Rave Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Another thread got me thinking and I am curious to know your thoughts. In general, is temperament a consideration when breeding working dogs? If so, where does it fall on the priority list? If a dog is fearful or aggressive or <insert undesirable character trait here>, does their working ability trump all this when considering whether to breed or not? At what point does a good working-dog breeder draw the line for the good of the pup and the good of the breed? I imagine (or I hope) it would be some sort of combination of all traits and personal preferences. I also imagine it depends a lot on the ethics of the breeder, since there are always some bad apples in a bunch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam Wolf Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Breeders of working dogs are no better nor no worse than breeders of any other dog. People make their decisions based on their own reasons. Be that money, personal reasons or whatever. Temperment will play a big part for some and be unimportant for others, same as with anyone who mates two dogs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rave Posted July 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 I guess a better question would be, for *good* breeders, where does temperament lie on the priority of traits when considering whether or not to breed a particular dog? Would you overlook some temperament issues if the dog was a kick-ass worker? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam Wolf Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 IMO, the dog would be hindered if it had a poor temperment. It might be great at home, but if the cows were down the road it might be too spooky to work well, too distracted or whatever to be a really great worker. The degree of the fault should be measured against the degree of greatness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juliepoudrier Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 The degree of the fault should be measured against the degree of greatness. Agreed. A dog whose temperament issues make it a liability if you have to leave the farm (or even at home for that matter) probably shouldn't be bred. I have one here with fear aggression. If he had been a stellar worker I still wouldn't have bred him because it's next to impossible to do anything to him (i.e., trim nails, etc.) because of the fear aggression. I can't imagine any dog would be so fantastic a worker that such behavioral tendencies could be overlooked, but like Pam said, I'm sure there are folks who would overlook it. Then again, if it's possible to mitigate a particular dog's temperament with the choice of mates, it might be worth trying. But one has to not be kennel blind, be very careful and open about the potential temperament issues in the pups, and therefore with placing them. I know of some dogs from the same lines I like that can be dog aggressive. Dogs from the same litter can vary from the sweetest thing on the planet to active aggressiveness toward other dogs. That said, I've often wondered if in different hands, the more aggressive littermates wouldn't have turned out differently. I think there's a strong genetic component, but I also think competent nurturing makes a difference. As far as the dog who got you thinking about this, I think there are enough mitigating circumstances to that dog's situation that it doesn't bother me that she was bred. J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Billadeau Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 If the dog's working ability is poor it really doesn't matter how nice of a temperament it has. If the temperament impacts the work then the issue is of concern; if the temperament doesn't impact work then it may be of concern to the breeder. It may also depend upon the dog management practices of the breeder. Assuming the litter is being bred for the breeder (the breeder wants pups off a particular dog or cross and selling the pups is secondary) then certain personality traits that bug owners who manage their dogs in a different way than the breeder (loose in the house vs. kenneled) may be of little concern to the breeder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewis Moon Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 This is a question that has been knocking around in my head for a while. After being here for some time I've come to the conclusion I'd love to find a working bred collie some day. The problem is, my largest exposure to the breed is from my Cerb, who is sweet, funny, attentive and playful as well as athletic and smart. He's also a cross. How much of his temprement is due to the lab genes and will I lose that with a working bred BC? Would a breeder, whos purpose is to "produce good tools" (analogy alert), choose to breed for overall temprement if it was at the expense of the ability to work stock? I'm sure the two aren't mutually exclusive, but I wonder. The best fighter airplane is one that is inherently unstable. The best climbing shoes are often painful. Does the best working dog have a temprement that might not make it a good active family dog? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bc4ever Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 I know of some dogs from the same lines I like that can be dog aggressive. Dogs from the same litter can vary from the sweetest thing on the planet to active aggressiveness toward other dogs. That said, I've often wondered if in different hands, the more aggressive littermates wouldn't have turned out differently. I think there's a strong genetic component, but I also think competent nurturing makes a difference. J. I've been wondering about this too recently as we continue our search for another Border Collie. Nature vs nurture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Billadeau Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 Some working bred border collies easily make great house pets (we have at least 2 of these), others don't (we have at least 2 of these). There are a complex set of working instincts and working styles (i.e. wide running/tight running, loose eyed/lots of eye, pressure sensitive, soft/hard, etc.). We examine these when choosing a mate for a dog we want pups off and then try to locate a mate that best suits those characteristics. We then check health/genetic status on several items. At this point we have dramatically narrowed the list of possible mates. If several mates remain we may then use other traits to make the final selection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebecca, Irena Farm Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 In the three years before quitting rescue entirely, I took probably ten dogs with radical temperament issues. So my most recent experience lies in this area. I believe in pathological issues (oh do I ever). But I now believe the dog population will turn out to have a far lower rate of actual genetic disorder than humans. What I've seen and heard makes me believe dogs are largely prone to pathology in the anxiety spectrum. This area is mostly environmentally shaped. In humans, for the most part,it is treated with cognitive and behavioral therapy with the help of pharmaceuticals. Thus, I believe that,in fact, genetics is only a tiny part of the canine temoerament picture. If BOTH your parents, as a human, have a disabling anxiety disorder, the chances of your inheriting any degree of AD is 1%. That probably translates to a higher figure in canine breeding terms, but what responsible breeder is going to do a cross like that? Also remember that in people we already know the schizoid pathologies are linked to extraordinary genius, bipolar to high leadership and creativity abilities, autism spectrum to prodigies and geekism. In all the dogs I was able to work with, I saw a Yin and Yang interaction with their character traits. Shy dogs are the thoughtful ones. Reactive dogs love action and being told what to do. Aggressive family biters are my favorite. They are the "Timmy fell in the well" dogs, capable of any initiative. If Sweetie, who lives in the backyard all day, starts biting the family and ends up being put down, should the line be condemned? If ADCh RunUR Assoff has been trained to stay on the wrong edge of impulse control his whole life, and has reactive issues, do we blame the parents, who sleep all day in the house except for work tines? The more dogs I rehabbed with awful habits, the more I convinced myself, that these dogs were just shaped wrong. Something useful was made dangerous instead. I can't blame any breeder for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PSmitty Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 ADCh RunUR Assoff That's totally my next dog's name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rave Posted July 12, 2011 Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 I've been wondering about this too recently as we continue our search for another Border Collie. Nature vs nurture. Having seen many littermates of my own dogs and friends' dogs turn out completely differently, I agree nurture is a large part of the equation, but not the entire equation. I have one dog with such a rock-solid temperament, he would be an awesome dog in pretty much any home, regardless of the level of trainer in that home. I have another dog who is quite the opposite and when paired with the wrong type of trainer for her, would shut down. I saw it happen firsthand to her littermate who was re-homed. I did an experiment one day with my dog and I was easily able to make shut her down and actually make her leave me and run across the field by being a "bad" trainer. "Bad" meaning wrong for her temperament. So I have no doubt had these two littermates been switched at birth, the end result would have been the same regardless of which dog went to which home. So IME it's nature AND nurture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Billadeau Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 On the other hand we have raised three sets of littermates and in all three sets the two pups are different in personality/temperament. I believe it is 90% nature and 10% nurture It's hard for humans to see it or accept it because we don't see it in our own species; however, there isn't a controlled breeding program in humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MaryP Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 I tend to agree with Mark on the nature/nurture thing. I think a dog with a questionable temperament or rocky start can certainly be ruined by a "bad" trainer or bad environment. I also believe that that same dog could be OK with a good trainer or environment. But, IMO and IME, ISTM that much of a dog's temperament is what it is. I have two dogs with rock solid temperaments. I think they would have turned out that way with even the worst trainer and the worst upbringing. I have another dog with a lot of issues (fear-based) and he does OK, but he could most certainly have turned out much worse given the wrong situation. I've also seen a lot of rescues come from horrible situations and they have wonderful temperaments. Others came from homes that tried to raise them right and love them, but eventually surrendered them to rescue because of behavioral issues that they couldn't live with anymore. I used to believe that a dog was mostly the product of its handler's ability and its early socialization. Though I still think those two things are still very important, I no longer think that they can trump genetics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lewis Moon Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 On the other hand we have raised three sets of littermates and in all three sets the two pups are different in personality/temperament. I believe it is 90% nature and 10% nurture It's hard for humans to see it or accept it because we don't see it in our own species; however, there isn't a controlled breeding program in humans. As a biologist married to a developmental psychologist, I'm a limping veteran of the "nature/nurture" wars. My bottom line is a bit different than Mark's; it's nurture on the template of "nature". The quotation marks are there because one could scarcely call a thousand + year old breeding program nature. There is complexity, interaction, additivity, synergism and antagonism in the nature/nurture sandwitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcnewe2 Posted July 12, 2011 Report Share Posted July 12, 2011 I think dogs are born with their temperments already in place but then the nurturing (be it good or bad) expands on the "nature" part. Mick is my prime example. I was/am a growing dog handler. Mick is 9+/- id like to think we've both come a long way in that amount of time. His genetics played a huge part of his personality but I think being a green handler mistakes were made n his nurturing or handling. Biggest lessons for me are to research research research the lines of a dog I am interested in, know what I might be getting and act accordingly. I can't see any upstanding breeder not taking agression in mind when it comes to theyre breeding program, what you breed to can help overcome some issues. Bit let's face it, no one wants a dog that is not manageable, weather it be aggression, fear, or other "defects" that come into play. I used to want a repeat of mick, still dream of all the shoulda woulda couldas that might have been had I had more knowledge when I first got him. I thank him for what he's taught me but as I've gained dog knowledge I've learned there might be a better fit out there for me. My 2 cents on Nature vs. Nurture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Root Beer Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 I have two dogs with rock solid temperaments. I think they would have turned out that way with even the worst trainer and the worst upbringing. I have another dog with a lot of issues (fear-based) and he does OK, but he could most certainly have turned out much worse given the wrong situation. I've also seen a lot of rescues come from horrible situations and they have wonderful temperaments. Others came from homes that tried to raise them right and love them, but eventually surrendered them to rescue because of behavioral issues that they couldn't live with anymore. I used to believe that a dog was mostly the product of its handler's ability and its early socialization. Though I still think those two things are still very important, I no longer think that they can trump genetics. I concur. Not from science, but from experience. Working with a dog who has learned confidence in spite of a fearful temperament and a dog who has a rock solid fantastic temperament, but who learned fear through bad experiences is an incredible contrast. The dog with the great temperament gets over things. It takes time and patience, but one she overcomes a particular fear, she's over it and she can move on. Her experiences haven't changed her underlying temperament. Underneath the fear, which is slowly subsiding, is a bold, confident, and amazingly resilient girl. The one with the fearful temperament is a lifetime of two steps forward, one step back. Gradually he has become far more "normalized", but he still has fearful tendencies. His experiences haven't changed his underlying temperament. I'm with Mark on this. 90% nature/10% nurture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald McCaig Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Dear Doggers, We are discussing this as if the dog owner's understanding/perception/culture/values don't matter. Only the dog varies; created by nurture or nature. What of the human and what he/she sees (and/or is able to see)? Show a photo of your tricolored, smooth coat 30 pound bitch to a conformation breeder for a reaction. Bring a BIS into the small ring and ask the sheepdog clinician what he/she thinks of the dog. Bring a dour "just get the job done" Border Collie into the obedience ring or the dog that hates treats and hyperactivity into agility training. Oh, they weren't nurtured right! Oh, they were badly bred! Almost all our dogs will try to do what they understand we ask of them; provided we find a way to convince them the task makes dog sense. Meanwhile, we expect them to be all dogs to all people, convinced that if the dog fails in some dog-absurd task that the failure isn't the task, nor how we have prepared the dog, but in the dog itself, its nature or nurture. Donald McCaig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Billadeau Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Almost all our dogs will try to do what they understand we ask of them; provided we find a way to convince them the task makes dog sense. Meanwhile, we expect them to be all dogs to all people, convinced that if the dog fails in some dog-absurd task that the failure isn't the task, nor how we have prepared the dog, but in the dog itself, its nature or nurture. In other words, almost all our dogs will try to do what we train them to do as long as our training methods can convince the dog that the task works within its instincts. If the dog fails in some non-instinctual task it was simply that the task was absurd. So how does this relate to behavioral issues? Are you saying that fear biters should not be asked to refrain from fear biting simply because it goes against their instincts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald McCaig Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Dear Doggers, Mark asked: " Are you saying that fear biters should not be asked to refrain from fear biting simply because it goes against their instincts?" I've had biters but never (I think) a fear biter as they're usually described. I've read accounts and theories about how they came to be and what could be done it but absent experience, I don't have anything to say about them. Donald McCaig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rebecca, Irena Farm Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Dear Doggers, We are discussing this as if the dog owner's understanding/perception/culture/values don't matter. Only the dog varies; created by nurture or nature. [… ...] Meanwhile, we expect them to be all dogs to all people, convinced that if the dog fails in some dog-absurd task that the failure isn't the task, nor how we have prepared the dog, but in the dog itself, its nature or nurture. Donald McCaig Precisely. Even more so, in the Border Collie, is a dog that HAS come so close to be "all things to all people," that disappointment is severe when the particular dog doesn't fit in the particular situation. One of the things that keeps the breed useful and healthy, yes in both body AND mind, is the variety. I am not in favor of culling out every dog that cannot live with other dogs, is reactive in some situations, is touchy about personal space (but can learn to be handled), lacks the Walmart greeter gene. I select dogs for myself now whose parents and ancestors and relatives all worked and most competed to a high level. The one issue I have a problem with (personal preference) is low adaptation potential. Dogs selected for a steady work ethic in spite of changing circumstances, can adapt. Startle and recover. Then file away for future reference. I train with a very open method (for manners and desensitization). Without that ability to ever calm during a trigger, or Draw on past experience, the dog leaves me with a toolbox full of a lot of things I suck at. And yet another trainer would almost certainly do fine with such a dog. Most serious trainers would expose their puppies to such a variety of social experiences that this type of trait would be ameliorated somewhat in them, and blamed on inadequate socialization in others. This is my belief, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia P Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 I think unstable dogs, even if they have great work ethic are rarely bred. I do think however if a dog is quite outstanding we (as working breeders) would overlook quirks. I do not expect my border collies to like every other dog and they don't need to be labs or golden retreivers when it comes to meeting new people. I wouldn't breed a dog that had good temperment and barely adequate working ability to improve a "touchy" outstanding worker. There are too many normal good workers for that! I'm a big believer in some outside socialization, not that my dogs get a lot...but it is quite humourous when we show up at a trial with the Giant Schnauzer and many border collies think he is a freak of nature or a bear! Would I not breed one of those dogs because they alerted at my wooly mammoth? Hell no, they just hadn't seen something like that before. cynthia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSnappy Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 There is a "breeder" here in BC that churns out border collie puppies with universally shitty temperaments. I've been rescuing border collies for over a decade, and I have learned to ask owners who want to surrender their either fearful or aggressive or biting border collie if they got it from "the guy in Williams Lake." If they did, I decline to take the dog, because no amount of rehab seems to do anything for these dogs. They are all wound up tight like stressed out snakes, and they all blow up at the drop of a hat. They pretty well all have bitten at least one person, and most of them seem to have dog-dog issues on top of it. I've euthanized many of them. Nature or nurture? I dunno - certainly the "breeder" sells these dogs to anyone with a fistful of cash and a lot of the time they aren't folks who are exactly equipped for a border collie form anywhere, but it seems to me that the rate of shitty dogs this guy churns out is exceptionally high. And I have taken in many border collies who came from really, truly, awful situations and turned out wonderfully, so sometimes it feels like it's hard to destroy an honestly good/stable temperament, and equally difficult to overcome a crappy one. RDM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geonni banner Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 Dear Doggers, We are discussing this as if the dog owner's understanding/perception/culture/values don't matter. Only the dog varies; created by nurture or nature. What of the human and what he/she sees (and/or is able to see)? Show a photo of your tricolored, smooth coat 30 pound bitch to a conformation breeder for a reaction. Bring a BIS into the small ring and ask the sheepdog clinician what he/she thinks of the dog. Bring a dour "just get the job done" Border Collie into the obedience ring or the dog that hates treats and hyperactivity into agility training. Oh, they weren't nurtured right! Oh, they were badly bred! Almost all our dogs will try to do what they understand we ask of them; provided we find a way to convince them the task makes dog sense. Meanwhile, we expect them to be all dogs to all people, convinced that if the dog fails in some dog-absurd task that the failure isn't the task, nor how we have prepared the dog, but in the dog itself, its nature or nurture. Donald McCaig Hear, hear! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shetlander Posted July 13, 2011 Report Share Posted July 13, 2011 I used to believe that a dog was mostly the product of its handler's ability and its early socialization. Though I still think those two things are still very important, I no longer think that they can trump genetics. I totally agree. I've come to firmly believe that we can preserve or build up a dog's temperament. We can mishandle, reinforce weaknesses or even ruin a dog. But a dog's basic temperament is still the clay we have to work with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.