DiStuRBeD 0 Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 In regards to the hancock thread, it got me thinking Do you think its the genetics of the dogs that makes them a good worker, or in the training, or a bit of both? I belive its a bit of both, you have probably seen in your time a dog do something that is pure instinct, thats nto learned from another dog... this would be a genetic influence yes?? a wise dog man once said to me you cant turn shit into gold, but you can turn gold into shit, i think this is relevant. If genetics didnt play a part in things, then why would we have so many purebred dogs around?? Look at show dogs, how many of them are unable to make the grade in the field because of wrong choice of breeding, breeding with untested stock, maybe from generations of untested stock for an example, deerhounds, now here in oz the majority of them are not worth a pinch of salt, they are not breed to work in the field, and those that are have such a small pool of blood that they have to cross to unknown stock. Its unfortunate but the way things are. I read an article on the kangaroo dog a while back, the guy was saying basically they are a greyhound and a deerhound in their make up, but today you cant simply cross the DH and GH because you will nto end up with a dog that is anything like the roo dog, it will be a shell of a roo dog, and he's dead right what are your thoughts? Quote Link to post
Hardfeather 56 Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 Both in myopinion Quote Link to post
Guest oldskool Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 certainly both, but if the genes arent there then it makes things a whole lot harder. the saying round my way is "you cant shine a shite"!! Quote Link to post
Kane 2 Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 Genes genes genes an ounce of genes is worth all the training.Training is just making the genes work the way you want them to no ammount of training will put genes (instinct ) into a dog. Quote Link to post
bolio 51 Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 Genes genes genes an ounce of genes is worth all the training.Training is just making the genes work the way you want them to no ammount of training will put genes (instinct ) into a dog. Agree with that 100% Kane. You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear. The best trained lab will never make a match dog. The cleverest collie will never make a weight pull champion. But the best bred saluki can be the hardest dog in the world to get back on the lead if you miss out the early socialization! :realmad: :realmad: :realmad: Quote Link to post
Guest Ditch_Shitter Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 But the best bred saluki can be the hardest dog in the world to get back on the lead if you miss out the early socialization! :realmad: :realmad: :realmad: God, that was said with Such Feeling! Quote Link to post
DiStuRBeD 0 Posted September 15, 2006 Author Report Share Posted September 15, 2006 lmao ok then, so if the general consensus is that genes play a essential role, why is it that people get dogs from stock where it is highly possible this essential part is not as good as it essentially needs to be? Quote Link to post
Guest oldskool Posted September 15, 2006 Report Share Posted September 15, 2006 on the other hand all the training in the world cant make a dog kill what you want if its not been bred from the right genes. hence the term "you cant shine a shite" Quote Link to post
Guest Gregg Barrow Posted September 15, 2006 Report Share Posted September 15, 2006 This is a question that has been argued for decades. I have no clue what the answer is, but I know that the more dogs you handle, experience will eventually allow you to pick the diamonds from the scrap pile. Until this past month, all my hunting dogs since 89 have been rescues. My measuring stick for solid genetics was their ability to overcome a bad start. Dogs that had been left in deplorable conditions growing up, took to training like they had been raised by a master (not me!!). Some dogs with stellar pedigrees, never overcame a bad start. No matter how many nights I kept them in the woods, the good dogs I hunted them with or the new foundation I tried to establish, they just couldn’t overcome the neglect they experienced growing up. It’s just my gut feeling that even with a good foundation; they would have been little better then common animals. Poor foundation, mediocre parents, and they turn into a dog that anyone could be proud of. Poor foundation, outstanding pedigree, years of rehab and they still turn out to be mediocre. They’ve all died, or will die in my home. They have all added to my body of experience. I guess I’ve been at it long enough that I’m comfortable saying…..I won’t know until they get there. Even when it’s a nice pup from solid working parents…it’s all a role of the dice and the only one that I hold responsible for the failures is the one typing this. Boy, was that a load of clichés or a load of crap? Maybe both. Best, Gregg Quote Link to post
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.