Following on from the 'dog attack' thread...... here's an interesting thought - breeders can ( and do ! ) change many things about their breed - should we not now be deliberately changing the temperaments in some breeds to make them more suitable as pets and companions ? - is it more responsible to preserve original breed traits  such as guarding, wariness, high prey drives etc  or to breed for a generic placid  family friendly temperament  no matter what the dog looks like on the outside ?

I'll hold my hands up here and say that I deliberately breed for easy going temperaments despite having a traditionally high energy guarding breed - I will not use a dog that is over reactive and a laid back temperament is a high priority - by selecting for these traits I've produced three generations of therapy dogs in a breed renowned for being wary - of course this is not fool proof and I have a young bitch here who can be wary of strangers and is more 'guardy' despite having parents with easy going natures  - when I breed on from her  a placid temperament will be high on my list when choosing the stud dog.

I'm not sure that 'fit for function' should also include temperaments that make breeds frankly UNFIT for their new function - that of being a family pet - the show world has been accused of many things but perhaps this is where they score over the working world - why preserve working traits in aspic when they make the dog a frustrated liability to society ?

your thoughts  ?

Yvonne

im not a breeder,but that makes sense to me.

Having a hunting breed that in Scandinavia needs to prove it's ability in the field before it can gain top show awards i would hate to see our breed totally dumbed down.

I have met a number of our breed (mostly US lines with little recent Nordic influence) that frankly are not the real deal anymore in the mental traits that make them good hunting dogs, but others that have the abilities of tracking and thinking for themselves, both can make excellent pets, but they lack something if dumbed down.

On the other hand there is no place in Society for some breed traits for the fierce guarding territorial traits that are the epitome of some breeds, except in specialist breeding programs for the military/Police, and then sadly any surplus should be PTS and not get into civilian hands.

The same should apply to gladiatorial and high prey drive traits.  You can have a god hunting dog as you do with most Gun dogs and hunting Spitz where the dog is keen to track and or retrieve, but does not seem to have the drive to tear an animal to pieces.

We could certainly do with breeding out overly dog dominant traits, which we largely have done when we domesticated the Wolf, as they would not have tolerated non pack members.

Yvonne, It is what Bradshaw suggests in his book In Defence of Dogs

If one considers that the primary purpose of most dogs is to be a pet, living in the house, then the phrase "Fit for function, fit for life" may be viewed in a slightly different way.

It is also worth considering that forces of natural selection mean that a huge number of animal species become extinct every year. Perhaps the forces of artificial selection need to consider how the current climate compares with 19th century Britain when most of our breed standards were written.

That, said I think the prime culprits are, again, the back yard breeders.

> should we not now be deliberately changing the temperaments in some breeds to make them more suitable as pets and companions ?

Yes, yes and yes!! :)
Contrary to the notion that some may have picked up from my comments on the other thread I have nothing at all against large dogs, the lovely cuddle type anyway.
Being large and cuddly should not have to be dependent on the owners having to put in lots of work.  Some owners are not going to be capable of what is necessary and some are going to actively not wish to as they may want a large and not so cuddly animal.
For a companion animal, fitting in with society has to be the function that takes precedence above all else I feel.
Unfortunately not every breeder will take the same view though, Trevor, so I do not think I have shifted from my view that we are better off if we do not allow the breeding of certain very problematic breeds.

Definitely with you Yvonne and it's what Liz R did with the Malinois from day one in this country (i.e. the original importer) -yet still the showlines CAN work even if it's not always to the same extent as the working dogs. We don't need all original working traits in today's society where dogs primarily are pets. Obviously a LOT depends on breed and what they were used for, but we don't need to go out and hunt lions or fight bulls as just two simple examples. We do however still need dogs that can go out and retrieve or herd sheep etc.