old dog/new dog- vs imprinting and training tactics vs genetics - 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

by scarreddecoy on 26 June 2013 - 01:06

I am simply opening the floor for some of this forums more seasoned enthusiasts.

I hear many people speak of the greatness of the old dogs and genetics being weakened in the recent years.

Well it has been my experience neural imprinting at early ages and types of training programs are a big influence on the final result of a dog. not with total disregard for genetics but can "even out" or amplify in different areas such as environmental soundness, working drives in different areas, etc....

So since the evolution of the training practices have changed greatly in the past 50 years this would have an influence. correct?

So how much is human interference in imprinting through training or breeding, influenced the breed today? which had a greater effect. pros and cons?   


i see everyone blame breeders and never take any responsibility for the own development of their dog. but which truly has more influence on dogs today vs dogs of old?

Hired Dog

by Hired Dog on 26 June 2013 - 09:06

In order for ANY drive, behavior, etc to be developed, it has to be there first, genetically, end of. Breeding is always a chance, the best dogs on the planet may never be able to reproduce themselves, but, it all starts with the proper breeding foundation, thats what gives a dog its temperament and drives which can then be developed with the right work.





 


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