A SOCIAL VIEW OF HEREDITY -by Ian Dunbar
I thought this article by Ian Dunbar brought up some interesting points, especially this part...
Social Heredity
Whatever the potential advantages and disadvantages of natural and artificial selection, these changes are not exclusively the product of genetic heredity. It is the phenotype that is selected, not the genotype. Moreover, by and large it is the phenotype and not the genotype that interacts with the environment. Selective breeding encompasses far more than biological, or genetic heredity, it also embraces the realm of social heredity, or culture.
Humans provide a wonderful example of social heredity. Even though my son Jamie possesses not one American gene in his entire body, he's an All-American kid. And why? Because he was born and raised in the good old U.S. of A. and so, presumably, he will always yearn for hotdogs and baseball and will never thrill at the sound of leather on willow, or tungsten on pig bristle.
The early social environment of different breeds is quite different. It is commonplace for Newfie pups to grow up with a Newfie mum and other Newfie pups. Similarly, Bull Terriers grow up with Bull Terriers and Spaniels with Spaniels. Since different breeds act differently, the early social environment of each dog is entirely different — depending on the breed. The significant effects of the maternal and litter environment may be shown by cross-fostering — by taking a single pup and placing it with a dam and litter of a different breed. In our off-leash, puppy socialization and training classes, we regularly perform similar social manipulations with dramatic and beneficial results. For example, by having a shy pup skip a grade and participate in a class with younger (and smaller) puppies, the older shy pup now becomes a big fish in a little pond and quickly develops confidence. Alternatively, temporarily transferring the class hyperdog or bully to a class with older puppies, or to an adult class, requires the socially unaware ruffian to smartly reestablish perspective vis a vis its relative position in the canine world.
People constitute the other primary ingredient of a dog's social environment. Owners especially exert a major controlling influence over the development of the dog's behavior and temperament. And different owners are different. Problems commonly occur when a dog passes from an expert owner (trainer and/or breeder) to a novice owner. With decades of valuable experience under their belts, breeders often fail to acknowledge the extent of their own expertise and the beneficial effect it has on their own dogs. Breeders tend to forget that even commonplace husbandry may be alien and difficult for novice owners. And a novice owner can quickly ruin the temperament of a perfectly good pup, no matter what the breed, or what the breeding. The millions of dogs euthanized each year in the U.S. attest to this.
The facts that 1. The temperament of dogs with good breeding may be destroyed in short order, 2. Fearful adult dogs may be rehabilitated, and 3. Regardless of breed, breeding, or individual disposition, temperament training classes can successfully prevent the development of serious behavior and temperament problems in any puppy — all indicate that a dog's congenital disposition is an infinitely mutable, individual quality that may be further molded by the dog's early experiences, i.e., by socialization and training. A sensitive dog is quite normal (and so are its genes) but rather, an abnormal puppyhood environment renders the animal fearful. I would have no reservations about breeding a shy or fearful dog that has other especially redeeming qualities, because I do not believe temperament problems necessarily reflect underlying genetic flaws. Rather, they are indicative of inadequate socialization. Quite frankly, the dog's impoverished early environment has left the dog with too few neuronal connections to cope with the normal social rigors of everyday life.
Source: http://www.dogstardaily.com/training/social-view-heredity
----
Social Heredity
Whatever the potential advantages and disadvantages of natural and artificial selection, these changes are not exclusively the product of genetic heredity. It is the phenotype that is selected, not the genotype. Moreover, by and large it is the phenotype and not the genotype that interacts with the environment. Selective breeding encompasses far more than biological, or genetic heredity, it also embraces the realm of social heredity, or culture.
Humans provide a wonderful example of social heredity. Even though my son Jamie possesses not one American gene in his entire body, he's an All-American kid. And why? Because he was born and raised in the good old U.S. of A. and so, presumably, he will always yearn for hotdogs and baseball and will never thrill at the sound of leather on willow, or tungsten on pig bristle.
The early social environment of different breeds is quite different. It is commonplace for Newfie pups to grow up with a Newfie mum and other Newfie pups. Similarly, Bull Terriers grow up with Bull Terriers and Spaniels with Spaniels. Since different breeds act differently, the early social environment of each dog is entirely different — depending on the breed. The significant effects of the maternal and litter environment may be shown by cross-fostering — by taking a single pup and placing it with a dam and litter of a different breed. In our off-leash, puppy socialization and training classes, we regularly perform similar social manipulations with dramatic and beneficial results. For example, by having a shy pup skip a grade and participate in a class with younger (and smaller) puppies, the older shy pup now becomes a big fish in a little pond and quickly develops confidence. Alternatively, temporarily transferring the class hyperdog or bully to a class with older puppies, or to an adult class, requires the socially unaware ruffian to smartly reestablish perspective vis a vis its relative position in the canine world.
People constitute the other primary ingredient of a dog's social environment. Owners especially exert a major controlling influence over the development of the dog's behavior and temperament. And different owners are different. Problems commonly occur when a dog passes from an expert owner (trainer and/or breeder) to a novice owner. With decades of valuable experience under their belts, breeders often fail to acknowledge the extent of their own expertise and the beneficial effect it has on their own dogs. Breeders tend to forget that even commonplace husbandry may be alien and difficult for novice owners. And a novice owner can quickly ruin the temperament of a perfectly good pup, no matter what the breed, or what the breeding. The millions of dogs euthanized each year in the U.S. attest to this.
The facts that 1. The temperament of dogs with good breeding may be destroyed in short order, 2. Fearful adult dogs may be rehabilitated, and 3. Regardless of breed, breeding, or individual disposition, temperament training classes can successfully prevent the development of serious behavior and temperament problems in any puppy — all indicate that a dog's congenital disposition is an infinitely mutable, individual quality that may be further molded by the dog's early experiences, i.e., by socialization and training. A sensitive dog is quite normal (and so are its genes) but rather, an abnormal puppyhood environment renders the animal fearful. I would have no reservations about breeding a shy or fearful dog that has other especially redeeming qualities, because I do not believe temperament problems necessarily reflect underlying genetic flaws. Rather, they are indicative of inadequate socialization. Quite frankly, the dog's impoverished early environment has left the dog with too few neuronal connections to cope with the normal social rigors of everyday life.
Source: http://www.dogstardaily.com/training/social-view-heredity
----
Comments
But his comment, " It is the phenotype that is selected, not the genotype" may be more true today than in recent history. Large kennels which use line breeding expose the hidden genotype. The kennel master knows many generations of dogs. Dogs used to be working members of the family, and the one who best got the job done where chosen to procreate.
Today, its small kennels attending beauty contests. It is very tempting for a small kennel - esp a beginner - to not know generations of dogs nor realize the importance of this. They might keep even a known fault under wraps so their small kennel is not ruined. Besides, most of our dogs are bred to make money or to be just pets - not something that comes naturally to many breeds. Pet owners have to be experts to force a working breed into this mold.
There is altogether far too little respect to our amazing partners in evolution for a huge percentage of the breeders to be producing puppies.
Species-specific behaviors are the result of millions of years of evolution, and the earliest breed differences stem from several thousand years of selective breeding. Nonetheless, evolutionary success is hallmarked both by replication and variation; a delicate balance must exist between the passage of selected genes from one generation to the next and preserving sufficient variation within the gene pool to ensure the capacity for adaptive change. A novice breeder quickly learns that dogs seldom breed true to type. The nature of sexual (vs. asexual) reproduction ensures considerable diversity within the line. Although the offspring may resemble its parents, each litter and each puppy is utterly unique — an individual. Much like humans, in fact. I wonder how many parents, sufficiently impressed by their first wonderful child, were tempted “to repeat the breeding”.
----
The last bit..... the dog's impoverished early environment has left the dog with too few neuronal connections to cope with the normal social rigors of everyday life
comes straight out of early childhood mental health. I try not to, but I often refer to human psychology with dogs. It's good to know I'm not the only one.
So my big question, before I can really decide what I think here, is how much of temperament might be genetic? My gut feeling (which could be entirely wrong) is that at least some of it is, and I would be worried, frankly, about breeding fearful dogs. I've heard breeders talk about not breeding fearful or shy dogs as it adds to an unstable temperament, but does it? I know I would not personally buy a dog if I knew the parents had an undesirable temperament. Maybe I'm wrong and I could raise that pup to be the dog I wanted, but it seems a bit too risky to me.
In any case, I find it hard to believe that genetics could have NOTHING to do with temperament, and that it's all "nurture" so to speak. Does anyone have a definitive answer on this? Or is it still something we're sorting out?
@brada1878 - I admire the annotated pedigree you showed me. It will be very helpful to your lines.
A realistic theoretical interpretation would attribute equal importance to both genetic and environmental influences. Rather than waste time and energy debating whether genes are more important than the environment, or vice versa, let's assume both are crucial, and use our knowledge of how both genetics and experience affect development to improve the temperament and behavior of present-day and future dogs.
----
As Brad quoted, "both are crucial" so I would definitively consider the parents' temperaments (and health - another crucial part of a breeding program that seems to keep getting left behind in this discussion), especially the mom's. She not only passes her genetics and gives a healthy start, but also the initial social experiences. Then who ever the breeder sends a pup to has a better chance of raising it well - even if they are not a pro.
A shy or fearful puppy needs a pro to thrive.
This is why I was a little puzzled, though, by Dunbar's opinion that it would be ok to breed fearful dogs. This seems to me to be problematic, and at least should be avoided if there are other options, I would think. And also, then, I'm a bit puzzled that he says that a well bred dog with a good temperament can be "destroyed in short order." Of course I understand abuse or even harsh aversives could do this, but would a dog with a good temperament really be destroyed that quickly? That phrasing kind of makes it sound like any kind of mishandling could destroy a dog, and I'm not sure that's true. Dogs seem to be pretty hardy. I consider the kind of mishandling I did with some of my dogs years ago, and while I believe they would have thrived better with better handling, they did manage to come through ok, and many dogs do. Is a dog of good, steady temperament that easy to "destroy"? Or do they perhaps just not fulfill their potential? Overall, I find his last paragraph a bit confusing and a bit contradictory even. While I agree that socializations is critical, I also do think dogs probably can have inherent temperament problems.
....using info gleaned from human psychology: in studies of kids from known abuse who did well vs those who struggled as adults, the term resiliency was coined as a feature of those who did well despite horrid environments. I had two foster kids and both suffered terribly. I take no credit at all for the fact that both have done well, become excellent parents, and are well respected by their communities (one is almost 32 and the other 26 - one male the other female). They were resilient.
A resilient dog would be hard to ruin. Many dogs, however, are appropriately bred to certain characteristics that are risky in the hands of a pet owner. For example, I covet Brad's OCs, but I know I would not be a good match at this time in my life and I hope he would refuse to pass one on to me (just in case I beg, Brad). A border collie can wreck havoc in a back yard of busy kids. I know people who rushed out to get jack russells after the mask came out only to be rid of them a few months later. Pittbulls and rotties are still reeling from the forces who brought them out of obscurity - and the concept of banned breeds was the result. There are way too many naive pet shoppers and too many avaricious "breeders". A well bred, typey dog can face the death penalty for doing what he was selectively bred to do. I know my own babies arrived with intact personalities - no tabla rosas in my family!
Maybe the research of Scott & Fuller is dated, but I *think* it is still the gold standard. Out of it Clarence Pfaffenberger developed puppy temperament test that revolutionized seeing-eye dog puppy selection, which has been adapted by the Volhards. These tests probe traits in puppies 49 days old. I have been racking my brain to think of jobs for which shyness would be an asset to pass on to future generations. Of all the dogs I have known, shy ones tend to be very brittle and can easily become fear biters in the wrong hands - or even just in a busy, though well meaning, household. They need competent people who know or will seek appropriate ways to help them develop resiliency.
There is just too much breeding for looks and too little breeding for substance, and I think it was irresponsible for Dunbar to justify sloppy breeding decisions. There are few breeds (the ones on this forum being among the exceptions) where there are not abundant individuals that have desirable traits forcing one to choose traits that put the litter at risk - especially for a breeder who does not match puppies to owners carefully.
With so many US dogs on death row, lets breed for good temperament, working ability, health - place puppies carefully - and take lifelong responsibility for all puppies produced. Why choose to compromise any of this?
However, it seems that the majority of breeders are naive, ignorant, and/or unethical (which in my opinion means breeding primarily to make money), and don't need any one supporting their naive, ignorant, and/or unethical decision making.
I think I should retract my previous statements. I have said this before, but it was my 'burned out from trying to make a difference' self talking. I have to remember this before I press "Post Comment"
Their are behaviors I have witnessed here with our dogs that I just do not have an explanation for, and then there are some behaviors that I just simply do not like. Some of those behaviors are not what someone would consider a "fault", some people may even prefer dogs with those behaviors, but I don't, and so I do not select for those types of behaviors.
In the past I've met dogs who just doesn't "feel" right. It's impossible to put into words the what/why with those dogs, because there is nothing wrong with the dog... but I just simply didn't like the way they "felt" (emotionally, not literally). And so they were removed from our program.
This is why I think it's so important to do your best to meet a breeder's dogs, or dogs they have produced.
----