Breeding philosophy - Page 7

It looks like we're looking at two sides of the same coin.  If you read the definition of temperament that you posted, then think about all of the parts of a person or animal's nature that permanently affects their behavior, I believe you will agree that temperament is much more complex than you are making it out to be.  You are looking at temperament as a part of the whole and I am looking at temperament as the whole.  Resiliency, biddability, nerve and hardness are all genetically predetermined (part of an animal's nature) and permanently affects their behavior - therefore all of these parts of "working ability" fall under the umbrella of temperament.  Do you see where I am coming from? 

The problem is that when we use the term "working ability" in a working dog setting, everyone automatically jumps to the conclusion that you are talking about working dogs.  Every dog is born with some level of all drives, some degree of resiliency, some degree of biddability, some strength or weakness of nerve, some level of hardness.  The reason the non-working breeds became non-working is because they were bred to have a temperament that was conducive to just being a companion.  That doesn't mean the dog has no working ability (all of the parts that we talked about before), just that the level or degree of those parts is lower than other dogs.  I've seen GSDs with lower drives, less biddability, weaker nerve, and much softer than some poodles that I have worked with.  Every dog has a unique temperament because temperament is made up of so many variables. 

Do you see how all of these genetic components make up a person or animal's nature and will permanently affect their behavior?  Pain tolerance is absolutely genetic (in their nature) and absolutely affects their behavior (a dog with a low pain tolerance will often shut down if corrected too harshly), so according to your own definition, this is part of temperament.  I could give examples of every part of temperament, but I need to get to bed and I am sure you are getting my point by now, so no need to beat a dead horse here.  

Thank you for the discussion, even if you do not see it from my point of view.  It is always enlightening to dig deeper into our own personal beliefs to remember why we hold on to the opinions we have and see if maybe it's time to reevaluate some of our own points of view. 

well this exchange has certainly cleared things up......................

Hardness, bidability, resiliency, nerve are not set at birth just to name a few, they all have an environmental component to them.  You avoided answering the questions that I asked.   The other breeds that are not bred for working ability, how do you rate their temperament then? 

You state,"The problem is that when we use the term "working ability" in a working dog setting, everyone automatically jumps to the conclusion that you are talking about working dogs." Uh well yeah, that would be the connotation of the conversation.  Why do you keep avoiding the question about the fear biter who is a good working dog?  Under you definition he is a good temperament dog because his "umbrella" is good.  His overrall picture is good, so therefore he must be of good temperament.  A good temperament dog is worthy of breeding and I don't believe that a fear biter is ever worthy of breeding.  How do you resolve those conflicts in your own definitions?

Avoiding the uncomfortable parts of the discussion or the parts that are contrary to your point doesn't make them go away.

I am not avoiding anything.  I had to make the important points and go to bed.  I run two businesses, homeschool my children, work my dogs in IPO, take my children to martial arts classes and piano lessons, am active in my local church, have farm animals and property to take care of, bills to pay, errands to run, doctors appointments to get to...  so I apologize if answering your every question is not on the top of my priority list in life.  We are having a useful discussion about an idea, so there is no reason for you to start being aggressive and accusatory towards me.  Remember, great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, and small minds discuss people.

The temperament of every breed is evaluated exactly the same. 

1)  Is the dog's temperament stable or unstable?  If unstable, what category does it fit in?  Sharp, Sharp-shy, Over-aggressive, Submissive or Hyperactive

2)  What is the dog's stress level?  High, low or in between

3)  What is the dog's character?  Hard, medium or soft

4)  What are the levels and intensity of each drive?  Prey, Pack, Aggression, Defense

If you evaluate these points, you will get a very accurate picture of that individual dog's temperament.  I don't care if it's a Great Dane or a Chihuahua.  I'm not sure why you keep thinking that you can only rate a working dog's temperament.  Hardness, biddability, resiliency and nerve are set from birth.  They cannot be changed.  There is no environmental factor to these things.  Otherwise, every puppy from every litter that is raised together, the same way, will have the same hardness, biddability, resiliency and nerve.  I cannot make a soft dog hard nor can I take a dog with weak nerves and make them strong.  The same for biddability and resiliency.  Like I said before, you can do conditioning to cover up, but you haven't changed the genetic make-up of the dog. 

As far as the question of the fear-biter that works well.  First, you need to stop using the generic term "good".  There are not "good" and "bad" temperaments.  Temperament is what it is based on the results of the evaluation above.  The fear-biter has an unstable temperament.  It does not matter how much socialization the dog has, how much conditioning you do... the dog will always resort to this behavior in a new and stressful environment.  An unstable temperament is not worthy of being bred, regardless of the rest of the evaluation.  That's why it is so important to determine the stability of the dog's temperament first.  You do not grade the dog's temperament like a school test (well, he missed the stability question, but got the rest of the questions right, so he passes) - No.  You must look at the picture as a whole after evaluating the individual pieces.  Is a GSD with a stable temperament with a low stress level, soft character, low prey, high pack, low aggression and high defense any better of a breeding candidate than the unstable fear biter with a high stress level, hard character, high prey, high pack, high aggression and high defense?  Not in my mind, but that is what each breeder must determine for themselves.  

So, what is the ideal temperament for a GSD?  What I am aiming to produce in my GSDs is a stable temperament, high stress level, hard character (by this, I mean a dog with a high pain tolerance, not easily upset and can handle everyday situations with courage), and moderate levels of all drives in balance with one another. 

Take it for what it's worth, which may not be much in the eyes of some ;)

You do it again.  Your #1 lists temperament as a subset with two categories.  Stable or Unstable. You break down unstable into further subsets, but there are also subsets to stable. 

Then you have a 2, 3 and 4 which are three other things you look at independant of number 1 (temperament)  and then you come back and label all of them as temperament. 

You also state the following:

Hardness, biddability, resiliency and nerve are set from birth.  They cannot be changed.  There is no environmental factor to these things.

This is completely incorrect.  No matter how hard a dog is, he can be beat into submission.  You can take a willing working dog and by being unfair to him, you can get him to the point that he refuses to work.  You can crush resiliency through too much stress (PTSD anyone?), nerve can also be destroyed.  You also miss that a puppy is not born neurologically complete and that there are changes that occur called specifically the fear imprinting stage as the brain finishes it's development.  All of these traits can also be enhanced through their environment (training).

Look at the Alasko ad, the seller talks about how the dog has had unfair training and the consequences of that. 

Your take on this appears to be well thought out, but in reality it is not.  You don't understand the interplay of genetics and environment and how they are shaped to maximize the individuals potential (that is genetically limited).  You talked in an earlier post about not doing cookie cutter dog training (which I agree with) and how you have to change your training to fit the dog.  Why?  If you can't affect the nerve, the resiliency, or the hardness of the dog through environment (training) then why would you train them differently?   You can force them all to do it your way and sooner or later they will with no negative consequences.

We both know it doesn't work that way though, because you will negatively impact those traits that you thought could not be changed. 

Hardness is a trait that is reserved for GSD's only and is a topic for another discussion.  It is not in the breed standard of any other breed that I am aware of and I believe that your definition of hardness is incorrect as intended by the founders of the breed.

Perhaps I am just too dumb to wrap my mind around what you are saying, but it really does not make sense to me.  I see the point you're trying to make, I just don't see it that way. 

You gave the definition of temperament, but you are not using it to defend your arguments.  So I have to ask you... are dogs born with a unique level of hardness, biddability, resiliency and nerve or are they all born with the exact same level and it is only their environment that shapes it?  If they are born with a genetically predetermined level and it is not equal across the board, how is it then not a part of their very nature that will affect their behavior, thereby falling neatly under the definition of temperament as you gave it?  Just because you can support or crush what is already there genetically does not make it no longer a part of their nature that affects their behavior.

In every example you gave, you talked about destroying each trait.  If these traits can be changed environmentally, it should work the opposite way as well.  A soft dog should be able to be made hard, a weak nerved dog should be able to be made strong, a dog unwilling to work with his master should be able to be made biddable, an unresilient dog made resilient.  It just isn't possible.  If I take a dog that is genetically hard that has been beaten into submission and nurture him and gain his trust and give him the necessary support, that dog is able to overcome his past abuse.  I've seen it time and time again when I've worked with dogs that have come from these very situations.  That's why I don't buy the stories of rescue organizations that claim all of their adoptable dogs come from abusive situations and that's why they act the way they do.  No... they have a weakness in their temperaments.  Why can one dog be exposed to the same abusive environment and one be able to overcome it and another not?  Different temperaments.  Why do littermates exposed to the same stressor during a "fear period" come out of it with completely different results.  Different temperaments.  I totally understand how environment plays a role in the upbringing of pups.  It may affect the outward manifestation of the traits, but it hasn't changed what is there genetically.  Otherwise, we wouldn't have to worry about ever getting a soft, weak nerved, unwilling, unresilient puppy ever again.  We could just raise it the "right way" and fix all of those problems. 

No matter how many times someone looks at the spinning ballerina, one person will insist that it is spinning to the right and the other will insist that it is spinning to the left. 

I have a ton of work to do, so I won't be able to continue this wonderful discussion.  I do hope that I've given you enough information that you can see my point of view.  If not, I apologize for not expressing myself better.

Extremely well said k9gsd78 nice job in explaining.

Only thing perhaps I failed to understand  is the sentence which said that there are no good or bad temperaments. To me I desire some temperaments better than others, depending on what type of work or duty the dog is doing . Some are born better suited to do a certain job over another and in the hands of a highly skilled trainer all the better. 

Good and Bad are subjective terms.  What is good to me may not be good to you.  What is bad to me may be just what you are looking for.  That is why I say we can't describe temperament as good or bad.  Hope that clears it up.

As an example...  I used to raise working jack russell terriers.  I found it very frustrating because many of the working terriers were over-aggressive in temperament.  When they got turned on to another animal they would go blind to everything else.  They were literally in a blind rage and out to kill.  This was often hailed as a good thing because these dogs would not hesitate to take on game that was 5 times their size and had no quit in them.  The problem was that an over-aggressive temperament is still unstable and it was bred for regularly in the JRT world.  So, what I would deem as a bad temperament was not seen as bad to those sending their dogs to ground.