"Temperment"
I need a little help understanding breeding as far as" temperament" is concerned? This is an example of what I'm somewhat confused about . Let's say I have two mature dogs that have had a great upbringing, I've socialized them properly , trained them and worked through any issues they might have had growing up. Now I have a great breeding pair as far as "temperament" ?? So I breed them , sell a pup and it goes to a home that does not socialize ,exercise or do anything what so ever that a good owner should do, basically the dog is neglected. He is dog agressive, people agressive & totally wild. Now if you were to come along & meet this dog would you say the dog should not be breed because it has a bad "temperament" I guess what I'm trying to say is that aren't all dogs just like people a product of their environment & up bringing?
Comments
Here is a brief link to this debate.
http://romanreign.com/nature_vs_nurture.html
Snf
For instance with my dogs, Haru has always been a bit wary. That's just the way she is about everything and anything, especially new things she's not sure of. While she's not necessarily fearful, she will seriously check new things out before going near them. In training her to hunt, she has needed a lot of reassurance and confidence building exercises. Every new step takes a lot of time and patience. The upside is that because she's very careful and cautious, she doesn't get into trouble much, and she is a great problem solver. If she had ended up in a bad environment without any socialization, while she wouldn't have ended up with a terrible temperament, she probably would have leaned much further toward being a shy dog. If on a scale of 1-10 (with 10 being very social/friendly) she may seem like an 8 to most people, without all the socialization she got she might have been closer to a 6.
Baron on the other hand, exudes confidence. He's not bothered by most things, and while Haru will back away from something she's not sure of, Baron will go toward it. He's just that way about everything, and tends to get himself into a lot of trouble even in the limited time he's spent in the mountains. He got excited the other day and hurt himself jumping from quite a high spot, which is something that Haru would never do. In training him for hunting I have to work more toward slowing him down, and showing him the danger spots. He's also rather 'dominant' (for lack of a better term) and stubborn, and if he were in a bad environment I could see him being a dog with extremely high prey drive that was impossible to control, and without a positive outlet for his energy he could end up very dog aggressive.
Each of my pups has their base temperament, and I try to socialize them and teach them to deal with things they may not cope well with if left alone to their own decision making. While I can't change the way they would naturally react to things, I can work on their negatives to reduce unwanted behaviors. If I were a breeder breeding for temperament, it would be important to me to know exactly what type of temperament I'm breeding toward. Just saying I breed for good temperament is very vague. Some breeds like terriers are bred to have a lot of drive, golden's are bred toward friendly temperaments, and so on and so forth.
I'm rambling now, so before I go off picking more daisies, I'll sign off here.
EDIT: Excellent link from Patrice. Serves me right for typing up a wall of text
The more dogs I meet and raise from puppies the more I think genetics plays the majority role in the equation, especially since (now days) socialization is a forced and structured event for dogs (and owners) as they are not allowed to "naturally socialize" as they would have been able to do 10s/100s years ago before the "liability revolution". Looking at the grander picture, and what a dog would encounter in a lifetime of "natural socialization", we humans currently fail at recreating a real world socialization and learning experience for our canine companions. (JMHO) And so, we need to put a greater importance on sound temperament when breeding.
Because of this, I now put more emphasis on the temperament genetics of the parents when looking at puppies.
----
Also, the whelping environment and stress level of the mother plays a big role in the temperament of her pups: http://books.google.com/books?id=DA4NFI-kBgAC&lpg=PA127&dq=dog gestation steven r lindsay&pg=PA127#v=onepage&q=&f=false
---
Also on the nurture side...
"Puppies provided with poor socialization or deprived of environmental exposure often develop lifelong deficits and dysfunctional behaviors. A puppy isolated early in life from other puppies and humans will not only fail to establish satisfying social contact with conspecifics or enjoy companionship with people later in life (such puppies are extremely fearful of any social contact), they will also exhibit widespread behavioral and cognitive disabilities as well. Isolated puppies exhibit poor learning and problem-solving abilities and are extremely hyperactive or rigidly inhibited, are emotionally over-reactive and unable to encounter novel social or environmental situations without extreme fear and avoidance, and are socially and sexually incapacitated." - Handbook of Applied Behavior and Training, Steven R. Lindsay
(sounds a little like Kahuna when we got him)
----
I guess what I'm trying to say is that aren't all dogs just like people a product of their environment & up bringing?
I'm not sure that's an 100% accurate statement in regards to humans (or dogs). We are all the product of our genetics and our environment. To say we are "a product of their environment & up bringing" would be ignoring our genetics. There are many studies of twins separated at birth that will reveal genetics play a huge role in who we are, what we like, and how we act. http://articles.sfgate.com/2003-03-04/news/17480641_1_friend-adopted-birthday-celebration
----
The discussion we had (toward the bottom of that thread) was specifically in the context of "aggression," but I think it applies to temperament in general. Here is the most relevant bit (adapted for this discussion):
1) breed selection induces a range over behavior traits, 2) pedigree narrows the range of those traits, 3) instance (one particular dog) fixes behaviors in that range, and 4) environment (socialization/human influence) shifts those behaviors situationally.
That's my take on it anyway. Basically, you'll hear more experienced breeders talk about the "foundation temperament" (1,2, and 3). The foundation temperament provides a canvas which the dog owners paints via experiences (socialization) to produce the dog's ultimate temperament (4).
If I were being extremely picky, I would argue that a good breeder will breed only dogs where the behavior ranges (2,3) are robust to bad experiences (4) so even in the hands of uncapable owners, the dogs will turn out fine; however, I know that's both unrealistic and unreasonable to expect. So, I'd argue that a dog with a good temperament is one that has a strong foundation (1,2,3) independent of what a poor owner does to fuck it up in the end (4).
Just my $0.02.
Furthermore there is a camp in the Reactive Dog Repair world that feels behavior is only behavior and ALL behavior can be modified. I have decided that I do not believe this, even though Behaviorists* Karen Overall, Karen Pryor and Emma Parsons found their work upon that rock. It's big in clicker training, and I dont deny it works great for training automatic crisp consistent response in animals/people, except where limited by an individual's most powerful indelible tendencies, whether they be inborn narrow range of tolerance, experience of trauma, hundreds of years of selection, physical inability, or emotion (stress in the relationship or environment). Replace ALL with MUCH and I can probably climb aboard that train.
* I think there is behaviorist the profession, and Behaviorism the philosophy. I find Behaviorism to be too robotic in structure (input/output, stimulus/response) to hold my undying adherence, as there are powerful illogical emotional forces that can derail this. My dog is not Spock.