And this is why getting a dog from a breeder...

[vacation1]

[QUOTE=threedogpack;6163847]
you don’t believe genetics is a factor?[/QUOTE]

I believe genetics is a huge factor. What I don’t believe is that “good breeders” are the source of genetics for good pets. They’re selecting for angle of hock, desire to herd, length of coat, etc. I’m sure the very best, most concientious breeders place a premium on temperament. But most don’t. And even if they do, have you looked at the standards? Each one has an “out” for its breed’s weaknesses as a companion animal - the little ones are allowed to be “one-person” aka shy, the big ones are allowed to be “protective” aka aggressive, etc.

Unwanted dogs aren’t genetic cesspools with massive problems. Most are just normal-range dogs who ended up in a bad place. At the risk of starting WWIII, I would except the “fighting” breeds because they really do have a massive genetic issue in dog-aggression and most of them are being produced by people who value that trait. There is some chance, when you choose (for instance) a small fuzzy dog at a shelter, that it originated in a puppy mill under circumstances which made it genetically shy and fearful. There is virtually 100% certainty, when you choose a pit bull at a shelter, that the dog originated in a breeding deliberately designed to produce a dog genetically geared toward hyper-aggression toward other dogs.

[threedogpack]

@vacation1;6166859

I believe genetics is a huge factor. What I don’t believe is that “good breeders” are the source of genetics for good pets. They’re selecting for angle of hock, desire to herd, length of coat, etc. I’m sure the very best, most concientious breeders place a premium on temperament. But most don’t. And even if they do, have you looked at the standards? Each one has an “out” for its breed’s weaknesses as a companion animal - the little ones are allowed to be “one-person” aka shy, the big ones are allowed to be “protective” aka aggressive, etc.

we must run in different circles. I think that the breeders I know do select good temperament as a top criteria and they look at the show ring as a bonus. The breeder I will be going to for my next dog values good temperament and strong physical attributes.

There is some chance, when you choose (for instance) a small fuzzy dog at a shelter, that it originated in a puppy mill under circumstances which made it genetically shy and fearful.

the dog that started this thread was not a mill dog nor was she a shelter dog. But she was not a dog who was created by deliberate, thoughtful process either. Her present owners (as vs the owner of her mother) have handled her kindly so I don’t think it was harsh handling that created the lunging/barking/threatening dog I saw. That leaves learned behavior and/or genetics. I go with both as the Aussies I’ve met around here, are often shy/sharp.

[S1969]

@vacation1;6166859

I believe genetics is a huge factor. What I don’t believe is that “good breeders” are the source of genetics for good pets. They’re selecting for angle of hock, desire to herd, length of coat, etc. I’m sure the very best, most concientious breeders place a premium on temperament. But most don’t. And even if they do, have you looked at the standards? Each one has an “out” for its breed’s weaknesses as a companion animal - the little ones are allowed to be “one-person” aka shy, the big ones are allowed to be “protective” aka aggressive, etc.

How many breeders do you know? I think that’s a fair question. I know a good handful quite well, I know of a bunch more by reputation. When you say “most don’t” - who are these people? 1 person? 10 breeders you KNOW? Or just a general idea that breeders only select for angle and coat?

Most breeds were developed with a purpose - even if it was only to keep little old lady’s laps warm. Obviously some with a very specific purpose, and others with a wider purpose (e.g. the german hunting dogs v. the british hunting dogs…) But the standards for “temperament” aren’t an “OUT” they are the standard. Calling them an “excuse for being a companion animal” suggests that you don’t understand the purpose of the standard.

The bigger problem is the people (as always!) People who select a toy dog because it’s cute, despite it being described as being a dog that that is “one person/shy” or choose a protective working dog as a backyard pet. Someone who chooses an all-day hunter for a house pet, or a keen herding breed with a house full of toddlers.

Of course there ARE breeders who only breed for angle of hock or length of coat, but there are many very careful breeders who also breed for “birdiness” “stamina” “protectiveness” in addition to the physical and conformation traits. There is a particular bitch I just love and might consider breeding my dog to hers except that she doesn’t have the “stamina” one expects in my breed…so it might be a bad match. From a conformation standpoint, however, she is exceptional.

I do agree with you that unwanted dogs aren’t genetic cesspools. But that isn’t the same thing as being carefully bred, and there are a lot of disadvantages to being accidentally bred or bred without thought - most obviously - that they may be unwanted.

[Bluey]

If it didn’t matter what a dog looked like or did, we would still only have your generic smallish brown dog, some with white markings, the species is supposed to be and reverts to if left to breed indiscriminately.

Breeding gives us the special characteristics each breeder is looking for.
There are all kinds of breeders, really can’t say “all” or “most” or even “many” are any one way, as each one has a bit different idea of what they are after and how to get there, that is why we have all those different kinds of dogs out there.

When we stand back and look at dogs dispassionately, as a species, we have to agree with animal rights extremists that it seems a bit strange what we have done with that one species while domesticating them.

On the other hand, to see dogs only thru that lens is missing so much more that dogs themselves and as how humans use them are, from food to partners and companions.

[irkenequine]

I believe genetics is a huge factor. What I don’t believe is that “good breeders” are the source of genetics for good pets. They’re selecting for angle of hock, desire to herd, length of coat, etc. I’m sure the very best, most concientious breeders place a premium on temperament. But most don’t. And even if they do, have you looked at the standards? Each one has an “out” for its breed’s weaknesses as a companion animal - the little ones are allowed to be “one-person” aka shy, the big ones are allowed to be “protective” aka aggressive, etc.

Unwanted dogs aren’t genetic cesspools with massive problems. Most are just normal-range dogs who ended up in a bad place. At the risk of starting WWIII, I would except the “fighting” breeds because they really do have a massive genetic issue in dog-aggression and most of them are being produced by people who value that trait. There is some chance, when you choose (for instance) a small fuzzy dog at a shelter, that it originated in a puppy mill under circumstances which made it genetically shy and fearful. There is virtually 100% certainty, when you choose a pit bull at a shelter, that the dog originated in a breeding deliberately designed to produce a dog genetically geared toward hyper-aggression toward other dogs.

Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. And yes. I love this :yes:

[sketcher]

I have not read this whole thread but wanted to say that I have a $2000 puppy who is purpose bred who is from the top bloodlines in the country and I was unable to show her due to temperament issues.

Despite considerable effort, she will always be shy and reluctant to be handled by strangers. She absolutely will not allow a judge to lay his hands on her. We actually did get her to somewhat accept it but it was not pretty and she never would have done anything in the ring due to this.

She would make a fantastic working dog except for the fact that this is one dog I worry would take off if something spooked her. So, now she is coming up on 6 years old and she is very happy to be a homebody. she loves her walks in the woods with her “brothers”.

I would still always buy from a reputable breeder if for nothing else than to know there is someone out there who cares as much what happens to my dogs as I do. But good breeders can not guarantee anything about how your puppy will turn out. Most purebred dog breeds have some type of skeletons in their closet, whether it be temperament issues or genetic diseases. Doesn’t mean every or even most of the puppies inherit any of them but it does mean that occasionally one of them will.

[Bicoastal]

[QUOTE=vacation1;6166859]
I believe genetics is a huge factor. What I don’t believe is that “good breeders” are the source of genetics for good pets. They’re selecting for angle of hock, desire to herd, length of coat, etc. I’m sure the very best, most concientious breeders place a premium on temperament. But most don’t.[/QUOTE]

I’ll throw a little fuel on the fire. My AKC CH by SOM out of DOD is from a “good breeder” (recommended by national and local breed club, multiple breed and performance titles; genetic health testing; checked vet, puppy owner, and co-breeder references, “Oh, he’s an XYZ? They’re famous!”, been in the breed for decades, etc). He has sired OTCH and MACH, group winner, specialty winner, high in trial, etc. Just about everything this breeder touches finishes their CH.

He is a shaking, quaking structurally outstanding stud. I am told much of the shaking and quaking is his sheltered life as a show dog in a kennel environment for seven years. The breed standard calls for: “Happy, alert and friendly. Neither shy nor aggressive.”

[threedogpack]

[QUOTE=Bicoastal;6167193]

He is a shaking, quaking structurally outstanding stud. I am told much of the shaking and quaking is his sheltered life as a show dog in a kennel environment for seven years. The breed standard calls for: “Happy, alert and friendly. Neither shy nor aggressive.”[/QUOTE]

so the question would be…the puppies he sires, are they "happy, alert and friendly. Neighter shy nor aggressive? That would be the tale to hear.

[S1969]

[QUOTE=Bicoastal;6167193]
He is a shaking, quaking structurally outstanding stud. I am told much of the shaking and quaking is his sheltered life as a show dog in a kennel environment for seven years. The breed standard calls for: “Happy, alert and friendly. Neither shy nor aggressive.”[/QUOTE]

That is a sad story, because I’m sure it’s pretty easy to ruin the temperament of a dog (or horse) as compared to how much effort it takes to train or develop a good temperament.

Some dogs don’t make great specials because they can’t manage the life on the road. And some handlers/owners/breeders don’t want to give up on an exceptional dog to give him/her the time to be a dog. I know of a couple of dogs that started really great as a special and ultimately became defensive in their crates and miserable in the ring, just from being on the weekly show circuit. One that I know of has bounced back just fine once he was no longer being campaigned, but it might not be possible for a dog to do that - yours sounds like one of those.

It’s definitely something to consider when thinking of showing, which is one great reason that performance titles in addition to conformation titles are a good thing – they still allow you to be with your dog and also show case its talents (if you want), but most often in a much more fun environment for the dog.

[CrazyGuineaPigLady]

[QUOTE=threedogpack;6167198]
so the question would be…the puppies he sires, are they "happy, alert and friendly. Neighter shy nor aggressive? That would be the tale to hear.[/QUOTE]

I’d say the question to ask is whether he should have been bred at all, since his temperament doesn’t meet breed standards.

Isn’t this thread or, more specifically, your line of thought supposed to be about good breeders who do it for the betterment of the breed and especially temperament? How is putting a few litters on the ground to see what happens beneficial? There are already enough back yard and designer breeders doing just that.

You can’t frown on one and support the other for the.same.exact.thing. You also can’t pull the “temperament is genetic and predictable” card while excusing how this dog was handled. I thought one of your points was that a good temperament overrides a less than perfect upbringing.

[threedogpack]

@CrazyGuineaPigLady;6167293

I’d say the question to ask is whether he should have been bred at all, since his temperament doesn’t meet breed standards.

Isn’t this thread or, more specifically, your line of thought supposed to be about good breeders who do it for the betterment of the breed and especially temperament?

it is about temperament, but even a solid temperament is subject to long, poor handling.

How is putting a few litters on the ground to see what happens beneficial? There are already enough back yard and designer breeders doing just that.

we don’t know how this dog was handled. What we know is what was written and that leaves out a lot. Since it was stated that "He has sired OTCH and MACH, group winner, specialty winner, high in trial, etc. Just about everything this breeder touches finishes their CH. " he has already been bred and the question was not …breed and find out, but what are the puppies on the ground already like.

You can’t frown on one and support the other for the.same.exact.thing. You also can’t pull the “temperament is genetic and predictable” card while excusing how this dog was handled. I thought one of your points was that a good temperament overrides a less than perfect upbringing.

temperament is genetic and it is predictable. That does not mean that long, poor handling will not ruin even a good tempered dog.

As an example, I met a young dog at 2 who had never met a stranger. Lovely dog, lovely temperament. I also knew some of his puppies. They were steady, nice dogs. When I met him again, 6 years later, he was fearful and had a bite history. It took him a full year to over ride his experience(s)…what ever they were. Right up to the end, there were some things he simply could not over come.

I am mostly unafraid of the world, but there are some things, due to past experience that make me clench. Some experiences I simply cannot over ride.

Environment can have a detrimental effect on a solid temperament.

[S1969]

[QUOTE=CrazyGuineaPigLady;6167293]
I’d say the question to ask is whether he should have been bred at all, since his temperament doesn’t meet breed standards.[/QUOTE]

But did it once, before he was kept in a crate for 7 years?

@CrazyGuineaPigLady;6167293

You also can’t pull the “temperament is genetic and predictable” card while excusing how this dog was handled. I thought one of your points was that a good temperament overrides a less than perfect upbringing.

Sure you can. You can ruin the temperament of any dog if you try hard enough.

But we really have no idea whether this dog ever did have the correct temperament or not, so we can only speculate. Maybe he did have the right temperament and too long a period on the show circuit made him less friendly and fearful. Or maybe he was born that way. Or maybe (most likely) it was something in between.

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=CrazyGuineaPigLady;6167293]
I’d say the question to ask is whether he should have been bred at all, since his temperament doesn’t meet breed standards.

Isn’t this thread or, more specifically, your line of thought supposed to be about good breeders who do it for the betterment of the breed and especially temperament? How is putting a few litters on the ground to see what happens beneficial? There are already enough back yard and designer breeders doing just that.

You can’t frown on one and support the other for the.same.exact.thing. You also can’t pull the “temperament is genetic and predictable” card while excusing how this dog was handled. I thought one of your points was that a good temperament overrides a less than perfect upbringing. [/QUOTE]

In some cases, a poor upbringing is overridden by good temperament.
One of our ever best dogs was an aussie the breeder sold as a puppy to a herding home, that put her in a kennel, the owner became very ill and finally passed away by the time she was about a year old.
In all that time, the puppy and his other handful of dogs were just fed and cleaned after, but no one did anything with them.
The breeder heard of that, got his puppy, now a year old back and she was so unsocialized she would fall into a heap and close her eyes if you just looked at her.
He gave her to us to try to rehab her and in a few weeks she was doing great and ended up being an obedience star and our best hand working cattle.
She also was our chick raising helper, getting in the carboard box with them and keeping them warm under her hair.:lol:

I tell you, we were wondering when this monkey looking, flea powder covered dog came out of her shipping crate and, every time we stood her up, she again would fall to the ground, like a marionette you don’t keep the strings tight will and eventually slinked away to hide in a corner, under a chair.:eek:
Horrible to think how a puppy could have been neglected that much, worse than a wild animal.

Now, that was a terrible upbringing, that was overcome by the wonderful temperament in those lines, as the breeder told us she would and was right.

[threedogpack]

[QUOTE=Bluey;6167325]

Now, that was a terrible upbringing, that was overcome by the wonderful temperament in those lines, as the breeder told us she would and was right.[/QUOTE]

and genetics came to play. Good for you Bluey, and what a lucky dog to end up with someone who gave that dog a chance.

[Bluey]

[QUOTE=threedogpack;6167346]
and genetics came to play. Good for you Bluey, and what a lucky dog to end up with someone who gave that dog a chance.[/QUOTE]

Lucky for us to get such a wonderful dog:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a298/Robintoo/catanddog.jpg

Our vet refused to spay her until she was six years old, kept telling us about this or that dog that she would have such good puppies with and he wanted one of them.:rolleyes:
We didn’t want to go there at all, so never did.

The funny part, that was a good 30+ years ago and the breeder told us to return her if she didn’t work out, but if she did, to send him $200, a large sum for a dog then.
We duly sent him the money right off anyway, we were not about to return her.
He sent her registration papers and the check back.
Some people are beyond nice.:yes:

[threedogpack]

[QUOTE=Bluey;6167385]
Lucky for us to get such a wonderful dog:

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a298/Robintoo/catanddog.jpg

Our vet refused to spay her until she was six years old, kept telling us about this or that dog that she would have such good puppies with and he wanted one of them.:rolleyes:
We didn’t want to go there at all, so never did.

The funny part, that was a good 30+ years ago and the breeder told us to return her if she didn’t work out, but if she did, to send him $200, a large sum for a dog then.
We duly sent him the money right off anyway, we were not about to return her.
He sent her registration papers and the check back.
Some people are beyond nice.:yes:[/QUOTE]

awwww! Look at that good girl.

[CrazyGuineaPigLady]

My point (perhaps I didn’t type enough to relay it) is that the dog in the OP is considered limited because of temperament but somehow a perfect looking dog is excused by threedogpack. Both sound to be in about the same place to me. The only difference is one is one was purpose bred and the other is not. It’s really not fair to blame one on poor genes and the other on handling.

I know very well how any good dog can be ruined, and most can be turned around. I’m just not understanding why threedogpack puts purpose bred dogs on a pedestal, despite hearing many stories here where they don’t ALL belong there, and discounts mixes. Purpose bred or not.

All the stories about fabulous shelter/rescue/mixed breed dogs is discounted as “luck” or finding a needle in a haystack and yet this dog, because it has a known pedigree, gets a pass?

[threedogpack]

@CrazyGuineaPigLady;6167395

My point (perhaps I didn’t type enough to relay it) is that the dog in the OP is considered limited because of temperament but somehow a perfect looking dog is excused by threedogpack.

I did not excuse the perfect looking dog, but the dog I know about is only 18 months and I have her history. It could very well be that the other dog should not have been bred either. I simply don’t have enough information to say.

Both sound to be in about the same place to me. The only difference is one is one was purpose bred and the other is not. It’s really not fair to blame one on poor genes and the other on handling.

I don’t know if they are in the same place. One is an older dog with more experience(s) the other is a younger dog with limited handling. It could be a genetic issue with both dogs.

I know very well how any good dog can be ruined, and most can be turned around.

I agree, most can be turned around, at least partially.

I’m just not understanding why threedogpack puts purpose bred dogs on a pedestal, despite hearing many stories here where they don’t ALL belong there, and discounts mixes. Purpose bred or not.

I don’t put purebred on a pedestal and mixes somewhere else. I think I will simply have a better chance at a solid temperament if I know the genetics behind the dog I pick out. I will probably see at least the mother and the siblings.

All the stories about fabulous shelter/rescue/mixed breed dogs is discounted as “luck” or finding a needle in a haystack and yet this dog, because it has a known pedigree, gets a pass?

no, it is not luck. But you don’t know what you’ve got. Remember the story I told about the Sheltie? She’s a purebred and I didn’t put her up on a pedestal. She’s not a dog I would have in my house. One of my other clients has a mixed breed dog that has a lovely temperament. I’d take her in a NY minute.

This is not about one being better than the other, but about the chance of getting what you expect, not a surprise.

[2tempe]

[QUOTE=threedogpack;6162920]
I agree. I think temperament is installed before as well.[/QUOTE]

That’s why my sister and I are so different…:lol:

[meupatdoes]

[QUOTE=LauraKY;6162596]
Seriously? Based on one example? I hope you neuter/spay whatever you get. The rest of us will continue to support rescues. I will never buy another dog. Love my three rescues! Do they have personality quirks? Sure they do. But, I love them all the same. So did my two purpose bred dogs. So what?

And exactly what was the point of your post? To discourage others from adopting pets?[/QUOTE]

Amen.

The most belligerent dog I have ever met was my parents’ purebred Golden Retriever.

My mutts are universally hailed by all who meet them as wonderful dogs, and everyone comments on how great they are, so it’s not just me who thinks they are wonderful.

If you know enough about dogs to pick out a good one and train it to be the dog you want it to be, you’ll get a good dog, no matter what breed it is. But you know, some horse buyers only look at the brand on the left hip because they don’t know enough to LOOK at the horse and EVALUATE it objectively for the job they want it to do.

Each dog is an individual, not a breed. You miss out on good purebreds if you only consider mutts, and you miss out on great mutts if you only want purebreds. There are opportunities for getting a lemon on both sides of the equation too. So you may as well just evaluate the dog as an individual and use knowledge rather than bias.