A dog & canine forum. DogBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » DogBanter forum » Dog forums » Dog behavior
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Provocative



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old October 9th 03, 03:59 PM
Suja
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old October 9th 03, 04:44 PM
Emily Carroll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 9th 03, 04:44 PM
Emily Carroll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 9th 03, 04:44 PM
Emily Carroll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 9th 03, 05:39 PM
Mary Healey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 9th 03, 05:39 PM
Mary Healey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 9th 03, 05:39 PM
Mary Healey
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 9th 03, 05:49 PM
Suja
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 9th 03, 05:49 PM
Suja
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old October 9th 03, 05:49 PM
Suja
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0 (Unauthorized Upgrade)
Copyright ©2004-2024 DogBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.