# how far are we really?



## jack van strien (Apr 9, 2009)

This was touched upon in another thread,when breeding working dogs we are trying to alter the basic wolf instinct.We are trying to get away from skiddish dogs etc.
Are we doing ok?How far are we really?If you look at certain breeds we are not so far away from the wolf.Granted the smallest breed is not weighing much and the biggest of dogs are 90 kilos.But how about the inside?
If you don't socialize pups at all what do you get?Imo a bunch of scared skiddish animals ,not suitable for working dogs or pets!
Any ideas?


----------



## Tanith Wheeler (Jun 5, 2009)

I don't think that there is a great deal of physical difference in a lot of breeds. 
However our selective breeding over thousands of years has led to a lot of temperment changes. Yes unsocialised pups would become skittish but then so will any animal - horses, cattle, cats. It's a feral animal characteristic. 

In wolves skittishness is a survival trait, the ones that charge heedlessly into a fight DIE. The ones that rush into new situations without checking it out first DIE. No predator can afford injury or death.

We ask dogs to take on superior opponents - like man or even wolves, lions etc. We want dogs to focus on a toy to the exclusion of everything else, that's cub like behaviour. The dog trusts us not to put them in a situation where they would get killed, the wolf wouldn't be led into that situation.

I have a theory that if you turned a group of dogs loose eventually they would end up looking like, acting like wolves. Nature would weed out the survival dead ends like thin coats, short legs etc. Every physical and mental characteristic of wolves are optimal for survival, from ear position to coat colour - eventually nature would go back to what works.


----------



## Jim Engel (Nov 14, 2007)

jack van strien said:


> This was touched upon in another thread,when breeding working dogs we are trying to alter the basic wolf instinct.We are trying to get away from skiddish dogs etc.
> Are we doing ok?How far are we really?If you look at certain breeds we are not so far away from the wolf.Granted the smallest breed is not weighing much and the biggest of dogs are 90 kilos.But how about the inside?
> If you don't socialize pups at all what do you get?Imo a bunch of scared skiddish animals ,not suitable for working dogs or pets!
> Any ideas?



In my opinion, Dr. Coppinger offers the most insight on this question:

http://www.workingdogweb.com/Coppinger.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Dogs-Understa...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264943773&sr=1-1


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

We are going backwards Jack. People have lulled themselves into thinking they are producing great dogs because they are conditioned. Don't handle them the first 4 weeks and you can write 1/2 to 1/3 of the litter of because they will act feral and avoid contact with you. Early on I quitm handling the great dogs I thought I was producing and it was a real eye opener. It took a lot of years to get all the pups in a litter to come to me wilingly. So much for domesticated dogs through modern breeding.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

The environmental pressures on social behavior have a lot of impact in breed development. Remember the Russian silver fox experiments, which took maybe 3 to 5 generations at most to produce a completely socially domesticated animal?

Here's a quick overview of GSD origin, as it was speculated earlier in the century (1925). Interesting to note, is that while Stephanitz is counsidered the founder of the German Shepherd Breed Club, he is _not considered the founder _of the breed, which is believed to have originated at very least a thousand years prior, and documented since Roman settlement in Germanic europe. Of course, with the narrowing of standards to prohibit certain characteristics (wire coat, white coloration, etc.), the breed became more uniform in appearance since Stephanitz's time.

http://www.ehretgsd.com/History-ThePoliceDog1925.pdf


----------



## Jim Engel (Nov 14, 2007)

Daryl Ehret said:


> The environmental pressures on social behavior have a lot of impact in breed development. Remember the Russian silver fox experiments, which took maybe 3 to 5 generations at most to produce a completely socially domesticated animal?
> 
> Here's a quick overview of GSD origin, as it was speculated earlier in the century (1925). Interesting to note, is that while Stephanitz is counsidered the founder of the German Shepherd Breed Club, he is _not considered the founder _of the breed, which is believed to have originated at very least a thousand years prior, and documented since Roman settlement in Germanic europe. Of course, with the narrowing of standards to prohibit certain characteristics (wire coat, white coloration, etc.), the breed became more uniform in appearance since Stephanitz's time.
> 
> http://www.ehretgsd.com/History-ThePoliceDog1925.pdf


Daryl,
Could you give us the author of this text ?

I have done a lot of research, and I don't know of
any historical reference that does not take von Stephenitz
as the founder of the modern German Shepherd.

No "breed" really goes back more than about 130 years,
and the ones that old are sporting and hunting dogs,.

The German Shepherd was created out of a wide variety
of types taken from the fields and pastures of various
areas of Germany. Yes, there was breed "type" that is
some commonality of appearance, but many of the original
dogs had long coats, white coats and down ears. According
to Gordon Garrett, whose book is on the web, this was
happening up into the 1930's.

This is how most of the herding breeds were established,
and most of it has happened after 1890 or sol.

I can provide a lot of reference information if you are
interested.

Jim


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

This is about the third or fourth reference I've run across that indirectly states that Stephanitz was hardly the breed "creator" at all. By indirectly, I mean it was never assumed he was, therefore could not be disputed. In my mess of files somewhere, I have an additional source I found from the 1910's or 20's that also referred to the "Police Dog" as an already very old breed. I'll see if I can find that too.

The one above was by David Brockwell.
http://books.google.com/books?id=oX...resnum=1&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false


----------



## Chad Byerly (Jun 24, 2008)

Daryl Ehret said:


> The environmental pressures on social behavior have a lot of impact in breed development. Remember the Russian silver fox experiments, which took maybe 3 to 5 generations at most to produce a completely socially domesticated animal?


Belyaev's foxes taught us alot including how quickly behavior traits can be bred away, but to my understanding it took many more than just a few generations.



Daryl Ehret said:


> Interesting to note, is that while Stephanitz is counsidered the founder of the German Shepherd Breed Club, he is _not considered the founder _of the breed, which is believed to have originated at very least a thousand years prior, and documented since Roman settlement in Germanic europe.


Yes, Stephanitz talks in his book (1923) about the "Bronze Age dog", and that the German Shepherd comes down from this type and has the physical and behavior traits. His book mentions other herding and guarding breeds that also come down from the Bronze Age dog and are that type...


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

jack van strien said:


> This was touched upon in another thread,when breeding working dogs we are trying to alter the basic wolf instinct.We are trying to get away from skiddish dogs etc.
> Are we doing ok?How far are we really?If you look at certain breeds we are not so far away from the wolf.Granted the smallest breed is not weighing much and the biggest of dogs are 90 kilos.But how about the inside?
> If you don't socialize pups at all what do you get?Imo a bunch of scared skiddish animals ,not suitable for working dogs or pets!
> Any ideas?


An old Bulldogger I know would take his dogs and keep them out in the dog yard on chains for 2 yrs, just feed and water them. At 2 he would test them. And then train them from there. Was a harsh method, but he sure new what he had. Many got washed, but many were impressive dogs as well without any socialization or "conditioning".


----------



## Jim Engel (Nov 14, 2007)

Chad Byerly said:


> Belyaev's foxes taught us alot including how quickly behavior traits can be bred away, but to my understanding it took many more than just a few generations.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Stephanitz talks in his book (1923) about the "Bronze Age dog", and that the German Shepherd comes down from this type and has the physical and behavior traits. His book mentions other herding and guarding breeds that also come down from the Bronze Age dog and are that type...



Exactly the points I was going to bring up. The fox experiment is discussed in the
Coppinger book I indicated above, and it was quite a few more generations.

And, yes, the German Shepherds come from long lines of dogs, but the Malinois,
and all the other breeds come from the same general types. The herding dogs
across Europe would tend to have similar body type because of similar work,
but there are no "ancient German Sheperds" but rather ancient tending style 
herding dogs which became German Shepherds, Belgian Shepherds etc.

In the book mentioned above, there are no references beyond von Stephenitz,
and the British author did not really differentiate between "Police Dog" "German Shepherd"
and "Belgian Shepherd" Did not sound like he had ever really been in Germany.

I am not a von Stephanitz fan boy particularly, but he and six other guys did
start the club, and that was the beginning of the modern breed.


The names I have are Von Stephanitz, Artur Meyer, Ernst Von Otto.

Meyer died several years later, & von Stephanitz took over his job as
club Secretary as well as President. von Otto was and had been a breeder,
& I have never been able to find the other 3 names.

von Stephanitz was rich and of the elite class back in the days when
class really meant something, so he of course did get the Lion's share
of the attention. But he was just as much founder of the breed as
George Washington was founder of the country.

About the David Brockwell book, this was a British guy just after the
First world war, the Brits were in total denial about the breed, calling
it the "Alsation" so it would not sound German. Kind of like asking
the Democrats to do a little history summary of George Bush

I really do not want to disagree with anybody, I have twenty or thirty
pages of GSD history notes and if anybody has new information at this
stage of my project I would love to include it.

One of the foundations of the study of history is to be able to 
evaluate sources, that is, how complete are their references,
what axe did they have to grind.

My personal opinion remains that Max von Stephanitz was a remarkable
man and, while he certainly did not do it alone, and while he gets too
much credit and the others are mentioned too little, on the whole he
deserves the title of father of the German Shepherd Dog.

I wish my breed had been blessed with such a strong, rich, socially
connected founder.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

_"Europe would tend to have similar body type because of similar work, but there are no "ancient German Sheperds" but rather ancient tending style 
herding dogs which became German Shepherds, Belgian Shepherds etc."_

Sort of a "split" if you will, from a broad but not deep uniformity of type. My understanding was that Stephanitz was not really all that good as a breeder, but was a promoter/politicizer of the breed. And it should be noted, his "ideal" shepherd was selected by him, not produced by him. Point being; it was there before he discovered it.

My opinion is, as president of the breed club, he did a poor job of maintaining his original "ideal" in the breed, even before his passing on the torch. The "breed" was perhaps even better, before he meddled with the acceptable and non-acceptable types in the standard, and later allowed for appearance breeding goals. Like all politicians, he "sold out".


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Without having any particular reference to quote my own thoughts are that there were many "types" of dogs long before we started naming them as breeds.
The Romans had herders, hunting dogs, guard dogs, etc, even house dogs but I don't recall of reading about any "breeds" as such.
As with some of todays dogs there are records kept as to who was bred to who in order to produce a certain desired trait. Maybe physically strong in type (eventually) but not necessarily a "breed" till someone decides to start some sort of official registration.
I believe this was the case before "breeds" became popular.


----------



## Jim Engel (Nov 14, 2007)

Daryl Ehret said:


> _"Europe would tend to have similar body type because of similar work, but there are no "ancient German Sheperds" but rather ancient tending style
> herding dogs which became German Shepherds, Belgian Shepherds etc."_
> 
> Sort of a "split" if you will, from a broad but not deep uniformity of type. My understanding was that Stephanitz was not really all that good as a breeder, but was a promoter/politicizer of the breed. And it should be noted, his "ideal" shepherd was selected by him, not produced by him. Point being; it was there before he discovered it.
> ...


Daryl,
You are correct in the sense that the breeding
in the kennel of von Stephanitz was not especially
successful in comparison to a number of other kennels.

But this was not his primary role, or the source of his
real power.

But this in a way misses the point, von Stephanitz
for forty years was the judge of the males at the
Sieger shows, which gave him enormous power over
the direction of the breed.

Relatively early in the game he gave up showing his
own dogs because of the conflict of interest as judge.
But his influence was enormous.

But you are correct that the work / show split
began early. This is from my draft:

Those in the process of acquiring a dog from one of the protective breeds need to take a hard look at their fundamental motivations and act accordingly. If they really want a strong, trainable dog, then they need to look to the working lines, dogs with working ancestors as proven by working titles. If you buy a dog out of show champion lines and expect it to have working character then there is a very high probability that you are going to be disappointed. 
There is perhaps the tendency to think this perception of the divergence of the lines to work and show is recent, and an esoteric concern of those with an over the edge or extreme insistence on working character, of relatively little concern to the normal or rank and file breeders and trainers.
But no one could be more mainstream than those involved with Dorothy Eustis in the famous Fortunate Fields breeding and research program in Switzerland, leading up to the American Seeing eye movement and the guide dog for the blind school at Morristown, New Jersey. In their report summary, Humphrey and Warner, leaders of the program, comment:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morristown,_New_Jersey
"It will be remembered that at the turn of this century the German Shepherd as a breed began to split into two strains. The one produced beautiful dogs, including _all_ the show winners. The other produced working dogs, including _all_ the working champions. No dog of the championship strains born since 1909 has produced winners in _both_ show and working classes. Thus the cleavage is complete." (1) p226
Even in this early German Shepherd environment, so well known for its insistence on character, the glory always went to those who did the absolute minimum in the way of working selection, and who as a group, even to this day, constantly lobby to water the requirements down. Ultimately, excellent working dogs are only produced by those whose highest personal priority is working excellence. Many, even myself, have promoted the slogans such as "we can have it all" and "One breed" or the "Golden Middle." But these slogans are all lies, for in the end such programs always lead to mediocrity, at the very best, in working character.

(1) Elliott Humphrey & Lucien Warner, "Working Dogs," 1934 Johns Hopkins Press "


This is a consequence of all breed club based 

programs, von Stephanitz was successful 

comparaed to the situation in the Doberman,
Bouvier, Rottweiler etc.


The alternative is the KNPV system where there
are no conformation evaluations, nobody really
cares about pedigree beyond a couple of generations
and a dog is what he does on the field.


NVBK in Belgium is a very similar situation.


And in the end you might be right, the Malinois, with
very small numbers is making big strides in police
and working sport applications.


GSD pups in Germany have fallen from around 30,000 a
year to 15,000 but these are huge numbers compared
to Malinois numbers anywhere. 



For reference, about 400 to 500 pups born from NVBK
lines per year, probably quite a few more in KNPV
Malinois lines, but no where near GSD numbers.


But increasingly these small numbers are playing big,
in terms of sport and police use.


----------



## kristin tresidder (Oct 23, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> An old Bulldogger I know would take his dogs and keep them out in the dog yard on chains for 2 yrs, just feed and water them. At 2 he would test them. And then train them from there. Was a harsh method, but he sure new what he had. Many got washed, but many were impressive dogs as well without any socialization or "conditioning".



a bulldog/staf breeder i know still does this today. she's got some damn fine dogs.


----------



## Harry Keely (Aug 26, 2009)

kristin tresidder said:


> a bulldog/staf breeder i know still does this today. she's got some damn fine dogs.


I guess no different really then people I have met that keep their dogs in idle waiting for them to full mature. Wouldn't you want to know though as soon as you could, I know I would. Maybe its being inpatient but I like to wash out dogs as fast as possible to keep the best that I can.


----------



## jack van strien (Apr 9, 2009)

ok,some nice opinions.what about the pups from so called good parents and they receive all the socialication and conditioning you can throw at them and still they are so called sh---ters.
Maybe all working prospects should be put in pet homes and just wait until you get the phonecall,pleaaasssseee take the dog back!
I raise my dog pretty strict,imo if he can not take a little bit of pressure now how can he handle real pressure later?
I believe also it would only take a generation or two for dogs to become completely wild again if they were to be released in the wild.Here in Thailand a lot of socalled pets do not get fed a lot and have to find their own meals.They are like bears at a garbage dump.
Maybe in the not so far future dogs will be cloned also to make sure they can do the work.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> We are going backwards Jack. People have lulled themselves into thinking they are producing great dogs because they are conditioned. Don't handle them the first 4 weeks and you can write 1/2 to 1/3 of the litter of because they will act feral and avoid contact with you. Early on I quitm handling the great dogs I thought I was producing and it was a real eye opener. It took a lot of years to get all the pups in a litter to come to me wilingly. So much for domesticated dogs through modern breeding.


 
Socialization is still important in the domesitcated animal. In fact there is proof that suggests that Wolf pups will show initial trends to social acceptance to things they are exposed to....but a later will regress back to thier skiddish nature. The point was not to make puppies that were completely social coming out of the shoot (though I think certain breeds have achieved this to a point)...We see this with a lot of Malinois litters, avioiding contact with people, showing enviormental shyness....But they turn out fine. Shy at first, but later growing into thier own. I think the pliablity is the point...The ability to adapt. Which itself is a genetic trait. Adaptability has it's own DNA. I think that way too much emphasis is placed on what dogs are like as puppies....we do not work puppies, we do not do anything puppies...except turn then into dogs. And all that matters is what they do as a dog. And If a puppy who is shy has the genetic ability to adapt into a confident dog. I will take that as a asset in the dog. I really believe with dogs, it's not where they start. It's where they finish. Now one maybe inclined to exgerrate this and state, "Well Jim, next time I get a runner, I will call you"...I think everything has to be looked at with reason and if there is evidence to elude that the shy puppy may have the ability to adapt...(look at parents...and other relatives) and become a workable dog. Why cull him as a dog who may pass crap genes....he may have the most valuable gene of all. the ability to adapt.

The Dinosaurs should have taught us that the biggest and the baddest do not always survive and thrive. It's the ones who can meet the challenges of change.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Downey said
"


> I really believe with dogs, it's not where they start. It's where they finish.


That is a trainers perspective James. Breeders have no such luxury of ignoring a whole phase. "I know, better dogs through training". A breeder has to look at all phases and the first is critical. You said socialization is still neccessary even in domestic animals. I said you can write about 1/3 of the litter off because they will be feral. If 1/2 a litter, or better, need no socialization what conclusions might you draw about the feral ones? I know...with trraining they can be as good as the rest. No, they never will be.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

jack van strien said:


> Maybe all working prospects should be put in pet homes and just wait until you get the phonecall,pleaaasssseee take the dog back!


That's funny, and probably very true.



jack van strien said:


> Maybe in the not so far future dogs will be cloned also to make sure they can do the work.


South Korea, about two years ago, with golden retrievers (seeing eye dog, I think). I haven't followed their development, but it would be interesting to know if they met expectations. Also, here in the U.S. cloned a famous quarterhorse sire numerous times about five years back (Smart Little Lena), and have no idea how they're performing, either.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Chad Byerly said:


> Belyaev's foxes taught us alot including how quickly behavior traits can be bred away, but to my understanding it took many more than just a few generations.


They bred over forty generations in the experiments, but not before seeing significant results. And in recent experiments (2001-2004) bred tame to aggressive, and F1 generatio back to the tame ones, with "clear segregated results". If it's intentional, and backcrossed to "pure" domesticated foxes, only two generations are really required. If _not backcrossed_, and segregation is random in a _non-controlled experiment_, only 3 to 5 generations would show positive results, more or less, dependant on the number of F1 producers & F2 offspring and "random chance" itself.

It take's "one" generation to produce a feral human! If backbred to a non-feral human, I'd suppose there'd be very good odds of producing a perfectly normal child, given the right early social development.


----------



## Alison Grubb (Nov 18, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> An old Bulldogger I know would take his dogs and keep them out in the dog yard on chains for 2 yrs, just feed and water them. At 2 he would test them. And then train them from there. Was a harsh method, but he sure new what he had. Many got washed, but many were impressive dogs as well without any socialization or "conditioning".


I know a few bulldog folks who are like this still. They let nature take it's course for the first 2 years and then evaluate. I'm quite intrigued by this method and kind of like the "what you see is what you get" kind of truth that goes along with it.

I also know some bulldoggers who while keeping the pups at home and training them don't go through any extraordinary measures to socialize the dog. The social excursions are treated more as a test than as a way to condition the dog.

Just what I have noticed.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

I'm a subscriber of the don't mess with methods. I like to see raw puppies. I test prey drive asap and the recovery and nerve is tested pretty hard at 5 wks. From there more firsts will follow and be observed but once aa puppy has seen it once it doesn't mean a thing to me after that. My 3.5 month old puppy came from a litter that was VERY raw. I tested the litter at 7 wks, picked her brought her home and she has been out of the house maybe 3-4 times. Each time s a test and a chance to observe heavily. At no point has her lack of socialization shown effects, if anything she is way to big for her britches and needs to be rescued from herself. I can't see waiting 2 years if your ventures are few and push the dog each time and observed well you can see a lot. I think the raw dog will show the genetics...if a dog is not solid because of lack of socialization that is because his genetics are that way.
With that said everyone likes something different. I read once that someone would cull a puppy like mine...in exchange I would probably cull their keeper. 

Jmo
T


----------



## Martine Loots (Dec 28, 2009)

tracey delin said:


> I like to see raw puppies. I think the raw dog will show the genetics...if a dog is not solid because of lack of socialization that is because his genetics are that way.


I second that.
I want the breeder to take good care of his female and provide good food and a good shelter for female and pups, that's all.
He'll talk to the pups and pet them when he goes feeding them, but he doesn't have to do more.

I want to be there when the pups go outside for the first time and my pick mostly depends on the way they react then.

I prefer the breeder not to let them bite. I don't care whether a pup bites or not at that age and I prefer to do the first imprinting myself.


----------



## Jim Engel (Nov 14, 2007)

Martine Loots said:


> I second that.
> I want the breeder to take good care of his female and provide good food and a good shelter for female and pups, that's all.
> He'll talk to the pups and pet them when he goes feeding them, but he doesn't have to do more.
> 
> ...


Martine,
At what age do you prefer to take the pup home ?

How do you go about imprinting the new pup ?


----------



## Martine Loots (Dec 28, 2009)

Jim Engel said:


> Martine,
> At what age do you prefer to take the pup home ?
> 
> How do you go about imprinting the new pup ?


 
At 6 weeks of age

This is the kind of puppy training we do. The breeder hadn't done anything with the pups and this is the way we like to get them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScW_JAcmxTw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkqipUPRFWs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2j2W4x8b20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RZYyda4Ldc


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: 
This was touched upon in another thread,when breeding working dogs we are trying to alter the basic wolf instinct.We are trying to get away from skiddish dogs etc.

Jack, I am not a wolf expert by any means, but I am not sure that what we call skittish in a wolf is really skittish.

They hunt things that can and do hurt them, and they learn patience.

I also do not believe that dogs come from wolves. I think that they were maybe from a similar ancestor, but I think the wolves went a different way. There are similarities, but to me, wolves are on a higher evolutionary scale than dogs, and I have a hard time thinking that we got mastiffs and Chihuahuas from them.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Daryl Ehret said:


> _"Europe would tend to have similar body type because of similar work, but there are no "ancient German Sheperds" but rather ancient tending style _
> _herding dogs which became German Shepherds, Belgian Shepherds etc."_
> 
> Sort of a "split" if you will, from a broad but not deep uniformity of type. My understanding was that Stephanitz was not really all that good as a breeder, but was a promoter/politicizer of the breed. And it should be noted, his "ideal" shepherd was selected by him, not produced by him. Point being; it was there before he discovered it.
> ...


 
Daryl,

Look up the Phylax Society that existed in the earlier 1890s with the SV in 1899. What von Stephanitz and others accomplished was the marketing of the breed to other venues to keep the breed working after the flock work diminished. Before the move for breed uniformity and the debate over what should be desired type you had the generic shepherd dog that varied in type depending on region and function. The Phylax Society began with tending shepherds and when it died out it was mostly run by those interested in the "fancy" dog based on looks as opposed to the working tending shepherds. True, Horand was not bred by von Stephanitz but he was the solution to the debate. He had the desired looks of those who wanted the "fancy" dog and the working ability for the flock tending shepherds. This is why he was chosen as the foundation stud dog. von Stephanitz scrambedled to keep the breed alive in other venues. With work dying out, the "fancy" folks outnumbered and prevailed. That's still true today.

The best I've seen in print regarding selection for working traits is still Pfaffenberger, Scott/Fuller, the Bar Harbor breeding/selection experiments w/ GSDs and the Michael Fox prey/hunt discussions in the Lithgow book. Don's waiting until the pups are 4 weeks old is still within the socialization window. Now if he waited until 16 weeks [the experiment] until he went out to see his pups, how would that effect their ability to bond to humans, trainability, etc. and how many would he have to cull?

Terrasita


----------



## Carlos Machado (Dec 28, 2008)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote:
> I also do not believe that dogs come from wolves. I think that they were maybe from a similar ancestor, but I think the wolves went a different way. There are similarities, but to me, wolves are on a higher evolutionary scale than dogs, and I have a hard time thinking that we got mastiffs and Chihuahuas from them.


The wolf is the dogs only ancestor there are 32 wolf breeds most are subspecies of the grey wolf just like dogs and look difference from one another.
http://caninebreeds.bulldoginformation.com/wolf-breeds-types.html

This is the most detailed and newest study on dog origins you can download it and the supplementary data on the top right http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/msp195
A quote from the study 
"The analyses showed that dogs universally share a common homogenous gene pool containing 10 major haplogroups. However, the full range of genetic diversity, all 10 haplogroups, was found only in southeastern Asia south of Yangtze River, and diversity decreased following a gradient across Eurasia, through seven haplogroups in Central China and five in North China and Southwest (SW)Asia, down to only four haplogroups in Europe. The mean sequence distance to ancestral haplotypes indicates an origin 5,400–16,300 years ago (ya) from at least 51 female wolf founders. These results indicate that the domestic dog originated in southern China less than 16,300 ya, from several hundred wolves. The place and time coincide approximately with the origin of rice agriculture, suggesting that the dogs may have originated among sedentary hunter-gatherers or early farmers, and the numerous founders indicate that wolf taming was an important culture trait."

The German Shepherd had 4 pure wolves in the first stud book this link has plenty on wolf hybrids from the US Army superdog program this page compares wolf ability's to track for 18 hours verses 8 for a dog, and a security dog can smell a man up to 200 yards. A wolf can detect one up to 600 yards.
http://www.americanshepherd.com/history.html#int

I believe wolves were are first domesticated food animal, caged and muzzled to eat. The tamer ones lived longer and soon proved there worth tracking food and then catching our food also hauling it. 11000 years ago they pulling the asian people to North America. 5000 years ago they crossed at least 50 miles on boats with people to Australia for finding food or being food now called Dingos. the rest spead all over Asia, the middle east, then Europe.


----------



## Jim Engel (Nov 14, 2007)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote:
> This was touched upon in another thread,when breeding working dogs we are trying to alter the basic wolf instinct.We are trying to get away from skiddish dogs etc.
> 
> Jack, I am not a wolf expert by any means, but I am not sure that what we call skittish in a wolf is really skittish.
> ...


What you are saying corresponds very well with current
scientific research. Coppinger among others goes into
a lot of this in his book.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Carlos, 

They tell me that a chimp is 98% the same genetically as humans. That is enough to make me think that scientists are the same overly focused one track minded people we have always known them to be.

And most of what you wrote proved my point, wolves are way ahead of the dog. Where do I find the 4 wolves that were in the stud book in the early ancestry of the GSD ??

I question this, as according to the same scientists, the standard poodle is a hell of a lot closer to the wolf genetically, than the GSD. This fact wipes out the "wolf" in the background theory.


----------



## Jim Engel (Nov 14, 2007)

Martine Loots said:


> At 6 weeks of age
> 
> This is the kind of puppy training we do. The breeder hadn't done anything with the pups and this is the way we like to get them:
> 
> ...



Thank you, very interesting.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: At 6 weeks of age

This is the kind of puppy training we do. The breeder hadn't done anything with the pups and this is the way we like to get them:

Suttle, are you reading this ?? HA HA.

I don't do much more than get them to be ok in the crate. Someday hopefully this year, I will have my own property, and kennels. Then I will do even LESS with the pups.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

There was an even earlier split (wolf & dog), 14,000 years ago, or even more. The _primeivel wolf _is not the same wolf you see today on any continent. With the wide ranging territory that wolves traverse, it would be easy for spontaneous mutations to overwhelmingly influence a genepool that is trapped by isolation from other wide ranging populations. And there have been occasional backcrosses of wolf and dog all throughout history. In fact, the wolf gained the black coat coloring from the dog, but that occured well prior to recorded history.


----------



## Carlos Machado (Dec 28, 2008)

"Where do I find the 4 wolves that were in the stud book in the early ancestry of the GSD ??"
From this site and they have the names of a few old books detailing it http://www.asuperiorgsd.com/wolf-dog.html
*All dogs are "wolfdogs". The only difference between them (besides appearance and temperament) is the number of generations away from a "pure" wolf the individual canine is. The original German Shepherd studbook, Zuchtbuch fur Deutche Schaferhunde (SZ), shows several pure wolves were used to "create" the breed and this was less than 100 years ago! Similar events can be uncovered for Alaskan Malamutes, Siberian Huskies, Belgian Shepherd types, and many rarer-breed "dogs". German Shepherds were recently the MOST POPULAR KC breed. Imagine that -- a 'wolfdog' is the most popular working/companion dog! 
**Captain Von Stephanitz, of the German infantry, bought sheep-herding dogs (many of them field trial winners) from all over Europe in the late 1800's and early 1900's and bred them together to create his 'ultimate service dog'. He started a registry and stud book. His favourite dog, Hektor, he gave the first # (SZ 1). Hektor was 1/4th wolf. He was bred to every decent bitch around, and all the dogs originally imported to the UK & America were proudly traced back to him. Shortly thereafter, the German Shepherd Dog's (GSD) name was changed to Alsatian Wolf Dog. Their popularity soared for a while, then fell tremendously as the media sensationalised every trivial remotely negative event that occurred associated with a canine with the word 'wolf' in it. There were arguments left and right - " Was the Alsatian Wolfdog (GSD) the best working/most capable/most intelligent dog that ever walked the face of the earth OR was Alsatian Wolfdog (GSD) the unpredictable/livestock eating/human attacking beast from hell?? Sound familiar? Well, we know how that one turned out. The name was eventually changed back in 1977 to German Shepherd Dog, and over the last few years things have calmed down, and the GSD soon reached it peak at the top of the 'most popular dog' list .
In the first decade of 1900, Von Stephanitz wrote a book (in German) about his loyal hard working dogs called "The German Shepherd in Word and Picture". In this book he documents the above heritage and pleas to the breeders not "to add more wolf blood" into his dogs as he had ALREADY found the IDEAL combination. In 1923, an American version was translated VERBATIM. Not many copies were printed and few still exist. [email protected] has a pricey (about $350) original and more may (?) be found by doing rare book searches. In 1932, an 8th Enlarged and 'Revised' (read 'Sanitised' !) version was financed by English speaking 'interests'. All references to the positive wolf heritage were removed and most GSD fanciers have been denying RECENT wolf heritage ever since. 
Herr Strebel is quoted in "The Alsatian Wolf-Dog", by G. Horowitz as saying that he "has seen how easily a wolf can step into the pedigree of Alsatians without causing all those terrible phenomena that are considered to be the results of crossing with a wolf". He gives an example of a hybrid wolf (whose granddam was a wolf) who "absolutely had the temperament of a Sheepdog; who was obedient and faithful, and the pet of the house" (page 14, "Concerning the Wolf Cross"). He goes on to state that this is a striking example of how quickly all trace of wolf's blood is lost in a 'domesticated' breed. 
In 1912, Monsieur Henry Sodenkamp wrote in the Belgian Journal, Chasse et Peche (The Chase and Hunt), that it is the French opinion that "THE WOLF LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE ALSATIAN". (The breed was partially created in Alsace, France). 
*The poodle might be closer to the original Asian wolf DNA and the shepherd wolf DNA may have only come from males making it harder to analyze where is that study?
Yes wolves are way ahead of dogs for most physical things but lack social graces & stability there are a few wolf hybrids some are used in China http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunming_Wolf-dog 
Italy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupo_Italiano
Czechoslovakian Wolf dog http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czechoslovakian_Wolfdog


----------



## Jason Hammel (Aug 13, 2009)

I have read stuff that has put doubt in my mind about dogs having been domesticated from wolfs vs. from something else like a coyote etc. I honestly don't know what to think. I also have been thinking about all the animals around the earth that once were but are no more after very recent extinctions.

For instance: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vqCCI1ZF7o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wwOMoC40q6k&NR=1 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V-v_SGtnb0&feature=related

However these are supposedly Marsupiels but it still leaves someone to wonder "Well what else was there that we killed off?"


----------



## Carlos Machado (Dec 28, 2008)

All the DNA study's there are dozens of them in the last 10 years and older none dispute that the gray wolf is the dogs only ancestor even the theorist Ray Coppinger doesn't say anything different he just believes they self domesticated themselves coming around our garbage but wolves are dangerous when they get use to eating our garbage and we were probably stealing there kills and garbage before we started eating them eventually keeping the tamer ones our first domesticated animal which allowed us to farm and keep other food animals with the help of dogs.

*This is from Wikipedia there are some studies at the bottom*
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_the_domestic_dog

Prior to the use of DNA, researchers were divided into two schools of thought:


most supposed that these early dogs were descendants of tamed wolves, which interbred and evolved into a domesticated species.
other scientists, while believing wolves were the chief contributor, suspected that jackals or coyotes contributed to the dog's ancestry.
 Carles Vila, who has conducted the most extensive study to date, has shown that DNA evidence has ruled out any ancestor canine species except the wolf. Vila's team analyzed 162 different examples of wolf DNA from 27 populations in Europe, Asia, and North America. These results were compared with DNA from 140 individual dogs from 67 breeds gathered from around the world. Using blood or hair samples, DNA was extracted and genetic distance for mitochondrial DNA was estimated between individuals.[14]
Based on this DNA evidence, most of the domesticated dogs were found to be members of one of four groups. The largest and most diverse group contains sequences found in the most ancient dog breeds, including the dingo of Australia, the New Guinea Singing Dog, and many modern breeds, like the collie and retriever. Other groups such as the German shepherd showed a closer relation to wolf sequences than to those of the main dog group, suggesting that such breeds had been produced by crossing dogs with wild wolves. It is also possible that this is evidence that dogs may have been domesticated from wolves on different occasions and at different places. Vilà is still uncertain whether domestication happened once–after which domesticated dogs bred with wolves from time to time–or whether it happened more than once.
A later study by Peter Savolainen et al. identified DNA evidence suggesting a common origin from a single East Asian gene pool for all dog populations.[13]


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

Daryl Ehret said:


> This is about the third or fourth reference I've run across that indirectly states that Stephanitz was hardly the breed "creator" at all. By indirectly, I mean it was never assumed he was, therefore could not be disputed. In my mess of files somewhere, I have an additional source I found from the 1910's or 20's that also referred to the "Police Dog" as an already very old breed. I'll see if I can find that too.
> 
> The one above was by David Brockwell.
> http://books.google.com/books?id=oX...resnum=1&ved=0CAoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=&f=false


 
Daryl, I'd really like to see all the articles, books, research you have laying around.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Right now, almost everything's still packed up (books & notes) and in the garage, or spread out among four different computer hard drives. I'm "roughing it" still.


----------

