# I always said those Belgians can breed...



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nmkj5gq1cQU&feature=related

I was refering to dogs. After watching this, I am amazed!


----------



## ann schnerre (Aug 24, 2006)

i didn't watch more than the first, IDK, 30 seconds--these are what are known in the industry as "double-muscled" cattle; they are genetically double recessives (like a black GSD). i think they're freaks, they have physical problems beyond the muscling problem, and no one should breed for this trait. period. nothing but trouble.

sound familiar???


----------



## Mike Scheiber (Feb 17, 2008)

Add some green HULK! looks like some good eating Mmmmmmmm


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Oh my god, Look at the size of the ASS on those things - and the shaving thing seems a tad bit weird. I notice that in spite (or because of) all those gigantic ass and thigh muscles they take such short mincing steps, guess they are muscle bound? hamanahamanhamburger, mmm mmm good !!!!! =P~


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

I cannot imagine one of those things coming after a person.....our bulls get snarky (especially at round up when they start pushing one another around) and they are fairly good sized boys. 

I bet they are quicker than they look like they would be, I know our boys are.....yikes.


----------



## ann schnerre (Aug 24, 2006)

carol-one thing i thought but didn't say initially was " why are those guys in the pen w/those bulls???"

maybe cause the bulls can't move fast enough to take the "guys"? eh???

NASTY genetics, and self-defeating to boot. but this is a working dog forum, not ranchers.net. where you all can discuss cattle issues ad infinitum if you want to.


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

Nah, I don't like to talk cattle any more than I have to....unless it is about seasoning or homeade BBQ sauce....hee hee.....

I agree, it is nasty genetics.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

ann freier said:


> i didn't watch more than the first, IDK, 30 seconds--these are what are known in the industry as "double-muscled" cattle; they are genetically double recessives (like a black GSD). i think they're freaks, they have physical problems beyond the muscling problem, and no one should breed for this trait. period. nothing but trouble.
> 
> sound familiar???


Are you saying black gsd's are nothing but trouble? ;-)

Actually, the video says that the breeding is the result of selecting for defective genes (not recessive) that would normally regulate the muscle growth.

This reminds me a bit of the "Bully" whippets, where "doubling up" on a desireable trait produces a non-desireable effect, as in the following image. 









Although the Bully parent may not "perform" as well as the Fast parent, it can consistently outproduce the Fast parent in creating Fast offspring (75%), while the remaining offspring are suitable as producer Bully's themselves.


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

Very interesting Daryl, but wouldn't breeding the bully's to produce faster dogs also pass on the bully gene? Genetics are really facinating but over my head a bit. I never even knew these freak whippets existed up until a couple months ago. I wonder how well they move and what health issues the have? Also someone said the cattle had health issues but didn't say what they were. I can't believe the Begians would breed them for a 100 years if they had no good qualities. That place looked pretty high tech to be breeding pet bulls just for shock value.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Yes, the other 25% would be "Bully's". Not a "bully gene", but a homozygous pairing of the mutated myostatin gene. One copy of the mutation produces a desirable "performer" phenotype (Fast whippets), two copies of the mutation produces a more "prepotent producer" (Bully whippets), but a less desirable phenotype for performing well. Two "Fast" phenotypes when bred together, will still produce some "Bully" types (about 25%).


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

So the bully whippets are pretty common then?

They look so... er, unusual. Woulda never thought that they were common. They look like they'd be uncomfortable just walking around, or even sitting.


----------



## Melissa Blazak (Apr 14, 2008)

I have seen these cattle at the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair in Toronto. Unbelievable!!! It's much more impressive in person, although it is weird looking when you look into the next stall and there is a normal bull.


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

I wonder how long this has been the case Daryl, did the gene one day mutate or was the whippet always stricken with these Bully's? Interesting 2 Bully's will always produce Bully's but breed a Bully to a normal whippet you get all fast dogs. 2 fast dogs are a crap shoot so to speak. Very crazy stuff. Makes you think what we are trying to get in GSD's, maybe we are going about it all wrong. Mother Nature likes to keep a few secrets.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Mutations happen all the time, many in small, unnoticeable or insignificant ways. Mutations are nature's way of ensuring genetic variation. I really don't know much about the history of the breed, but like the example because I feel it nicely illustrates the differences between "performers" and "producers" in breeding. It would be interesting to find if there are any actual detrimental effects to the Bully type, in the dogs or the cattle.

There is, in my opinion, too much superstitious taboo when the words "linebreeding" or "inbreeding" become involved in a topic of conversation, usually because of a lack of understanding the processes really at work. Like automobiles, which are useful tools that can be lethal with improper use with full intent, or even unintentionally by a general lack of awareness on part of the operator behind the wheel.


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

" I feel it nicely illustrates the differences between "performers" and "producers" in breeding "

I agree and am more OK than most, when people breed dogs with no titles (or cows with double muscling), knowing they can still produce great dogs. If yoiu know the dog, his lineage and his drives, titles are not needed to know if he will produce. How many titled dogs have we seen that produce crap?


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Michelle Kehoe said:


> " I feel it nicely illustrates the differences between "performers" and "producers" in breeding "
> 
> I agree and am more OK than most, when people breed dogs with no titles (or cows with double muscling), knowing they can still produce great dogs. *If yoiu know the dog, his lineage and his drives, titles are not needed to know if he will* *produce. How many titled dogs have we seen that produce crap?*


Yeah, but how many people really _know_ their dog and aren't kennel blind? :-k And how many more untitled dogs have *really* produced crap? Not something to easily quantify. And how much of the so-called crap was actually the fault of the new owner/handler? Therein lies the problem and why I personally won't get a pup for sport/performance purposes unless they've been tested for health, temperament, and drive. The best way have now to quantify what we might get is either have the dog titled or have it in a real working situation. Otherwise, why don't we save money and go find a nice dog from a shelter or rescue who can do what you want? 

To me, the breeder has to put the time and money where their mouth is and prove the dogs (not just the sire!). If someone had pups with parents with no titles, no health, or temperament tests, but who swore up and down that the parents were nice drivey dogs from good lines, would you really pay the same for a pup from a litter who _did_ have titles, temperament, and health tests from good lines? I sure wouldn't! [-( I don't know too many folks who would breed animals for conformation if the sire and dam weren't already champions of some sort, and physical appearance is a lot less complicated and variable than behavior and temperament.

My main issue with calling it production vs performance is that dogs are not livestock. We don't ask anything more from a cow or bull or sheep or whatever to grow quickly and produce a lot of wool or milk or a good hide. They don't need to do complicated tasks like the things we ask of our dogs. Behavioral genetics and epigenetics is extremely complicated and is not dictated by mere Mendellian Punnett squares alone, whereas many things that we like about livestock often is, at least to a degree. Good drive and good temperament is not a simple autosomal dominant or recessive trait. Too bad though. It'd make things a lot easier. :wink: But in the mean time, I'd suspect the best way to quantify things would be to have titled or working parents. JMHO.


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

I'm not so quick to blame people for dogs going bad. A real strong dog is hard to screw up. I did a few wrongs with my pups and that didn't spoil them for working or life there on after. I'm really hard on my dogs and can squash a soft one quick, if they make it past me with good nerves they are a good dog. No pampering fee fee here, not to say I don't take super care of them and feed them the best foods and house them well. I love my dogs and I show them affection, when I want to show it. I'n not affraid to put pressure on a pup, I feel it helps them to cope later on with harder things.

I bought my pup when his mother didn't have a Sch1 on her yet, so what? She's working on her 2 now after another litter, that I also have a pup out of. Waiting for all dogs to have 3's is impracticle and not the smartest way to go. Titles aren't the end all. If I see a dog with super potential but no title, would I rather buy the pup from her or the titled one with less potential? Time factors in to allot of dogs not getting titles and I know many breeders that can't and don't title all of their dogs and I could care less, those untitled bitches are making some really nice puppies. The titles dont change the genetic makeup of the dog.

Would I buy a pup from untitled parents form someone I don't know or someone who obviously doesn't know what they are doing? No, I can see who does and doesn't have good stock and who knows what matches are good and who just sees 2 dogs of the same breed and throws them together. The people I deal with "KNOW" their dogs and can tell me both good and bad, what to expect with a pairing of different stud dogs and turn out litter that are consistant every time. They don't breed for 1 or 2 good pups, the whole litter is above average.

I'm not advocating everyone breed untitled dogs, but I don't look down my nose at those breeders that do it occasionally.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

So Maren, now that you are the big expert, What does titleing a Mal in Sch prove????? Until you have seen the weak dogs with titles that I have over the years, and the "extensive" health testing that doesn't prove shit, then maybe you should sit this one out.

Titles mean less than the breeders actual ability to see what it is that they have. I have seen some really nice pups come from untitled parents. Obviously this is not going to happen all the time, but considering some of the absofockinglutely useless trash that I have seen come from titled dogs?????? Really. Kind of need to get more experience before you post on some of this stuff.

Dogs ARE ****in livestock. Furbaby people are the biggest detriment to dogs in the history of time. If people just started putting trash down as opposed to feeding the useless crap 98% of people own, you would see a big jump in dogs that could do the work.

For ****s sake, we cannot even get people who KNOW they took it in the ass to send a dog back to the breeder in this country. When you make a title easy to get so that people can "have some success" then the whole sport can just **** off.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Even though I agree with your line of thinking Jeff, I don't see how titling a Mal in ring is much different than doing so in Schutzund.

I'm just guessing here, but there's gotta be some cry baby dogs titled in ring as well.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I think the issues some people have with calling dogs "livestock" are mainly due to an inability to separate their emotional attachments from their good sense observations.

A breeder doesn't need to be un-emotional about who they're producing with, but they had better be honest with themselves and others about what they're producing. If their feelings are skewing their objective perceptions, a "livestock" breeder will outproduce them in quality.

I have and prefer a strong bond with my dogs, and they don't seem too indignified if I refer to them as livestock. Only humanizers/anthropomorphists seem to.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Gerry Grimwood said:


> Even though I agree with your line of thinking Jeff, I don't see how titling a Mal in ring is much different than doing so in Schutzund.


The sports do test for some different traits, and although Mals can excel at Sch, they were developed as working dogs through the Ring sports (FR/BR). While GSD were developed using Sch. Many of the German bred Malinois I've seen, with multiple generations of being Sch dogs, actually act more like a GSD then the Malinois I know who are multiple generation Ring dogs. IMO the Ring sports made the Malinois what it is, therefore they are the best sport to be testing your Malinois in. Not knocking on other sports, since I enjoy doing them all, but I would pass up a dog that excelled in Sch but showed some issues in Ring, over a dog that excelled in Ring but showed some issues in Sch. Issues being something like the Sch dog can't do max on the Ring jumps, or the Ring dog isn't the best tracker.



> I'm just guessing here, but there's gotta be some cry baby dogs titled in ring as well.


I've definitely seen some "crybaby" dogs titled in Ring. Love that term by the way. For me the difference is although I've seen some FRIII I wouldn't neccessary want to own, just not my type of dog, I haven't seen an FRIII that I felt was a "shitter". Might not be King Kong, but wasn't a complete piece of crap either. I have seen some SchIII's that I felt were "shitters". I don't want to start an FR vs Sch war by any means, but for me saying your dog has an FRIII tells me more about it then saying it's got a SchIII. In part because of the number of "midnight trials" you see in Sch, and also the number of dogs I've seen, mainly showlines, who have SchIII's that can't seem to do a basic courage test with a strange helper/field, and can barely do one on their own helper/field.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: Even though I agree with your line of thinking Jeff, I don't see how titling a Mal in ring is much different than doing so in Schutzund.

I used to do AKC OB when I was a kid, and we had all sorts of dogs doing it. Then at some point, I started seeing a lot of border collies all of a sudden. They were fairly young as well.

I "borrowed" a BC pup from a friend and went out and got a CD on the dog three weeks later winning my class and getting high scores. Sch is a joke, and for a Mal it is just not much of a test. I do not want to see a Mal doing Sch for the same reason that Kadie stated with the Mals starting to act like GSD's over in Germany.

Gerry, it sounds like you need to come and join my ring revolution.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

By the way, by joining my ring revolution will help ensure that ring does not go the way of Sch with rediculously easy club trials and dogs getting titles because of who owns them.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Gerry, it sounds like you need to come and join my ring revolution.


Not with my current dog, he's a chronic spinner.

Kadi, I think anyone would rather have a FR3 than a SCH3 on any dog, I was just seeing if Jeff would rip me a new one over that statement.:-$


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> I think the issues some people have with calling dogs "livestock" are mainly due to an inability to separate their emotional attachments from their good sense observations................ I have and prefer a strong bond with my dogs, and they don't seem too indignified if I refer to them as livestock. Only humanizers/anthropomorphists seem to.


 
Technically, it appears dogs don't fall under the definition of livestock, at least not under any of the many definitions I found here:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:livestock&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Looks like it has nothing to do with emotional attachments or the lack thereof.:wink:


----------



## Mike Scheiber (Feb 17, 2008)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: I do not want to see a Mal doing Sch for the same reason that Kadie stated with the Mals starting to act like GSD's over in Germany.


Quit driving driving them nutz with that god damn rattle stick and start treating them like a Schutzhund dog or like they have a set you could end up with a a 1/2 way decent ring dog:mrgreen:


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I understand, if you have one dog or even a few, it's hard to view them as livestock. When considering a breeding program, it's really quite fitting.



> The term "livestock" is nebulous and may be defined narrowly or broadly.
> 
> On a broader view, livestock refers to any breed or population of animal kept by humans for a useful, commercial purpose. This can mean domestic animals, semi-domestic animals, or captive wild animals. Semi-domesticated refers to animals which are only lightly domesticated or of disputed status. These populations may also be in the process of domestication.
> http://www.answers.com/topic/livestock


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

*Livestock: Domestic animals commonly raised for food or fiber, including, but not limited to, horses, ponies, mules, donkeys, bison, alpacas, llamas, rabbits, and fowl.*


I bet you can find as many definitions that are broad enough to include dogs as I can find definitions which are narrower and do not include dogs. I think it's six of one, half dozen of the other. I do take offense to the suggestion that those who don't think dogs are livestock all automatically fall into the category of those who call there dogs furbabies, although I would not be surprised to find out that someone who would take offense at the term "livestock" is a PETA sympathizer as well. :-& I know some very reputable breeders who don't consider their dogs either livestock or furbabies. It's merely a question of definition nothing else, my friend.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Alright, I'll meet ya half-way ;-)

_"Livestock is the term used to refer (singularly or plurally) to a domesticated animal intentionally reared in an agricultural setting to make produce such as food or fibre, or *for its labour."*_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock

_"*Agriculture* refers to the production of goods through the growing of plants, animals and other life forms. The study of agriculture is known as agricultural science."_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agriculture

I think dog breeding has a lot to gain by keeping a close tab on agricultural business and science in many of its aspects. And among horse breeders, no one seems to have a problem calling their horses livestock, no matter how "connected" they are.


........I suppose there's no "furrbabies" in South Korea (ewww!!).....


*South Korea Seeking To Classify Dog As Livestock*
April 2, 2008
http://freaksandgeeks.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2048731:BlogPost:352

*Seoul aims to reclassify dogs as livestock*
April 3, 2008
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/04/03/1206851042757.html

*Dog Meat to Be Subject to Livestock Rules*
Mar.24,2008
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200803/200803240015.html

*Seoul to reclassify dogs as livestock*
April 11 2008
http://www.asianpacificpost.com/por...Seoul_to_reclassify_dogs_as_livestock.do.html

*Dogs as livestock*
March 25th, 2008
http://www.buhaykorea.com/2008/03/25/dogs-as-livestock/

*Seoul Categorizing Dogs as Livestock*
03-24-2008
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2008/03/117_21247.html

*Bid to classify dogs as livestock*
April 02, 2008
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23476590-5002700,00.html


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Yum........Did I hear right, McDonalds is calling this a McPuppy? :mrgreen: :mrgreen: Finally a use for the Panda Shepherd.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

But the B-King Shepherd has more meat.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> But the B-King Shepherd has more meat.


#-o :lol: :lol:


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

Hey if the economy gets bad enough and I get hungry enough... I'm not above puppy soup. Native American's had camp dogs that went in the pot, if the stores of meat were gone before spring and the big game came back. Horses hit the menue too. =P~


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Michelle Kehoe said:


> Hey if the economy gets bad enough and I get hungry enough... I'm not above puppy soup. Native American's had camp dogs that went in the pot, if the stores of meat were gone before spring and the big game came back. Horses hit the menue too. =P~


Those must have been "Hollywood Indians" right ??

Horse steak is not good by any stretch of the imagination, it is food but that's what they call tofu


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

Hmm, my grandfather said it tasted pretty damn good when he was starving in Germany, durring WWII. When your hungry, taste and prefferences kinda go out the window. If it's eddible, you will stick it in your mouth and chew.


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

Also I'm pretty sure I'm not decended from "Hollyweird Indians". Grain fed horse...grain fed cow...they have hooves and the eat the same stuff, they can't taste that bad or that much different. I'm not big on red meat anyway.(I choke it down because it tastes slightly less gross than tofu) I eat just enough to get by. I'm sure with enough A-1 on it, I could choke down some horse. I'm sure with some spices it would make a fine jerky, my favorite way to eat meat anyway. I have never gone out to eat and ordered steak, a burger occasionally but NEVER steak. I preffer chicken, turkey, pork, eggs and white fish for my protein sorces. Protein is protein, our bodies require it. I know people that eat bear. Doesn't sound appealing but I guess I'd eat it if I was hungry enough.


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Bear is actually pretty good, black bear that is. Makes great ham and sausage when hunted in the spring before they get fat and greasy.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Haven't been back to answer this thread (darn professors think they need to have 3 straight days of tests before Memorial Day weekend) and when I tried to earlier at school, it autologged me out and deleted my long response.







But Reader's Digest version:

1) the livestock issue: does a bull live in the house with you? Do we ask a sheep to perform complicated tasks for us? Does a chicken need rock solid nerves and temperament to taste good and lay eggs? We've got a partnership with dogs that rely on both genetics, epigenetics, and environment. It's not as simple as selecting only for production, as with food animals.

2) if you want a sport dog, you'll have better luck with sport dog parents. Obviously that's not always the case. There's even rescue/shelter dogs out there who can do the work. But if you're looking for a sport dog, why would you pay comparatively as much money for untitled and/or unproven parents as for titled and/or proven parents? 

I don't worship titles. 150 years ago, there were no titles, of course. And for some work, there are no titles. And that's fine too. And of course there are poor dogs with titles. People get really emotionally involved in their dogs and they put a lot of work into them to get them to title so they can breed them (for better or worse). But unfortunately, IF you want a sport dog, titled parents is likely the way to go.

3) With females, if you breed your female every other year and start her at about 2-3 years old when she's physically and mentally mature, she'll lose about 6 months of training for 2 months gestation, 2 months lactation and weaning, and 2 months to get her back in shape, assuming you do no training at all with her. So that's a good excuse not to work towards trialing her the other 18 months? :-k If a breeder can't take some time every day to work with their females towards trialing, how are they going to have the time to properly work with and socialize the puppies for two months straight with early neurological stimulation and exposure to lots of different stuff? Heck, even if you don't even trial them, how hard is it to get a CD or RN on them? Or even just a TT or CGC? 

4) Jeff, as you've said before, a lot of people do Schutzhund just cause it's the only thing open to them. Ring sport looks very fun and it kills me that I have to just do agility with my ring sport bred dog because there's not a single club in this state. I had thought of trying Schutzhund again, but the local club folded and the nearest club is Bob's, which is 1.5 hours away, which is too much of a time and gas commitment at this time.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> But the B-King Shepherd has more meat.


OHHHHHHHH - NOW I get it - that must be why the King Shepherds are so big and fat. Now if only we can find a taker for the Shiloh............maybe Jack in The Box?


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

This happened not so long ago, i.e. in the "80's", a chap used to ride up on his moped past our garden, see the Landseer, 70 kgs, and call out " n i c e dog". He was often "filled up" and slept on a bench opposite before riding home to the next village. Ben always answered with a growl.

I learned later that he lived off dog meat. He took over a number of unwanted dogs, and when they were old (or maybe before) shot them and fed off them. He used the boil down the fat and use it for skin ailments and whatever.


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

"1) the livestock issue: does a bull live in the house with you? Do we ask a sheep to perform complicated tasks for us? Does a chicken need rock solid nerves and temperament to taste good and lay eggs? We've got a partnership with dogs that rely on both genetics, epigenetics, and environment. It's not as simple as selecting only for production, as with food animals."



So dogs aren't livestock because we bring them in the house? I know of people that bring, deer, ponies, and chickens in their homes, what does that really prove? My mom loved her horse so much, she slept in his stall, if it was more practical maybe the horse would have come inside. Yes we do breed and train livestock to perform what and how we want them to. Dressage horses are highly trained, sheep are trained to come when called or a bell is rung for dinner, chickens are breed to lay more eggs with less feed, cattle to stand still when we milk them. Depending on how dedicated and how much you love your livestock, will determine how much you put back into them, the same for dog people. Not all dogs live inside, not all dogs are treated as small fuzzy children. Just becasue you put a dog in a stroller doesn't make him less an animal or livestock. I used to treat my rabbits as dress up babies when I was young, I took them everywhere, put clothes on them, rolled them in a stroller, slept with them in my bed. They were still livestock and you better believe we got the tax cut for livestock on their feed. I want a pet long horn bull, maybe someday I'll get one, maybe I'll even teach him tricks. Maybe I'll saddle him up and ride him, I have seen it done with buffalo. Doesn't change what they are, just how they are used.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Ah ha, you wisely noticed I (intentionally) did not mention horses.







Although they are still legally classified as livestock in the US, unless you've got the idiots who show their horses in halter who have crappy temperaments but look pretty and they breed the crap out of those (kinda like conformation in dogs...hmmm...), you do NEED a good working relationship with your horse. Meaning good temperament, willing to please and learn, physically sound, etc. to be a good trail horse, kid/clueless husband horse, equitation horse, etc. You do not NEED a good working relationship with your chickens or steers other than for them to reproduce often or grow quickly respectively. 

Yeah, as a future vet, it certainly helps if they don't charge every time you get into the paddock, but their value is in their flesh, not in their physical and mental ability to perform for the complicated tasks we require. Doing dressage with a horse or protection sport with a dog is a lot more complicated and requires a lot more sustained partnership than teaching sheep to be still for shearing or a large carnivore at the zoo to be still for physical exam or even my pet snakes to be handleable. Equating having good husbandry manners versus complicated movements for performance may use some of the same principles of positive reinforcement, but are not in the same ball park for the levels that we require. Does that make sense?

And sure, people bring all sorts of animals inside. You can treat them how you like (within reason for neglect and cruelty, of course). You can even teach rabbits to do some agility sequencing. But a steer or food rabbit's primary reason for being is not to be smart, loyal, willing to learn, high drive, and so on like it would be for a dog, working or performance dogs in particular.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Speaking of "purposes" what is the purpose of those awful little hairless dogs and cats? They can't do anything and they are awful to touch so they aren't good for "petting". Also aren't there some breeds of dogs originally developed for the cook pot (I remember reading something along those lines about some Asian breeds maybe? 

When I was a kid I had a quarter horse that I took inside my parents house once when they weren't home. I needed something from my room so I walked him into the livingroom, being young and dumb I figured the worst he could do was take a dump. Then he started looking a tad bit wild eyed and I looked around and remembered my parents living room was pretty much all huge walls of glass picture windows and sliding glass doors, so I spun him around & got him out as fast as I could. Luckily he didn't spook until we were out the front doors.


----------

