I was having an op today, and while waiting was reading "The Culture Clash" by Jean Donaldson, which I was part way through 3 years ago and never finished. Oddly, the very paragraph I was at, said part of what I was trying to say regarding "deed/breed" in the child killed by dog thread.

First I just wanted to put:

Phenotype (ie what an individual is like) = genetics + environment.

To quote (hope isn't too long):

"Selective breeding practices..... stating, in breed standards, temperament characteristics such as "aloof", "discerning", "wary of strangers", "one-family dog" etc. The behaviour these stated ideals flirt with..... is fear and aggression towards strangers. The mythical dog is one who can tell the good guys from the bad guys. Gentle with toddlers.... accepting of family friends.... [paraphrasing here] - mythical dog attacks would be robbers and muggers. [end paraphrase] For every anecdotal report of an otherwise (allegedly) perfectly friendly dog who nailed the burglar, there are..... perhaps thousands of dogs that, for identical reasons, nailed the neighbour, the delivery guy or a child in the park."

The other point she makes shortly after in the book when talking about teaching bite inhibition is NEVER to get young children to do these exercises with puppies, because the way they scream, flap, run, fall down etc simulates wounded animals and brings out the predatory instincts in a dog therefore. Which would suggest that breeds that have been bred for a high prey drive (presa canario, am bulldog - just as examples) and tenacity will pose a greater risk unless those breeds are extremely well socialised and trained and bred away from the original purpose to an extent. I suppose I am not so much in favour of breed bans, as modification of breed characteristics in certain breeds through selective breeding to reduce the risk. But I still think it is a mistake to label certain breeds, as many have already had that done by responsible breeders - and the problem I see is with the people who deliberately breed aggressive/ high drive ones for criminality or "status", or BYBs who breed without thought for temperament.

May not be popular :-o since it disagrees in principle with breed bans AND with the status quo/all breeds are fine there are no problems - but my thoughts. And I hope they make sense - not supposed to sign any legally binding documents etc at the moment after the anaesthetic, lol!!

Thoughts? I was hoping this could be a topic for discussion - and I thought it was sufficiently separate from the original to start a new thread. If not, sorry mods. :-)

> But I still think it is a mistake to label certain breeds, as many have already had that done by responsible breeders

Meant to say "But I still think it is a mistake to label certain breeds, as many have already had the breeding away from wary/aloof done by responsible breeders and breed standards modified by the Kennel Club" but out of time to edit. Sorry, still spaced out from anaesthetic.

PS:

The Culture Clash by Jean Donaldson

Canine Body Language: A Photographic Guide by Brenda Aloff

And the book/ DVD : On Talking Terms with Dogs: Calming Signals by Turid Rugaas are all fantastic reading/ viewing to learn more about dogs (for those that haven't heard of them) IMHO.

I'm not sure it is the breeds temperments that are the problem, breeds responsible for the deaths of children over the last 6 years iclude the Rottie, PitBull, Staffy & American Bulldog, all breeds that should be very good with thier families and children.
Obviously something has gone wrong, it could be breeding, training/socilisation or lack of awareness of the potential risks when dogs are left unsupervised around children or a mix of all three. Two of those  three things are the owners responsibility.

I agree that breeders should be aiming for more well-rounded dogs, getting away from guarding and agression but owners should also realise the potential of a dog and act accordingly.

It would be great for breeds to have thier temperments 'softened' but I'm not sure how it could be done, obviously, without a doubt, any dog that shows agressive tendancies towards people/animals should not be bred from.
Take my breed for an example, he should be 'capeable of guarding & indifferent to strangers'.
He is friendly towrads strangers - how does one know if that is his inherited temperment or down to socilisation? When he hears somebody come into my house, he goes to the kitchen for a biccy - is that inherited temperment or training? So what I'm trying to say is if dogs bred from are well-trained & socilased, how does one KNOW what dogs would pose a problem if the owners didn't train & socialise them and left the dog with children? Inohter words, as the title of the topic, is his behaviour down to nature or nurture, or even a combination of both?

I am always carefull when letting strangers/other peoples children into my house, but I was exactly the same with my last dog (lab cross) as I see no point 'testing' the temperment of a dog at the expense of a human, especially a child, by ignoring the possibility of what can just be general canine behaviour (proteciveness/guarding/prey-drive) or behaviour that could have even been inadvertantly taught to the dog (eg. holding a dog tight on a lead while meeting other dogs/people may teach the dog it's a tense situation)

I wonder how many of these dogs can be said to have come from breeders who have selected for positive traits.

Certainly quite a number have been by dogs that have not got a positive history.  The unsocialised Pub Rotts, the Grandmothers Rott on a tie out because it was aggressive, dogs bred or bought deliberately for negative traits?????

Certainly the description of temperament of this unrecognised breed purported to be American Bulldogs and what I have seen of them (around a dozen) have had very unsteady temperaments, and high reactivity.

I do think the uneducated way people in this country acquire dogs is a recipe for disaster and I wondered if those members of this board from Scandinavian countries (where teh generqal public sre a lot more savvy in this) could tell us if such incidents are less in those countries where people do buy from 'proper breeders' (those with a genuine interest in a breed over an above simply producing pups).

Personally I do think nature is the major factor.

Having imported a dog as a puppy of 9 1/2 weeks who spent all that time in Quarantine, yet was able to cope fine with people and dogs at 9 months, and be shown just days out of solitary.

I would not like dogs mental traits and temperament become generic to the extent they were all alike except for the wrapping.

Frustrating as it can sometimes be, my breeds independence and tendency top range (they go selectively deaf on a scent), these traits are part of what does it for me.  I have met the occasional member of my breed with nothing between the ears, just totally amiable,a nd if that was what they were all like it wouldn't' appeal, though they make super pets.

So I would be for toning down guarding/protective/and highly predatory traits.  My breed are hunting dogs, yet they are generally not out for the kill but out for the track.

I have had some catch something (stupid squirrel) and then wonder what to do with it, though some do make good mole catchers, rabbiters, mousers.  this goes to show that some traits that make them good hunters are essential, but some allied traits can be dropped.

A dog required to track a half ton Elg does not need to have the will to hold and bite.

For example none of mine have ever lived with cats, the older ones have met my Dads cat on several occasions, and with having never been allowed to chase, and her not being for running, were completely fine loose with her, if a little scared of Sheba the terrible.  Yet if the cats run they get excited.  There are a lot of Cats near me that know that I do not allow the dogs to phase and that they are on lead, and quite happily sit there unfluffed while I insist dogs ignore them.

So in this case the lower killing readiness/need of my dogs combines with the training and habituation they have received.

This might not be possible with some sight hounds

> I would not like dogs mental traits and temperament become generic to the extent they were all alike except for the wrapping.

Neither would I - I was talking about toning down rather than making them all the same - or it would almost negate the point of having different breeds, since we do go for 'type' as well as looks - I love the way on the GSP benches at shows all the GSPs make the same GSP noises, the way Flatties are happy-go-lucky, cheerful, lick you to death. If we all liked the same things we would all own the same breed. :-)

Quite, I am all for toning down the redundant/unacceptable to modern society breed traits.

I just wish that everyone that allowed dogs to breed had a licence and was closely monitored but i know thats pie in the sky.  I may be wrong here but would imagine the dogs that have attacked and killed humans were back street bred and or owned by people who have not got a clue! This may not be the same for all dogs that have attacked but I would put money on it that most are.  Responsible breeders should only breed dogs displaying an excellent temp and be selective of who theirs puppies go to - its sad as its never gonna happen. :-(

I would say it comes down to a balance of both. My friend has a VERY well bred gsd from a top winning uk kennel. To put it mildly the dog is dangerous to both people and other dogs. He was socialized when young but not to a great extent and that fizzled out when the dog hit around 9 months and got more difficult they did the opposite of what they should do and stopped going to classes. The dog is muzzled and double lead walked in the early hours when nobody is around. They dont have visitors to their home anymore.

But on the other hand, another couple i know have a very poor (physical)example of a gsd from rescue(kept locked in a shed for the first 3years of her life) she is a diamond and loves everybody and everything and has from the day they got her.

Personally I do think nature is the major factor

I agree, nurture, can play a huge part in any dogs upbringing...but nature is fundamentally   the key to  how a dog will turn out.. you have the raw material, if it is flawed  or primitive , you have an uphill battle to  work against.

"Quite, I am all for toning down the redundant/unacceptable to modern society breed traits."

If it was left to some in our modern society, the next thing I'll be owning is a robot dog who comes along with me to the sheeple every sunday to be preached to about the sin of using batteries over solar power to power his excessively happy wagging tail of aluminum, but oh boy is he so shiny, well proportioned and good mannered. :)

Hi, I remember reading an often quoted study which suggested that 30% of temperment was genetic and 70% environmental. This would suggest to me that nurture ios more important than nature. But, and this is really important imo, for the ''average'' dog with ''average'' owners genetics may mean the difference between the half assed approach to training and socilising working or not!
Study was out a couple of years ago I think.

Adam

With my own experience I would expect it to be the other way around.

Having had a puppy through Quarantine at 9 weeks coming out at 9 months, good as gold with people situations and dogs.  Yet his only socialisation before quarantine was with the litter and home experiences with the breeder.

I also visited an owner of my breed in Poland who had a 9 months puppy that had never left it's kennel and run, yet within a few days it was happily going for walks and coping with situations visiting the local town market and meeting new people.

Neither situation ideal, but just goes to show with the basics really sound the lack of socialisation can be overcome.

A dog of poor/weak basic charactes can become acceptable with a lot of hard work, but it's basic character will always be weak.

The first will turn out OK with even the most half assed owner, the latter will fail.

> I remember reading an often quoted study which suggested that 30% of temperment was genetic and 70% environmental.

I find this subject very interesting, I've been having a google and found this. , 'Behavioral Genetics', 2000

It's about how the way parents treat thier children effects thier behaviour and how genes are turned on or off in a child by the parents reactions to the childs behaviour - OK, it's in people, with an experiement done on rats, but it's the same principle. It concludes with "Mothers and fathers would be doing gene therapy on their children simply by raising them"

Here is the rat experiement explaining how genes are 'turned on', the rest of the article is more involved with the way in which parents can alter thier childs behaviour (which I'm keeping inmind for when my boys hit the dreaded teenage years, LOL)
Since people, not to mention families, are so infernally complicated, consider the rat. As soon as their wriggly little pups are born, rat mothers lick and groom them, but like mothers of other species they vary in how obsessive they are about getting every one of their offspring's hairs in place. Pups whose mothers treat them like living lollipops grow up different from pups of less devoted mothers: particular genes in the pups' brains are turned on "high." These brain genes play a pivotal role in behavior. With the genes turned up full blast, the rats churn out fewer stress hormones and, as adults, are more resistant to stress, finds Michael Meaney of McGill University. These rats don't startle as easily, are less fearful in the face of novel situations and braver when they have to explore an open field. In rats whose mothers did not lick them so much, the brain genes are not turned up so high (though they are very much present), and the pups grow up to be jumpy, angst-ridden and stressed-out-Woody Allens with whiskers. All because of how much Mom licked and groomed them.

WHen I first joinded this site I was shocked at how people really were against CM & trainers like him, allthough I prefer the reward based traning I didn't understand why people felt so strongly. Reading this article really demonstrates how the influences of how one is treated can change the way one behaves, this has nothing to do with traning but more to do with the general behavioural approach from those around. IN the dog, it would equate to a dog being treated 'heavy handed' & harsh would highly likely end up with exhibiting a behaviour we don't want and a dog that exhibits behaviour we don't want can turn out well behaved as a result of the way people react/beahve around it regardless of the genetic make up of the dog.

There has been a thread in the breeding section about choosing owners for pups. A couple of breeders have said how a bolshy pup is better suited to an experienced home. These 'bolshy pups' I don't believe to be the result of bad breeding, but it's obvious that the tyoe of potential owners of these pups are very important to that pups future.

So I belive that nurture is a drastiaclly important thing for a dogs behaviour. Even a dog carrying the genes to be extremely well-behaved and non-agressive can learn to be a 'monster' in the hands of a harsh owner.

> Having had a puppy through Quarantine at 9 weeks coming out at 9 months, good as gold with people situations and dogs.  Yet his only socialisation before quarantine was with the litter and home experiences with the breeder

Similar to the rat experiment I posted above, I came accross an article that demonstrated the same in puppies, only it also included how the handling of pups in the first weeks by people could have such a dramatic effect. (I've lost it, Ill try to find it again!)

Found it!!

Here

"Environmental influences on the behavior of a puppy most likely start in utero with tactile sensations, temperature variations, etc. During the neonatal and transitional period (birth to three weeks) environmental influences are also critical to behavioral development. Gentle handling and enrichment should start shortly after birth. Adequately stimulated puppies have better coordination, higher sociability towards people and are less fearful in new situations than are un-stimulated puppies. The behavior of the bitch also plays a role in the pup's development."

This study covers the genetic influences of behaviour and concludes with:

"In summary, it is critical to remember that both genetics and environmental influences play an important role in the behavioral development of dogs. Through both responsible breeding and raising it will be possible to produce puppies that will successfully integrate into our lives."

Hi Guys, I was surprised too. I do wonder how much the handling of the dog despite its bad start has an effect though, for example if a dog has been kennelled since birth and never walked but at 9 months is taken on by an experienced handler it will turn out better than one who is always exposed to poor handling.

On the subject of bolshy puppies, sometimes I think a pushy puppy or adult dog is a far better choice than a wimpy one. Most behavioural problems such as aggression have a fear element. So a bolshy dog may be annoyingly pushy but probably not fearful.

On the subject of kennelling, I don't think kennells are that bad an environment from the socilising point of view. You probably have different dogs going past and people around most of the time, and people in and out to clean feed ect. It does depend on the kennell though, there's a difference between garden shed, checked every couple of days and breeder kennell someone around 24/7.

Adam

Ah early imprinting as opposed to post weaning socialisation I really consider part of the nature process.

> Ah early imprinting as opposed to post weaning socialisation I really consider part of the nature process.

In the Nature vs Nurture debate, 'nature' refers to behaviour attributed to the genetics of the individual, any external influence on the behaviour is then 'nurture', even natural external influences from the mother are classed as 'nurture' as it's still an external influence.

>     > Ah early imprinting as opposed to post weaning socialisation I really consider part of the nature process.

> In the Nature vs Nurture debate, 'nature' refers to behaviour attributed to the genetics of the individual, any external influence on the behaviour is then 'nurture', even natural external influences from the mother are classed as 'nurture' as it's still an external influence.

I agree, that's certainly what I was meaning when I posted. Even things like stress hormones in the bitch during pregnancy can I believe from what I've read have an effect (not directly nurture, but environment as opposed to genetic) on how the pups will be (ditto humans and presumably other species).