Can you really blame the dogs? (that old "Nature vs. Nurture" thing)...
Dave and I discuss a lot of random things, often regarding dogs and dog behavior.
At one point we had a discussion about pointers, and I made an over-generalized statement regarding pointing breeds and herding breeds and how I would never want to own a breed with a severely altered predatory FAP. I argued that, IMO, breeds with altered predatory FAPs would have a higher chance of having anxiety.
We discussed for a while, and I really didn't have a huge amount of data to back up my argument, but it turned into a very interesting discussion.
Just now, I got done writing my comments regarding Sled dogs in this post. In that post I made a comment about a thought I had regarding the reason why there are so many "fear biting" Huskies (and why they are on BSL lists when they are generally friendly dogs). You can read the post to see what exactly I wrote - its relevant to this post but not necessary to read.
Ok, I'm getting to my point, please bare with me. I recently stumbled across an article written by by Raymond Coppinger and Richard Schneider. The article is taken from the book "The Domestic Dog: its evolution, behaviors and interactions with people." from the chapter titled "Evolution of Working Dogs". This specific part of the article was about the Bull Mastiff and its guarding style (which is similar to our CC and CO style).
The part of the article I am referencing reads...
When you read the above and think about altered FAPs in breeds and how they affect the temperament of a dog on such a granular level, I don't see how anyone can think that all dogs require the same things to be "happy", or that all breeds should behave the same way or be trained in the same manner.
It also helps to clarify some of the "hearsay" you read in the BSL world, like my #1 above... Is it really the case that these breeds just up and attack out of nowhere, or is it that they have been selected to be very soft, take a lot of pressure, but when they take action it is one of seriousness (because it is the end of the FAP) and not just a warning "nip", "slash," or a "fear bite".
So, what do you think? Is it Nature (breed > environment) or is it Nurture (environment > breed)?
I've given my thoughts I'd like to hear yours....
(thanks for reading this long post, I was shooting for brevity but its hard on such a complex topic and thought pattern)
----
At one point we had a discussion about pointers, and I made an over-generalized statement regarding pointing breeds and herding breeds and how I would never want to own a breed with a severely altered predatory FAP. I argued that, IMO, breeds with altered predatory FAPs would have a higher chance of having anxiety.
We discussed for a while, and I really didn't have a huge amount of data to back up my argument, but it turned into a very interesting discussion.
Just now, I got done writing my comments regarding Sled dogs in this post. In that post I made a comment about a thought I had regarding the reason why there are so many "fear biting" Huskies (and why they are on BSL lists when they are generally friendly dogs). You can read the post to see what exactly I wrote - its relevant to this post but not necessary to read.
Ok, I'm getting to my point, please bare with me. I recently stumbled across an article written by by Raymond Coppinger and Richard Schneider. The article is taken from the book "The Domestic Dog: its evolution, behaviors and interactions with people." from the chapter titled "Evolution of Working Dogs". This specific part of the article was about the Bull Mastiff and its guarding style (which is similar to our CC and CO style).
The part of the article I am referencing reads...
"First and formost the bullmastiff is a guard dog, and it is a type of guard dog that is more protective of territory than anything else. The typical sequence of bullmastiff guard behaviors include running up to a suspicious character, maybe slam the front feet into the ground, and take a stand, maybe growling and/or barking, thus threatening the perceived danger first. Typically, the dog then takes a moment or two to evaluate the problem before taking further action. A bullmastiff exhibiting a threatening posture is usually enough for any person with malicious intent to decide on a hasty departure rather than confrontation. When confronted and threatened back, the bullmastiff will use his weight to shove, and/or bite to take care of the perceived problem. Thus biting is the last in a sequence of guard behaviors of the bullmastiff, and it happens rarely.When I read things like that my mind always goes to 2 things: 1) you read about certain breeds as giving no warning and then one day "attacking", sometimes fatally. I've read a lot of things that say certain breeds will be fine with a family for years then one day attack them (something I don't personally believe), 2) there are certain trainers that claim all dogs are the same and only need certain "things" to be fulfilled and act appropriately as a dog.
This type of guard behavior is quite different from that of herding breeds, like the German Shepherd, and the Belgian Malinois. The typical herding breed guard sequence involves a chase and catch and bite part, with the shepherd jumping and biting and letting go and running around and biting some more.
In order to better understand these behaviors it is useful to look at the evolution of dogs and the behaviors that underlie guard behaviors in todays breeds.
Over the course of thousands of years since the domestication of the wolf to a dog, the dogs guard behaviors developed from the predatory behaviors of the ancestral wolf. Wolves exhibit a chain of behaviors in hunting for food: eyeing the prey - alert - stalk - chase - bite - kill. This sequence was tapped in developing herding dogs, where the kill part was selected for extinction and the bite part was selected for softness and control. Herding thus involve selected predatory behaviors. These breeds are also good guard dogs, and their guard behaviors are like a predatory chain without the final kill: being aware and vigilant - alert by barking - stalk - chase - bite. They show a strong prey-drive and they tend to like retrieving objects.
The guard behavior of the bullmastiff is quite different from that of herding dogs. Their guarding is closer related to that of the large flockguarding breeds, like the Maremma, and the Kuvasz. These dogs tend to stay with the livestock, and they do not prey on livestock. They also protect their flock from predators. Their guard behaviors do not involve chasing and catching, as much as interrupting the predators behaviors by interrupting and deflecting. These dogs have a low prey-drive, and they are not interested in chasing and catching objects. They tend to stand their ground to protect their territory and to prevent a predator from getting close to the livestock - or the family.
Looking at guard behaviors this way gives us an understanding of aggressive behaviors in different breeds and why uncontrolled aggression is more serious in a flockguarding type of dog than in a herding type of dog. The herding dog tends to bite quicker and at a lower level of provocation. When they bite, the bite tends to be of the slash and run type. A flockguarding type of dog tolerates more provocation, and makes more use of threats before he bites. When this type of dog does bite, there tends to be a lack of inherited and inbred inhibitions, making these bites more serious"
When you read the above and think about altered FAPs in breeds and how they affect the temperament of a dog on such a granular level, I don't see how anyone can think that all dogs require the same things to be "happy", or that all breeds should behave the same way or be trained in the same manner.
It also helps to clarify some of the "hearsay" you read in the BSL world, like my #1 above... Is it really the case that these breeds just up and attack out of nowhere, or is it that they have been selected to be very soft, take a lot of pressure, but when they take action it is one of seriousness (because it is the end of the FAP) and not just a warning "nip", "slash," or a "fear bite".
So, what do you think? Is it Nature (breed > environment) or is it Nurture (environment > breed)?
I've given my thoughts I'd like to hear yours....
(thanks for reading this long post, I was shooting for brevity but its hard on such a complex topic and thought pattern)
----
Comments
The one thing I will comment on is this:
"You read about certain breeds as giving no warning and then one day "attacking", sometimes fatally. I've read a lot of things that say certain breeds will be fine with a family for years then one day attack them (something I don't personally believe)"
Whenever I hear someone say the above, I don't think the dog didn't give warnings. My thought process is the dog gave plenty of warnings, maybe too subtle for some dog owners to pick up on, then the dog gets to the point where small warnings aren't enough and attacks.
I think dogs are clever creatures, and have their own way of saying "back off!" but, I also think, if we took one of those "dogs who attacked one day without warning" & placed them with someone educated in dog behavior, the behavior would've picked up on signals the "average" dog owner doesn't.
Even snakes don't just attack randomly, they shake their tails, [ whether they have a rattle or not ] let off a foul scent, & generally, tr to get out of the way before resorting to attacking a human / threat. I imagine a dog would give even MORE warnings then a snake. ~
-----------------
I think it's individual dog, breed and then environment. Operate Conditioning is a neat training mechanism to try and modify a dog's FAP. Now this training doesn't make those FAP go away nor does it make a dog completely bomb proof but it'll increase the human's reaction time...increasing the dog's threshold just a bit.
I like using Lynx as an example now, I've learned so much about dogs and Malinois because of her. Lynx will be the most challenging dog I'll ever own and my Shikoku are better for it and my future dogs will be better for it.
I've done all the socializing, exposure and training in the world for this dog (and we're still training, tis' an ongoing process).
No matter what I do though, firstmost, Lynx will still be Lynx and I cannot change who she is. Secondly, Lynx is STILL a Malinois...this is what she is. The best I can do is to always keep a step ahead of her to continue to influence and mold her responses.
There are just some moments in which that Malinois "stupidity" pops up and all of a sudden she's forgot all her obedience training and the genetic wiring program goes on auto-pilot. This is when I "lose" my dog as an individual and the breed impulse takes over.
So individual dog (the "who") --> breed (the "what") --> environment (the "influence" and "molding" of desired responses)
Environment is still extremely important because you can "make" or "break" a dog.
Some dogs don't behave at all like their breed descriptions; they are "flukes" or "the exception" within their breed. This is why I believe dogs are individuals firstmost and then their breed secondmost. The enviroment is how people incorporate these dogs within society.
As for dogs who are "aggressive" with an inexperienced handler/owner and then when placed with an experienced handler/owner they suddenly are no longer "aggressive". Truth of the matter is that the dog hasn't changed, it's still the same dog. However, the difference is that the experienced handler/owner knows what to look for (triggers/slight posturing/etc) and more importantly thus has a much quicker reaction time.
I agree that you have to look at the individual dog first, breed second. That's why I disagree with breed stereotypes so much - but at the same time I think you *must* consider the breed of the dog when making a training plan or management plan. That's where I think so many people fail with certain dog breeds, or why certain dog breeds are on BSL lists.
I also agree that in many of those dog attack cases there were probably clear warning signs from the dog that were overlooked/ignored due to ignorance or poor training/management/husbandry. Like, for example, lets take Blue, he is very handler soft, and he is a mastiff with a guarding pattern that fits closely to the description above regarding the Bullmastiff, which means his last resort is to bite, but the bite is of the "kill" section of the FAP and therefore will be much more damaging than many other breeds.
I'm reaching in this next part, but please try to follow me on this...
So, lets say we have a pretty (dog) uneducated person who owns a "Blue". This sets up a situation where you have a very powerful dog who is soft with his owners, and gives his warning very subtly to his owners (but not to strangers) and sulks when he is punished (he's VERY "handler soft"). He could even be seen as "submissive" if the owner subscribes to that crap (and that view would make this situation even more dangerous).
Softness with family was selected for in the breed so they would be easy to manage and control (as a high-drive, "handler hard", +100lb Mastiff would be VERY hard to control).
This paints a clear picture to me: A owner with a "Blue" uses some typical unpleasant training techniques with him, pushes him around a bit and sees his "sulking" over punishment as "submissive", which only inflates the owners ego more (and lets face it, that "Alpha" and "Pack Leader" shit is all about the owner's ego and has NOTHING to do with the dog) - "Yea, I'm so 'Alpha' I can push my 100+ pound Mastiff around"... All the while the owner is doing this he is missing the dogs subtle signals that his dog ("Blue") has passed his comfort level... The owner pushes a bit more and BAME - "Blue" bites. Now, consider all this, but instead of the owner pushing at the end you have a child who, not knowing what he/she is doing, grabs "Blue's" leash and yanks on it as hard as possible - you know, the way daddy does it... and BAME! Blue bites the kid as the kid didn't understand the signals coming from "Blue" either, and he was just doing what he has seen Daddy do.
Now, had that been a GSD, for example, the GSD would have probably snapped at the man early on, as that is an action that happens very early in the GSD's guarding pattern... The man would have then "got the message" and either screwed up further (pushing the dog to bite again) or changed the way he deals with the dog - and would probably be more concerned with the dog being around the child moving forward.
Those are 2 ridiculous and purely hypothetical situations, but it does show how the BREED and the innate pre-programmed patters that they have been "designed" for does play a role in how they should be interacted with. Both breeds are said to be good with family, but which breed, out of those 2, do you think would fair the highest no-kill / no-maul success rate in a family?
Where the individual dog's personality and environment (socialization) come in to play is how far or near the thresholds of the 2 dogs is in the story but it doesn't change the underlying mechanics in the equation and that is where I think the dog's breed should be considered.
----
"Some dogs don't behave at all like their breed descriptions; they are "flukes" or "the exception" within their breed. This is why I believe dogs are individuals firstmost and then their breed secondmost. The enviroment is how people incorporate these dogs within society."
Sure, especially when we talk about a "breed" like the pitbull which is really just a big melting pot of breeds rolled into one name. There could be any number of breeds in the dogs described as a pitbull, so who knows what to expect from them vs. other "pitbulls"... that is where you mos def have to look at the dog first.
But, having said that, we do need to consider that there should be more representatives of a breed that do fit the breed description otherwise there would be no point in calling them a breed or for having a standard. The "one bad apple" approach is exactly what has killed the Pitbull's rep - you cannot assume every breed representative is a "bad apple" (or doesn't fit the breed's model).
----
chain of behaviors in hunting for food: eyeing the prey - alert - stalk - chase - bite - kill
The class was made up of mostly herding dogs (of some sort all rescues), a Golden Retriever, and Koda (Which she tried to compare to a Husky. I had a little issue with that but I digress.) So we had herders, a retriever, and a hunting dog. What she wanted us to think about was what makes our dog who he/she is when it comes to behavior, and what brings them (due to their breed) joy. Using what makes them happy will allow us to create a training program that is specifically unique to our dog's breed and therefore will be more effective. Using the FAP's we went through each type of dog to learn more about their inherent "nature".
For the retrieving dog they will eye the prey, become alert, skip stalking, and go straght to chase. They will bite in order to grab ahold, but not to kill necessarily. (Please someone correct me if I got that wrong.)
For the herding dog, they will eye the prey, become alert, may stalk, and chase, rarely biting.
Now for the hunting dog, they will eye the prey, become alert, stalk, chase, bite and kill. (Which really made Koda sound bad to the group I will say. lol)
What she wanted us to take from this is looking at what part of that mad our dogs happy. I can tell you that Koda is happy when he catches and gets whatever in his mouth. He joyfully will shake his head and that's what completes his FAP. For a herding dog, it may be the chase. And for the retrieving dog it may be the bite to take it back to their owner (giving an example of training with throwing the ball.)
Ok not sure how I'm going to end this, so excuse me if I ramble.
I'll take Koda. He is a hunting dog, who gets pleasure from stalking and killing prey. That would be his nature. I however do not hunt with him. I live in a home in the suburbs and just hike with him. He lives inside my home as a companion. However, he still does take pleasure (whenever he gets the chance) to kill anything that comes into the yard. This goes for birds, squirrels, and even a neighbor's cat if it ran by. He would try and jump or climb the fence if he needed to to get that rodent in his mouth and shake. No matter how I live with him that's his nature. I'm not going to stop it, and I don't have any desire to. I just hope he doesn't kill someone's cat. :-0 Maymay is even worse! She would kill anything if she got the chance. She's good with my cat, but I have only let them interact in the house.
So, how do you use the FAP's to train a dog that may not be food motivated? For a retriever this could be simple. Dog does the trick, you treat with throwing the ball. This is what she was trying to get at. I hope this isn't too off topic.
I do think that inherently (through breeding whatever) breeds have qualities that we need to be aware of before taking them into the home. You bring up Blue and his subtle queues. You would not know to look for them unless you did your research on the breed and how they guard. I think of my Rott in this situation. If he felt uncomfortable with someone coming up to me, he would turn his front paws inward and puff his chest out. He wouldn't make a sound, but watch them intently. I knew he was guarding me, but someone approaching may not and try and touch him. I had to be keenly aware when he thought that someone was a threat. It was his nature to guard me, but it was nurture and training (mainly getting him to focus his attention on me rather than guarding) that stopped him from reacting to situations.
I've rambled enough, and I'm not even sure if this is all making sense anymore, so I will hand this topic back to the pro's. :-)
"For the retrieving dog they will eye the prey, become alert, skip stalking, and go straght to chase. They will bite in order to grab ahold, but not to kill necessarily. (Please someone correct me if I got that wrong.)"
>> I think that's probably correct. Tho in retrievers that also point they have a modified "stalk" too. Basically, through selection they extinguished the "kill", softened the "bite" and either removed or altered the "stalk".
"For the herding dog, they will eye the prey, become alert, may stalk, and chase, rarely biting."
>> Yes, the "kill" is extinguished and the "bite" is softened. I think herders bite more than you realize, think about cattle dogs. BCs are one of the few herders that do not bite.
It's really amazing to me how, via selective breeding, over 1000s of years, man has altered the dog's innate predatory FAP (their core survival instinct) in ways that make them useful to us - and all this was done w/o man really knowing what exactly they were doing to the dog. They just simply didn't breed dogs that had something they didn't want and did breed the dogs that had something they wanted. Its really an amazing "invention".
I guess this is where I get so bothered by the dumbing-down of some breeds. While I agree that its probably best for some breeds to be altered to fit more comfortably in today's society, I still can't help but feel its destroying a piece of our history, as humans. Here are these animals we have formed this extremely unique relationship with, altered them over time (1000s of years) to fill specific roles, and now we are letting them be destroyed...
Can you think of anything else that has been refined for 1000s of years and then completely ruined simply for the sake of keeping it around? I'm having a hard time coming up with anything - probably because most of the time there is someone there to keep that item for historical purposes (like whine) or it is retired (like pagers). Sorry, I'm rambling now...
----
"I do think that inherently (through breeding whatever) breeds have qualities that we need to be aware of before taking them into the home. You bring up Blue and his subtle queues. You would not know to look for them unless you did your research on the breed and how they guard. I think of my Rott in this situation. If he felt uncomfortable with someone coming up to me, he would turn his front paws inward and puff his chest out. He wouldn't make a sound, but watch them intently. I knew he was guarding me, but someone approaching may not and try and touch him. I had to be keenly aware when he thought that someone was a threat. It was his nature to guard me, but it was nurture and training (mainly getting him to focus his attention on me rather than guarding) that stopped him from reacting to situations."
>> This is really exactly one of the points I was getting at, you need to be in-tune to your dog & your breed to know how to nurture them. What you, Tara, describe here, IMHO, illustrates how an informed owner can use their knowledge to properly handle a breed like a Rottie.
----
---
I think I'm beginning to understand tho.
I would say, IMHO, that it is BOTH "nature" & "nurture." [ ie: it is Environment, Breed, & the dog as an Individual, all rolled into one ]. BUT, I'd say environment has the greatest impact.
I'm going to give another un-doggy example. [ bare with me ] We have birds at home. One cockatiel, Mesa, was acquired by us at a very young age. So much so, we had to hand feed him formula, the way a momma bird feeds her young. As such, Mesa is VERY attached to humans. In fact, we deliberately kept him from the other cockatiels for the first year of his life so he WOULD become attached to humans. [ making him very un-aggressive towards us ] Now, he has spent the last 3 years actually living with the other birds, and yet, he is still VERY attached to us. He experiences signs of stress [ barrier frustration ] when he sees us but can't get to us [ ie: if he's locked in the cage ] He will start pacing, and become reactive to the other birds around him until he can sit on our shoulder.
It is NOT in a cockatiel's nature to be attached to humans. At ALL. Breeders actually take baby cockatiels away from their mother's and hand feed them so that they will become attached to humans. Every cockatiel we've had who was "hand fed" [ regardless whether they were fed by us or not ] are attached to humans. The cockatiels we have acquired who are not handfed [ but still born from generations of captive-bred parents ] are afraid of humans & require extreme attention to be taught not to bite. But, no matter how much we condition a non-handfed cockatiel, they still do not crave our attention the way a hand-fed one [ like Misa ] does.
So in the cockatiel's case, VERY early methods are done to create a human affectionate bird. No matter what you do, if a cockatiel isn't hand fed, it will not crave a human's attention---it's against their nature. & likewise, cockatiels can not be "bred" to be "human affectionate," it all lies in the environment and effects on super young chicks. Once a cockatiel is handfed & given tons of human affectoon for the first 6 months to a year of it's life, it will crave human affection no matter what you do to it.
---
Another example, would be Snakes. Snakes can also not really be bred to be "soft," if they were, they will NOT eat their food. [ mice ] So creating a snake that is "super friendly" would create a snake who could not even survive in captivity. If a snake is not a proper eater / striker, they are culled from the breeding program.
So how is it that I have a snake who does not bite? Handling. When our snake, Tiamat, is handled regularly [ even if only once a day ] he does not strike, he does not bite, he does not shake his tail [ "warning" sign ] or even release a foul mucous. However, if we have been busy for a week or so & not been able to handle him, even tho he still does not bite, he will shake his tail, go into "strike mode," & release the foul secretion. Regular handling [ environment ] makes a snake "friendly" as it constantly reassures the snake that he is "safe."
---
So with dogs...I think breed & individuality is a GREAT / LARGE part of it, BUT, and this is a big BUT, I would say environment would have the biggest effect on a dog. [ environment including how the dog owner handles his dog, how the breeder treated the dog, whether the dog had tons of interaction with it's litter mates as a pup, socialization, etc. ]
I think "breed" lays out the "foundations" of the dog. But environment, IMHO, has the most significant impact. & the dog's individuality / personality...that plays a role too, but I think, even we as humans, are most shaped by our environments. Dogs are clever creatures and can be taught, but I believe, when they are forced past their "tolerance" level, they go back to their innate nature.
A tiger born & raised solely in captivity can not be re-released into the wild...it will not know how to hunt, hide, stalk, etc. Same thing with Eagles, Wolves, Bears, etc. But, a tiger still can not be kept / raised by the average human as a pet. As if it is not handled properly, if one does not know the tiger's "signs," the tiger will revert to it's instincts & possibly kill someone.
So, based on my observation of other animals, of studies, documentaries, etc. I would say environment is the greatest factor.
[ & then of course...there are ALWAYS exceptions to the rule. Always! I think that's how the dog's individual personality comes in. But, I'd say to look at it this way...if we stick a hundred people in a room & torture them mercilessly, 97% would come out with some emotional scarring / mental disorder [ post traumatic stress, etc. ] but I'm sure a few would come out as thought nothing ever happened. The majority would be severely affected by it, but a few would have the "mental capacity" to be unaffected. Just like how some soldiers come back from the front lines perfectly fine, and others come back deeply impacted by it.
I think, when we get those "outliers" [ for example, a dog that's been severely abused all it's life but still loves people ] we're looking at the dog's individuality overcoming it's environment. But, even though it happens often, it does not happen as often as other abused dogs who never learn to trust again.
Just my thought process, from what I've heard / read / seen.
Hope it all made sense! LOL
Since I'm a novice at really studying behavior (total ammateur!), I need to ask a couple of questions about this....Are you saying that all dogs originally went through FAP's equally and that man change the way they go through them with selective breeding? or Are you saying that people chose to breed let's say herding dogs that didn't have the bite FAP for generations until they dummied down that quality in them. But in that case, then there were herding dogs that didn't have the bite instinct already. They existed so breeding didn't necessarily bring this quality out.
I also think it is of critical importance to consider breed when training. This is the nature part. Many people can't interpret my Shiba Toby's expressions at all (they talk about the flat Shiba stare), but I of course am able to interpret his so-called lack of expression, and in fact see expression there. Not that this is an example that pertains that much to the overall question, but I was thinking about how critical it is to find a trainer who is able to consider how different breeds behave. (Which is why TJbart's trainer sounded so interesting!)
One thing I wondered about. Brad you mentioned the dumbing down of breeds, which I remember you discussing in another thread, and a bit later in this conversation said something about something being "completely ruined" (ie the dogs). In what ways do you think breeds have been totally ruined? Isn't it more just another development in the breed, one like many that have no doubt come before? I guess I'm having a hard time seeing a time breeds probably weren't changing.
Probably we just disagree about this, but I'd love to hear more of your thoughts on this, as I'm not entirely sure I understand your point on this....Still a fascinating discussion, from whatever view point!
And now I will continue mulling this over...
"Are you saying that all dogs originally went through FAP's equally and that man change the way they go through them with selective breeding?"
>> Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. IMHO, there were no "herding dogs" until man invented them, and started mixing/altering other dogs/dog breeds to create a "herding dog".
Wild canine come pre-programed with a prey pattern: alert-->stalk-->chase-->bite-->kill/shake, mutations may have come up in the gene pool that had a slightly alter pattern (like, maybe, less stalk) but it is unlikely it was altered very much otherwise we would see them all as having a different pattern (evolution has proved the current patter to be most successful). If an alter pattern emerged in a gene pool it would probably be less efficient and canine with that pattern would either die off or not contribute much to the gene pool - and so that altered pattern would go extinct.
If you really start to compare FAPs in wild canine you will see there are slight variation where some behaviors of the pattern may be slightly increased or decreased, but they all have the full set of patterns.
----
"Brad you mentioned the dumbing down of breeds, which I remember you discussing in another thread, and a bit later in this conversation said something about something being "completely ruined" (ie the dogs). In what ways do you think breeds have been totally ruined? Isn't it more just another development in the breed, one like many that have no doubt come before? I guess I'm having a hard time seeing a time breeds probably weren't changing."
>> Ok, I've done this before, sorry... Perhaps "completely ruined" is a bit of a harsh way to put it. I guess that's my passion showing through.
For me, taking a solid working breed and removing their ability to work is "ruining a breed". JMHO.
It's like the Hummer H2 & H3, they used the "Hummer" name, which is the name of the original Hummer (H1), to "hype up" a run-of-the-mill SUV with a fancy facade. Is it wrong? No, its not... but its not accurate either. The H2 & H3 really have no Hummer parts, they are just your average SUV with a neat body - they have none of the original workhorse value the Hummer H1 has.
Another example - the wrangler, I met a lady that had a 2 wheel drive wrangler once... "why?" I asked her, as it made no sense to me to have a 2wd Jeep. She said "Because they look cool"... ok, that's fair, I agree, they do look cool.
So, for me, taking an impressive working breed and then removing the majority of their working qualities is like making a Hummer H2. The breed would get its recognition from its name but minus all of the working qualities for which it was created to begin with. The breed just simply looks like the breed it once was, and instead of the real-world hardened qualities that made it so valuable, you get a very simplistic and "watered down" version.
Is it "right" or "wrong" to "water down" a breed... That's a personal opinion. Frankly, in many ways, I think working breed have to be "watered down" to work as companions in today's world - but I would also argue that maybe those working breeds should have never been made companions to begin with.
Really tho, I'm one to talk, I'm sitting here typing this with a room full of lazy "working breeds" who are just as content sleeping by my feat as I type as they are out guarding the yard or chasing game... But, I do not have an average life style nor am I an average dog owner. So I dunno that these breeds need to be "watered down" for me and my situation - and I don't know that they need to be for yours either (what I am saying is, I mean no disrespect to any forum member when I write these tings, and if you are on the forum chatting about such a niche topic as NK, then you are probably not the average dog owner and so my comments don't really apply to you).
----
Totally off the subject, but getting to human behavior. Have you ever read Ishmael by Daniel Quinn? I think you would like it.
I don't think they were lucky when most breeds have developed health issues and many have impractical body types.
"and if we did not breed them to dummy them down then we would have killed all of them off"
We created the huge breed populations.
Now, whether or not they are "needed" to still do these tasks today is a different story...
But, of course, like Jess says, it's also our fault many of these dogs became health-wise...not that great. We had a huge responsibility for these animals, and we bred to get what we could, and health was left in the background. [ whether out of ignorance, or just not caring ] ~
For the sake of clarity, you wrote...
"Ok I can totally buy that all dogs originally had the same FAP's, and I can buy that humans have dummied down them to meet our needs."
I was not actually saying that mankind altering canine FAPs to meet our needs was an example of dogs being "dummied down". I actually think that is an example of mankind improving our relationship with the domesticated canine that we lived with. When mankind started altering the FAPs of canine (selectively breeding them) the dogs had already been domesticated so the selection process was just mankind fine-tuning the tool we were given.
What I do think is an example of dogs being "dummied down" is when you take a breed that was created for a working purpose and breed that breed into a state where they no longer have a working purpose or instinct. At that point they are just for "looks".
I just wanted to make sure that was clear as it seems like maybe you felt I was casting a negative light on mankind's domestication of the dog, and that was not my what I was doing - so I wanted ot make sure that was clear.
----
ah! Duh! I had to go back and reread it.
So I think my argument there is more theoretical than practical, because on a practical level, I DO understand what you mean about breeding a dog out of it's "original" purpose, making a dog even MORE domestic....And it does bother me. A border collie should be a border collie, a true working dog, and not something bred to fit into the house better. I love the NKs best when they are closest to feral dogs--it is that feeling of wildness in a domesticated animal that really appeals to me. That said, I'm very aware that the reason I can live with my dogs at all is because of selective breeding.
(I did, btw, love the car comparison--I am pretty hostile to all Hummers, but I do have to admit that I don't get the point of 2 wd trucks/jeeps/etc. It's something I rail about every year, when I see my neighbors stuck here in the mts. in their 2wd trucks)
On a final note, I had a funny moment tonight because I suddenly found myself in this long discussion in class about the true nature of dogs, and if there was some Platonic ideal of "dogness" ie, some essence of dogness that could stand in for individual dogs. It became quite heated with everyone's opinions and experiences with very different dogs. And the funniest thing? This was in my graduate level poetry class--and I didn't introduce the subject, but it came out of a student's poem on the nature of dogs. It made me smile to think how my working life (teacher of creative writing) was overlapping with my dog obsession
This is really the final note: I'm SO interested in looking at dogs on a behavioral level, beyond training, but more about FAPs and about dogs in general....What kind of things can I read to explore this more?
And Ismael is on my reading list (different kind of reading, but equally fascinating) so I think I just got a nudge to actually get the book....
by Ray and Lorna Coppinger
is the book you want for in depth on FAPs, origins and nature/nurture. You'll love it! I so fell into that book that I refused to give it back to my sister.
I'm stuck between whether nature or nurture affects behaviors more. I wanna side with nurture though, since a lot of really mean dogs that I have met were ignored, chained up, or not handled correctly.
Yet I might be a little biased because I would argue that nurture is more influential in Human Psychology. But Dogs aren't humans, and vice-versa.
There are however a few very rare exceptions that are violent or shall we say "evil" with no real understandable exterior cause. They however have neurological abnormalities present during MRIs that is likely the cause.
I suspect that this would be the case for dogs as well.
I agree 100% that trauma effects a psyche be it a human, dog, cat, etc. Trauma at early stages of life when the brain is still developing leaves a mark or a footprint neurologically in the brain that can be seen (in humans anyways) with MRI's. This is the justification for the need of mental health treatment in trauma victims starting in infancy.
I would argue that the more domesticated the animal is, the more effect trauma will have. Wild animals would be more hard wired to survive trauma emotional unscathed.
----
@Juan - I had forgotten about this thread, it probably goes nicely with the article that was posted this week about shelter dogs and bite cases.
I'm starting to see things a bit differently now with regards to Nature vs Nurture, my current opinion (it changes weekly) is that a dog's base personality is stamped at birth, this includes their altered motor patterns (reffed to above), instincts, and their basic "social aptitude". Then, during the socialization window (6-14 weeks), their experiences augment their personality. After the socialization window any extra augmentation is what I would consider simply learned behavior. That's my current thoughts. I'm sure they'll change next week. LOL
----
An update to this thread, now that I have owned a drover (Chupa) for a while, who is a breed with an alter motor pattern (for herding) and also for guarding (so his guarding motor patterns mirror the Bullmastiff patter described above and also a drover pattern - which makes for an interesting mix)... I stick by my original opinion - heavily alter predator FAPs make for higher anxiety. Chupa is full of it - and not the same type of anxiety found in a fearful dog... more like a "I can't get a relief/release" type of anxiety. It can be rather frustrating at time - even with LOADS of exercise (mental and physical).
----
I also agree that the higher the predator FAP's the higher the anxiety. I see it in Maymay who usually kills something almost everyday. I think the thing I wanted to add or make sure that I clarify is that as I see it it's not the normal anxiety/fear that most people think of in dogs. From what I can see, it's that they don't feel, and I'm going to use Brad's word, release until they have gone through the FAP.
If Maymay doesn't catch/kill a rodent for a few days, I notice her becoming more high energy in the home. She will get up on the top of the couch more, jump on me when she's excited, it's hard to get her to calmly sit before her food bowl goes down, she gets into mischief, and she seems to need to be with me more. Once she has killed something in the backyard, it's like a big sigh of relief. Her behavior is more manageable because her anxiety levels go down an extreme amount and she becomes this very calm dog. It makes life a lot easier for the rest of the day.
I can take the dogs out hiking and get them tired out, but it doesn't matter with her. No amount of physical exercise will allow for her mind to calm down. I was very excited the morning I went to go see Beth and Steve that she had spent the weekend killing two squirrels and two mice. I knew that I could take her out in public and she would be calm and behave. If she hadn't, then I'm not sure if I could have taken her with me. She would have been even more on the hunt than she was and being on a leash in public could have been impossible.
I hope this makes sense.
@Tara - Very interesting points...
but how does this explain dog breeds that are inherently more aggressive or reactive.
>> I think "aggression" is an active, purposefully added (and very important) ingredient in many dogs breeds, but the "aggression" should never be unprovoked. I think Jessica is speaking of the cases where a dog attacks unprovoked. I also think the majority of the dog owners in the world do not really understand what triggers provoke "aggression" in their dogs. An example of this is an unsocialized hunting dog chasing and biting another dog. To the average dog owner, that "attack" may appear unprovoked while in reality poor management of the hunting dogs, no socialization with other dogs, and the dog running triggers the hunting dog's instinctual predatory motor patterns - so the trigger was nurture + nature + reaction... Can you blame the hunting dog in this example?
I agree 100% that trauma effects a psyche be it a human, dog, cat, etc. Trauma at early stages of life when the brain is still developing leaves a mark or a footprint neurologically in the brain that can be seen (in humans anyways) with MRI's. This is the justification for the need of mental health treatment in trauma victims starting in infancy.
>> I didn't know that it actually marks the brain... So, that is like a physical scar or injury to the brain from the trama?
I've always felt that a dog shouldn't be introduced to any negative experiences during their socialization window (6-14 weeks old) and this comment you made makes me realize how vital it really is that they only have positive experiences during that early stage in brain development!
I would argue that the more domesticated the animal is, the more effect trauma will have. Wild animals would be more hard wired to survive trauma emotional unscathed.
>> I agree with your argument, that is why a wolf's socialization window is only from 3 days old to 9 days old - MUCH shorter than a domesticated canine...
----
I didn't know that it actually marks the brain... So, that is like a physical scar or injury to the brain from the trama?
Yes, most studies on the effects of trauma on the brain began in 1998 when neurosurgeons began looking at child trauma victim's brains at different stages of development. I'm not going to go clinical on you, but here's the basics the neurons don't fire like a normal brain. Also chemical levels in the brain change. Symptoms can be anxiety, fear, depression, suicidal tendencies, aggression, risk taking behavior (sex, drugs, violence, etc.), social withdrawal, etc. etc. etc. But for the most part, you can see it all in an MRI. This was the whole reasoning for early intervention, the 0-5 programs called Early Childhood Mental Health. Very interesting stuff. Good news is, the brain is resilient, and with therapeutic interventions can be restored to higher functioning.
And then his thyroid went wonky, and suddenly, when he couldn't seem to control....anxiety? We were calling it aggression, but I'm not sure it was really that. If there was more than one person around, esp. new people, he'd get super excited, and he'd try to "herd" them together, but this involved nipping that got a bit harder (he left bruises). We also couldn't play with him, because after a couple of rounds of throwing the ball, he'd get so worked up he'd grab it out of your hand (with his teeth) or he'd nip at back of the knees, again,pretty hard. It wasn't typical aggression at all. Once we treated the thyroid, the change was immediate and clear--when he was overstimulated, he'd look around, grab a ball and bite it. (or once a full coke can. Sigh. But that was still better than biting a person!)
This might have nothing to do with the strong herding instinct and lack of an outlet for it. He was clearly overstimulated when he bit. This whole post might not really make sense in comparison, but I really did think about how his behavior seemed to have more to do with a kind of anxiety and overstimulation than it did aggression. and we were lucky to be able to find the cause and treat it effectively.
http://investigation.discovery.com/tv/most-evil/most-evil.html