|
Post by hicntry on Jan 4, 2006 18:57:09 GMT -5
Michael, I am appauled, are you telling me you don't belong to the ATCA. How are you gonna vote for me if I join???
Sadly, I have to say I agree with you on the split of hunting versus show. Even at that the hunting is losing ground rapidly. It is pretty much up to the individual
As far as the genetics part, I will give one piece of advice that comes from experience of close breeding. If it isn't crawling and crying when it hits the ground, get rid of it. Don't save it. Good healthy pups are always crawling and crying within a few seconds. That is one of the biggest problems with todays breeders, save them all and spare no expense. I bet those at the ATCA stroke out every time I give that advise.
|
|
|
Post by ed on Jan 4, 2006 20:27:04 GMT -5
As a relative newbie to Airedales but not to dog politics several themes are constant in Breed Clubs.
If I am a breeder then what I receive awards and/or recognition for is important to the breed and I support it. If I do not receive awards and/or recognition for it, it is not important for the breed and I will ignore it. If my dogs could never receive awards and/or recognition for it then its useless and bad for the breed and I will oppose it.
For it, fill in the______.
|
|
|
Post by hicntry on Jan 4, 2006 20:41:45 GMT -5
Good overview Ed. Those breed clubs better recognize this is the age of the internet then. Those working dogs are getting more and more recognitions and the breed clubs that don't see it are getting more and more bad publicity. I find it curious that not one person outside of Dave and Dale has ever made a comment on this board in regards to supporting the H/W part of the club. I would think if the good of the breed was really what it was about, someone other than the H/W part of the ATCA would have stood up and discussed this part of the program ....publicly. That is what being a good CO is about where I come from. Even if it was just to ask for some opinions on how to rectify some of the problems between the workers and the ATCA. I am actually surprised it has never happened if they were sincere about the working venues.
|
|
|
Post by morgan on Jan 5, 2006 8:25:44 GMT -5
Michael, I am appauled, are you telling me you don't belong to the ATCA. How are you gonna vote for me if I join??? Sadly, I have to say I agree with you on the split of hunting versus show. Even at that the hunting is losing ground rapidly. It is pretty much up to the individual Don, that is precisely the problem, small numbers. As to your earlier question, no the ATCA DOES NOT at this time want to be anything but a show club. They (the current admin) are adamant that all this "performance stuff" is the tail wagging the dog, and the breed ring is the only place that really matters. A big part of this emphasis comes out of Texas and the Tartan Schottshire kennel. There is a perception that in the past the HW and Obedience folks had gotten too much power and were having a negative effect on the future of the breed. Since I believe that the opposite is true, but my army is tiny, I have no hope of fighting this. Michael is correct in that anyone's qualifications can be trumped by the next candidate. We could certainly say that clicker training, tracking, bird hunting and agility are weak sisters and don't deserve the respect of real men. I tend to admire effort and intelligence almost as much as people who "do something", but that's my own failing. My point, largely ignored, was that there is a difference between a split and a fragmentation. Fragmentation may be destructive. Dave in N YC
|
|
|
Post by melanie on Jan 5, 2006 13:40:06 GMT -5
A big part of this emphasis comes out of Texas and the Tartan Schottshire kennel. There is a perception that in the past the HW and Obedience folks had gotten too much power and were having a negative effect on the future of the breed. Since I believe that the opposite is true, but my army is tiny, I have no hope of fighting this. Dave in N YC Dave, could you clarify your comment on Tartanshire? I can't tell if it was a positive or a negative assessment. Forbes seems to be a strong proponent of working Airedales. Thanks, [glow=red,2,300]Mel[/glow]
|
|
Summit Forge
Hunter/worker
Forge with Ruffed Grouse
Posts: 124
|
Post by Summit Forge on Jan 5, 2006 15:40:03 GMT -5
Michael, I am appauled, are you telling me you don't belong to the ATCA. How are you gonna vote for me if I join??? Sadly, I have to say I agree with you on the split of hunting versus show. Even at that the hunting is losing ground rapidly. It is pretty much up to the individual My point, largely ignored, was that there is a difference between a split and a fragmentation. Fragmentation may be destructive. Dave in N YC I think the distinction between split vs. fragmentation is extremely important in trying to understand the current situation of the Airedale. Without this understanding there is no place to go but in circles; not that there is anything wrong with circles. I would argue that fragmentation has already occurred and it is much more difficult to fix than a split. Fixing a split is fairly straight forward. Retrievers and pointers were/are "saved" by breeding only Field Trial tested dogs; as were the GSD, Malinois, Dobe and Hounds. These dogs are essentially one dimensional breeds and everyone agrees on what that dimension is. Why are Airedale fanciers so fragmented? I think it is because various groups see the Airedale as a one dimensional dog but very few can agree on what that is. This is where the problems start for the Airedale as a breed! Even if everyone agreed that the Airedale is and can be a better generalist, problems in breeding and training and testing abound. But you know...the road less traveled... Ron
|
|
|
Post by hicntry on Jan 5, 2006 16:03:26 GMT -5
Ah, yes. "the road less traveled" Robert Frost got me on that years ago and I have never looked back. Good post Ron. I think the whole spectrum of what the dale can do has developed many separate camps in it's followers. Show breeder look down of everyone, people using their dogs for obedience turn and look down on all venues requiring aggression, bird hunters look down at fur hunters and protection, everyone looks down on the use of the dale for dangerous game because we are the fewest in numbers. I think it is a numbers game. It goes from the largest numbers and trickles down to the fewest in number. If someone could just answer one question. Why do the show people insist their dogs can do everything all the lesser venues do(in there eyes). They have convinced themselves this is true so, obviously, that explains why they are the best. What baffles me is that they do the least to improve any breed yet they are the strongest in numbers.
|
|
|
Post by maugh on Jan 6, 2006 9:57:26 GMT -5
My point, largely ignored, was that there is a difference between a split and a fragmentation. Fragmentation may be destructive. Dave in N YC I think the distinction between split vs. fragmentation is extremely important in trying to understand the current situation of the Airedale. Without this understanding there is no place to go but in circles; not that there is anything wrong with circles. ..... Why are Airedale fanciers so fragmented? I think it is because various groups see the Airedale as a one dimensional dog but very few can agree on what that is. This is where the problems start for the Airedale as a breed! Even if everyone agreed that the Airedale is and can be a better generalist, problems in breeding and training and testing abound. But you know...the road less traveled... Ron I think this is really the crux. For example in Germany you could say the breed is somewhat split, because there "working" means Schutzhund. Here the notion of "performance" as sanctioned by the AKC consists of the various parlor games - obedience, rally, etc. These require rather fast dogs with soft temperaments. This is the best we can ever expect from the ATCA, since they are an AKC club. I think there is a a fair amount of overlap between desirable temperament qualities in the hard core working dog sports such as Schutzhund, and hunting qualities. Both need courage, desire to retrieve and search, power and perserverence. Both need a dog with a strong temperament who can bounce back from painful or otherwise unpleasant experiences. Any dog that has mastered the retrieve for the IPO 3 dumbell will have no problems retrieving a duck. Any dog that can fight the bad guy will not be intimidated by an aggressive bird. With larger animals it is probably a matter of experience and opportunity. We should be breeding sound dogs that have some biddability but not a soft temperament. Lots of prey drive and enjoy the fight - maybe killing a cat, fighting a bad guy - , and resiliency. Maugh
|
|
|
Post by ed on Jan 6, 2006 13:51:55 GMT -5
"Here the notion of "performance" as sanctioned by the AKC consists of the various parlor games - obedience, rally, etc. These require rather fast dogs with soft temperaments. This is the best we can ever expect from the ATCA, since they are an AKC club.
I think there is a a fair amount of overlap between desirable temperament qualities in the hard core working dog sports such as Schutzhund, and hunting qualities. Both need courage, desire to retrieve and search, power and perserverence. Both need a dog with a strong temperament who can bounce back from painful or otherwise unpleasant experiences."
Maugh I think yours is one of the most cogent statements on performance dog temperament and the lack there of involved in dog parlour games that I have seen in print. Work/ hunt aren't separate abilities.
|
|
Summit Forge
Hunter/worker
Forge with Ruffed Grouse
Posts: 124
|
Post by Summit Forge on Jan 6, 2006 17:39:10 GMT -5
" Work/ hunt aren't separate abilities. I'm not convinced Ed. Why don't fur hunters use Malinois? Why aren't Shepherds in duck blinds? Why aren't Dobe's used as vermin killers? Why don't pheasant hunters use American Bulldogs for flushers? We are a very pragmatic country. The answer for me is in an analogy. The genetic difference between a genius and an idiot is infinitesimal. But when the phenotype is measured with testing the difference is of course huge. Why hasn't after 50 years of breeding the Airedale in Germany for ONLY Schutzhund produced champions in the sport? That sounds more like failure to me. Ron
|
|
|
Post by hicntry on Jan 6, 2006 19:56:10 GMT -5
Well Ron. I was planning on having some fun with you.......until I read that post. I found myself staring at the screen re-reading it several times. This may be one of those questions that is running through ones head as he drifts off to sleep at night, only to find himself sitting straight up at 3:00 am with the perfect answer coming like a bolt of lightning while in a deep sleep. Give me a few nights. I may have to consult Mulder on this one.....the answer may have to do with the supernatural. Does the difference better separate prey drive from fight drive? No, that isn't the basic difference. To many contradictions there between different breeds. Fight drive has to be extremely strong in a protection dog. If strong prey drive was at the base of a good protection dog then hound would be unbeatable, but, in reality, they would do worse than fail. Both venues have prey drive, one is great the other is not....so we can eliminate that. So, what controls the fight drive in good protection dog.....a visual of a bad situation....the eyes are controlling the brain patterns and many non hunting dogs trust what they see more than they smell. When we look at hunting dogs, the brain trust the nose more than the eyes. The brain tells the dog to stay under that 100' tree, even though the dog has not even seen the coon, because the nose told it there was a coon in that tree. The brain tells the hunting dog to travel mile on a track because the "nose" controls the brain over the eyes. Quite the reverse in the successful protection dog. That being said, the protection dog see one common prey, man. He "sees" a man with an aggressive posture right in front of him and the brain believes the eyes. The classic hunting dog such as an airedale sees the man but the nose is telling the brain it is a man, his best friend. If the nose told the brain that were a coon or a bear, the brain would tell the hunting dog to kill. I say the difference lies in which senses the dogs brain relys on. I will have to remember this for a book. To sum it up, in the protection dog, the visual gives the brain an instantaneous picture that triggers the fight drive. The hunting dog gets a visual but it is over riden by the nose so the brain is not sure whether the fight should be triggered. Something to think about anyway.
|
|
Summit Forge
Hunter/worker
Forge with Ruffed Grouse
Posts: 124
|
Post by Summit Forge on Jan 6, 2006 20:36:56 GMT -5
Good analysis Don...maybe. I do know that the nose vs eyes issue is very real in retrieving. However, to conclude that a Lab, for example, only uses its eyes but an Airedale only uses its nose is erroneous...because one must train a Lab as well as an Airedale as to when it is more beneficial to give the eyes precedence. However, it has been my experience the Airedale finds it more difficult to learn this AND the Lab will always be better at marking (eyes) than an Airedale. BUT the Lab has a very good nose. Probably, the genetic difference would be infinitesimal but the result is HUGE.
Ron
|
|
|
Post by hicntry on Jan 6, 2006 22:21:04 GMT -5
"However, to conclude that a Lab, for example, only uses its eyes but an Airedale only uses its nose is erroneous..."
I don't see how you figure it to be erroneous Ron. As I said, the airedale does see the man but his nose has a lot of control of the brain. It merely causes some confusion that, with training can be overcome(now unnatural) but the dog has still lost his edge in a highly competitive game. The dog sees but the nose is slowing the reaction due to the confusion. All dogs see. An airedale sees a coon but the nose, in this case, is reinforcing the desired result because it is a hunting dog. In hunting, the sight and the nose are in agreement. The lab sees the bird like an airedale would a coon. If the bird falls in the tules where he can't see it, I guarantee the end result will be because of the nose to locate it. It is also natural prey for a hunting dog. It is the confusion of a dog controlled basically by nose versus a dog that predominately operates from site.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Baldassarre on Jan 7, 2006 0:49:13 GMT -5
Don
IF I'm reading you correctly these are some points to ponder....
-The Fila is a big hound
-If vision is the criteria- sight hounds would be the best protection dogs
-If the dobe and the greyhound have equal noses {your inference} they should be equal at both hunting and manwork
-What does the police dog "see" during a building search in pitch dark?
-Consider the nose tracking {i.e. hunting} GSD, that mantracks 5 miles then attacks & fights the guy.
-How do you explain a dog who sees both birds , and men as prey?
-Why does [said] dog crunch the man and not the bird!? Don't even say training, cause it ain't the case.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by hicntry on Jan 7, 2006 2:19:07 GMT -5
That's not to hard to answer Mark. Start with the inherent traits to make a good protection dog. It's high fight drive I would think so here we go because high fight drive isn't neccessary for certain types of hunting dogs. Big difference from breed to breed Mark. Think about it. Don IF I'm reading you correctly these are some points to ponder.... -The Fila is a big hound.......that has excessive fight drive. Some airedales have it to and that is why some can do protection work. -If vision is the criteria- sight hounds would be the best protection dogs.....general lack of strong fight drive -If the dobe and the greyhound have equal noses {your inference} they should be equal at both hunting and manwork......one has a much stronger fight drive than the other -What does the police dog "see" during a building search in pitch dark? .......I said in the first two posts that they use both senses but the brain is triggered in one type of dog more by the visual sense and the other by the olfactory sense. Dogs also see quite well at night. You may not be able to see but how many dog do you see running into trees on a moonless night....how about none. I guess that is why they can hunt coons at night....you think? -Consider the nose tracking {i.e. hunting} GSD, that mantracks 5 miles then attacks & fights the guy.......Same as the previous -How do you explain a dog who sees both birds , and men as prey? ........As I said, training can overcome many of these things with very specific specimens in a breed but if you think one out of 100 dogs is satisfactory we have different criteria on what makes a viable breed for specific types of work -Why does [said] dog crunch the man and not the bird!? Don't even say training, cause it ain't the case......Then call it conditioning because even good bird dogs will crunch a bird many times without it. I suppose if you think about it, that must be why they developed techniques to soften the mouth just like they use conditioning to increase the bite in a protection dog. Now I have a question. Why are the majority of mere hunting dogs mere fur pullers with no full mouth bite and others are gangbuster full mouth dogs naturally? ? It is the basic difference from dog to dog because the intensity and confidence varies from dog to dog....just like people. Now, why didn't you use something besides birds in your examples. Were you referring to the high propensity German bred bird dogs have for biting both people and birds?
|
|