Summit Forge
Hunter/worker
Forge with Ruffed Grouse
Posts: 124
|
Post by Summit Forge on Jan 7, 2006 8:48:06 GMT -5
"dog. It is the confusion of a dog controlled basically by nose versus a dog that predominately operates from site. Yes the key word seems to be predominately. Although I think we are on the right track (no pun intended), there seems to be something more subtle going on but I do not know what it is. Whatever it is, it is certainly real and very powerful in influencing performance. Ron
|
|
|
Post by morgan on Jan 7, 2006 12:11:35 GMT -5
Ron-Don, Great discussion! As I get around in other breeds it seems to me that we need to look at other versatile dogs. The Chessie was dually selected for a good retrieve and a natural protection pattern. If we abandon both "drives" and "instinct" as terms (we don't have to, but if we do) we're left with Coppinger's behavioral conformation and the prey sequence. As a sequence of survival behaviors, both the prey sequence and the guard/protection sequence has value. I think that Chessies and Airedales are distinct in their ability to have a fully formed sequence in both areas.
Why? I believe, from some history research, that the "versatile" hunter deal applies in both cases. These are ideal dogs for people who keep one or two. Once, this was a unique idea.
When Kir's (my lovely bride) grandfather built a house out east on Long Island way back, local papers commented on his parties, skeet shoots, etc. He was said to keep around 16 dogs about the place. Also of course horses to get around and a veggie garden. In these days of "Country Life" this wasn't real rare. A poorer family or a city guy (like me) couldn't manage this. Hence the Airedale, the Chessie and the Morgan horse.
The Morgan Horse was stylish enough to take you to church, sturdy enough to pull a plough and smooth enough to ride; Perfect for folks who needed all three, but could only manage the one. The Chessie guarded the boat, the catch, the people-and salt water retrieved. I think Ed is correct to say that the two (Hunting and Protection) are closely related and intertwined. I just think that this only applies to a few breeds. Another example is a Newfie water rescue and cart pull/ or a sled dog guarding and mushing. It's not selective breeding, it's "less" selective breeding-which brings me to the point of this tirade.
We need it all. Selecting ONLY for one is dangerous. If Larry breeds only for big game/Curly only for various birds/Moe only for protection we get distinctive lines-good! If we talk, collaborate and outcross, we keep a multi useful breed going. It's that fragmentation thing. While Curt carries on about Schutzhund he realizes that the numbers are waaaaay small. That makes his mission more important, not less. The critical mass that I envision is Hunting-Working, dogs that do SOMETHING. Then we have the information to make decisions for the future.
Dave in NYC
|
|
|
Post by jsf13 on Jan 7, 2006 12:15:02 GMT -5
Decades and centuries of selective breeding have resulted in breeds of dogs whose brains are hardwired differently from one another.Take pointers for example.Some breeds are totally incapable of being trained not to chase the bird once it flushes.Pointers? No problem. Many livestock guardians are incapable of eating a dead cow or sheep unless someone or something else tears it open first.Many things we attribute to intelligence or training in the dog are often motor patterns that that have been emphasized or de-emphasized or even eliminated through selective breeding. For those more interested in this subject there is a great book I would highly recommend.
"DOGS :A New Understanding of Canine Origin,Behaviour and Evolution"
by Raymond and Lorna Coppinger.
|
|
|
Post by Mark Baldassarre on Jan 7, 2006 12:26:22 GMT -5
Don,
I agree fight is important in a Protection dog but it's not the only drive needed as you are generalizing.
Willingness to fight the MAN is the key to a "real" protection dog. Many dogs involved IN protection work lack this yet still function in the capacity.
No breed has more general fight "drive" than a Pit or Tosa. neither make good man dogs in general though. Why?
Most of the terriers have an abundance of "fight" but most will run from a man. They also tend to have good vision,LOL!
A good Protection dog needs: Prey, Defense & Fight. Fight alone won't cut it. What would trigger him into fight?
Also, the GSD referenced in my [pitch dark building example]: I meant pitch dark. Yes dogs see as though it's dusk when we see it as dark outside. But outside there is still starlight for the dog to refract{like gen 1 night vision}. In a building w/o windows, at night, devoid of light... the dog can't see! There is nothing to refract. But, the dog can find it's way around w/it's nose. This is done often w/PDs during building searches. Instead of trying to educate me on canine senses, you should have stayed within your theory and said: Well Mark, that GSD has seen that scenario many times over in training and now it's in his mind's eye. And that would have been true, though still not enough to support the vision theory.
Filas don't necessarily have high fight drive. Some do, most really don't. The catalyst is defense in the fila. Just because a dog will attack a man, does not mean it will fight a man when pushed. Again, some will some won't.
MANY ShcH dogs LACK fight "drive". So do MANY police dogs. They can still do "protection" and get by on prey "drive". That get's them through most of the time, because perps tend to scream when bit! Also sleeves don't fight back. When the dog is challenged , is when you see what the dog has. If fight was the "requirement" for sport or police work you'd never see PD dogs quit or sport dogs run.
No, I was NOT referring to the German Bred Bird dogs. I was referring to my Airedale & Old English Sheepdog. Both man dogs & bird retrievers. Neither one crunched birds. Neither one needed to be taught not to crunch them either. But both crunched people! And both would be happy to crunch furred animals too. Bear likes to crunch the skull of a squirrel before bringing it back just for good measure,LOL.
Yes, many traditional hunting breeds do have plenty of individuals within them who are crunchers. Most people don't know how to train the retrieve, and that's a big reason why you see this. I'm not talking about using devices to prevent crunching either. I'm just talking proper controlled retrieving.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by hicntry on Jan 7, 2006 13:18:02 GMT -5
Don,
"I agree fight is important in a Protection dog but it's not the only drive needed as you are generalizing."
Mark. You laid out some lame examples to prove a point and now I am generalizing? No fight , no protection. Show me a successful protection dog with zero fight drive. I am not generalizing Mark and I never said it was the only drive needed. Personally , I think its more a case of you waffling around trying to make your case.
"Willingness to fight the MAN is the key to a "real" protection dog. Many dogs involved IN protection work lack this yet still function in the capacity."
So? Is anyone disagreeing here? I think we could include this in 1 in a 100 from the last post"
"No breed has more general fight "drive" than a Pit or Tosa. neither make good man dogs in general though. Why?"
Probably because they lack the other drives you said I was generalizing about. Actually if were splitting hairs to make your case Mark. Are there more pits being worked in protection in the US or more Airedales? I believe this discussion was why not many airedals were "really" successful at the protection sports. Note, the key work "really" is what it is about. Because there is 1 in a 100 doesn't make them the breed of choice.
'Most of the terriers have an abundance of "fight but most will run from a man. They also tend to have good vision,LOL!'"
Mark, would you like,e syrup with that waffle.? Is there a point to that? Are we including all terriers now, big little...what?
"A good Protection dog needs: Prey, Defense & Fight. Fight alone won't cut it. What would trigger him into fight?"
No one eliminated the need for the other drives or their importance. We just didn't include it.....largely from the examples you listed including sight hounds to Tosa'.
Also, the GSD referenced in my [pitch dark building example]: I meant pitch dark. Yes dogs see as though it's dusk when we see it as dark outside. But outside there is still starlight for the dog to refract{like gen 1 night vision}. In a building w/o windows, at night, devoid of light... the dog can't see! There is nothing to refract. But, the dog can find it's way around w/it's nose. This is done often w/PDs during building searches. Instead of trying to educate me on canine senses, you should have stayed within your theory and said: Well Mark, that GSD has seen that scenario many times over in training and now it's in his mind's eye. And that would have been true, though still not enough to support the vision theory.
Go back and read the posts Mark and tell me where anyone has implied the dogs "don't use both senses. You won't find it because it was never said. They use both senses. One may have a slight edge in the resulting actions but, once again Mark, Dogs use both of theses senses . Now before you get around to bringing this up...yes Mark, they actually use more than the two senses because they have them....just like they have more drives.
"Filas don't necessarily have high fight drive. Some do, most really don't. The catalyst is defense in the fila. Just because a dog will attack a man, does not mean it will fight a man when pushed. Again, some will some won't."
What are you saying here Mark? Isn't it something more like: "(Fill in the blank) don't necessarily have high fight drive. Some do, most really don't. The catalyst is defense in the (fill in the blank). Just because a dog will attack a man, does not mean it will fight a man when pushed. Again, some will some won't."
|
|
|
Post by Mark Baldassarre on Jan 7, 2006 14:09:23 GMT -5
Don,
"Mark. You laid out some lame examples to prove a point and now I am generalizing? No fight , no protection.
Watch a ShcH trial.
" Are there more pits being worked in protection in the US or more Airedales? I believe this discussion was why not many airedals were "really" successful at the protection sports"
There are more pits being worked in protection, because there are more pits in the country. Shear numbers dictate there will be more individuals. Furthermore there are more pit people selecting for manwork, than Airedale people. Tell me that's not pathetic. Today's Pit breeders are looking for jobs other than fighting. Many breeders are breeding pits that have the required traits. I'd bet, given a little time I could breed a hunting line of pits too. You get what you select for.
Many Airedales are not "really successful" at protection because of nuts breeding! When "breeders" ignore the traits required, you don't get the traits...you get nuts.
It's all very simple and has little to do with a dog's vision or nose. Airedales have rather acute vision well as an olfactory ability to rival almost any other breed. Neither have much to do with it.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by hicntry on Jan 7, 2006 14:50:58 GMT -5
;D It's all conjecture on my part Mark but this will have to be short this time. You made me pretty hungry for waffles so they are cooking as we speak but at least I added some meat(bacon). Personally, I think you are wrong in that the nose plays no part in it for the same reason a sighthound doesn't use his nose....his speed is his stronger suit. When it comes to scent hounds, it is very hard to over ride their nose....it rules their whole being(yes, they see also but they are far more likely to believe there nose. As far as pits far outnumbering the airedales working protection.....if the airedale(outside of that 1 in 100) did as well as pits, that in itself would have popularized them within the manwork community. None of this says there are not a few of most breeds that might not be viable protection dogs.....it means there are breeds better suited for it out there and that is why they are popular. Most people will stay with the tried and true then there are a few that take the road less traveled for any number of reasons. I know a guy that years ago, spent some time with hound hunters chasing them around the mountains hunting bears and bobcats. He really liked the dog work but the hounds functioned at one level. He got his own dawg, an airedale. Everyone around laughed at his choice. This funny looking dog with the beard and the pantaloons could never hunt and put game on the table like a hound. Years went by, the hound hunters around the area know what those airedales are capable of now. Much to their owners amusement I might add. I will leave you on this note. It is one of two things wherein the problem lies, if it isn't bad breeders then it has to be bad trainers. If the the majority of trainers picked the right dog to start with, there would be more success stories I am sure. I am pretty sure that has a lot to do with it.
|
|
Summit Forge
Hunter/worker
Forge with Ruffed Grouse
Posts: 124
|
Post by Summit Forge on Jan 7, 2006 15:49:38 GMT -5
I find everyone's posts interesting and thought provoking. Coppingers theories, the terms commonly used to define dogs in the protection sports and in hunting are all useful for thought. But I absolutely refuse to begin training Forge to be a pointer! ;D
|
|
|
Post by melanie on Jan 7, 2006 15:49:41 GMT -5
Great thread! Can't add any wisdom to it , but I wanted to say my Greyhound, Al, is the best deep nose tracker I have. Who woulda thunk it? I think it's a throwback to when he was alone and wandering (about 2 months in the winter, before the Dog catcher found him.) He had to learn to survive by sniffing out and eating anything he could. He barely survived, weighed 40 lbs when I found him. Couldn't even hold his head up. He is very street savvy, this 12 year old, gentle, loving, couch potato. But put him up to either of my 'dales (which isn't saying much at this time since they are beginners) and he's the best tracker of them all. A fluke, probably, but a great nose! He'll need it too, since he's getting cataracts. No more snatching birds out of the sky... [glow=red,2,300]Mel[/glow]
|
|
|
Post by Mark Baldassarre on Jan 7, 2006 16:39:38 GMT -5
Don
The only waffling being done is by those who can't produce the real deal. Excuses are a dime a dozen. THE hardest trait to breed for is- courage against a man. That is the deciding factor in producing the real Airedale. All the rest are mere hounds.
My point is that nose, nor vision has anything to do with it. A hound uses his nose to find game because he's not "looking" for the man. The sight hound uses his eyes to find game because he's not looking for the man. Neither were bred to see man as game. Although the sight hound uses sight and the hound uses his nose...neither will fight man. Therefore I conclude that senses have nothing do do with it! Furthermore, any and every wild canid will/does hunt game. It's no great feat. It's the most basic, fundamental task required for survival.
A [well bred] Airedale uses his eyes & nose to find game AND the man! Why? Because he can... and he likes it.
Mark
|
|
|
Post by Idaho Steve on Jan 8, 2006 4:58:40 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. Boy, that "Save 'em all & spare no expence " sure hits the mark for me. If they can't do it & to my standard, they're "out of here", no excuses. If they're unsound, it's "in hole with them", if their sire & dam produce more, likely to be a mass grave. Superb performance may save them, but no more breeding.
|
|