# Nature v. Nurture



## Ariel Peldunas

I'm sure there are plenty of old threads on this topics, but I'm interested in what the current WDF population has to say about this.

I know there are some breeders out there who don't do anything special with their pups in terms of exposure/neurological stimulation and others who try to introduce their pups to a variety of environments and stimuli as early as possible.

Before I spent much time with Mike, I believed the ratio of influence of nature vs. nuture was somewhere around 30%/70% respectively. I had seen pups from the same litter change dramatically based upon their life experiences. However, after being here for a year and a half and having numerous discussions and considering numerous examples, it's hard for me to determine where I stand.

I have seen two year old females that came here as pups and never left the farm walk into a brand new environment with more confidence than a dog that was traveled near and far from eight weeks of age. I've seen puppies leave here at 7 or 8 weeks that we bought back 6 or 7 months later after just living in a pet home environment and receiving little to no work be on par with puppies we kept back and raised here after just a few session of work. I've also seen puppies that were super when they left here at 8, 12, 16 weeks of age return for training or seminars and look downright disappointing. 

My feeling about all of this is that the exposure and neurological/mental/physical stimulation we do with the pups certainly can't hurt. I believe there is a small percentage of dogs out there that are genetic freaks and, as long as they don't have overwhelmingly bad experiences, will naturally have outstanding drive and confidence. I also believe there is a small percentage of dogs out there that are so weak genetically that no amount of exposure can save them. And then, in between those two extremes are all the dogs that can be pushed to either side of the spectrum based upon life experiences, but, how close to the extremes they lie will determine how little or great an effect exposure can have on their temperament. 

I realize training can mask a lot and trainability in itself is valuable. But I have also seen so many incidences when training is irrelevant and the dog's genetic blueprint is apparent. No amount of training can infuse heart or drive or intelligence in a dog. You can train a dog to bite, but you can't make him want to be there when he really feels threatened and it's no longer a game. You can train a dog to retrieve a copper pipe with enthusiasm, but you can't make him want it enough to play with it on his own or care enough about it to keep you from taking it. You can train a dog a variety of commands and exercises, but you can't give them the ablity to problem solve. 

I know it doesn't really seem like I have a point and I'm not sure I really do. It's just that today, I was reading some things another breeder had said and was reflecting on the past year and a half and how different it has been from what I thought I knew. I still believe all puppies need exposure ...even the genetic freaks who are unaffected by anything. Children cannot realize their full potential if they are sheltered or ill-exposed. I believe it's developmentally necessary for dogs and puppies to have enriching experiences as early in life as possible. At the same time, no amount of exposure or training is going to make a puppy (or child) something it's not. To paraphrase what Mike says, "I can learn to be as good at basketball as my genetics will allow, but no matter how hard I train, I will never be a 6'8" African American."

With all that said ...I would like to hear what everyone else has to say and would certainly welcome links or references regarding the topic.


----------



## Joby Becker

REFERENCE











Mike doesnt have to be 6'8" or Black 

John Stockton was only 6' and White

Stockton, a 10-time NBA All-Star, commandingly holds the NBA record for career assists with 15,806 (10.5 per game). Stockton also holds the record for assists-per-game average over one season (14.5 in 1990) and is one of three players who have logged more than 1,000 assists in one season, joining Kevin Porter (1,099 in 1979) and Isiah Thomas (1,123 in 1985) in the exclusive list. Stockton did this seven times, with season totals of 1,164, 1,134, 1,128, 1,126, 1,118, 1,031 and 1,011 assists.

He and Karl Malone are regarded by many as the quintessential pick and roll duo. Apart from his passing skill, Stockton was also a capable scorer (13.1 points per game career average and a 51.5 career shooting percentage) with a reliable three-point shot (38.4% lifetime average). He is 30th on the all-time NBA scoring list with 19,711 career points.

Despite the fact that he had never pulled down more than 9 rebounds (or recorded more than 9 steals) during a regular season game, he finally recorded a career triple double, at age 39, in a playoff game against the Dallas Mavericks on April 28, 2001. He scored 12 points, pulled down 11 rebounds and had 10 assists.

On defense, Stockton holds the NBA record for career steals with 3,265, nearly 30 percent more than second placed Jason Kidd, who is currently active.

Stockton was known for his unassuming, no-nonsense approach to the game, hard-nosed defense, and fanatical work-ethic in preparation, which resulted in his extreme durability. He played 1,504 of 1,526 possible games in his 19-season career. In his first 13 seasons, he missed only four games (all in the 1989–90 season) until he missed the first 18 games of the 1997–98 season due to an injured MCL in his left knee sustained in the preseason. That was the only major injury in his career, and he never missed another game after returning from that injury. In his last season at age 41, he started all 82 games, and finished with more-than-respectable averages of 10.8 ppg and 7.7 apg. Stockton's tenacity also earned him a reputation among some in the league as being a dirty player, as evidenced by a poll Sports Illustrated conducted in 1997 where he was voted as the second dirtiest player in the league behind Dennis Rodman.

Stockton avoided most endorsements, and he stayed loyal to Utah despite being offered significantly more money by other teams. In 1996, he agreed to a deal that made salary-cap space available so the team could improve, but in exchange, he insisted on guaranteed Delta Center ice time for his son's hockey team.

On May 11, 2006, ESPN.com named Stockton the 4th best point guard of all time.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Interesting, you brought this up as its has become hugely relevant to my training life. I've always handled and exposed puppies that I whelped/raised. I tested them weekly environmentally and made my selection based on which ones passed those tests. The pick was always the pup, I labeled fearless or completely non-reactive to the environment stimulus or change of environment. I've been the same with puppies I chose from litters I didn't whelp. I am now training two dogs that come from the school of thought that you can socialize and condition temperament. What I am seeing is that with certain stresses, they revert to default. So, from a nature/genetics standpoint, I'm back to wanting the one that is 100% sound and non-reactive to sound and environment changes. I still believe in handling and exposing puppies but the working dogs are the ones that don't require conditioning. 

T


----------



## Timothy Saunders

Ariel, we need to talk I was just having this conversation with some other dog people.. I shouldn't drink and think but I was and this was basically the topic. I'm going to call Mike's phone and ask to speak to you.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

She doesn't know where she stands, doesn't have answers. She hasn't even posed any questions. What's to talk about that can't be discussed here? Don't be so selfish!


----------



## Brian Anderson

its those pups that go on and do well regardless of nurture that makes me go hmmmm. I cant see where it hurts anything ... but its one of those things that is also tough to say whether it works and to what extent with what pup.


----------



## Matt Vandart

I am of the opinion that while genetics matter a good proportion of exposure to unique events must occur before 8 weeks. The more noises and handling and other stuff that occurs before this time the sounder the dogs nerve will be. Especially before they have opened their eyes.


----------



## Kevin Cyr

Matt Vandart said:


> I am of the opinion that while genetics matter a good proportion of exposure to unique events must occur before 8 weeks. The more noises and handling and other stuff that occurs before this time the sounder the dogs nerve will be. Especially before they have opened their eyes.


and when it doesn't? the dogs have less nerve?


----------



## Brian Anderson

Matt Vandart said:


> I am of the opinion that while genetics matter a good proportion of exposure to unique events must occur before 8 weeks. The more noises and handling and other stuff that occurs before this time the sounder the dogs nerve will be. Especially before they have opened their eyes.


how do you explain those dogs that never left the kennel at 16 months that come like a freight train... with NO "nurture" outside of mama. I can assure you that 0 of the dogs I have worked with this past year had anything outside of their basic needs being met. How do we explain those? I believe the dogs thresholds could be tampered with through early exposure to stimulation. But the nerve is genetic .... JMO


----------



## Dave Colborn

Brian Anderson said:


> how do you explain those dogs that never left the kennel at 16 months that come like a freight train... with NO "nurture" outside of mama. I can assure you that 0 of the dogs I have worked with this past year had anything outside of their basic needs being met. How do we explain those? I believe the dogs thresholds could be tampered with through early exposure to stimulation. But the nerve is genetic .... JMO


 
Interesting. Maybe keeping them in a vacuum and only feeding and watering them for a year will not expose them to anything bad. makes them stronger. Still could be nurture though, as they are not experiencing anything negative. so their environment for 1 year is safe and happy. they know nothing else. 

i don't really believe that, but I do wonder...


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

All their senses are available to them at roughly three weeks. You will have a sense of what the genetics are then. I think the handling and exposure is hugely important to trainability those first 16 weeks. From a companion standpoint, I think the weaker puppies can be improved upon with socialization and desensitization. However, for me, these aren't the most desirable working prospects.

T


----------



## mike suttle

He is my opinion on this.......no matter what the dog has from pure genetics, he will be even better with proper nurture and exposure. I'm still not sure how anyone could argue that. 
The best athletes in the world are born with the right genetics, but would they be as good without hard work and training?
The most genius of scientists are born with the genetics, but if they grew up in a cave with no access to schools or laboratories to experiment in would they have accomplished as much?
How anyone can suggest that a dog with even the best genetic potential can perform at his best level without any type of nurture, training, and exposure is silly.
I have females here in our breeding program that are super dogs purely by genetics. They have great nerves, high drives, natural desire to hunt hard, full calm grips.........all from genetics because we dont usually work our breeding females. However, all of those females would be even better if they had been worked, traveled, trained, and exposed to more than life outside of the farm.


----------



## Brian Anderson

mike suttle said:


> He is my opinion on this.......no matter what the dog has from pure genetics, he will be even better with proper nurture and exposure. I'm still not sure how anyone could argue that.
> The best athletes in the world are born with the right genetics, but would they be as good without hard work and training?
> The most genius of scientists are born with the genetics, but if they grew up in a cave with no access to schools or laboratories to experiment in would they have accomplished as much?
> How anyone can suggest that a dog with even the best genetic potential can perform at his best level without any type of nurture, training, and exposure is silly.
> I have females here in our breeding program that are super dogs purely by genetics. They have great nerves, high drives, natural desire to hunt hard, full calm grips.........all from genetics because we dont usually work our breeding females. However, all of those females would be even better if they had been worked, traveled, trained, and exposed to more than life outside of the farm.


Mike what about your current stud line-up? The dogs that you imported .. how many of them were subjected to all the enviro stuff? Arco Roosen? Arko Kikkert (RIP) .. and the others? I would think it silly too, to believe it has no effect, but the thing is all the data thus far (to my knowledge) is inconclusive. In my estimation it will forever be inconclusive because we are talking about living beings that are all individuals. Like I said in a previous post .. "It danged sure cant hurt anything"... plus its fun watching the pups scramble over all the obstacles and stuff!

conversely (sp) to Joby's example we have Babe Ruth who by all accounts was more interested in chasing women and drinking than playing baseball. Never one for a lot of "practice" isn't he still at the top of the heap for all time home runs?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

I think nurture enhances genetics. What I am running into is breeders believing that it replaces genetics. You cannot expose to different sounds and the result is that the dog is no longer genetically sound sensitive. I handle and expose my puppies from the time the sack is off and cord cut. I have a series of things that I do with them on a weekly basis for as long as I have them. But these are initially tests similar to Pffafenberger and Fox. I'm looking for the ones that don't need the exposure to overcome a reaction. Those are my pick puppies and those I believe are the best for breeding. I think for maximum trainability and bonding to humans, critical periods handling/imprinting is a gotta have. But the pick puppies that I designate for work/sport have to demonstrate the genetics absent the conditioning.

T


----------



## Brian Anderson

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I think nurture enhances genetics. What I am running into is breeders believing that it replaces genetics. You cannot expose to different sounds and the result is that the dog is no longer genetically sound sensitive. I handle and expose my puppies from the time the sack is off and cord cut. I have a series of things that I do with them on a weekly basis for as long as I have them. But these are initially tests similar to Pffafenberger and Fox. I'm looking for the ones that don't need the exposure to overcome a reaction. Those are my pick puppies and those I believe are the best for breeding. I think for maximum trainability and bonding to humans, critical periods handling/imprinting is a gotta have. But the pick puppies that I designate for work/sport have to demonstrate the genetics absent the conditioning.
> 
> T


Terrasita you just explained why I have a knee jerk reaction (negative) when I see this being pushed by some breeders. Not so much I think its bunko as much for the reasons you describe.


----------



## Nicole Stark

This is more for Ariel than anyone else. I don't know if you have seen it before but I wanted to pass it along. I doubt it fits well into this discussion for some but an interesting perspective on the topic nonetheless.

It's a 4 part series.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GhbVFjIaN0


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Brian Anderson said:


> Terrasita you just explained why I have a knee jerk reaction (negative) when I see this being pushed by some breeders. Not so much I think its bunko as much for the reasons you describe.


I have always been a huge proponent of nurturing puppies and did not believe that it masked genetics. That's because regardless of the nurturing, I didn't see traits masked in MY puppies. I still ranked and placed them according to the genetics. Scroll forward to getting dogs in for training. On the surface, I would have said they were genetically sound. Take them to a strange indoor environment and I was blown away. I haven't put it altogether yet but with each, there is a component of cumulative stress. Too many exposures or even the stress of training, and it makes the environmental sensitivity worse. Maybe the dog can handle two days of trialing. But by the end of day three, his nerves are so on edge every weird sound spooks him. Questioned both breeders regarding how they were as puppies and both believed they had "proofed" their puppies. I about blew my top when one recently sent me an article by someone purporting to say that imprinting marker training contributed to the puppies temperament. She wanted to know what I thought since that's how I train and I responded that you don't train temperament, you breed it. With the one dog, she has a lot of prey drive and as long as she is in that drive, she deals. Out of drive, it was a disaster. I'm now working to overcome that. I think the breeders mean well but Carmen Battaglia and the idea of the military biosensor program has been misapplied in these cases.

T


----------



## mike suttle

Brian Anderson said:


> Mike what about your current stud line-up? The dogs that you imported .. how many of them were subjected to all the enviro stuff? Arco Roosen? Arko Kikkert (RIP) .. and the others? I would think it silly too, to believe it has no effect, but the thing is all the data thus far (to my knowledge) is inconclusive. In my estimation it will forever be inconclusive because we are talking about living beings that are all individuals. Like I said in a previous post .. "It danged sure cant hurt anything"... plus its fun watching the pups scramble over all the obstacles and stuff


Brian, 
None of the dogs that I buy for the business have been raised in a cave (so to speak) and not worked or shown many differen things as they were raised. 
Arko and Arco in your example were KNPV PH 1 dogs that had a lot of training, so we can't use them as an example. 
I am talking about dogs that see nothing, dogs that are not worked, trained, or exposed to anything. 
I am sure that If Arko or Arco (or any other dog for that matter) were raised in a kennel and never came out of that kennel one time in their lives, had no training, no exposure, no expierence with life of any kind, they would not have been what they were.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

But I think the question is whether in the KNPV culture, those dogs are exposed to anything beyond training and the training field. What I see environmentally is dogs unable to handle change of environment--particularly indoor and/or public with increased numbers of people, noises, etc. Trial conditions for a sport dog [generally outside] is a conditioning in and of itself. How do you know those dogs are genetically wired for the MWD or LE life? Is that part of the pre-purchase testing?


T


----------



## Matt Vandart

The exposure can be anything startling, it's learning that startling stuff doesn't = death.


----------



## mike suttle

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> But I think the question is whether in the KNPV culture, those dogs are exposed to anything beyond training and the training field. What I see environmentally is dogs unable to handle change of environment--particularly indoor and/or public with increased numbers of people, noises, etc. Trial conditions for a sport dog [generally outside] is a conditioning in and of itself. How do you know those dogs are genetically wired for the MWD or LE life? Is that part of the pre-purchase testing?
> 
> 
> T


Most of the dogs that are titled in Holland are raised in the house and travel with their handlers to many places outside of training. Arko also worked as a full time security dog for Bert and lived in his house with him.
Any dog from any bloodline, any sport, and any country will be better with exposure than he will be without.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Matt Vandart said:


> The exposure can be anything startling, it's learning that startling stuff doesn't = death.


 
I like the ones that don't startle in the first place. Learning is conditioning.


T


----------



## Brian Anderson

Matt Vandart said:


> The exposure can be anything startling, it's learning that startling stuff doesn't = death.


Matt I have two pups here (mals) that I have not seen startled at ANYTHING... why do they not feel that its potentially dangerous? How do we explain them... ?


----------



## Matt Vandart

They are stupid?
lol
Thats a joke by the way.
I have an English bull terrier, a staff and a Mal that are the same, in the 10 odd years of bumpy the EBT's life I can honestly swear I have never seen her startle at anything, including an aluminium ladder that landed right next to her, an accidental discharge of a shotgun right next to her and another bigger male EBT trying to rip her throat out, literally, the saline went in one end and came out the other.
Yes Bullies tend to be bulletproof but I must take into consideration this dog was whelped in a house with 7 kids, loads of dogs, cats, parrots and a good few pissheads coming and going in the kitchen with the pots and pans and washing machine and kids toys and tumble dryers and dogs fighting etc. Which gave her this solid nerve? Without a controlled experiment how will we ever know? 
The staffy grew up in a similar environment, she is also bulletproof.
As I said before genetics has a part to play but isn't the whole story or even half the story IMO, I could easily be wrong but hey ho it works for me.

Like Ian Dumbar says there is no such thing as a bad dog just bad socialization................bullshit, lolz, some dobes are nightmares, but someone that is gonna put any old dogs together and let em **** to make a buck isn't gonna follow any kind of sensible exposure program either.

Edit: I also like the ones that don't startle in the first place.


----------



## Brian Anderson

Matt Vandart said:


> They are stupid?
> lol
> Thats a joke by the way.
> I have an English bull terrier, a staff and a Mal that are the same, in the 10 odd years of bumpy the EBT's life I can honestly swear I have never seen her startle at anything, including an aluminium ladder that landed right next to her, an accidental discharge of a shotgun right next to her and another bigger male EBT trying to rip her throat out, literally, the saline went in one end and came out the other.
> Yes Bullies tend to be bulletproof but I must take into consideration this dog was whelped in a house with 7 kids, loads of dogs, cats, parrots and a good few pissheads coming and going in the kitchen with the pots and pans and washing machine and kids toys and tumble dryers and dogs fighting etc. Which gave her this solid nerve? Without a controlled experiment how will we ever know?
> The staffy grew up in a similar environment, she is also bulletproof.
> As I said before genetics has a part to play but isn't the whole story or even half the story IMO, I could easily be wrong but hey ho it works for me.
> 
> Like Ian Dumbar says there is no such thing as a bad dog just bad socialization................bullshit, lolz, some dobes are nightmares, but someone that is gonna put any old dogs together and let em **** to make a buck isn't gonna follow any kind of sensible exposure program either.
> 
> Edit: I also like the ones that don't startle in the first place.


the accidental shotgun discharge might not have bothered the dog but it is kinda making me nervous a bit LOL


----------



## Matt Vandart

Me too, so I left, lolz


----------



## Brian Anderson

Matt Vandart said:


> Me too, so I left, lolz


where is the damned like button in this place? LOL


----------



## Bob Scott

I've always been a big believer in exposing the pup to all you can. I've had very few that really seemed to need this based on a lot of first responses from them in new and strange situations but I simply enjoy doing it. 
I also believe that a good trainer can hide many problems with a genetically weak dog but in the end the dog's true temperament/character will show. The key word here is "hide". 
The genetically nervy/spooky dog that performs well under trained conditions is still a genetically nervy/spooky dog. Exposure can "hide" those traits but not eliminated them.


----------



## Mike Di Rago

I think what is most important is not that they don't ever get ''spooked'' but rather how they recover from the negative experiences. I like the dog (pup) that once it has gotten over the original stressor and has realized it won't die,gets on with what it has to do and that the next time it experiences the same thing,just ignores it.
Mike


----------



## Nicole Stark

I wish I could find the link to the video I watched last week. It was about how rats from nurturing, not necessarily genetic mothers that were well cared for fared well under stressful situaitons that they experienced later in life. In the video there was a cross over correlation to similar experiments done with mothers and babies. The test group was followed over an extended period of time and their conclusion seemed to link certain responses (rather lack thereof in terms of maternal care) to poor tolerance of stress and aggressive actions particularly in the rat babies and of course to some extent children. This was the focal point of the video. Evidently though, the first 3-7 days were the most critical for the rat babies in terms of *needing* to receive quality care from an attentive mother.

I tried to find the link this morning but wasn't able to locate it. If I find it I will post it. Understand of course that I am not looking to debate with anyone the validity of any such programs utilized by breeders. I found the video interesting and somewhat informative in other ways. This life stage aspect is a bit different from where Ariel was going with the thoughts she posted which is why I'd rather not see this discussion go in that direction.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Mike Di Rago said:


> I think what is most important is not that they don't ever get ''spooked'' but rather how they recover from the negative experiences. I like the dog (pup) that once it has gotten over the original stressor and has realized it won't die,gets on with what it has to do and that the next time it experiences the same thing,just ignores it.
> Mike



Indeed and it is often the most flighty animals that are the most curious- 
Cats and Cows


----------



## Dave Colborn

mike suttle said:


> Most of the dogs that are titled in Holland are raised in the house and travel with their handlers to many places outside of training. Arko also worked as a full time security dog for Bert and lived in his house with him.
> Any dog from any bloodline, any sport, and any country will be better with exposure than he will be without.


Conditioning is really training. No matter what, when the dog fell out of the womb, his genetics no longer get added to. 

How much negative would a dog miss being locked up for the first year. Would he be able to surpass a dog that has been out since 8 weeks in ability with training after a year. How do you know one way or the other.


----------



## Bob Scott

Dave Colborn said:


> Conditioning is really training. No matter what, when the dog fell out of the womb, his genetics no longer get added to.
> 
> How much negative would a dog miss being locked up for the first year. Would he be able to surpass a dog that has been out since 8 weeks in ability with training after a year. How do you know one way or the other.



Almost impossible to answer since each dog is different from the other. Closely bred pups from the same litter would be the closest way to see the results but even then they are two different dogs. Also the same trainer would have to use the exact same method with both dogs. That's not possible with a pup and many training methods.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Exactly this is what has happened with my dobes.


----------



## Brian Anderson

Dave Colborn said:


> Conditioning is really training. No matter what, when the dog fell out of the womb, his genetics no longer get added to.
> 
> How much negative would a dog miss being locked up for the first year. Would he be able to surpass a dog that has been out since 8 weeks in ability with training after a year. How do you know one way or the other.


This is why my contention in the beginning was that its impossible to ascertain how much "difference" ... to say that "its got to be better than nothing" (which is Mikes answer) doesn't answer that question.


----------



## brad robert

My take is - Genetics paramount then exposure as all the exposure in the world wont fix a shitter.

And exposure just makes a better rounded dog anyway.

Also my other experience lately dont let a brilliant and gifted pup run with dogs that are not as they can pick up quirky things especially in the first 9 mths


----------



## mike suttle

brad robert said:


> My take is - Genetics paramount then exposure as all the exposure in the world wont fix a shitter.
> 
> And exposure just makes a better rounded dog anyway.
> 
> Also my other experience lately dont let a brilliant and gifted pup run with dogs that are not as they can pick up quirky things especially in the first 9 mths


I agree. A dog with the proper genetics may not "need" any exposure to still be able to work, but all of the exposure that he does get will make him even better. Of course, that is assuming the exposure is done correctly.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Daryl Ehret said:


> She doesn't know where she stands, doesn't have answers. She hasn't even posed any questions. What's to talk about that can't be discussed here? Don't be so selfish!


I don't have answers to the title question in general ...I don't think anyone does. I do have opinions and observations but really want to hear what everyone else's opinions and observations are. I would be happy to share those here, but if someone wanted to call and discuss (which is sometimes easier because there's more fluidity), they are always welcome to. My number is 304-661-4770 and I always welcome intelligent training discussion.

Mike and I talked about this further the other night. To the parents out there (I'm not one, but I can still imagine how I would feel), if someone told you to never take your baby out of the house or engage him/her in enriching activities until he/she was mature and ready to work, what would your response be? In my opinion, the sheltered children I have known or seen do not tend to handle the world and its many stresses very well ...not nearly as well as those children who have had a great deal of experiences when they were young.

Humans and children aside, even if a pup is already showing confidence, wouldn't it stand to reason that early exposure, enrichment and conditioning would just make them better? If you can take a not so great pup and make it better that way, I would think early exposure and conditioning would have the effect on the already good pup.

Without even delving into nerves and confidence, I see changes in drive and technique just based upon how a dog is worked. A number of times recently, we've kept a puppy or two back from a litter and sold the rest. At 7-8 weeks, they were showing the desire to want to fill their mouths with the tug or rag and were already showing some possessiveness. The puppies we kept back still have the same technique and desire, but sometimes, it's clear the ones who come back have been learning bad habits like pulling back on the bite, shallow grips, lack of possessiveness. When we see what the owners are doing (using toys to lure the dog back to them so they can catch it and throw it in the crate, encouraging the dog to tug until it pulls the sleeve off their arm), it would appear that they have conditioned the dog to do the opposite of what genetics had programmed it to do. What is even more interesting is, with good work and training, the pup will begin pushing or showing possessiveness again.

Thinking about it further and reading what others have written, it seems like the good puppies at birth (or when they can be evaluated) have the best chance of growing up to be great puppies (if we can evaluate them objectively). However, bad training and conditioning have the potential to make a good puppy bad, just as good training and conditioning have the potential to make a bad puppy good. While the goal should never be to take a genetically weaker pup and make it look better, why would it not make sense to take the genetically strong pup and keep working to make it stronger? The doesn't answer the nature vs. nurture question and I don't know if it's a question that has a definitive answer. I just like hearing observations and experiences from other people. Often times on the forum, things like this are brought up and members post videos or info about studies that have been done on the topic and I really love to watch/read that stuff.

On that not ...there is some evidence that certain genetic traits can be altered based on diet and conditioning. I'll have to find the reference, but I went to the PennVet Working Dog Conference in either 2009 or 2010 and they discussed studies that had been done. If I remember correctly, the lecture was on epigenetics. At that time, it wasn't related to behavior, but physiological traits. In response to diet changes, they actually saw changes at the genetic level. Don't quote me on specifics, but I'll try to find more info. That just got my wheels turning, thinking, if it's possible physiologically, is it also possible behaviorally?


----------



## Brian Anderson

Although not directly related to your topic ... one of the things that has always been curious to me is how some puppies really show tons of promise when your evaluating them at an early age .. they even continue to look good as time goes along and then for no understandable reason begin to taper off and or change completely. Of course the easy answer is to say "well maturity does this or that" or "well the training was bad" ... but there are many dogs who didn't experience those negatives.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

Brian Anderson said:


> Although not directly related to your topic ... one of the things that has always been curious to me is how some puppies really show tons of promise when your evaluating them at an early age .. they even continue to look good as time goes along and then for no understandable reason begin to taper off and or change completely. Of course the easy answer is to say "well maturity does this or that" or "well the training was bad" ... but there are many dogs who didn't experience those negatives.


We have seen the same thing and have also seen the opposite ...wound up with a puppy that stayed here for one reason or another (not because it was one we specifically selected) that improves with maturity ...and too drastically to attribute it to training.

We have one here now that, as a puppy, didn't even care about a ball, let alone hunting for it, that just woke up about 10 months of age. He's hunting as well as and is as possessive as (if not more than) puppies that showed enthusiasm and drive from birth. He is a very large dog and it seems like he is just maturing more slowly than the others, so I certainly think everything points to maturity as being the prime factor with him.

We've also see many puppies go through a "slow" stage where they just seem to stop making progress or just seem a little out of it. This seems to happen about the time they begin showing signs of sexual maturity. So, maybe it's like the dog version of the awkward stages children go through. It's all speculation, I guess, but we are certainly seeing trends. I'm trying to take more video ...maybe I should take copious training notes to see what trends emerge over time.


----------



## kristin tresidder

i know i'm late to the conversation, but i finally have a day off work, and some coffee time in front of the computer 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> I know there are some breeders out there who don't do anything special with their pups in terms of exposure/neurological stimulation and others who try to introduce their pups to a variety of environments and stimuli as early as possible.


just to give some context, i've always fallen in the latter category. i have, however, gotten several dogs from breeders from the "do nothing" category. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> ...I believed the ratio of influence of nature vs. nuture was somewhere around 30%/70% respectively.


after more than a decade of being involved seriously with dogs, (wow, that makes me feel old!) my experience leads me to believe that the reverse ratio is probably more reliable: 70% nature to 30% nurture. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> My feeling about all of this is that the exposure and neurological/mental/physical stimulation we do with the pups certainly can't hurt. I believe there is a small percentage of dogs out there that are genetic freaks and, as long as they don't have overwhelmingly bad experiences, will naturally have outstanding drive and confidence. I also believe there is a small percentage of dogs out there that are so weak genetically that no amount of exposure can save them. And then, in between those two extremes are all the dogs that can be pushed to either side of the spectrum based upon life experiences, but, how close to the extremes they lie will determine how little or great an effect exposure can have on their temperament.


ultimately, i agree with you. exposure to different stimuli builds character and increases the depth of understanding & mental flexibility, no matter who or what you're talking about; that's been demonstrated repeatedly in scientific experiments with animals and humans. 
i believe that there is a bell curve to every litter - but it's genetics that determine how that curve is weighted - more to the good, or more to the bad. (and i'm no statistician, so i'm sure that's the wrong terminology) i.e. the peak of your curve is always going to be the "best" puppy, but is he awesome because they entire litter was good, or is the best puppy only mediocre, because the entire litter was weak? 
i think what you said above sums that up - most dogs will fall to either side of the peak - whether on the good side or the bad side, but they can be developed, or made worse through exposure/training - but they'll never be truly as inherently good as those top pups, or as inherently weak as those bottom pups. you're also going to have those pups at the top of the curve - that are just good - no matter what you do to them, they're still going to be good, and those at the bottom, that no matter what you do with them, they're just never going to be any good. 



Ariel Peldunas said:


> I realize training can mask a lot and trainability in itself is valuable. But I have also seen so many incidences when training is irrelevant and the dog's genetic blueprint is apparent. No amount of training can infuse heart or drive or intelligence in a dog. You can train a dog to bite, but you can't make him want to be there when he really feels threatened and it's no longer a game. You can train a dog to retrieve a copper pipe with enthusiasm, but you can't make him want it enough to play with it on his own or care enough about it to keep you from taking it. You can train a dog a variety of commands and exercises, but you can't give them the ability to problem solve.


i have seen several examples of this myself over the years, and across breeds, which have all helped to form my opinions. 

having raised, trained/worked different breeds (most specifically stafs & shepherds) i have witnessed several very pointed examples of genetics playing out in dogs that are raised in an identical environment, with virtually identical socialization. i got lo (a DS) from dick & selena at the same time i had a litter of staf pups. i took them to all the same places - most times together, exposed them to all the same things, and i can promise that they have very different reactions to certain stimuli as grown dogs. the dogs' genetic blueprints simply call for different behaviors. 
i see that between litter siblings as well - i got a first hand dose of different responses when trying to find a staf pup suitable for schutzhund. despite all the training (exposure, whatever) some dogs will LOVE it, and are in for all three phases of the sport no matter the pressure, and some won't play no matter what - or, like you said, some dogs would bite the sleeve until the first hint of pressure from the decoy, and then they're OUT! some will retrieve with a frenzy, and some are like, "get your own dumbbell back." these responses were all within dogs from the same litter, or from litters bred very closely to each other.


----------



## Brian Anderson

Ariel Peldunas said:


> We have seen the same thing and have also seen the opposite ...wound up with a puppy that stayed here for one reason or another (not because it was one we specifically selected) that improves with maturity ...and too drastically to attribute it to training.
> 
> We have one here now that, as a puppy, didn't even care about a ball, let alone hunting for it, that just woke up about 10 months of age. He's hunting as well as and is as possessive as (if not more than) puppies that showed enthusiasm and drive from birth. He is a very large dog and it seems like he is just maturing more slowly than the others, so I certainly think everything points to maturity as being the prime factor with him.
> 
> We've also see many puppies go through a "slow" stage where they just seem to stop making progress or just seem a little out of it. This seems to happen about the time they begin showing signs of sexual maturity. So, maybe it's like the dog version of the awkward stages children go through. It's all speculation, I guess, but we are certainly seeing trends. I'm trying to take more video ...maybe I should take copious training notes to see what trends emerge over time.


I would be interested to read your notes/video. It's one of those intangible things that most likely will never be able to be given a definitive answer. But there could be some keys to understanding buried in there somewhere too. I have had similiar experience's with both extremes as well. What it has done to me in seeing the ones that "wake up" . It's made me leary about making a decision on a dog to early. Which is time, and time is a waste, if the dog doesn't cut it (especially when your old like me).


----------



## Brian Anderson

Kristen I have here now 2 different brother/sister littermates DS's Mals (I am not a breeder so don't have the occasion often) some are mine some are here for training. I digress ..... seeing the difference in bellymate's temperament, drives, thresholds and all the rest is quite interesting. Both experiencing exact enviro's, training, diet. Breeders who constantly deal with lots of litters already realize it but it was something new for me to see several in a row... and really my first opportunity to actually stand back and really study it up close as I finally had a "benchmark". Some of it has changed the way I see some things for sure.


----------



## kerry engels

Ariel Peldunas said:


> (not because it was one we specifically selected)


 

How do y'all go about selecting your young pups? I would love to hear your thoughts on "puppy selection at 8 ish weeks. 

Thanks in advance,


----------



## Nicole Stark

Ariel, do you think your curiousity about this could on some level be better understood if you did some reading on identical twins? I've started a response to you on this very issue 3 times and deleted all of them. But this I will say, my nephews are identical twins. Due to some very unfortunate events in their lives from early on (father was killed in an avalanche and their mother abandoned them) I've seen first hand how different nurturing has impacted them. 

Understandably, on some level the human experience cannot be compared that closely to how a dog processes their experiences but I do find it interesting to see how different these twins are from one another (one twin is more dependent and fearful of new experineces and the other is more independent and very willing to experience new things).

On a different note, they are just 4, but when they are older I am going to see what tracking them is like. I've always been curious about thaat. ha ha.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Brian Anderson said:


> Kristen I have here now 2 different *brother/sister littermates DS's Mals* (I am not a breeder so don't have the occasion often) some are mine some are here for training. I digress ..... seeing the difference in bellymate's temperament, drives, thresholds and all the rest is quite interesting. Both experiencing exact enviro's, training, diet. Breeders who constantly deal with lots of litters already realize it but it was something new for me to see several in a row... and really my first opportunity to actually stand back and really study it up close as I finally had a "benchmark". Some of it has changed the way I see some things for sure.


Are they in frequent contact?


----------



## Brian Anderson

Matt Vandart said:


> Are they in frequent contact?


yes I kept them in kennels beside each other for the sake of watching them.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Have you had any concerns regarding littermate syndrome?


----------



## Brian Anderson

Matt Vandart said:


> Have you had any concerns regarding littermate syndrome?


Matt I have not been concerned with it. The reason being the pups are not in a situation where one is reliant on the other .. they are seperate from one another each in their own kennel. There is a solid disagreement between them that is enough to prevent worrying about littermate syndrome lol. Littermate syndrome is another one of those things that is sketchy for me and I'm not sure Im convinced.


----------



## Brian Anderson

Brian Anderson said:


> Matt I have not been concerned with it. The reason being the pups are not in a situation where one is reliant on the other .. they are seperate from one another each in their own kennel. There is a solid disagreement between them that is enough to prevent worrying about littermate syndrome lol. Littermate syndrome is another one of those things that is sketchy for me and I'm not sure Im convinced.


Im always open to schooling though!


----------



## Matt Vandart

Well I was sorta probing you for information actually lolz.
I am not a believer or whatever the opposite is, it escapes me now.
However I have seen stuff in my littermate dobes that make me go hmm.

One is bolder than the other for sure.
One is rock solid stable temperament.
The other will not let other people touch her so appears skittish.

Now my thoughts here relate to how she became this way.

When she was a pup three traumatic events happened in close succession. 
A scumbag attempted to steal her while out on a walk with the missus.
A extended family member grabbed her roughly in a tantrum because she was not interested in him (asshat)
The vet backed her off a table whilst checking her teeth or eyes I don't recall.

Now I know for a fact if any or all of these events had happened to my bull terriers they would not have been terminally effected by the problem, so this is partly genetic, but I do wonder if the littermate syndrome has exacerbated the problem.

In all other situations this dog is bold as brass, she has bitten civilly and it was not out of fear as she had three open means of escape, one of which was the door she came through to confront the 'issue' .

Now I am not trying to sound gungho about this dog, I was as surprised as the dude she bit, but she actively sought out his aggressive behaviour and did something about it, without training I might add for clarity.
If it had been the other dog I would have said ok fair enough I saw that one coming.

It is very strange indeed. I'm not sure what my point is really, maybe it is showing how a perfectly good dog can get ruined rather quickly. This dog flew through my tests when I tested the litter, way better than the other.

a statement within this thread made me think though. When this dog is up in drive she has no issues at all. It's just everyday stuff, socially shall we say.


----------



## Brian Anderson

Matt Vandart said:


> Well I was sorta probing you for information actually lolz.
> I am not a believer or whatever the opposite is, it escapes me now.
> However I have seen stuff in my littermate dobes that make me go hmm.
> 
> One is bolder than the other for sure.
> One is rock solid stable temperament.
> The other will not let other people touch her so appears skittish.
> 
> Now my thoughts here relate to how she became this way.
> 
> When she was a pup three traumatic events happened in close succession.
> A scumbag attempted to steal her while out on a walk with the missus.
> A extended family member grabbed her roughly in a tantrum because she was not interested in him (asshat)
> The vet backed her off a table whilst checking her teeth or eyes I don't recall.
> 
> Now I know for a fact if any or all of these events had happened to my bull terriers they would not have been terminally effected by the problem, so this is partly genetic, but I do wonder if the littermate syndrome has exacerbated the problem.
> 
> In all other situations this dog is bold as brass, she has bitten civilly and it was not out of fear as she had three open means of escape, one of which was the door she came through to confront the 'issue' .
> 
> Now I am not trying to sound gungho about this dog, I was as surprised as the dude she bit, but she actively sought out his aggressive behaviour and did something about it, without training I might add for clarity.
> If it had been the other dog I would have said ok fair enough I saw that one coming.
> 
> It is very strange indeed. I'm not sure what my point is really, maybe it is showing how a perfectly good dog can get ruined rather quickly. This dog flew through my tests when I tested the litter, way better than the other.
> 
> a statement within this thread made me think though. When this dog is up in drive she has no issues at all. It's just everyday stuff, socially shall we say.


Matt I wish I knew the answer ... anything I say is pure guess on my part. I would say though that those experiences you describe are not super traumatic (again I wasnt there Im guessing). Most dogs that have pretty decent nerve can stand those kinds of things (maybe the littermate wouldnt have been bothered by them?). Honestly I think I have become pretty jaded about what I see when they are puppies but I really want to see them tough it out through that kinda stuff. If there are issues like you describe I start really wondering...maybe someone else can point to something ..


----------



## Matt Vandart

I'm not worried because I wont be taking her any further.
I get what you are saying as like I said my bullies would have laughed it off. Her sister probably would as well.
I think temperaments must be good, in terms of drives and characteristics you are looking for, maybe call it 'personality' as a whole in a pup, but robustness of this personality is equally important.

Supposedly having the support of the sister acts as a crutch for the personality and when it is removed, well what happens when you kick the crutch from under someone.

I do wonder what decides who will be the bold one and who will be the nervy one.
If you had seen the pups still in the litter you would have put the money on the one that won't let anyone touch her now.


----------



## Brian Anderson

Matt Vandart said:


> I'm not worried because I wont be taking her any further.
> I get what you are saying as like I said my bullies would have laughed it off. Her sister probably would as well.
> I think temperaments must be good, in terms of drives and characteristics you are looking for, maybe call it 'personality' as a whole in a pup, but robustness of this personality is equally important.
> 
> Supposedly having the support of the sister acts as a crutch for the personality and when it is removed, well what happens when you kick the crutch from under someone.
> 
> I do wonder what decides who will be the bold one and who will be the nervy one.
> If you had seen the pups still in the litter you would have put the money on the one that won't let anyone touch her now.


I am familiar with what syndrome but like I said I cant say that I have ever actually seen it myself. But the nerve part ... like I said thats the billion dollar question. I was talking to a geneticist regarding dog breeding and he alluded to some things that really have me thinking. Especially regarding selective breeding and using outward traits to choose breeding animals.. some of that is over my head I think but still interesting.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Ariel Peldunas said:


> I don't have answers to the title question in general ...I don't think anyone does. I do have opinions and observations but really want to hear what everyone else's opinions and observations are. I would be happy to share those here, but if someone wanted to call and discuss (which is sometimes easier because there's more fluidity), they are always welcome to. My number is 304-661-4770 and I always welcome intelligent training discussion.
> 
> Mike and I talked about this further the other night. To the parents out there (I'm not one, but I can still imagine how I would feel), if someone told you to never take your baby out of the house or engage him/her in enriching activities until he/she was mature and ready to work, what would your response be? In my opinion, the sheltered children I have known or seen do not tend to handle the world and its many stresses very well ...not nearly as well as those children who have had a great deal of experiences when they were young.
> 
> Humans and children aside, even if a pup is already showing confidence, wouldn't it stand to reason that early exposure, enrichment and conditioning would just make them better? If you can take a not so great pup and make it better that way, I would think early exposure and conditioning would have the effect on the already good pup.
> 
> Without even delving into nerves and confidence, I see changes in drive and technique just based upon how a dog is worked. A number of times recently, we've kept a puppy or two back from a litter and sold the rest. At 7-8 weeks, they were showing the desire to want to fill their mouths with the tug or rag and were already showing some possessiveness. The puppies we kept back still have the same technique and desire, but sometimes, it's clear the ones who come back have been learning bad habits like pulling back on the bite, shallow grips, lack of possessiveness. When we see what the owners are doing (using toys to lure the dog back to them so they can catch it and throw it in the crate, encouraging the dog to tug until it pulls the sleeve off their arm), it would appear that they have conditioned the dog to do the opposite of what genetics had programmed it to do. What is even more interesting is, with good work and training, the pup will begin pushing or showing possessiveness again.
> 
> Thinking about it further and reading what others have written, it seems like the good puppies at birth (or when they can be evaluated) have the best chance of growing up to be great puppies (if we can evaluate them objectively). However, bad training and conditioning have the potential to make a good puppy bad, just as good training and conditioning have the potential to make a bad puppy good. While the goal should never be to take a genetically weaker pup and make it look better, why would it not make sense to take the genetically strong pup and keep working to make it stronger? The doesn't answer the nature vs. nurture question and I don't know if it's a question that has a definitive answer. I just like hearing observations and experiences from other people. Often times on the forum, things like this are brought up and members post videos or info about studies that have been done on the topic and I really love to watch/read that stuff.
> 
> On that not ...there is some evidence that certain genetic traits can be altered based on diet and conditioning. I'll have to find the reference, but I went to the PennVet Working Dog Conference in either 2009 or 2010 and they discussed studies that had been done. If I remember correctly, the lecture was on epigenetics. At that time, it wasn't related to behavior, but physiological traits. In response to diet changes, they actually saw changes at the genetic level. Don't quote me on specifics, but I'll try to find more info. That just got my wheels turning, thinking, if it's possible physiologically, is it also possible behaviorally?


I think you have to select for genetics and condition/train for the best performance and hander/dog relationship. I really like the Pffafenberger guide dog approach. I like the pup that shows it all at 7 weeks. I'm working with a litter now and a couple didn't start to show genetics until 6 months. They are not genetic equals however, and the environment is different. But you had two who showed little to no interest and then at 7 months--OCD interest. Puppies phase. This is why I select on genetics at 7 weeks and don't wig out when I see them going through off phases. Even though intellectually I know they can turn on at a later age, those aren't the ones I pick--for me. My pick puppy from a litter 12 years ago went through all sorts of crappy training. I was always able to work him and bring him back--genetics. My father always said that if it was there to begin with, you should be able to get it back. 

As for the study and diet changes, I would depend on it maybe from an organic standpoint but not so much behaviorally/training. You would have to have 100% control and duplication of the variables I think and the organic can always rear its ugly head. Lab science has its relevancy to a point with dogs--or so I believe.

I think as breeders you have to experiment and see what you think. I have two 18-month-olds now--one of which I consider the stronger of the two. They are not littermates and a bitch and a dog. Through environment and work, will the bitch show the strengths of the dog at maturity? I don't know. I am not an advocate for not enriching puppies. I just think that breeders can BS you if you don't know what you are looking at. With the two litters that I'm monitoring, I thought the first was so "enriched," my usual testing was going to be invalid. Not so. The breeders were surprised at their reactions when the so called tests were administered by me. They reverted to their genetic default. When I've had litters, I'm definitely one of the ones that enrich. But placement is based on genetics. That can be the difference.

T


----------



## Nicole Stark

I'm somewhat interested in knowing if anyone has paid any attention to the aspect I mentioned above relating to the maternal care given by lab rats to their newborn. I mean more specifically, has anyone found any sort of correlation between various reactivity/temperment aspects and care that the pups may have received in the inital 2-3 wks; leaving ENS out of this discusson of course.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Nicole Stark said:


> I'm somewhat interested in knowing if anyone has paid any attention to the aspect I mentioned above relating to the maternal care given by lab rats to their newborn. I mean more specifically, has anyone found any sort of correlation between various reactivity/temperment aspects and care that the pups may have received in the inital 2-3 wks; leaving ENS out of this discusson of course.


 
You'd have to have a dam, not caring for her pups somehow??? The only correlation I've seen is when the mother is taken away too early. I've known some breeders who use a substandard female and then take pups away at 4 weeks. The result was and entire litter of separatiion anxiety puppies. Nicholas Dodman noted in his book on separation anxiety that one cause is the mother taken away too early.

T


----------



## Nicole Stark

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> You'd have to have a dam, not caring for her pups somehow???
> 
> T


Not necessarily so. The rat example referenced attentiveness and cleaning - good house keeping for example.


----------



## Brian Anderson

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> You'd have to have a dam, not caring for her pups somehow??? The only correlation I've seen is when the mother is taken away too early. I've known some breeders who use a substandard female and then take pups away at 4 weeks. The result was and entire litter of separatiion anxiety puppies. Nicholas Dodman noted in his book on separation anxiety that one cause is the mother taken away too early.
> 
> T


Very strange some of the things folks do. I have heard that too and wonder WTF?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Nicole Stark said:


> Not necessarily so. The rat example referenced attentiveness and cleaning - good house keeping for example.


The cleaning also stimulates the digestive system. If you don't do that the pups won't thrive and will die. The early work on critical periods states that they don't think there is much going on for the first 21 days but that involved looking at human interaction. If you're not looking at ENS and/or human interaction of some sort and the mother is feeding and caring for them, I'm not sure what you are after.

T


----------



## Nicole Stark

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> The cleaning also stimulates the digestive system. If you don't do that the pups won't thrive and will die. The early work on critical periods states that they don't think there is much going on for the first 21 days but that involved looking at human interaction. If you're not looking at ENS and/or human interaction of some sort and the mother is feeding and caring for them, I'm not sure what you are after.
> 
> T


 
I can see we're having a disconnect here and unfortunately I don't have time to elaborate upon it in a way that you can understand in some sort of meaningful way. Of course, cleaning plays that role in digestion that was not however the point of it being mentioned. It was the level of and quality of care given by the mothers, that according to the study made a difference. If I can find the video I will post it but I need to bow out of this discussion for now and get back to work.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Gotta hit the feed store before it closes and haven't had a chance to look at this. However, it looks like what Nicole is referring to and interesting otherwise. I'll read it when I get back.

http://champagnelab.psych.columbia.edu/docs/champ10.pdf


T


----------



## Nicole Stark

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Gotta hit the feed store before it closes and haven't had a chance to look at this. However, it looks like what Nicole is referring to and interesting otherwise. I'll read it when I get back.
> 
> http://champagnelab.psych.columbia.edu/docs/champ10.pdf
> 
> 
> T


 
T at a cursory glance that appears to be the article/study that the program was based upon. I'll take a closer look at it when I get home. I appreciate you taking the time to look for something that resembled what I was trying to hastily communicate here. As I mentioned earlier, if for nothing else I found the coverage and subject matter interesting particularly due the timing of Ariel's post. 

Many of these things I wondered about myself from time to time. I've been interested in raising up pups for people for a quite a while but have often questioned if my lack of experience and remote location (not having enough access to certain resources for example) would inhibit or entirely eliminate the possibility of ever being able to do that in an effective manner.


----------



## Matt Vandart

I can relate some information on the subject but it is second hand as it were. I have a friend that is a very good bull terrier breeder. She breeds solid temperament bully's which have basically no issues at all.
She separates the dam from the pups very early as the mother can kill them in an instant whilst performing a 'bully whirl' they are separated in the same whelping box so the mother is present but the other side of a divider, except for milk time of course. This means the breeder has to be present pretty much at all times and becomes a proxy mother in terms of cleaning etc.
As EBT's are naturally such little bastards she also has to be there to spilt up fights so they dont tear each others ears off etc.
Like I said her pups are very very stable and usually not dog aggresive, a real problem in EBT's. So what is going on here then?
I don't know but it seems to work.

Edit: I would guess with so much human handling an explanation for why her dogs are never people aggressive but EBT's don't tend to be anyway.


----------



## Howard Gaines III

How do you TEST what you haven't trained or conditioned first? Both must balance the animal and then age goes from threre...


----------



## Ariel Peldunas

I was trying to find a link to lecture I heard, but that section of the Penn Vet Working Dog Center is down. I found a brief mention of the lecture and a link from Time magazine about human epigenetics.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1952313,00.html

There is lots more info out there if you Google epigenetics or canine epigenetics. The lecture was given at the 2010 Penn Vet Working Dog Conference and had to do with epigenetic modifications of genetic traits in working dogs. I'm thinking of compiling a list of websites and links and starting a new thread on the topic. It's pretty interesting stuff. In a nutshell, the epigenome tells the genes to switch on or off. Environmental factors (diet, stress, prenatal nutrition) activate the epigenomes and affect what and how genes are expressed. These changes don't alter genetic code but are still passed down at least one generation.

Here's a link to a presentation on the same topic given at the 2011 conference (I think). Towards the end of the slide show, there are a couple pages that site references for further research.

http://pennvetwdc.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/1-Thomas.pdf

That's all for now. Off to train some dogs. Hopefully someone will find this stuff worth reading.


----------



## Joby Becker

It is no secret that I raised this current dog in a fashion of very little training, drive building, or socialization as a pup.

A little tug work as small pup, not much after teething. Certainly no type of suspicion or bite work, or defense work, anything like that.

Took dog out at about 9 months, put on tie-out, had guy try to give some easy prey bites on the sleeve. Dog bit very weakly and did not have much drive showing, which was not at all surprising, given how the dog was raised.

I then put dog in kennel, and had a friend pick up a shovel and raise it up, and give the dog a little eye contact and posture, from about 10 feet away to see how dog would react to a challenge/threat to her. The dog literally exploded, and almost made it over the fence to go after him. The reaction was very strong and very forward.

Took dog out, put back on tie-out. Had first guy then attempt the exact same thing he had done earler, some basic easy prey stimulation and a presentation of a sleeve bite..

Dog was at end of the line going bonkers, in high state of aggression. Took bite very full and hard, and started shaking it..Guy raised stick arm, and dog immediately released the sleeve and grabbed his bare arm. 

It was basically a one time event, no conditioning or training remotely similar to that, at least in my mind.. and one that opened the dog up in a huge way to doing bitework, not in an ideal progressive balanced way obviously, took a lot of work to calm dog back down and get her safe to train with.

I have been hesitant to talk about the dog in this thread, but it is obvious in several ways that the way the dog was raised did limit the dog in regards to developing into her full potential in regards to various things.

I did almost no drive building or exposure to various objects, and did not socialize the dog as a pup or get her out and about in the world. 

First time out in public, the dog wanted to eat everything and everyone. It was an openly forward aggressive action/reaction, whatever. That first day I corrected her with a pinch, which she was not really conditioned to in any meaningful way, and the dog came after me. We had it out, a little back and forth, and since that first day out in public, I have had very little problems with the dog in regards to how she acts out in public with other people, and very few problems in regards to her showing aggression towards me, aside from the times I have done goofy things with her and allowed it.

I cannot take back the things I have done with the dog, and really dont feel bad about it, I had my reasons for how I did it. It was an exploration of the traits the dog came with, as they came, with as little building/masking/helping as a pup. I had no plans to raise dog for resale, dog was purchased as a potential breeding dog. I had no real aspirations to compete, I had owned a few malinois and GSD before acquiring this dog, but was predominantly an offbreed guy. 

This dog may not be unique in any way if compared to dogs of similar type breedings, but I can say that the NATURE part of the dog is surely different than other dogs I have owned in the past.

The dog has never showed any hesitation to confront a challenge head on.

And has shown what I believe to be incredible desire to fight and re-engage a decoy after going through some really strong adversity. I have never really thoroughly TESTED the dog, but have seen enough to satisfy me personally in that regard while using a controversial method to work on outing the dog. In a quick and dirty way, after other methods had failed. The dog amazed the people present, and had done some things that no one expected her to do, and showed zero hesitation to re-engage whatsoever, for multiple reps using very harsh method. One, that after a few tries, literally blasted the dog off of the bite, following a command to release. That was done in one session only, and although did have a impact on the compliance to the out, when used without the out command as a baseline variable, the dog continued to fight through it, and never hesitated once to dive back into the situation head first, even though she knew what was possibly going to happen.

It is said that you cannot train heart, or courage. Although I think you can definitely build on it, if it is there, it is there, but obviously still to degrees of variation. The desire to engage in confrontation is something that can be built to a certain degree, but is also an inborn trait.



Howard Gaines III said:


> How do you TEST what you haven't trained or conditioned first? Both must balance the animal and then age goes from threre...


You can test certain things in a dog without prior training or conditioning. When I used to train a lot more, mostly PP stuff. It was a pretty routine thing to test a mature untrained dog's response to an overt threat to the dog, How you got the dog to perceive a threat varied, and how the dogs reacted was also varied obviously, but it still can be tested. That is not testing the heart or courage under real adversity of major pressure, but certainly can show you something, as a starting point.


With adult dogs being considered for PP training,of course we take the dog to a field and test the prey drive, and various other things, but more importantly for me, was how a dog reacted to a threat. That afterall is more important than whether the dog has good prey drive, or a good bite, to me at least. I know dogs can do things that surprise us based on pack instincts and loyalty, but I am a firm believer that if a dog will not stand up for itself, or protect itself, I would never count on it to protect anything else.

Obviously the training for protection varies a lot in methods, depending on the dogs...just because a dog does not have a full balanced complete package for top level work, does not mean it cannot defend threats to itself, its family, or property.

I am still quite baffled when I see a person evaluating an adult dog being considered for real protection, without ever seeing how the dog responds to a threat, or "challenge" to the dog, pressuring it, however the dog perceives it..that to me is the starting point with an adult dog, how I can honestly tell a person that the dog is one that might be suitable, if I dont look at that?


----------



## Meg O'Donovan

Ariel, that Time magazine link was interesting. I had previously read similar ideas, but related to psychological predispositions being passed down genetically. There is a book, "Stalking the Irish Madness" by Patrick Tracey, which looks at schizophrenia in the Celtic (Irish, Scots) peoples, including descendents who moved to places like America (different environments). 

One argument given for the genetic predisposition traces back to the Irish famine years when pregnant mothers were starving, and a line of "genetically predisposed" came out of southwest Ireland, where conditions were especially bad (people ate grass and seaweed if they were lucky). 

Another argument was that due to the socio-economic system (very small parcels of land), men married late (often in their fifties, and had offspring as older men) and their "seed" was not as healthy as that of younger men. Alcohol use by fathers (contributing to less optimum seed) is listed as another factor. 
I have oversimplified a whole book in a couple of sentences, and how this relates to dog genetics is vague but potentially interesting (in terms of temperament).

This is a fascinating thread to follow. Thank you for raising a good question.


----------



## Bob Scott

Meg said;
"Ariel, that Time magazine link was interesting. I had previously read similar ideas, but related to psychological predispositions being passed down genetically. There is a book, "Stalking the Irish Madness" by Patrick Tracey, which looks at schizophrenia in the Celtic (Irish, Scots) peoples, including descendents who moved to places like America (different environments). "

8-[ Whatcha mean by Irish madness and schizophrenia?! 8-[ 
Shuddup! She was talking about you, not me!

No she wasn't! She was talking TO you!

Wasn't! 

WAS!

Just shut up, eat yer tater and quit worrying about the fungus on it! Pour a little whiskey on it and it'll go away! 8-[8-[ :wink:


----------



## Meg O'Donovan

Ah, Bob, let's celebrate the survival of our crazy Irish ancestors with advice from the wise ones:

"Nior bhris focal maith fiacal riamh."

_(Translation: "A good word never broke anyone's teeth.")_


----------



## Bob Scott

Meg O'Donovan said:


> Ah, Bob, let's celebrate the survival of our crazy Irish ancestors with advice from the wise ones:
> 
> "Nior bhris focal maith fiacal riamh."
> 
> _(Translation: "A good word never broke anyone's teeth.")_




:lol: :lol: 
My fav is 
"An Irishman is never so drunk that he can't grab a fist full of grass to keep from falling off the face of the earth".
Brings a tear to my eyes reading that and thinking about my dear old grand dad. 
I felt the wrath of his cane on my backside often. 
:-({|= Pass me a pint! It's almost time to get out the "Quiet Man" dvd. It's a St. Patty's day tradition in my family. The kitchen scene in the brother's house brings back some lovely memories of me dear old pater at the head of the table! 
Victor McLaglen, the brother, could even pass for my Uncle Mike's twin....if we would have been cursed by such an event. :-o :lol: :twisted:


----------

