Putting Drives on top of a nerve base.: Breeders" views? - Page 1

Pedigree Database

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Mithuna

by Mithuna on 23 May 2017 - 21:05

In the not too distant past , a well know US brdder of working dogs ( Czech bloodlines ) told me that her core approach to breeding was " stabilizing nerve base " and then " putting drives " on top of that nerve base.
Is there anyone on here who have heard of such a conception and can eluciadate its meaning, advantages/disadvantages/ ease of accomplishment.?

by Swarnendu on 24 May 2017 - 00:05

I find this approach ALARMING...

If the idea was to stabilize the nerve ENDS, some drugs like Gabapentin (no idea whether that can be given to dogs) would have done the trick.

But, for "stabilizing nerve BASES" you have to perform a very complex surgery of the spinal cord, add to that then the stimulation of occipital nerves for "putting on the drives" in the head..

Or, if her idea of achieving this is just to cross a STRONG dog with another STRONG dog, maybe she's breeding for OCD.

Mithuna

by Mithuna on 24 May 2017 - 01:05

I think what she is saying is that NERVES is a core element in a good working dog, and there she tries to establish breeding stock in which the passing on of STRONG NERVES is both relatively predictable and stable. After that is accomplished she begins to add drive to her breeding program. It seems logical.

kitkat3478

by kitkat3478 on 24 May 2017 - 01:05

What happens to the dogs that the "drives" were not added to yet,?
Seems a ridicules concept.
Why even breed dogs that lack one or the other?

Baerenfangs Erbe

by Baerenfangs Erbe on 24 May 2017 - 01:05

This has got to be the funniest post ever!

Mithuna

by Mithuna on 24 May 2017 - 01:05

I dont think she meant producing dogswith solid nerves and no drives and then add drives to those. Infact I think her language is figurative and not literal. However , I recently witnessed a SL GSD male at a club I attend that had solid nerves but 0 prey or defense drives. For one year the trainer have been trying to get him to bite the sleeve but with no success. The trainer is literally 12 inches or so from the dog, the dog is not at all backing away( although he has room to do so ); the dog is being flogged on the front legs with the whip and the dogs does practically nothing at all. So he is not intimidated by the trainer's presence or flogging....but the dog does nothing in return. For one year they have been trying to get him to engage , but he wont? So is this GOOD NERVES BUT NO DRIVE?

And BE its funny because you are also reading literal into it.


by vk4gsd on 24 May 2017 - 01:05

You deal with some idiots mithuna.

Mithuna

by Mithuna on 24 May 2017 - 02:05

Instead of the " old , beaten " name calling, why don;t you identify an issue and provide a perspective/explanation?

by duke1965 on 24 May 2017 - 05:05

all depends on terminology and explanation thereof, as that is very important especially in internet conversation

I can relate to it a bit if I look at what I am doing in breeding

I allways try to bring two things together in a combination, where minimal one of the dogs should have strong drives prey/hunt, the other partner should have a good level of suspicion/civil agression, but CAN be low on drive

my theory in breeding is that at minimum one of the parents should have the desired qualities you want in your pups, so parents at minimum should complement each other

 

to set up a program to create dogs first that have a part of desired quality, and than start adding another is waist of time in my book, and can only lead to result of desired qualities are "locked in " by serious level of inbreeding, to make sure you dont loose it in the first "outcross "of qualities and drives you make


Hundmutter

by Hundmutter on 24 May 2017 - 06:05

Hold on, I actually think Mithuna has - for once, and I don't think he really knows how - raised an interesting question. Should we be breeding GSDs (dunno about Malis and others) with an aim to producing the sort of temperament Von Stephanitz obviously preferred and sought:    "(rather than) easily provoked and willing to bite at the first opportunity, (a dog which) is more discriminating and will only bite when it is necessary but then with conviction and without apology".

 

In taking the breed ever further down the separate paths of "working lines versus show lines", some owners/handlers/ trainers/breeders have chosen to move away from the original intentions of the breed's founder.  I don't think this is always the fault of the 'working' side, but I don't believe it is exclusively down to the Show (pet) side, either.

Let me remind you of Max's description of Horand v Grafrath,

in "...In Word And Picture":

"For the show dog enthusiasts at that time Horand embodied the fulfilment of their fondest dreams; he was large ...- a very good medium size - with powerful bones, beautiful lines and 

a nobly formed head, clean & sinewy in build, the whole dog was one live wire.

'His character corresponded to his exterior qualities: marvellous in his obedient faithfulness to his master, and above all the straightforward nature of a gentleman with a boundless and irrepressible zest for living. Although untrained in puppyhood, nevertheless obedient to the slightest nod when at his master's side; but, left to himself, the maddest rascal, the wildest ruffian ...

'Never idle; always on the go; well disposed to harmless people, but no cringer; crazy about chidren, always in love. What could not have become of such a dog, if only at that time we'd had military or police training ?

'His faults were consequences of his upbringing, never of his inheritance. He suffered from a suppressed, superfluity of unemployed energy. He was delighted when someone gave him attention and he was then the most tractable of dogs."

 

Re-read that description alongside the knowledge that in 1922 when the Surveys (Korung) started to be held, of the 239 males put forward 34 had SchH (protector dog) and a further 34 had Police Dog behind their names (68, more than a quarter of those presented), and you start to get an idea of the way in which the breed was being developed.  I very much doubt that it was ever proposed that one day in the future there would be people who wanted to ditch the working abilities purely in favour of being placid in a modern Show ring,

NOR to ditch the good-natured, fun side of the breed in favour of dogs whose only function in life seems to be to be able to bite with a full grip.

The solution with the dog Mith describes who was no coward but did not want to bite anything / anybody is obviously never to breed with that dog, in case he passes on his reluctance.

But it would be JUST as wrong headed to breed from dogs which are ALL 'dying to bite', and might give that to their progeny, where it means sacrificing other features that make the GSD the breed that it is.






 


Contact information  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement  Copyright Information  Terms of Service  Cookie policy  ↑ Back to top