Quote:

Alice, you make some great points. There's a fine line between nerviness, loose cannons, and natural protectiveness. Only very experienced and knowledgeable people should be breeding.

hey, you make some great points, too, and i don't know how convinced i am that protectiveness testing is a bad idea. i guess before deciding, i'd like to know exactly what the dog is going to be subjected to in this protectiveness testing. my point is that if you are testing prostpective breeding stock, you still have to deal with the fact that it doesn't guarantee a protective puppy. and i doubt i would agree with putting a young puppy under undue duress; it could cause permanent trauma in some puppies.

my breeder doesn't test for protectiveness, but she does temperament test all her pups at 7 weeks. the problem is it doesn't appear to be a particularly good predictor of the temperament of the adult dog. my dog tested a perfect 3, but he has shyness issues, which mastiffs are known for.

the breeder selected ben's sire and dam in part for their steadiness and sound, gentle, easygoing temperaments. however, it was a close linebreeding. when linebreeding it's possible to get the opposite of what you intend, at least in part of the litter.

if someone is breeding for protectiveness, and they put two really protective dogs together, they could produce a great protection dog, an out of control monster, or a nerve wracked wreck. and the puppy buyer is taking a lottery ticket to find out which it is going to be.

i think you and i want the same thing, and perhaps we're describing it differently. i also want to know what i'm getting. i just think the way to do that is to breed for emotional stability, which tempermanent testing is a part of.

here is where we strongly differ:

 Quote:

The point is in order to train them not to bite, you have to train them when it's acceptable to IMO.

i do not want to own a dog i have to train *not* to bite. i want a dog that will only bite under the most severe inducement. owning a giant breed is a huge liability. it is dangerous to own a giant dog that you have to train to not bite. wow. to me, that is a one-way ticket to bankruptcy, and maybe jail time, too. look what happened to that couple in san francisco with the pair of presa canarios. i think owning such dogs, especially in a city, is the height of irresponsibility.

i'm sure my sentiments will be unpopular here, but that is where i stand. i would never own a dog that outweighs and outmuscles me that i have to train *not* to bite! that is insane. if you are not on top of every little situation 100 percent of the time.... it only takes you not being 100 percent on top of it once to possibly end someone's life and lose everything you have.

 Quote:

How can a good dog who is mature be ruined by testing? IMO, the dog wasn't good to begin with and should be eliminated from the gene pool.

as i said, i still don't know what you mean by protection testing, exactly. but a "soft" dog, such as my mastiff that most recently died, who had a steady, even temperament, who was a working therapy dog and 100 percent trustworthy with babies and small children, he would have been destroyed by severe handling. he was very, very sensitive. he was also protective enough for me. would he have brought down a bad guy who was determined to kill me even after having been bitten by this dog? i'll never know, but i doubt it. he was too soft. that doesn't make him a bad dog. it just makes him better suited for some things than others.

 Quote:

We'll just have to agree to disagree because we could probably go round and round with this. Get in your last rebuttal and then I'm going to let this go <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> I knew you wouldn't agree with the testing lol <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Take care Alice <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

hey, you, too. i disagree with you respectfully. as i say, you make some good points, and i'd like to learn more about protection testing. is there a standard way to do this? what exactly is done to the dog, and at what age/stage of development?

I don't think a puppy should be subjected to anything but happy confidence building things! My female will be 2 in February and I will have her evaluated. I've been waiting for her to mature. At this point I don't even know if she is suited. I've seen things in her temp. that concern me.

You have to understand we were at war with two crack houses and all their patrons. If we lived in a normal neighborhood the dog wouldn't have had any problem with anyone. He's very friendly and loving. If there are threats, a naturally protective dog will respond.

I'm not qualified to answer your questions on PP training, but if you post your questions somewhere else on this board you'll get a lot of answers from knowledgeable and experienced people.

I agree, emotional stability should top the list.

Linebreeding will bring out weaknesses in the lines quick I think I heard, but it can also produce a lot of strengths that are in the genes.

I think we agree to a certain degree. I want stability and reliability in a dog, but I also want a dog to be naturally protective. I don't want a junk yard dog.

Here is a link Alice.

Barbara wrote:Without testing, probability of weak nerved, fear aggressive dogs being produced is also increased."

I totally agree with you!If you got a working breed and not test the dogs working ability,how can you say that you have working dogs?
No you need to test,compete to show that your dogs can work.
Same goes for protection dogs i believe.
If i was a breeder i would not want to sit and hope that i get a good dog,by crossing two dogs of the same breed.I would test possible stud dogs,and then breed two dogs that i believe is correct,in type and min and health.

hi, helena~
i don't see a link. try again?

 Quote:

Linebreeding will bring out weaknesses in the lines quick I think I heard, but it can also produce a lot of strengths that are in the genes.

exactly. whatever is there, good or bad, is going to become more pronounced. and some things that weren't apparent may come out of the woodwork.

mastiffs have a "recessive trait" for shyness. it's really not good for the dog. though i can attest that at least in some instances, it doesn't interfere with their protection instinct.

chloe, who i pictured, was born shy. this was obvious in her even as a pup. but she was an awesome protection dog. her shyness did not extend to fearing bad guys. if there was someone at the door she did not like, they did not get in. period. her judgment proved to be so good, on a number of occasions (we found out later more about the persons she objected to), that after a while we took her recommendations without question.

i'm not going to pretend to understand all the vagaries of how these things play out in a dog's temperament. how they can be shy in some ways, and confident and assertive in others. how they can be fearful and yet "hard." or "soft" and yet steady in a challenging situation. i've seen the contradictions in a number of dogs, and it seems pretty complicated to me, even with years of raising dogs, some breeding experience, and tons of reading and talking to people. but i'm not an expert. far from it.

i'll look around the site and see if my protection testing question has already been answered. thanks for the good discussion, barbara. and good luck with your girl.

and with ridding the neighborhood of the crack houses! believe it or not, we have them all over our small town and my neighborhood as well. there's no escape. it's a big problem in rural areas.

From Alice...

 Quote:

and nowhere in dogdom do i see many skilled breeders.

Alice, Sorry, but I feel that you are very mistaken with this idea. I believe that there are many skilled breeders that work very hard at producing good dogs that are capable of defending their owners and being part of the family.

I find it disrepectful that you would make this statement on Ed's board. I wouldn't hesitate for one minute purchasing a puppy from him with full confidence that I would be getting exactly what he knew I was capable of handling and fulfill my needs. Same with Cindy. Matter of fact, I have a 2-1/2year old Mal that I got from Cindy. Believe me we had many phone conversations before I was promised a pup. I was well interviewed. But, so was she, I checked her out too. It is up to perspective buyers to have enough knowledge and information to at least ask the right questions.

I could go on and on about this...just feel that many times people get what they ask for and then don't follow through with the correct training, etc. and then want to blame the breeders!!! and no, I am not a breeder.

Regards,
Debbie

 Quote:

i'm not going to pretend to understand all the vagaries of how these things play out in a dog's temperament. how they can be shy in some ways, and confident and assertive in others. how they can be fearful and yet "hard." or "soft" and yet steady in a challenging situation. i've seen the contradictions in a number of dogs, and it seems pretty complicated to me, even with years of raising dogs, some breeding experience, and tons of reading and talking to people. but i'm not an expert. far from it.

I've seen some contradictions in her which is why I'm proceeding cautiously and observing her behavior. I'm very happy with her, she's shown things I really like, but because I don't have a lot of experience I may be concerned about the contradictions for nothing. I don't want you to get out of this conversation that I'm into wild and out of control dogs or involved in reckless training! I'm very aware of liabilities and conscious of public safety.

 Quote:

i'll look around the site and see if my protection testing question has already been answered. thanks for the good discussion, barbara. and good luck with your girl.

Thanks Alice, this was an interesting topic <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Here's a link that may interest you:

http://www.iapconline.com/temperament.htm


From Debbie

 Quote:

Alice, Sorry, but I feel that you are very mistaken with this idea. I believe that there are many skilled breeders that work very hard at producing good dogs that are capable of defending their owners and being part of the family.

I find it disrepectful that you would make this statement on Ed's board.

I could be wrong, but I think Alice was referring to mastiff breeders. At least that was my perception of it. I don't think she meant any disrespect to anyone here or that she doesn't have personal knowledge about.

Ok, first, i'm gonna hate myself for asking this, but, how can a trait be recessive? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />, secondly, i'm gonna check elvis' judgement with deciding who's a good guy and who's a bad guy tomorrow at work, to see if his "recommendations" are questionable, i think his judgement might be a little off, <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> , AL

i meant just what i said. "many" is a relative term. i think ed would readily agree that good breeders are in the minority, in all breeds. just because they are in the minority doesn't mean they don't exist. i got my dog from one.

thanks for the link, barbara! i don't have any problem with that test. sounds like an excellent test to me. i've never seen it before, and i'm going to forward it to my breeder to see what she thinks of it.

i can tell you right now that ben would flunk it at least 50 percent of the time. i can also tell you his temperament is incorrect for a mastiff. my other mastiffs would probably have passed it, but, i'll never know.

what will you do if your girl doesn't pass?