|
Alphas
Dec 22, 2005 22:34:05 GMT -5
Post by hicntry on Dec 22, 2005 22:34:05 GMT -5
"What I believe you meant to say is that you find watching your Airedales gives you some understanding of their nature and capabilities that is beneficial to your breeding program."
Well, that may be a little clearer but that is what I meant to say. In my mind, training has little to do with a well bred dog. If you breed a functional dog with all the natural instinct and drives, some will not have enough confidence to successfully do unnatural tasks well, some will have the CONFIDENCE(along with the other criteria mentioned) to handle doing work that is totally unnatural that requires training. Others will be only capable of doing the natural instinctive duties they were meant to do. It is the understanding of what you are looking at and putting the right dog to the right task that makes a winning combination. Placing the wrong dog in a specific task is the # 1 reason for failure in my mind. One reason is that with a solid, confident dog, your mistakes can be much more easily over come. They are more forgiving, I think, and take to change much more easily. What makes so many trainers look like real professionals is the ability to pick the right dog more so than his ability in many cases. No matter how good the trainer is, if he always picks mediocre dogs, he will be a mediocre trainer. Largely because that is what he has learned to pick. Most all venues require a knowledgeable trainer. It is being able to walk up to a litter an pick the right dog that makes him a professional. I don't consider the training side as a key factor in the breeding but, the breeder has to breed a complete dog or no one wins.
|
|
|
Alphas
Dec 26, 2005 14:50:40 GMT -5
Post by Mark Baldassarre on Dec 26, 2005 14:50:40 GMT -5
Don
I understand what your saying about observing your pack. There is some importance there.
Bear in mind though, social interaction among themselves doesn't reveal much. The "alpha" in a Poodle pack is still a POS!
Testing and training are critical to revealing what a real dog has or does not have.
W/O a stimuli, there can be no reaction to assess.
I'd agree w/Ron saying "training" is needed to make an assessment of breed-worthiness. Only I would add "testing" as a requirement and a replacement or training where appropriate.
I'm not interested in "trainability". Although many people are. I'm simply interested in what the dog can do. Training and testing will uncover what they can do.
Mark
|
|
|
Alphas
Dec 26, 2005 16:16:06 GMT -5
Post by hicntry on Dec 26, 2005 16:16:06 GMT -5
The problem with letting training dictate breeding is that while one trainer can bring a world class dog out, the next trainer can only make the same dog an average dog even though it has the goods. Every litter has a variation of personalities and confidence levels and none of the results are dependant on which trainer is training, they are the result of what the breeder is breeding for. The dog is what he is, in spite of how qualified the trainer is. A breeder produces dogs that no trainer can work, then the training says something about the breeding. The breeder produces dogs that most any "qualified trainer" can make an outstanding dog out of, that also says something about the breeding. In neither case is the traing taken into consideration before the dogs are produced. It is after the fact. Training does give a lot of insight to what has been produced but I would never base my decisions on what a trainer says simply because there are two totally different perspectives. Because a trainer finds a dog a piece of cake to work with doing retrieving doesn't make that dog a well bred dog. It means he likes to retrieve but he may not have the nerve to grab a hog or do many other things that require the whole package. Trying to produce the whole package is what breeding is about. Training is like finishing school. There is a lot of potential students applying for the school but they test them and only take the best. So, in my opinion, yes, a breeder should pay close attention to what his dogs can do in the hands of a qualified trainer, but, breeding simply for trainability would just leave to many holes .........much like breeding for show. There are just to many different venues out there and that is why some lines are better at some venues than others.
|
|
Summit Forge
Hunter/worker
Forge with Ruffed Grouse
Posts: 124
|
Alphas
Dec 26, 2005 17:06:09 GMT -5
Post by Summit Forge on Dec 26, 2005 17:06:09 GMT -5
Most of the "discussions" we have and the conclusions that are drawn from each person's monologue are based upon a form of ...If this than that.
Many times one can not disagree with the conclusion BUT the "this" part of the argument is missing or not known. I believe this type of argument is a fallacy called "the law of the excluded middle".
In other words, if the thing doesn't exist, you can't get beyond that. It doesn't exist.
Everything one can know about each dog and bitch in a breeding is very important in my mind. Watching interactions within a litter and without, training and testing to see what is really there are all essentials to breeding working Airedales. I can not imagine a serious argument against such knowledge...unless, someone has the perception that their "ox is being gored' or a vested interest challenged.
Ron
|
|
|
Alphas
Dec 26, 2005 17:38:09 GMT -5
Post by hicntry on Dec 26, 2005 17:38:09 GMT -5
I didn't think this was an argument but just my opinion versus everyone else's. Now, let me ask y'all. Is this just as true in the reverse or is it just a onesided proposition. Ya see, I feel the trainers should just learn how to train what is bred to be a good trainer. Trainers figure if they can't train a dog, it is automatically bad breeding. BUT, I would go the other way and say, if you can't train the dog, you just don't know how to train a dog. Anything that doesn't work the way it is expected, it is automatically the breeding. A good trainer can train a lion or a bear to where he can put his head in the lions mouth. These are wild animals. Why can't a good trainer train a dog? Obviously, if a lion can be trained to the point they are, then all dogs should be trainable in my mind. With this in mind, why, as a breeder would I change a breeding program to suit what a trainer can do with a dog. Obviously, breeders are supposed to breed dogs that need almost no training, or are very easy to train because there are few trainers out there that can train a dog that isn't downright easy..........even though, those particular dogs make some of the very best working dogs Is that the missing middle ground that is never mentioned? You guys want breeders to breed easy to train dogs. Breeders want you trainers to learn how to train a good dog. What do they say....you will ruin your first 2 or 3 dogs before you trainers get it right???.......This is all in fun Ron....just a different side of the coin. I actually had fun writing this.
|
|
|
Alphas
Dec 26, 2005 18:24:01 GMT -5
Post by hicntry on Dec 26, 2005 18:24:01 GMT -5
Dang, I just read the above p[ost over and left out the main part. Now, what I would suggest, instead of trainers telling breeders how and what to breed, I think it would be far more advantageous if the breeder of a specific line of dogs, sat any perspective trainers down and showed him how to work with his particular line. I think breeders shopu take an active part in teach others how to train his particular dogs because,....well he knows them better than anyone else. I will meet you boys half way being as easy as I am. I will breed the way you want me to if you will train the way I tell you to.....or I will just breed dogs that, hopefully will make you look as good. If you look good, we will look good. As I said, this is all in fun, on my part anyway. You trainers shouldn't worry so much about the breeding. If someone breeds untrainable dogs, he won't go far will he? Kind of self governing. Kind of like, if a trainer never learns to pick the winners, he will always be a mediocre trainer.
|
|
|
Alphas
Dec 26, 2005 18:38:56 GMT -5
Post by hicntry on Dec 26, 2005 18:38:56 GMT -5
Curt, I can't believe you said
"The odds of producing confident and drivey pups for Schutzhund...begins with...
Confident and drivey parents . "
Mundane simple stuff like parentage is of no consequence you know. If that dog has a title, he did it himself, has nothing to do with parentage. Only in the 21st century of course. First off, confidence and that kind of stuff comes from who provideds the most kids furniture and slides and such, to play on. That is what builds confidence. Another boost to having confidence is to never put them in a situation that may frighten them.....like the rain. Those are confidence builders my friend. Confidence builders of the 21st Century. Never put them in a scarey situation and they will always "appear" to be confident. .....always.
|
|
|
Alphas
Dec 26, 2005 19:08:58 GMT -5
Post by melanie on Dec 26, 2005 19:08:58 GMT -5
...Ya see, I feel the trainers should just learn how to train what is bred to be a good trainer. Trainers figure if they can't train a dog, it is automatically bad breeding. BUT, I would go the other way and say, if you can't train the dog, you just don't know how to train a dog.... Anything that doesn't work the way it is expected, it is automatically the breeding. A good trainer can train a lion or a bear to where he can put his head in the lions mouth. These are wild animals. Why can't a good trainer train a dog? Obviously, if a lion can be trained to the point they are, then all dogs should be trainable in my mind. With this in mind, why, as a breeder would I change a breeding program to suit what a trainer can do with a dog. Obviously, breeders are supposed to breed dogs that need almost no training, or are very easy to train because there are few trainers out there that can train a dog that isn't downright easy..........even though, those particular dogs make some of the very best working dogs Is that the missing middle ground that is never mentioned? You guys want breeders to breed easy to train dogs. Breeders want you trainers to learn how to train a good dog. What do they say....you will ruin your first 2 or 3 dogs before you trainers get it right???.......This is all in fun Ron....just a different side of the coin. I actually had fun writing this. Hmmm, lots of thought in here. "trainers should just learn how to train what is bred to be a good trainer." I wholeheartedly agree. "if you can't train the dog, you just don't know how to train a dog" perhaps you don't know how to train THAT dog. In which case you should know how to read that dog to get the best out of him. An analogy: You're son is in baseball and is rather average at it, but it is obvious he'd rather be playing football in which he could excel. I can see that in dog training. Each dog is so different. As a trainer it is legendary that you make all your mistakes on your *poor* first dog, make new ones on your second dog, and your third dog is the charm. You have to be a pretty piss poor trainer to ruin your first 2 dogs... Yeah, we want easy to train dogs, but not so much that we get Goldens! We'd like easy to train AIredales, but that's an oxymoron. (SOrry Don, I just couldn't think o another word! ) Oh, I have it - Contradiction. ;D Anyway, my point, if there is one, is that you train what you have. You selected your breeder, you made the puppy choice, now it's up to you to find his niche. It IS all in the trainer, if said trainer is buying *good dogs. That says that at the very least, WE need to be breeding the best we have, and as for the rest of the breeders - well, fugedabowdit! Jus' thinkin'. [glow=red,2,300]Mel[/glow]
|
|
|
Alphas
Dec 26, 2005 19:27:35 GMT -5
Post by melanie on Dec 26, 2005 19:27:35 GMT -5
I agree that parentage may produce dogs with the potential of becoming competitors, but I have believed all along that it is the dog/trainer team that proves working ability, not how many titles are on his pedigree. [glow=red,2,300]Mel[/glow]
|
|
|
Alphas
Dec 27, 2005 2:05:31 GMT -5
Post by Idaho Steve on Dec 27, 2005 2:05:31 GMT -5
I would agree that parentage, in theory should provide positive odds & potential, but I've seen a good few too many world class dogs produce only mediocre or less. I don't believe it is a complete package unless it can perform AND produce.
|
|
Summit Forge
Hunter/worker
Forge with Ruffed Grouse
Posts: 124
|
Alphas
Dec 27, 2005 15:03:13 GMT -5
Post by Summit Forge on Dec 27, 2005 15:03:13 GMT -5
I would agree that parentage, in theory should provide positive odds & potential, but I've seen a good few too many world class dogs produce only mediocre or less. I don't believe it is a complete package unless it can perform AND produce. Steve, could you tell me where there are world-class Airedales producing world-class Airedales? Alternatively, do you know of any mediocre Airedales that are producing world-class Airedales? In an Airedale, what does world class mean to you? Ron
|
|
|
Alphas
Dec 27, 2005 15:36:33 GMT -5
Post by jsf13 on Dec 27, 2005 15:36:33 GMT -5
First off, confidence and that kind of stuff comes from who provideds the most kids furniture and slides and such, to play on. That is what builds confidence. Another boost to having confidence is to never put them in a situation that may frighten them...... "Before the onset of fear responses,animals do not show fear to novel shapes and sounds.....After the onset of fear,new novel shapes and sounds cause avoidance behaviours..... Fear turns on at different times in different breeds and even among individuals.....Six to eight weeks is an average age for some breeds to display fear responses while others may not display them til eight or ten weeks. Gun-dog trainers expose their pups to gunshots before ( the fear period).Shooting guns around puppies for their first six weeks grows a brain that expects those sounds from the environment.Gunshots become normal." From the Coppingers great book,"A New Understanding of Canine Origin,Behaviour and Evolution. I expect the same could be said of almost all other environmental conditions you want to prepare your pup to handle.Definitely appears you should find out what your breeder has done with the pups in those critical weeks.
|
|
|
Alphas
Dec 27, 2005 22:35:55 GMT -5
Post by melanie on Dec 27, 2005 22:35:55 GMT -5
My pups are responding to many sounds now, and I'm not holding back (shhh, not to loud to scare the puppies! LOL!) Lately I've taken to twisting the small bubble wrap that has been stuffed in all the Christmas gifts. I twist them all up and watch the puppies response. Most were curious, some indifferent, one spooked. But I've done it every day, and it's old hat now. Some still duck when you reach over their head to pet them, but I think that's devolping vision. Tonight one was starting to tear up a newspaper, so I made them a rag and dangled it. So far, not too much interest, but if I set it down, a couple pups found it entertaining. This is so fascinating! BTW, I've not marked any of them. I want to see how they develop individually without prejudice. ;D I can tell the strong big pups, and I can tell the barker, and there's a few white toes to help identify them. But it's fun to watch them become themselves. What a wonder. placing 7 pups is getting kinda scary right now. I hope I can find them good homes before my house becomes a larger zoo. [glow=red,2,300]Mel[/glow]
|
|
|
Alphas
Dec 28, 2005 2:51:32 GMT -5
Post by Idaho Steve on Dec 28, 2005 2:51:32 GMT -5
I would agree that parentage, in theory should provide positive odds & potential, but I've seen a good few too many world class dogs produce only mediocre or less. I don't believe it is a complete package unless it can perform AND produce. Steve, could you tell me where there are world-class Airedales producing world-class Airedales? Alternatively, do you know of any mediocre Airedales that are producing world-class Airedales? In an Airedale, what does world class mean to you? Ron I should have made myself clear, I was speaking of genetics per say, rather than Breed. I have never seen a world class AD; plenty of mediocres & POS though. To be rated high by me, I would expect an AD use it's intelligence & ability to specialize in what I wanted it to do; but I've pretty much conceded that due to breeding for a versitle dog in the beginning, add in the contributions of the show and bench breeders, that is probably too much to hope for.
|
|
|
Alphas
Dec 28, 2005 15:36:27 GMT -5
Post by jsf13 on Dec 28, 2005 15:36:27 GMT -5
To be rated high by me, I would expect an AD use it's intelligence & ability to specialize in what I wanted it to do; Just curious Steve as to what that would be?
|
|