animals." This was in the context of dealing with dogs who are aggressive towards strangers, what "adequate" socialization means and plasticity of the dog. I could come up with quite a few reasons why this logic is flawed, although the general sentiment behind it is one that I stand by. What do you think? Suja |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I suppose if you don't mind your pet only living 1/4 of it's lifespan
because of some genetic health defect, that's a valid statement. But IMO, health is more important than being "easy to live with". -- Emily Carroll *Dumpee Kittens Available in SE/Mid Michigan* *E-mail for details* Website: www.geocities.com/diamonds_in_her_eyes "Suja" wrote in message news:dMehb.70220$a16.8997@lakeread01... This probably belongs on .breeds, but more likely to get the treatment it deserves here. Just started reading 'Dogs are from Neptune' from Donaldson. Came upon this: "It's an interesting discussion that to breed for anything other than extreme ease of socialization is to breed genetically unfit pet animals." This was in the context of dealing with dogs who are aggressive towards strangers, what "adequate" socialization means and plasticity of the dog. I could come up with quite a few reasons why this logic is flawed, although the general sentiment behind it is one that I stand by. What do you think? Suja |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I suppose if you don't mind your pet only living 1/4 of it's lifespan
because of some genetic health defect, that's a valid statement. But IMO, health is more important than being "easy to live with". -- Emily Carroll *Dumpee Kittens Available in SE/Mid Michigan* *E-mail for details* Website: www.geocities.com/diamonds_in_her_eyes "Suja" wrote in message news:dMehb.70220$a16.8997@lakeread01... This probably belongs on .breeds, but more likely to get the treatment it deserves here. Just started reading 'Dogs are from Neptune' from Donaldson. Came upon this: "It's an interesting discussion that to breed for anything other than extreme ease of socialization is to breed genetically unfit pet animals." This was in the context of dealing with dogs who are aggressive towards strangers, what "adequate" socialization means and plasticity of the dog. I could come up with quite a few reasons why this logic is flawed, although the general sentiment behind it is one that I stand by. What do you think? Suja |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Emily Carroll wrote:
I suppose if you don't mind your pet only living 1/4 of it's lifespan because of some genetic health defect, that's a valid statement. I think you misunderstand the statement. But IMO, health is more important than being "easy to live with". That's not what Donaldson said. She is saying, in effect, that anything but the most easygoing temperament is a genetic defect. And that's crap. "Suja" wrote in message news:dMehb.70220$a16.8997@lakeread01... This probably belongs on .breeds, but more likely to get the treatment it deserves here. Just started reading 'Dogs are from Neptune' from Donaldson. Came upon this: "It's an interesting discussion that to breed for anything other than extreme ease of socialization is to breed genetically unfit pet animals." This was in the context of dealing with dogs who are aggressive towards strangers, what "adequate" socialization means and plasticity of the dog. I could come up with quite a few reasons why this logic is flawed, although the general sentiment behind it is one that I stand by. What do you think? I'm not even sure the general sentiment is accurate. Basically, it's an argument in favor of "idiot-proofing" canine temperament, and that's neither practical nor beneficial for breeds who are not extremely easy to socialize. Breeding some kind of uniform "mono-pet" for the masses only makes sense if the masses are unanimous in their requirements. (They ain't.) Even so, sufficient justification exists for specialized breeds and their specialized temperaments, where "pet" animals are the ones who don't meet standard and are still probably not the best choice for anyone who wants a dog to be an ambulatory houseplant (feed, water, and ignore). -- Mary H. and the Ames National Zoo: Regis, Sam-I-Am, Noah (1992-2001), Ranger, Duke, felines, and finches |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Emily Carroll wrote:
I suppose if you don't mind your pet only living 1/4 of it's lifespan because of some genetic health defect, that's a valid statement. I think you misunderstand the statement. But IMO, health is more important than being "easy to live with". That's not what Donaldson said. She is saying, in effect, that anything but the most easygoing temperament is a genetic defect. And that's crap. "Suja" wrote in message news:dMehb.70220$a16.8997@lakeread01... This probably belongs on .breeds, but more likely to get the treatment it deserves here. Just started reading 'Dogs are from Neptune' from Donaldson. Came upon this: "It's an interesting discussion that to breed for anything other than extreme ease of socialization is to breed genetically unfit pet animals." This was in the context of dealing with dogs who are aggressive towards strangers, what "adequate" socialization means and plasticity of the dog. I could come up with quite a few reasons why this logic is flawed, although the general sentiment behind it is one that I stand by. What do you think? I'm not even sure the general sentiment is accurate. Basically, it's an argument in favor of "idiot-proofing" canine temperament, and that's neither practical nor beneficial for breeds who are not extremely easy to socialize. Breeding some kind of uniform "mono-pet" for the masses only makes sense if the masses are unanimous in their requirements. (They ain't.) Even so, sufficient justification exists for specialized breeds and their specialized temperaments, where "pet" animals are the ones who don't meet standard and are still probably not the best choice for anyone who wants a dog to be an ambulatory houseplant (feed, water, and ignore). -- Mary H. and the Ames National Zoo: Regis, Sam-I-Am, Noah (1992-2001), Ranger, Duke, felines, and finches |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Emily Carroll wrote:
I suppose if you don't mind your pet only living 1/4 of it's lifespan because of some genetic health defect, that's a valid statement. I think you misunderstand the statement. But IMO, health is more important than being "easy to live with". That's not what Donaldson said. She is saying, in effect, that anything but the most easygoing temperament is a genetic defect. And that's crap. "Suja" wrote in message news:dMehb.70220$a16.8997@lakeread01... This probably belongs on .breeds, but more likely to get the treatment it deserves here. Just started reading 'Dogs are from Neptune' from Donaldson. Came upon this: "It's an interesting discussion that to breed for anything other than extreme ease of socialization is to breed genetically unfit pet animals." This was in the context of dealing with dogs who are aggressive towards strangers, what "adequate" socialization means and plasticity of the dog. I could come up with quite a few reasons why this logic is flawed, although the general sentiment behind it is one that I stand by. What do you think? I'm not even sure the general sentiment is accurate. Basically, it's an argument in favor of "idiot-proofing" canine temperament, and that's neither practical nor beneficial for breeds who are not extremely easy to socialize. Breeding some kind of uniform "mono-pet" for the masses only makes sense if the masses are unanimous in their requirements. (They ain't.) Even so, sufficient justification exists for specialized breeds and their specialized temperaments, where "pet" animals are the ones who don't meet standard and are still probably not the best choice for anyone who wants a dog to be an ambulatory houseplant (feed, water, and ignore). -- Mary H. and the Ames National Zoo: Regis, Sam-I-Am, Noah (1992-2001), Ranger, Duke, felines, and finches |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Mary Healey wrote:
That's not what Donaldson said. She is saying, in effect, that anything but the most easygoing temperament is a genetic defect. And that's crap. I don't think it is at all clear from her statement, even in context, that this is what she meant to say. It almost seemed as if she is putting a premium on breeding for sociability above all else, which is also crap. I'm not even sure the general sentiment is accurate. Only in the sense that there are too many dogs out there with flaky temperament when it is not normal or desirable for those breeds. What she refers to as the 'Suburban Dog Syndrome' should perhaps not be as prevalent as it is, considering that JQP are much more likely to own Labs and GRs than Filas . Basically, it's an argument in favor of "idiot-proofing" canine temperament, and that's neither practical nor beneficial for breeds who are not extremely easy to socialize. Exactly right. Some breeds are not meant to be sociable. Their original purpose as a breed required that they not be easy to socialize. No need to change breed standards just because JQP may feel that they should be able to own one of those, but without having to worry about whether the dog's going to eat the neighbor's kids. Breeding some kind of uniform "mono-pet" for the masses only makes sense if the masses are unanimous in their requirements. (They ain't.) Even so, sufficient justification exists for specialized breeds and their specialized temperaments, where "pet" animals are the ones who don't meet standard and are still probably not the best choice for anyone who wants a dog to be an ambulatory houseplant (feed, water, and ignore). Yup. Suja |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Mary Healey wrote:
That's not what Donaldson said. She is saying, in effect, that anything but the most easygoing temperament is a genetic defect. And that's crap. I don't think it is at all clear from her statement, even in context, that this is what she meant to say. It almost seemed as if she is putting a premium on breeding for sociability above all else, which is also crap. I'm not even sure the general sentiment is accurate. Only in the sense that there are too many dogs out there with flaky temperament when it is not normal or desirable for those breeds. What she refers to as the 'Suburban Dog Syndrome' should perhaps not be as prevalent as it is, considering that JQP are much more likely to own Labs and GRs than Filas . Basically, it's an argument in favor of "idiot-proofing" canine temperament, and that's neither practical nor beneficial for breeds who are not extremely easy to socialize. Exactly right. Some breeds are not meant to be sociable. Their original purpose as a breed required that they not be easy to socialize. No need to change breed standards just because JQP may feel that they should be able to own one of those, but without having to worry about whether the dog's going to eat the neighbor's kids. Breeding some kind of uniform "mono-pet" for the masses only makes sense if the masses are unanimous in their requirements. (They ain't.) Even so, sufficient justification exists for specialized breeds and their specialized temperaments, where "pet" animals are the ones who don't meet standard and are still probably not the best choice for anyone who wants a dog to be an ambulatory houseplant (feed, water, and ignore). Yup. Suja |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Mary Healey wrote:
That's not what Donaldson said. She is saying, in effect, that anything but the most easygoing temperament is a genetic defect. And that's crap. I don't think it is at all clear from her statement, even in context, that this is what she meant to say. It almost seemed as if she is putting a premium on breeding for sociability above all else, which is also crap. I'm not even sure the general sentiment is accurate. Only in the sense that there are too many dogs out there with flaky temperament when it is not normal or desirable for those breeds. What she refers to as the 'Suburban Dog Syndrome' should perhaps not be as prevalent as it is, considering that JQP are much more likely to own Labs and GRs than Filas . Basically, it's an argument in favor of "idiot-proofing" canine temperament, and that's neither practical nor beneficial for breeds who are not extremely easy to socialize. Exactly right. Some breeds are not meant to be sociable. Their original purpose as a breed required that they not be easy to socialize. No need to change breed standards just because JQP may feel that they should be able to own one of those, but without having to worry about whether the dog's going to eat the neighbor's kids. Breeding some kind of uniform "mono-pet" for the masses only makes sense if the masses are unanimous in their requirements. (They ain't.) Even so, sufficient justification exists for specialized breeds and their specialized temperaments, where "pet" animals are the ones who don't meet standard and are still probably not the best choice for anyone who wants a dog to be an ambulatory houseplant (feed, water, and ignore). Yup. Suja |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|