Genetics or training - Page 10

Interesting point you make here Steve1
"If that was the case all German Dog owners or Breeders would just go and pick up the first dog they see regardless of how it is bred and the Genetics it has running through it and make a great dog out of it and i do not mean any specific work in particular."

Think about it. That is what most people do. On this board we are less than 1% of all the people that try to obtain the best dogs from what is considered proper breeding. So, in the grand scheme of things where does that put the rest of these dogs and where are they coming from? Don't forget that most on this board and most of the people buying these wonderfully bred dogs try to make ourselves believe that we have a "working dog" or a "schutzhund" dog, but, in reality they are pets. And again, we are then probably 1/100 of a percent or less of all the GSD owners out there. There are a lot of GSD's that you and I and the rest on this board would consider to be less than ideal breedings and yet, they still become "great" dogs to those that own them.
A lot of the people on this board believe that showlines are worthless, yet, they still are trained for and work as police dogs, search and rescue dogs, leaders for the blind, or, other handicaps. Aren't these also great dogs because of what somebody made of them? Are you going to tell me these dogs aren't "great" just because they do not have Fado Karthago, Yoschy, and Tom van't Leefdalhof running through their bloodstream?
I'll say it again, there are no magic tricks to make a dog do things that it can't do (this is the genetic part). However, a good trainer can bring a lot more out of a dog that most others wouldn't even bother with. A perfect example would be Daryl and his Tiekerhook dog. How long would he have kept this dog, or would we even be talking about it, if it wasn't showing all of this natural bitework at a young age? And what's the big surprise here? Koos does an excellent job of breeding dogs that bite. (So there is no misunderstanding, I am in no way saying that your dog isn't an excellent dog. I am sure he is. This discussion is not about your particular dog.)
What if he wasn't a natural and sold the dog and he developed in to an excellent biting dog? What Daryl calls repetition is what others call training. Training over the long haul is what allows us to develop a dog and also allows us to see weaknesses in a dog as opposed to just saying he/she is a natural and running with that. I've seen a lot of "naturals" when they were young that couldn't stand up to training over the long haul. They are excellent prey biters on a tug, pillow, or even a sleeve (this can look impressive when young), but, when they are a little older and you send the dog in to a blind they fall apart, or, they can't stand up to a man when there is nothing there to bite except for a person.
Daryl, I would like to know why you stopped doing bitework for 5 or 6 months? A puppy's broken toe takes maybe a month to heal. Were you concerned that the negative experience might have an affect on his bitework? I also find it interesting that you "worked" on obedience (isn't this training?) for the next 5 or 6 months. Isn't he a natural at this? I have a young male who isn't quite two and I have done maybe an hours worth of obedience training with him in almost two years. He does everything I ask of him and then some.

(continued from above)

Read your last paragraph. What if your "natural" Tiekerhook dog couldn't withstand the stress of training over the long haul, or, working the street? As a breeder, wouldn't you want to know this? Everything you talk about is how a police dog is trained. It's the same concept as schutzhund dogs which I guess is what you were alluding to. I find it funny that a lot of breeders speak poorly of schutzhund dogs and the training that goes along with it, but, you buy dogs from schutzhund backgrounds. Why?
Do you think that a k9 officer would prefer to go out on the street with your "natural" Tiekerhook dog, or, a dog that has been familiarized "to novel circumstances by desensitization through repetition"?

It is amazing how people can point out that showlines have too narrow a genepool, over too long a period of time, thus resulting in less working ability and lower percent of dogs suitable for working, and a definite liability to bring this concentrated blood into a working program thus introducing a concentrated amount of these weakened traits, AND somebody will extrapolate this into saying  that "showlines are worthless". When truth cannot be acknowledged, and then is distorted to some extreme sentiment to not confront the reality of the truth, you have the basis for ignorance. When you take exceptions to justify your point then you have inadvertently strengthened the original point as the majority examples REALLY represent the point!!

OGBS
 People gravitate towards SchH dogs because that is the broad world wide standard standart for to compare . That does not mean that this standard is not causing problems or is that good. I happen to know that most cops do not like dogs with SchH titles especially higher titles.

Darryl
Yes, high genetic quality in a dog is always preferred. But what are we doing here. Want to breed dogs or owe one. And then owe one as a companion or as a top competitor or police dog?

I am sick of people, especially in high competition levels of sports, who are dumping quality  dog as soon as they realize that there, somewhere over the hill, is one with genetically better potential or that their dog is not genetically as good as some other dog. There is always one  better somewhere and thus thay do it all the time.  
Also I have seen rejected dogs from training only because the trainer was trying to ram the round peg through square hole as far as training method goes, while blaming it on genetics.  That is why I am saying that in beggining solid genetic foundation in the dog is very important, but the rest is training . Final product ( of well trained dog or of not so well trained dog) is  5% genetics but the rest (95%) is training. That is good or bad training. You can have a dog with average genetics and train it to a something special   if you know what you are doing and on the other hand have a genetically great dog with high drives and ruin it with pore methodologies of training or no training at all.
Too many people people blame genetics for their ineptness 

Now if you are a breeder you need to always breed the best to best as it is available and recognize the faults (which are always there)  and virtues and learn to compromise between them or eliminate the major disasters.  Darryl's Tiekerhook dog should be bred for temperament if the structure is good.  Best of the best.
Prager Hans
Http://www.alpinek9.com

Prager,
I am right with you on Schutzhund maybe not being the best thing for this breed anymore. I have seen a lot of great dogs that would not do exceptionally well on the Schutzhund field. I have seen some dogs that are too good for Schutzhund.
My point is, if someone feels that it is ridiculous and confuses perception of what the dog really is, then why choose dogs from that gene pool? It doesn't make sense and it is contradictory.

If you're saying it only takes a month to heal a complete break in two (not a fracture) of a major weight supporting toe, I think you're wrong, especially when even at 4 months I was careful to notice some signs of discomfort that lasted a few days.

Why would I not train my dog in obedience?  Where did I say I wouldn't?  He was to be my schutzhund dog, I had to teach him the formal routines.  And surprising to myself, for what I expected of a Tiekerhook dog, was how eagerly compliant he is, so  yes, a complete natural in obedience as well.

When I see the often used phrase, couldn't stand up to training over the long haul, I don't really know what that means.  Sounds like it must be a handler/dog relationship issue to me, or a square peg into a round hole from the beginning.

When's the last time anyone saw a dog from Tiekerhook or z Pohranicni straze, or Policia-Slovakia compete in the high levels of sport?  Yes, of course bloodlines will influence what I select for myself and my breeding, but my aim isn't to produce for high level sport.  Anyone looking for that, is more likely going to import from Europe than buy from any breeder here.  A bloodline trend is more 'proof' of prepotence than a single well accomplished producer who came 'out of nowhere.'  There's a lot more to it than that, but the 'trends' I see in showlines don't impress me at all.  So yes, most often my dogs will be from schutzhund (or other protection sport) backgrounds, but usually from lines that have proven themselves in more than just sport.

There is no simplified description of my selection process, so it's not necessary to profile me in such a way.  A large factor in what I decide or where my emphasis is placed, relies on what I already have to work with, what will 'fit' best for me.

My point is, if someone feels that it is ridiculous and confuses perception of what the dog really is, then why choose dogs from that gene pool? It doesn't make sense and it is contradictory.~OGBS

The thing is, we know what they're genetic backgrounds are, have tracked their ancestors, their siblings.  The individual dogs (parents) are extremely important, but should accurately represent their genetic backgrounds.  There either aren't any, or there is so little known about U.S. bloodlines (except American show) to track any significant heritable trends, so the appeal is lost for prospective breeding.  There are breeders working to change this by pointedly developing their own lines, and I think that's outstanding (Germelhaus comes to mind, for example).

Interesting discussion, thanks to all contributors.

I have always found it instructional to see what the TOP people in other breeds/other sports have to say about this issue. They are all trying to figure this out as well.  I take magazines from a variety of sports, from sledding to coondog hunting, and the top guys all seem to be in agreement that you don't get a top dog without genetics.  What is an interesting thought to me is that some dog sports require the dog to do more "natural" behaviors than others.  For instance, the coonhound seems to just have to find the scent and follow it, doing what comes natural.  However, the major competitors say over and over that in order to win the dog has to spend a TON of time in the woods.  One well respected coonhound guy (John Wick) says "it's 95% genetics, 5% training".  


Training is important, but training alone won't win the Kentucky Derby.

I'm curious about the "too good for schutzhund" comment.  Schutzhund was developed over 100 years to be a breed suitability test for the GSD. It is designed to test many elements of the dog one of which is "is this dog biddable enough to function as a working dog"?  A biting maching does not a GSD make.  Sure, weak dogs pass all the time - but that is a problem with the judges, decoys and owners, not the test.  That comment made me think of the people with fearful/shy dogs who say "oh, my dog doesn't want the sleeve, only flesh" (eye roll!)  Please, if I misunderstood what you were saying about schutzhund as a breed suitability test, i apologize. 

One well respected coonhound guy (John Wick) says "it's 95% genetics, 5% training".

Well, I'll have to second Mr. Wick in that, at least compared to the inverse statement presented by Prager.  Great producing dogs pass on their genetics to their offspring, not their training.  If I were not interested in breeding, I'd wish it were the other way around.

It may be 95% genetics and 5%training  in coon hounds where there is almost no training and all natural instincts. I have been involved in coon hounds and in my days in NY state and I agree with this statement there. It actually is not in contradiction to what I am saying. If you do not do training at all then genetics are 100%. However more training you add to good genetics  then the importance of the training as more and more of good  training or bad training  is added is increasing. That is  as far as whole picture of a finished dog goes.   And let me say that 5% genetics and 95% training in finished dog is not only my idea but it is a accepted truism amongst old timers in Czech. That is where I heard it first time and disagreed then. But when I was thinking about through years I have realized that it is the truth.  
   If it would be in finished trained dog  95% genetics and 5% training then we just pretty much select the dog with superior genetics and the dog will not need almost any training what so ever and still will perform admirably in Schutzhund. That is, in my opinion, ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!
Prager Hans
http://www.alpinek9.com

My dog didn't have to learn how to bite, he just did it naturally and admirably well.  I had him running blinds in minutes, once he understood what I asked of him.  Minimal repetitions necessary, only to associate the verbal commands given.  I didn't teach him how to heel, he just does it naturally.  He learned the long down with verbal marking and praise, all the while his gaze fixated on me.  I pointed at the A-frame and he bounded it perfectly the first time.  Jumps, no problem.  Some dogs don't require much in the way of "training" as others do.  Now, if I wanted him to be a coon hound, there might be some training involved.  Most dogs doing schutzhund aren't so "made for it", I understand.  Goes back to the square peg, round hole analogy.