# Working Puppy Failure



## Howard Gaines III

The number one reason working lines puppies fail in most venues is ______________________.
A. the owner
B. the trainer
C. poor genetics
D. a lack of environmental conditioning

As we see more new working dog folks coming on this board, I am sure some what a heads up on how to have the BEST animal they possible can. There can't be just one reason, but I'm also sure you can narrow the many areas into one or two. Your thoughts.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

C,
B,A

Breeding is the number one issue. Then there is life. Sometimes the best intentions go out the window.


----------



## Mo Earle

_The number one reason working lines puppies fail in most venues is ______________________.
A. the owner
B. the trainer
C. poor genetics
D. a lack of environmental conditioning_

E. All of the above- but if you don't have the genetics, don't bother- if the owner isn't going to get out and train with the dog-forget it- even the best trainer will only be able to bring the greatest dog so far-if the owner doesn't do his part, environmental issues, maybe....? but a dog with good genetics will either recover quickly or not have it an issue at all with the surrounding environment ....
just my thoughts.


----------



## Kristina Senter

Im with Mo.
Poor genetics would be my #1, owner/trainer failure are tied, depending on the situation.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Howard Gaines III said:


> The number one reason working lines puppies fail in most venues is ______________________.
> A. the owner
> B. the trainer
> C. poor genetics
> D. a lack of environmental conditioning
> 
> As we see more new working dog folks coming on this board, I am sure some what a heads up on how to have the BEST animal they possible can. There can't be just one reason, but I'm also sure you can narrow the many areas into one or two. Your thoughts.



None of the above. The biggest reason is the Internet and the plethora of know it all blowhards who give advise to noobs who don't know any better :-(


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Michelle is GREAT Thomas, JUST GREAT and AWESOME !!!!

Michelle and Matt are AWESOME DOG TRAINERS !!!! THat is SO COOL !!!!

Lets get some pics, EVERY ONE LOVES PICTURES !!!!!!!!


----------



## Rick Cadez Jr.

I agree with the order of C, B, A. Without the genes it wont matter whos training the dog.


----------



## Howard Gaines III

I lean towards the genetic area. When you get calls and e-mails from folks who KNOW their dog will be a protection or tracking prospect, because "Fluffy" barks at the UPS guy from the front door or can find the nephew in the next room, it kills me. How many of these same tough dogs could do Ring sport or find a "lost" person on a 1,000 yard track?


----------



## Cate Helfgott

I dunno...I tend to think equal parts environment and genetics. I think a truly poor environment can damage or ruin a dog that is genetically sound...or having a dog with poorer genetics can be improved upon when exposed to a good environment. Combining the better of both produces the best dogs.

I also think it's near impossible to tell what's what. A dog that is perhaps a little weaker but that is exposed to everything and comes out ok is going to look pretty good...and the only folks that are going to know any different are those that raised and trained the dog.

-Cate

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Cate Helfgott said:


> .... A dog that is perhaps a little weaker but that is exposed to everything and comes out ok is going to look pretty good...and the only folks that are going to know any different are those that raised and trained the dog.
> 
> -Cate
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


 Know you've got me thinking because a poor dog can only be but so good, even with lots of enviromentals. But a dog a good or better genetics and with fewer enviros, could it be far above the other? :-k


----------



## Michael Swetz

Howard Gaines III said:


> I lean towards the genetic area. When you get calls and e-mails from folks who KNOW their dog will be a protection or tracking prospect, because "Fluffy" barks at the UPS guy from the front door or can find the nephew in the next room, it kills me. How many of these same tough dogs could do Ring sport or find a "lost" person on a 1,000 yard track?


I've been having this head against the wall debate with people on another forum for the past couple weeks. A few have even found out first hand that their dog won't protect them, but still can't admit they're wrong.


----------



## Cate Helfgott

Howard Gaines III said:


> Know you've got me thinking because a poor dog can only be but so good, even with lots of enviromentals. But a dog a good or better genetics and with fewer enviros, could it be far above the other? :-k


I tend to think that in general a dog with good genetics is far more enviable then one with a good background...however I think there are siuations where a dog with good genetics may be represented poorly due to a bad environment.

I guess my main point is this : given two dogs :

Dog 1 : poor genetics but raised by and fabulous and knowledgable owner and trainer,
Dog 2 : excellent genetics but raised in a poor environment and handled and trained in a crappy manner

And both these dogs compete and perform in a comprable manner...how do you know which is which? Maybe they both preform well...but how much is that performance due to the dogs background and how much due to genetics...it's got to be impossible to tell.

And that is why I tend to think it's equal parts enviro (Which I generally feel covers owners and trainers to an extent) and genetics.

-Cate

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## will fernandez

You can hide it but if you look closely there are always tells.


----------



## Howard Gaines III

will fernandez said:


> You can hide it but if you look closely there are always tells.


Ahhhhhh! Well said Master Will!!!
Look at the large number of sport dogs that get titled through a "breed sport" but couldn't bite a flea. They have been coached and trained to work in prey and to do the elements which lead to prey success. Now take the same dog and put it in a tough defensive mode..will those genetics come forth and serve the owner? I don't know.

Take a fear biter and of poor genetics doing bite work or sport training. Can it operate under the some level of comfort? When working with a working lines puppy, is it reasonable to think that given a "12 ounce bottle...it can't hold 20 ounces of liquid?" 

Puppy failure is a complex area and a good reason why many who want something the WILL work, these folks get older, started dogs. Puppies are too much of a gamble and they are also in my book well worth trying.


----------



## Adi Ibrahimbegovic

C wins over others, but others play a role too. If the dog doesn't have "it", trainer can help (some), owner can hep (some) - if they are knowledgeable and put the time in etc...but C is bound to show up sooner or later then B and A go out the window again. 

So, if we can add E - all of the above that'd be the answer, in my opinion, but C has to be solid and sound for the rest to fall in place.


----------



## will fernandez

Howard Gaines III said:


> Ahhhhhh! Well said Master Will!!!
> .


Far from a master Howard. But have turned my share of Sow's ears into Silk Purse's only to watch them fall apart when the pressure came.

Failure is a wonderful teacher.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: Look at the large number of sport dogs that get titled through a "breed sport" but couldn't bite a flea. They have been coached and trained to work in prey and to do the elements which lead to prey success. Now take the same dog and put it in a tough defensive mode..will those genetics come forth and serve the owner?

Look at the large number of PP dogs that are sold every year that couldn't bite a flea. I can't even count how many times some poor guy or girl has shown up with their "PP" dog and the dog wouldn't bite a tug on a line.

It is cute that you attack the sport field, but breeders are to blame not the few sport homes out there. Most of us "sport" people don't want our dogs to be PP dogs as well. 

Whats the matter Howard, expecting this litter to be a huge failure and need some ideas of how to blame someone else besides you ??


----------



## Lynda Myers

C
B- A good trainer/helper is very important especially with a newbie handler.

Don't know if this was already mentioned as I didn't read all of the posts. Tthe selection process of a pup/dog can be at fault as well. Because the evaluation will only be as good as the one determing the results. If the evaluator is lacking in this area you could very well get a crappy puppy out of an otherwise nice litter.jhmt


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

I don't know, you need the right genetics and the right selection and placement. My dad always said a truly sound dog you can bring back. As for who contributes to a dog that fails for sport? One of the things I worry about is moving too fast, too soon and lack of tolerance for the dogs that mentally mature slower. Other than that, both the owner and the trainer are key to developing the dog. It can fall apart as far as developing and finishing the dog but I don't call that working puppy failure but failed training. Its a long haul and huge time commitment. Breeder/Selection I think was mentioned by Lynda and I agree wholeheartedly. The breeder has to know his dogs and get them in the right home for the right venue. The breeder also needs to be there for advice regarding the puppy's development. Its the little things like what the line typically produces in terms of how the traits develop and at what age. It really shouldn't be a crap shoot and you have to work with a breeder that has worked dogs in your venue and has seen them develop in their training and what took place. I breed working puppies from working pedigrees yet haven't witnessed the training of any of the dogs in the particular venues won't get you much. One of the breeders I spoke with hit the magic button with me in terms of "knowing the mother LINE" and having trained several dogs the line produced. Also really get to know the type of person you are placing the dog with and what kind of dog that person best relates to. I like an analytical problem solver. Some people don't. Some people can't take a healthy dose of dominance. I won't put up with handler aggression or bite the hand that feeds you under any circumstance. You need to know all of this in terms of placement and what that puppy is likely to turn out to be.

Terrasita


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: I breed working puppies from working pedigrees yet haven't witnessed the training of any of the dogs in the particular venues won't get you much.

What ?? You must have Howard typed. I have no idea what you are saying here.


----------



## Randy Allen

The number one reason working lines puppies fail in most venues is ______________________.

The venue is a man made construct. We make those values, we judge those values.....failure means we've failed in training.

Genetics. 
The dog is what it is. 
It takes an extraordinary effort to ruin a good dog. They'll always excel even under the worst of handlers. Perhaps not to their real potential, but they'll never be failures.

Less than good?.......Then it's all in the training.


----------



## Rigel Lancero

If I will only choose one then it's genetics.

Poor bred dogs will only look good with decoys that ''assist'' the dogs.


----------



## James Downey

Howard Gaines III said:


> The number one reason working lines puppies fail in most venues is ______________________.
> A. the owner
> B. the trainer
> C. poor genetics
> D. a lack of environmental conditioning
> 
> As we see more new working dog folks coming on this board, I am sure some what a heads up on how to have the BEST animal they possible can. There can't be just one reason, but I'm also sure you can narrow the many areas into one or two. Your thoughts.


Also what is Fail? Failing to title? Failing to stand pressure from the man? Failing to have drive?....What would be the mark where the dog is a success.

I have seen dogs that are not failures, but handlers whom have failed to train them. But I would still consider the dog a success. 

I think the pups I see selected for work, and fail to meet the owners goals...It's generally poor training. I really see few puppies that are from goodworking lines, that are complete shitters and cannot achieve something.


----------



## will fernandez

Failure as to how it was written in my response...Is when you try to make a dog that is genetically incapable of perfoming at a decent standard into a good dog regardless of venue. It is the impossible but a great learning experience.


----------



## James Downey

will fernandez said:


> Failure as to how it was written in my response...Is when you try to make a dog that is genetically incapable of perfoming at a decent standard into a good dog regardless of venue. It is the impossible but a great learning experience.


Will, if we use that definition...then the question is pointless....Failure being defined as a lack of good genes....then the only answer can be genetics. 

Which I do not think is totally true. Puppies can be fragile enough in maturity to ruin. Would a strong, super handler aggressive dog a failure...even if it's capable of trialing. I would think so. I also think that handler aggression is not a genetic trait, dogs can have a predispostion to have traits that lend itself to handler aggression, but somewhere along the line...the dog has to learn that it works...

Wait a minute...I take that back...there are some dogs that are just born crazy.


----------



## will fernandez

I am not trying to be right. I can only go by my experience and for me its genetics.

I have watched a GSD that belongs to another Dept for six years. This dog came from a crappy broker, has had 4 lazy handlers and I still wish that dog was mine. If you see him work today you would still say that dog has potential. I am hoping no one will want him when he retires so that I could breed him. (And I am not a breeder)


----------



## James Downey

will fernandez said:


> I am not trying to be right. I can only go by my experience and for me its genetics.
> 
> I have watched a GSD that belongs to another Dept for six years. This dog came from a crappy broker, has had 4 lazy handlers and I still wish that dog was mine. If you see him work today you would still say that dog has potential. I am hoping no one will want him when he retires so that I could breed him. (And I am not a breeder)


 
Will, I am not saying your trying to be right. I was asking Howard what he defined as a failure. You stated your definition of failure is a dog lacking the genetics....That would nullify Howards question all together. I have a feeling your answering the question of why most pups fail? Or is your defintion of failure a genetically weak dog?

I want to know what Howard considers a failure.


----------



## will fernandez

oops.... thought it was the one that I brought up ..sorry


----------



## James Downey

will fernandez said:


> oops.... thought it was the one that I brought up ..sorry


No worries. But I agree Good Genetics are required to have success.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: I breed working puppies from working pedigrees yet haven't witnessed the training of any of the dogs in the particular venues won't get you much.
> 
> What ?? You must have Howard typed. I have no idea what you are saying here.


Maybe part of it should have been in quotes. It basically means, if you're looking for a ring sport dog, it might help tremendously if the breeder you go to actually breeds and trains their dogs for ringsport. This should help them in selecting the right puppy. This is the best case scenario. Second I guess even if they don't train, their dogs are actually trained by others and they can at least provide some feedback in terms of how they develop, best training approach, etc. The least desirable is the the breeder who might have the genetics in the pedigree but no proven track record in the venue you are interested in. That might be a gamble. But even there if you know something about selection, you might be able to come out okay. That definition of failure is important. What do you consider a failure. I never had a dog that I was able to go through my selection process that I later considered a "failure." Title goals can be about miles [time] and/or money and that can vary for an individual. If that dog/puppy is absolutely people and environmentally sound and has the drives, why should it fail? Puppies bounce all over the place mentally after 5-7 weeks, but generally with maturity they come back to what they were that made you select them in the first place, if you don't screw them up with things they aren't ready for. I wonder how much you gain in terms of really working a puppy in bitework before 15-18 months--but that's another thread. 

Terrasita


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: I wonder how much you gain in terms of really working a puppy in bitework before 15-18 months--but that's another thread. 

Time. How much time do you want to waste before you can trial and compete ?? I don't think dogs learn as well after a certain age. They certainly can learn, but it is not the same as if they are able to do so when they are young.

Most dogs you have to wait on, don't end up being dogs worth waiting on. Sorry, I know you can come up with that three or four, but I can come up with 30 that disappointed for every ONE that you can come up with that didn't, and it is just not the odds for me.

Other than that, I didn't know you did bite work. Dogs get better if they do something every day. Most things that we do with our dogs are part time at best. For me, a dog that you have to wait for is wasting months and months for no reason. I currently cannot train every day, so what was I saying again ??


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Failing to title a dog OR failing at a title is failure. Too many things to consider when doing that. Sport people are into sport. PPD are into PPD training. Kind of a no brainer!!! More time out for reflection?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

I didn't say "have" to wait. If you select a puppy based on certain criteria, what happens in that first year to year and a half that you wash him out or he fails? Puppies stage in terms of drive and how much pressure they can take. Does this very fact alone make them a wash out? What do you see or not see in that 6-18 month old dog that says he is not going to be able to cut it?

Terrasita


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Howard, while PP is cute, it is not taken seriously by anyone. However, you could follow the business plan of many successful PP brokers and keep all the pups and train them and sell them for 30 to 70,000 dollars.

I actually could understand what you were talking about there. So what I understand you to be saying is more than likely your pups would not be able to title, or compete at something as "simple" as a sport.

That is a shame, I am not sure why you would breed two dogs knowing that the pups will be the sort that melt under simple control work like easy little sports like you are implying.

However, if you do follow the successful PP brokers plan, the dogs have to be clean and well groomed. Probably best if they get started right away with a trip to the groomers so they have at least a little control put on them. Make sure it is a small girl, so they don't get scared, and have her give them treats to make it a good experience.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: I didn't say "have" to wait. If you select a puppy based on certain criteria, what happens in that first year to year and a half that you wash him out or he fails? Puppies stage in terms of drive and how much pressure they can take. Does this very fact alone make them a wash out? What do you see or not see in that 6-18 month old dog that says he is not going to be able to cut it?

Well, what would you look for to see what a dog was willing to do in the bite work, and how long would you wait ??

I know what I want to see, and I know when I want to see it.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Howard, I'm not sure what your selection or evalution criteria is for a PPD. Do you have a training program that takes the dog from start to finish and he can crap out somewhere along the way? 

Jeff, I think you can start laying the foundation at young ages and quite frankly you can screw them up more as puppies since their minds and everything are still developing then older when they are mature and set assuming the genetics and drives you want are there. At the younger ages they are mentally inconsistent. What they get one day, next week they are fuzzy brained. Then they hit that first matuirty point and they connect all the dots and the training goes fast. I guess I'm not in a hurry. I'd rather lay the foundation, let their fuzzy brains mature and set and then zoom through the rest. It is NICE to be able to work the dogs daily but I don't have a life set up for that either.

Terrasita


----------



## Howard Gaines III

comments weren't necessary


----------



## maggie fraser

There's a saying over here in the UK, " soup !! chicken soup ?? pea and ham out' a chicken, now that's clever" :-D


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

comments weren't pertaining to the thread.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

Jeff, I've asked you this before and didn't get an answer: In your opinion, how much control work a dog can withstand without shutting down is due to what?

A. foundation and conditioning
B. genetics
C. other, and explain


----------



## Joby Becker

Daryl Ehret said:


> Jeff, I've asked you this before and didn't get an answer: In your opinion, how much control work a dog can withstand without shutting down is due to what?
> 
> A. foundation and conditioning
> B. genetics
> C. other, and explain


B. Thresholds...


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: I didn't say "have" to wait. If you select a puppy based on certain criteria, what happens in that first year to year and a half that you wash him out or he fails? Puppies stage in terms of drive and how much pressure they can take. Does this very fact alone make them a wash out? What do you see or not see in that 6-18 month old dog that says he is not going to be able to cut it?
> 
> Well, what would you look for to see what a dog was willing to do in the bite work, and how long would you wait ??
> 
> I know what I want to see, and I know when I want to see it.


I was REALLY hoping to get a better understanding of what you are looking for with Esko, but he's not your cup of tea either. But he may have the Buko/mal comparative to deal with. Did you raise/train Buko from puppyhood? Is he your comparative? With Carol's puppy you made the statement that with that line drive increases. I know with my bouv, the prey drive went to an altogether different level at 15 months; hence my question about casting them out too soon. If you look at it from a selection standpoint, its tough, because there doesn't seem to be a consensus. As for me, I'd think to start----confidence, engagement, object drive out the whazoo. I think until we see the video comparisons of the ideal puppy developed [lower threshold] vs. the [higher threshold] and for me in a GSD, I may never be able to visualize your ideal.

Terrasita


----------



## James Downey

Howard Gaines III said:


> Failing to title a dog OR failing at a title is failure. Too many things to consider when doing that. Sport people are into sport. PPD are into PPD training. Kind of a no brainer!!! More time out for reflection?


 
Huh? It's like your speaking chinese. To many things to consider when doing "that". what is that?..going for a title?...I am confused. Of course sport people are into sports and PPD people are into PPD....What are we reflecting on?


I mean there are plently of good dogs, in young trainers hands that have grown up with all the temperment traits to be a success but have failed to do anything. Those dogs are failures?....Not in my book. 

A complete failure to me, is a runner. But there are many dogs between that and the Greatest dog on the planet (if there is such a thing). Somewhere in that mess of dogs is the line....The line at which the dogs below it I would sell, consider a failure, and opt to get a new one. Even though the dogs maybe capable of working.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

"Genetics determine what a dog CAN be. Environment determines what a dog WILL be."

Pretty self explanatory. A dog without great genetics will be limited in all cases but with great genetics, He CAN be great......if the proper environment is there, which includes proper training and ownership.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

I don't consider a dog that is marginal, and not "capable" of doing the work in the first place, a failure in respect to the dog. The breeder failed him and if a trainer spent a lot of time trying to train the dog, they are failures because they couldn't , or wouldn't, recognise the dogs limitations. Has nothing to do with the dog failing. He is what he is even if it is not capable.


----------



## James Downey

Don Turnipseed said:


> "Genetics determine what a dog CAN be. Environment determines what a dog WILL be."
> 
> Pretty self explanatory. A dog without great genetics will be limited in all cases but with great genetics, He CAN be great......if the proper environment is there, which includes proper training and ownership.


I think most of us recongize this truth already. The other end of that is, Good Genetics are not a bullet proof vest. And what the dog ends up being, may not be the picture of success....But that does not constitute the dog becoming a failure either. That's what I want to know....What is a failure? 

A dog I know who has had few litters, thrown awesome puppies. If you watched him train, you would not be to impressed. In fact you'd ask, why the hell are they wasting thier time. If you watched him trial, he is capable of getting points and possibly having great succes. but wants off the field as soon as possible. He's an anomoly unlike any dog I have ever seen. He can win it's almost like he read the Judges criteria, does everything the sheet says to get the points, and nothing more, without ever being impressive, He can throw pups....but he is totally unimpressive, in almost everyway. I guantee no one is going to call for him to stud a litter. Is he a failure? I am literally perplexed if I ever would want the dog or not. He can throw puppies, but who wants to buy them? He does himself no favors in his performance. He can win....But really, no one will care.

When I think of failure, I think of a dog that cannot work. But then I think about dogs that I have known that have been great on the field, and then attacked thier handlers when they are asked to leave the field. The dog loves working so much, he is willing to attack his handler to keep going....Not a dog I want to own, But is it a failure? Also, is this a dog that can work? That's why I want to know what a failure is. This dog in my book....Would not be in my house. he would be a failure to me, but I know people who would chance it, and try to work the dog because he was so awesome when he did work. 

Then I start thinking about dogs, totally capable of working. But are never going to see the likes of a national event...and no one is ever going to call asking for him as a stud. Is he a failure? Again a dog I would not want...And in my book a failure for me. But in reality he's just an also ran, not a superstar. 

For me a complete and udder failure is a runner. But from the runners to the top dogs in the world, some where in the mess of dogs is a line....a line at which all the dogs below it I would consider a failure to me, I would sell them and opt to get a new dog.


----------



## James Downey

Don I hear you on the people failing the dog...But even the best laid plans for a great litter can throw shitters. And I do not think trainers, trainer thier dogs thinking, " I want to ruin this dog". Sometimes that is just part of the process...and yes the trainer may have failed the dog. But it's something that is not a malicious attempt by a trainer...it just part of the game. 

And I think we are not trying to place blame here, in a moral sense. But more or less come to a census on why some dogs end up where they do.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

I think there are too many variables. It can have all the genetics in the world but if its not the right dog w/ the right handler, w/ the right trainer and however many years of training a few nights a week to develop the dog, then you're toast. I don't know, I think I'm biased that its failed training. I do that with my own. I can't except that they are failures. I'm more likely to say I failed to communicate and its back to the drawing board.

Terrasita


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: 
Jeff, I've asked you this before and didn't get an answer: In your opinion, how much control work a dog can withstand without shutting down is due to what?

I think it is genetic, but I think that a positive environment will make it stronger to some extent. Can't add what isn't there. 

In my experience with ring, I have yet to see people pumping the dog up so it is almost out of it's mind. Usually there is the thought process to keep the dog as level as possible. This is a generalization of course, but I have yet to see anyone working on pumping the dog up, just to do it. I think that the drag ins and all that help to get the dog frustrated, but not to the extent that you see with dogs in Sch.

The other end of that spectrum is the dog not shutting down and just going buck wild on the decoy. I don't have video of that, but it is what I deal with. Too much pressure and he is just gonna go hog wild, and just bite the **** out of the decoy. I have yet to have pushed him till he shut down, and I have beaten the living **** out of that dog.

THEN you can take into account that I did the happy positive shit with him until he was just about two. Could that be the reason ?? Maybe, but I saw it in him when I got him. I really think that until someone does some sort of research and test shit like this, we are gonna be guessing.

Even during the happy positive shit, he was given some pretty serious smackdowns for being inappropriate with people. I had some friends that wanted to play with him, and it escalated. They hit hard, shoved him, and he opened them up. Then he would try and get EVERYONE to keep going and try and escalate it himself. THAT is where he got cracked in the head, and THROWN into a kennel. That is where he showed me that he wasn't gonna just shut down.

I trained one night after he was an idiot, and he was ripping holes in my decoy through the suit. Sandro was pretty happy with him. LOL


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: It can have all the genetics in the world but if its not the right dog w/ the right handler, w/ the right trainer and however many years of training a few nights a week to develop the dog, then you're toast.

I have seen enough dogs trained by morons with bad training, sloppy late corrections, and the dog got it anyway. THAT is genetics. Sorry, that dog don't hunt.


----------



## Howard Gaines III

James Downey said:


> Huh? It's like your speaking chinese. To many things to consider when doing "that". what is that?..going for a title?...I am confused. Of course sport people are into sports and PPD people are into PPD....
> A complete failure to me, is a runner. But there are many dogs between that and the Greatest dog on the planet (if there is such a thing). Somewhere in that mess of dogs is the line....The line at which the dogs below it I would sell, consider a failure, and opt to get a new one. Even though the dogs maybe capable of working.


MY POINTS in English: James just because you go to a trial and fail at it doesn't make you or your dog junk. Your dog could be having an off day. The judge could have had one starting at home. The decoy could had rolled the sleeve and just plain missed the dog or the dog missed the decoy. And then just because you don't trial means nothing to me. I have seen many strong dogs that could trial and do well in many sport venues and street applications. 

I agree, a dog that runs away was under too much pressure and my guess is that it was never ready for that trial. So with that point you are correct!


----------



## James Downey

Howard, am I going to get an exact defintion of what a failure is? Or should I just move on with life.


I think having some sort of test is required to validate the dogs working ability. Whether that be a trial, or the dog actually work in a real scenario. Any time you try to create something, the only way to verify the work by preforming some sort of an operation test against some sort of standard. 

You wouldn't train a prize fighter, claim he was great, without ever having stepped in the ring for a real boxing match. Everyone would think your full of shit. Dog training is no different. That's why it's called training. And if the dog is never put to any test....then it's not even training. Training implies there will be some sort of application of the skills learned. Just like a boxer who is never going to fight....he's not really training for anything. He is just going through the motions. We will never see the skills applied. that does not mean he doesn't have skills, But it sure does not mean he has them either. 

Anyone who has tested a dog in a trial (or in real situation) can testify that things pop up that you have never seen in training. My dog is not the same dog she is on trial day....and without ever trialing her, I would have thought all was good. On trial day, her drive is double what it is in training, This always seems to cost me some control. 

And I was involved in Martial Arts up until my young adult life. Most everyone learning, is put to some sort of test sooner or later. Whether it's as simple as a belt test...or an actual competetive fight. There is some measure of how well the person is doing.


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Yeah James I kinda got that conclusion, the retired teacher in me still remembers tests.

But for PPDs, other than sport, who tests? Do you count on someone else in a PPD venue? Who is trained to look for the markers of pass-fail? Since many do things in a similar manner, other do things closer to PSA or SDA... I would hate to see the AKC step into this area with THEIR vast knowledge and skills. Seen too many sporting dogs ruined by the show standards.

And maybe here is where we on the forum start to write a rough draft of some type of puppy "standards" and a new thread for true PPD application standards. I can tell you, you better have some obedience in there and an "out" command, lift-off or verbal.


----------



## Debbie Skinner

C, A, B. Genetics #1. However, owner influences the dog the most after that as the dog lives with the owner for better or for worse. Their relationship or lack of is very important for puppy development.


----------



## chris haynie

coming from the point of view of a dude researching for his first working pup this thread is awesome. someone should make it a sticky in the raising a working pup section.


----------



## Mike Lauer

James Downey said:


> You wouldn't train a prize fighter, claim he was great, without ever having stepped in the ring for a real boxing match. Everyone would think your full of shit.


true but that doesnt mean the hevyweight champion of the world would win a fight against a never tested mma trained fighter.
tests are great and fun but not the end all be all
The best dog i have ever seen in my entire life couldn't even pass a BH


----------



## Keith Jenkins

Mike Lauer said:


> The best dog i have ever seen in my entire life couldn't even pass a BH


What made a dog so great it couldn't pass a BH? There's screw lose somewhere if it couldn't pass regardless of how big a bad-ass he was.


----------



## Bob Scott

The BH eliminates a lot of serious dogs simply because they don't tolerate strangers around them. 
On one hand I can understand that because that particular type of dog is beyond what is called for in the correct GSD. On the other hand that type of dog has a place.
Not at all a shot towards those who breed for those dogs. I just don't think that's what the original design for the breed was all about according to von Stephanitz. JMHO of course! :grin::wink:


----------



## jack van strien

Bob,
in Europe i have seen both in IPO and Frenchring dogs pass their Bh or equivalent under a very understanding old school judge.These dogs were not social at all but passed anyway.


----------



## Bob Scott

jack van strien said:


> Bob,
> in Europe i have seen both in IPO and Frenchring dogs pass their Bh or equivalent under a very understanding old school judge.These dogs were not social at all but passed anyway.


Easy to believe Jack but I think "very understanding old school judge" is a key to this. 
Here in the States I think there is less tolerance for that type of dog in sport. 
Unfortunate in many ways!


----------



## Molly Graf

Dogs with correct temperament should be able to pass the BH - if they are not reactive/nervy - they should not need to be "social" - they should not be required to be patted or touched in any way. Neutral, not fearful or aggressive "without a cause" - and they should pass the BH. I don't think a dog that would bite for "no reason" - because a person is just standing there, or has his hand outstretched should pass a BH or any other temperament test. Of course the BH test is subjective to the judge - and I have seen judges insist on petting/touching the dog (unfortunately) - I prefer a judge who realizes that the working breeds are not necessarily "social" and that a neutral/aloof temperament is correct.

molly


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

What do you do with the dog that will not tolerate people he does not know ?? Is this really incorrect temperament ?? I have seen how close people get in the "crowd" and wonder what people are thinking when they say that a dog that does not "tolerate" is not correct. 

To many people think that all dogs should be in the middle, and how correct is that ?? How many judges are really qualified to judge correct in the first place ? There is a huge difference between scoring an exercise and judging temperament.

What one person considers sleeve sucking shitter, others prize above all else. I see what breeding the middle is doing, and luckily, there are a few out there that are recognizing this fact.

I have a dog that is extremely reactive and it has **** all to do with nerve. I have seen him go from one second with **** you eyes, to lying on his back having a group of people rub his belly. Squirming around and loving it. 

Too many people think they can evaluate a dog with a goofy BH, and so few really can when the dog trains right in front of them. The whole thing is designed to keep the middle and toss the ends out. Foolish.


----------



## Molly Graf

I don't mind a dog that is not social in public - as long as it is not reactive and biting people for no reason. People standing around, not making eye contact or otherwise stimulating the dog, should not create an aggressive reaction. The crowding in the BH should still not be so much that the dog is uncomfortable in it's own space (if it has a stable temperament and nerve) and that is what they are testing for. The dog should not be touched or pressed if the owner does not give permission to do so, even in a BH. IMO the judges that insist on pressing a dog or touching it are faulty. Even the most aggressive dogs, as long as they have good nerve strength, should be able to control their aggression in public - that's what the BH is <supposed> to be about - testing correct temperament even with the range of correct temperament for the working breeds - from "unfriendly but neutral" to "friendly and social" and everything in between - only the nerve-bags who are reactive or the weaklings should be eliminated. I know that doesn't always happen in the BH (depends on the judge) but it should.

molly


----------



## Keith Jenkins

If you can't walk your dog through a group of people or pass by a dog or have a car drive by, you know shit that happens in every day life without being able to keep it under control... you need to live in the middle of a remote wilderness area. They don't have to be RinTinTin or Lassie around people but they don't need to be Cujo in a neutral setting either.


----------



## Debbie Skinner

Are there better working dogs now with the requirements of the BH and French Ring "Character Test"? 

These are "feel good" tests for public perception aren't they? It's nothing about evaluating working dogs. Sort of like a CGC.. 

I never felt like this has anything to do with breeding working dogs. Or, maybe I'm missing something? Please explain what I've missed. Statistically we have more and better working dogs because of the BH?


----------



## Molly Graf

no, the BH is just the prerequisite temperament test for the Schh titles. That's all it is. It's not a title and shouldn't be considered a test of working ability or breedworthiness in any capacity, much like a CGC.

molly


----------



## Keith Jenkins

Nothing "feel" good about whether a dog can be neutral in public and not show it's ass regardless of BH or the FR character test or whatever. If all someone wants to do is load the dog for training and straight back to the kennel then I guess it doesn't make a difference what they do in everyday life outside the training field and home.


----------



## Debbie Skinner

Keith Jenkins said:


> Nothing "feel" good about whether a dog can be neutral in public and not show it's ass regardless of BH or the FR character test or whatever. If all someone wants to do is load the dog for training and straight back to the kennel then I guess it doesn't make a difference what they do in everyday life outside the training field and home.


The BH has resulted in less dogs failing as working dogs? Created better and more working dogs? Load the dog? I wouldn't keep a dog that I had to load...


----------



## Keith Jenkins

Load the dog as in "load the dog in the truck/car/trailer" to take it to training.


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Debbie Skinner said:


> Are there better working dogs now with the requirements of the BH and French Ring "Character Test"?
> 
> These are "feel good" tests for public perception aren't they? It's nothing about evaluating working dogs. Sort of like a CGC..
> 
> I never felt like this has anything to do with breeding working dogs. Or, maybe I'm missing something? Please explain what I've missed. Statistically we have more and better working dogs because of the BH?


 Debbie I wouldn't quite put the BH in the same class as the CGC. If you define what you think a working dog should be like, if you lean towards social and sport, then the BH has some level of measure towards those goals. Depending upon the judge, some may put you through more "tests" to make sure the dog is able to move to the SCH levels.

The CGC is IMO the pet feel good of a BH. It also allows or should allow the owner/s some baseline for what the dog might do. A trainable dog can then do herding, agility, and work towards other AKC certificates or titles.

I don't think either should be the MEASURE for a good dog, that should be left up to the owner and their goal.


----------



## Debbie Skinner

Keith Jenkins said:


> Load the dog as in "load the dog in the truck/car/trailer" to take it to training.


gotcha. I thought you were meaning to "load up" as in frustrate to get excited to work.


----------



## Debbie Skinner

Howard Gaines III said:


> Debbie I wouldn't quite put the BH in the same class as the CGC. If you define what you think a working dog should be like, if you lean towards social and sport, then the BH has some level of measure towards those goals. Depending upon the judge, some may put you through more "tests" to make sure the dog is able to move to the SCH levels.
> 
> The CGC is IMO the pet feel good of a BH. It also allows or should allow the owner/s some baseline for what the dog might do. A trainable dog can then do herding, agility, and work towards other AKC certificates or titles.
> 
> I don't think either should be the MEASURE for a good dog, that should be left up to the owner and their goal.


Sure, not exactly like a CGC as I've put both on dogs.so I know the difference..really! O Your original post of A, B, C,.. Since I believe Genetics in #1 reason for failure, I'm always looking at evaluations/tests showing if a dog is naturally "good" and I don't think the CGC, BH or French Aptitude Test (FR) shows me anything useful for selecting working dogs for breeding. 

I'm not saying that it's desirable to have an out of control "monster", but whether the dog is the best mannered dog in the world or the crazy monster, I would look beyond that for qualities or lack of qualities in a breeding dog. Trying to be clear..but not sure if I am! ;-) 

I know what I mean anyways! :lol:


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

I liken the crowding "test" similar to the stupid rubber hand in the food bowl to check for food aggression. DUMB as ****.

So a dog has a problem with people crowding up on it, and it is assumed that the dog has a nerve problem ?

Ever been somewhere and a bunch of people you don't know out of nowhere start pressing up on you ?? 

I think the BH is BS.


----------



## Kristina Senter

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> I think the BH is BS.


Which is totally out of line with how you feel about the rest of the sport and all of it's redeeming and valuable qualities, right?


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Debbie you're as clear as mud. You want and controlled monster that looks good!


----------



## Debbie Skinner

Howard Gaines III said:


> Debbie you're as clear as mud. You want and controlled monster that looks good!



I'll try again then: I don't decide based on public manners which dogs to breed. Looks good? My malinois look nothing like the dogs at Westminster. Maybe I'm not typing very clearly, but what are you looking at! :roll:


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Howard never makes sense to me either. I have had several people try and explain to me what it is he is talking about and they are stumped as well.


----------



## Debbie Skinner

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Howard never makes sense to me either. I have had several people try and explain to me what it is he is talking about and they are stumped as well.



Does that mean that I'm in good or bad company? Or, that I just am not alone! O I thing he's right about is that it requires wading through a lot of ... for good working dogs.


----------

