NATURAL INSTINCT TEST - Page 3

Prager,

To test natural instinct it would seem to be more accurate to test the dogs before they would begin training but when they are old enough to be able to handle the tests. This age might differ depending on the dog.

(Since instinct is inherited behavior that is not based upon prior experience)

One important instinct is the ability to learn.

Some instinct tests are already used to evaluate puppies. (by some people)

This would be the most beneficial time for the breeder to do such testing because it can be used to evaluate the pups for future breeding stock.

Certain testing could and should be done at the beginning of training or preliminary training.
example - will a dog defend himself

The first thing to do is figure out which instinct tests are relevant, then break them up into age groups.

Some of the desired inherited traits won't be known until a dog matures.
A pup might show signs of an ability -  but what level will he have as an adult

It would seem that a breeder should be evaluating and testing a dog through the the whole welping and training process on a first hand basis. (and maintaining records)

Lee

This is something I put together a couple years ago, but not by any means all-encompassing of the qualities I want to measure.  For example, scentwork related potential is not included, and other important things I intend to add.  The important thing, is that it's a scale based evaluation, yet doesn't (and shouldn't) refine into a "points" based analysis of a dog's potential.  I tenatively call it "EWAT" (Evaluation of Work and Temperament).

Good point Lee, and I realized that when put this evaluation together.  Some of what I've outlined above is appropriately for young adults or green dogs, and others can be tested much earlier, say five weeks or so.

I like it Daryl.  Very good.

Hans, I agree with your concept of Sch is not enough and in some cases detrimental. I am fortunate enough to have lived and trained in two different eras. The seventies/eighties and the last 25 years. From a perspective of evaluating dogs there is a vast difference. I'm not talking about training methods but rather evaluating dogs. In those days dogs were taught skills in obedience/protection through correlating commands. Dogs were then taken to many different places to train and if you had a say two year old trained dog, you would train with the people. Once a dog had a Sch one level of training we may go to one place and do some building searches, we may do some muzzle work at another place, we may do some field or woods search with bite at end at another place. We also did hidden sleeve bites, full suit bitework, etc. We trained DOGS! In any weather, anyplace, with anybody. Today there is a mentality of shelter and routine training for working dogs. We had younger dogs go through long sewer pipes, jump hedges, etc. Today the training is set protocols, in set places, to only be done with set people. Look people, before some of you get your knickers in a bunch, I am not telling you to do the former, nor do I care that you WON'T do this stuff....I am just pointing out that the whole mindset and concept of training was different. Dogs were exposed to a lot more and during the process weaknesses were exposed. People wanted to breed to the dogs that showed that they could master almost anything. That was far more important than whether the dog was ko'ered or not. People who trained back then, ask them as to the difference in the dogs today and then...most will give you the same answer. As the mentality and the protective shield has grown, the type of dog has gradually changed. Today, the mentality of Mal breeders is much closer to this former way than many working GS breeders. I think the result "as a whole" reflect it also.JMO

Gustav, very true, and very depressing. Another problem is anyone who would dare think of breeding an untitled dog (and good dogs are often untitled for very good reasons) is viewed as a BYB and gets slammed w/out a second thought as to whether they may have very good reasons for what they're doing (or not doing.) Titled vs. untitled is a lot deeper than simply one breeder "cares" and one "doesn't care." There are some (many) high level sport dogs that you couldn't pay me to take a pup from, because they're single purpose and unbalanced. I want to live with a dog, not just kneel at a podium next to them.

Having said that, when buying a dog sight unseen from someone I don't know well enough to trust their evaluations of temperament, then yes, I will go for the titled dog w/breed surveys, etc., as at least if I hate the dog I can sell it to someone who cares only about titles! ;-)

Hans, this is something I've thought A LOT about over the past 5 years or so. I have my own personal attributes I like to see that are far more important to me than titles, but it's difficult to put them into a concise "list" or whatever.

In those days a dog could train for sch AND train for these other things also, AT THE SAME TIME! Of course the standard of perfection for the test was different and the test was cruder for lack of better word. Again, not saying there is right or wrong between now and then, just saying the mentality of working dog by owners, and the type of dog people wanted to breed to were often different and thus created different dogs. And yes Jenni, there were many untitled dogs that were bred and produced military/police/seeing-eye,herding, dogs in those days. I still expect my dogs to do it all that's why I maintain training with police officers and academies, and prefer SDA. But there are tangible reasons for seasons and to each his own!

"...The seventies/eighties and the last 25 years. From a perspective of evaluating dogs there is a vast difference. I'm not talking about training methods but rather evaluating dogs."

Gustav, I'm so glad you wrote that. I thought so too, but I thought it was my imagination. So many of the people who think their dogs are "all that" just weren't around to train/watch/remember the old stuff.

But I think there's a huge difference in training methods too. Nowadays, top trainers figure out ways to make weak dogs perform, and that makes them look like they deserve titles. In fact, using these methods, Golden Retrievers could be titling fairly easily. Used to be, trainers would tell you to sell a weak dog; now they tell you that every dog deserves to do what it was bred for. Yeah, but they kinda forgot that 90% of GSDs were bred to be pets.

I am FORCED to breed my dogs before titling them, because every dang generation has a repro problem (too many heat cycles; uterus is shot by about 4 years of age). Repro specialist says breed now, title later. That breeding NEVER happens until the dogs have been out training all their lives and it's obvious that they WILL title, or anyhow obvious that they have the right stuff, and have been health tested. They just don't have their Sch title yet. But highly respected trainers/helpers have seen them and worked with them and are confident that they have the abilities. That and my own experience are good enough for me. I have seen way too many dogs with poor work ethic get their titles, and in a big hurry too. Then they break down a year later and won't engage. Sigh.

Titles or no titles isn't the point here, and has been hashed over many times enough in this forum.  It's about measuring the true worth of a dog's potential for work and reproducing itself.  More like a breed survey, but with greater emphasis in detail in matters of temperament and drives, than conformation.  But, it helps to remember that each particular style of work will require greater emphasis in certain characteristics, while sometimes finding other qualities of less importance or even undesireable in some cases.  Then to complicate matters, the style of training that's to be employed for a particular job that can be trained in various ways is going to require additional selective emphasis.

I know, sorry, went off the deep end in the last paragraph! But I'm kind of annoyed lately at how badly my girl was started. Should have had a much better and more experienced trainer. I guess I'm just saying that I'm not going to trash her now just because she didn't title yet. Hopefully someone will have a better idea and quit trainer her as if she's a weak showlines (not counting strong showlines here) dog. I'm heading out to a new trainer in about ten minutes...wonder what he'll say about her. I just hope it's not "She's too old."