|
Sweet CupnCakes posted:Is this type of behavior because it was poorly bred, poorly trained, not exercised properly, all of the above? I'd guess because it was trained to be aggressive.
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 16, 2024 23:49 |
|
|
Sweet CupnCakes posted:So even though this woman doesn't specifically train it to be that way because it had that training when it was little it won't let go of it without proper training? If it was taught that people outside its social unit are threats or targets of aggression, then yes, that trained behavior could very easily stick with the dog basically forever. I don't put much weight in breeding as a huge influence over complex behaviors like that, which are in my opinion almost wholly a function of experience (training, how it was raised, abuse, etc.).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 11, 2012 22:25
|
|
|
Triangulum posted:Poor temperment isn't a result of experience though, that's almost entirely genetic. Life experience, training, etc. can definitely exacerbate or reduce how reactive the animal is though. And honestly, really lovely temperments are rampant in GSDs. Honestly it's not something supported by science at this point and is at least somewhat based on outdated concepts that used to be applied to pretty much everything including humans ala eugenics. As in humans or any other animal genetics can influence instinctive behavior which serves as a basic foundation for development, but virtually all of our complex behaviors are learned. A well bred GSD/Pitbull/Pomeranian can become a vicious animal or it can also become a kid's cuddly playmate. In some cases they end up being both at different point sin life. A lovely BYB dog can do the same. That doesn't really support the theory that breeding has a hell of a lot to do with it. The article linked mentions Michael Vick's fighting dogs and attempts to make the claim that because they could be rehabilitated from vicious fighting animals to good companions they MUST have this super genetic influence! That conclusion doesn't really follow though, because I can guarantee you that a great deal of training and new experience was required to change that behavior (and create it in the first place) which is not something that would necessarily require anything to do with genetics rather than learned behavior. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Dec 12, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 05:11
|
|
|
Triangulum posted:I understand what you're saying but I'm curious as to why you classify all aggression in dogs as a complex, learned behavior that has to be trained for. Some breeds have been bred to display certain types of aggression due to the way their breed historically was utilized (Akitas and same-sex aggression, Pit Bulls and dog aggression etc). Comparing it to human behavior and eugenics is kind of absurd because there haven't been hundreds of years of controlled human breeding programs to ensure specific types of human display specific physical and psychological traits. Yeah, a well-bred dog can still become a vicious terror because training and life experience DO play a big role in how animals behave. And being well-bred doesn't mean that a dog is guaranteed to inherit all it's lines positive traits. But there's a reason every breed standard includes temperment rather than just apperance. There have been hundreds to thousands of years of effectively controlled human breeding programs, primarily through isolation and vastly different cultural norms. They did not lead any large genetically linked behavior differences that anybody has actually been able to document (and believe me, it's been tried!). The reason breed standards include temperament in addition to appearance is mostly because the idea of breed standards dates back to a period where genetics was very poorly understood and comes from the exact same fundamentals that led to the theories behind eugenics. The difference being that it is much easier to study ourselves and our behavior to thoroughly debunk those theories than it is to do the same in dogs. Pitbulls do NOT automatically fight other dogs. Dog fighting operations DO actually have to train and condition dogs to fight. The point of them being rehabilitated does not strongly suggest a genetic link because it's a demonstration of a behavior dramatically changing through external influence, something that you would not expect to happen if there were a strong genetic imperative behind it. You can look for behaviors that vary wildly in dogs of the same breed and for that matter EVERY breed, like aggression, and that behavior is not likely to be strongly influenced by genetics. If it were you would not see much variance in the behavior (after all - they've been subjected to a eugenics style breeding program that should have eliminated it!) and trying to correct the behavior in a dog that has it would be like trying to "train out" prey drive in wolves. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 18:08 on Dec 12, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 17:48
|
|
|
I'm not surprised. It (eugenics related to genetic conscientiousness) was held as scientific truth that the same was true for human beings for some 150 years. Right up until we gained a better understanding of genetics and studies debunked the hell out of it for the last half a century (which did not prevent its concepts from remaining as a widespread belief). It isn't the concept that genetics can influence behavior that is incorrect, but the extent and means by which that influence happens. The GSD that tries to bite the poster isn't doing it because of the "bite all humans" gene it inherited somehow through poor genetics, it's doing it because it was trained to be a "guard dog" and the behavior was then left uncorrected. It's not like there aren't thousands upon thousands of examples of well bred dogs being given lovely training which leads to them having lovely behavior and lovely BYB dogs with good training being well behaved. You might want to check out the (now classic) behavioral differences between captive and wild wolves (and dolphins, orcas, sharks, etc.) Warbadger fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Dec 12, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 19:20
|
|
|
notsowelp posted:Please cite some peer-reviewed sources to support the notion that genetics do not inform behaviour in domestic dog breeds. I mean I have "The Dog And Its Genome", published in 2006 sitting right here. I think it'd be a better idea if you actually read the argument I made. To put it simply, yes genetics can have an effect on behavior, but most complex behavior is learned (influenced by the genetic instinctive template). In this case (the aggressive GSD) the specific behavior varies widely in the given population and as a result it is not a likely candidate for strong genetic influence. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Dec 12, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
notsowelp posted:Your argument is basically 'but but but there are German Shepherds who aren't aggressively neophobic towards humans and labradors who are!!!'. Gimme a B, an E, an L, an L, and a Currrrve. Direct genetic, maternal and litter effects on behaviour in German shepherd dogs in Sweden - Erling Strandberga, Department of Evolutionary Biology, Uppsala University, Norbyv. 18 D, 752 36 Uppsala, Sweden "Additive genetic correlations among Playfulness, Chase-proneness, and Curiosity/Fearlessness were higher (0.54–0.74) than genetic correlations with Aggressiveness (0.29–0.40). Litter variance ratios (c2) were larger than the maternal heritabilities (0.03–0.10). Boldness had a direct heritability estimate of 0.27 and a direct genetic correlation with Aggressiveness of 0.37. We conclude that there is substantial additive genetic variation, that the mother has rather little influence (both genetically and environmentally) and that the litter seems to have a larger influence than the mother for these personality traits. Genetic improvement in these behaviour traits is thus possible." In short aggressiveness was on the lower side of the genetic correlations found and the largest influence (over the mother) was the litter. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 21:11 on Dec 12, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 21:00
|
|
.
|
notsowelp posted:1) This is a study into the variance of personality traits within one breed. Your argument is that there would be no statistically significant differences in personality traits, such as human aggression, between dog breeds. The data neither supports nor contradicts this hypothesis. Actually my argument was that aggression in a GSD was a result of training rather than genetics/breeding and "bad breeding" was a ridiculous scapegoat. I'd like to note again that aggression was also found to be on the far low side of correlation in the study which is to say "not very significant". Warbadger fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Dec 12, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 21:37
|
|
|
Riiseli posted:Just a quick note from me for now... I've pointed out in every post that behaviors are partially influenced by genetics - that is exactly what instinct is. The point is that the complex behaviors are primarily learned and that (as in the case with the GSD aggression) breeding would be a complete red herring in a situation where the dog had actually been trained to be aggressive in the past. a life less posted:You're not going to be able to take a Border Collie from sporting lines, hand it to a handler with herding championships and expect him to be able to win with it. Nor are you going to be able to give a GSD pup from your neighbor's litter and expect it to earn its SchIII. I know that a few Labradors (among other breeds) made Sch3 and that is a breed with entirely different standards/temperament so I wouldn't really rule out those things from happening either. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 22:10 on Dec 12, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
Skizzles posted:I think Warbadger is trying to say GSDs aren't automatically born with that guarding instinct fine-tuned with a command attached to it, which is kind of a "no loving duh" sort of thing. Basically yes, the dog can have a higher propensity to be aggressive from birth, but that isn't going to be the main factor in it actually becoming an aggressive dog - or even particularly relevant when compared to the effects of training it be aggressive.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 22:10
|
|
|
notsowelp posted:There is nothing in the study you presented that supports your second statement. Do you understand what statistical significance is? The concept of the bell curve indicates that yes, the dog from my neighbor might very well be able to compete very well in Schutzhund. Not really sure what you're even arguing here. The study indicated that the largest difference in the behavior was from litter to litter which does not suggest that genetics is the primary factor in those behaviors (even those with high degrees of correlation). Warbadger fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Dec 12, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 12, 2012 22:18
|
|
|
Superconsndar posted:I just want to thank all of you wonderful sperges for saving me from having to attempt to post a wall of text @ warbadger from my ipad, I do not have internet at my house yet. Lol "pit bulls do not automatically fight other dogs and have to be trained and conditioned to fight" omg thats precious Duffy, D.L., et al., Breed differences in canine aggression, Appl. Anim. Behav. Sci. (2008) Only 22% of pit bulls showed strange dog aggression. Higher than the average breed, certainly not the highest, and not high enough to indicate a breed-wide "automatic" behavior. I'd prefer not to go into dog fighting poo poo, but yes, in fact they do condition the dogs to fight because even inside the percentage of dog-aggressive animals the majority display lower levels of aggression which isn't very useful in a dog deathmatch business. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 18:01 on Dec 13, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2012 17:53
|
|
|
Actually ON topic - it's unfortunate that as a breed it exploded in popularity after the two world wars, but the same conflicts nearly destroyed the breed due to its extensive use by both sides. A lot of dogs also ended up coming back to the states because soldiers found and raised puppies they found in Europe, including the original Rin Tin Tin. The second world war also saw the breed renamed a few times because nobody wanted them associated with the Germans. I think the Malamute, Akita, and Shiba Inu were also pretty much devastated. notsowelp posted:I think everyone's made it pretty clear that they don't want this poo poo to keep cluttering up the GSD thread, so why don't you head over to the Random Nonsense thread with your study and we can explain how incredibly wrong you are over there. Take it to PMs then and explain how 22% is indicative of a breed wide genetic imperative. You could also try to debunk the training claim for dog fighting operations. That'd be just precious. But yes, it doesn't belong here. Edit: I can also ask you to actually elaborate on why you think that the previous study doesn't support the idea that genetics played a comparatively small role in the behavior compared to experience, given that direct genetic/mother were found to be the smaller influence! In fact, you could explain exactly why you think that a bell curve which envelops the entire spectrum of a behavior with significant results on either side is indicative of a strong genetic predisposition (compare said bell curve to the bell curve for neophobia or strong prey drive in wolves). Here's a hint: there's a bell curve involved both with OR without the genetic link and you're attempting not to prove that there IS a genetic link, but that it is a strong one compared to learned behavior! I think that would be better than zero content "you're wrong - heh" posts OR attempts to strawman my argument. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Dec 13, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2012 18:04
|
|
|
While going through the various studies I came across one on Hip Dyplasia in German Shepherd Dogs, Golden Retrievers, Labrador Retrievers, and Rottweilers. The chance of degenerative hip dysplasia in US GSDs was found to be some 5 times greater than that of all 3 of the other breeds combined. Increased hip joint laxity and weight seemed to be the two big correlating factors. Which is to say that even if there is no recent history of hip dysplasia in the line, keep your dog on the thin side.Captain Foxy posted:Jesus Warbadger, how many studies have to be posted in this thread before you chill out? Well, first they'd actually have to post relevant studies. Or in all but one case actually post studies. My claim was that genetics are not a significant contributor to aggression/complex behaviors in comparison to learned behaviors/training. The studies posted by Riiseli (the only person to actually post STUDIES aside from myself) concluded that there is a link between behavior and genetics in dogs. That's it. Dogs of certain breeds are more LIKELY to act certain ways due to genetics. That has no bearing on the argument, though, which was that this influence is not particularly significant in comparison to learned behavior for complex behavior like aggression. The first study I posted actually compared the correlation of factors (including genetics!) with behavior (including aggression!) in the German Shepherd Dog (the breed under discussion!). The conclusion was that genetics appeared to influence the behaviors...but were not the largest influence (the litter). That appears to support my claim. The second study I posted was in response to the implication that "Pit Bulls" would automatically fight other dogs. That study examined aggressive behavior to different factors (strange dog, strange person, owner, etc.) in various breeds including pit bulls. The findings indicated that dog aggression was not found in the majority of Pit Bulls (22%), despite being higher than in most other breeds studied. Again, they're more likely to be dog aggressive than most breeds but it's far from universal to the breed. I'm sorry for cluttering up the thread and this will be my last response on the subject here, but I dislike being straw-manned and shouted down and this was relevant to GSDs (if your GSD tries to attack people it needs socialization and proper training like any other dog breed, not a retrovirus to rewrite its genetic code). Triangulum posted:Boy I sure am glad literally the only on topic poo poo you've posted in this thread was repeating information from the OP. Yes, surely I cannot hold an opinion on anything in the OP, nor were there ANY bits of new information in the post at all. Amazingly even if the above sarcasm were true, my post would still have more content than your own post right here! Warbadger fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Dec 13, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 13, 2012 20:57
|
|
|
Skizzles posted:This is why I personally don't agree with it. This and "panda" shepherds. Ugh. Coincidentally the creator of the breed disagreed and could have cared less about coat color. "A pleasing appearance is desirable, but it can not put the dog's working ability into question." is about as close to a discussion on coloration as he ever came. At no point on record did Max von Stephanitz differentiate between the white coat and what we now consider the standard coloration and it wasn't until literal Nazis started throwing weight around that the standard was changed to the current in the name of (what was considered at the time) progressive, scientific eugenics. Personally I would have no issue with undoing the change made to the standard seeing as it apparently had no real grounds to be made and was made a reality by recent history's most vicious authoritarian party with (tangentally related) dreams of ethnic cleansing. Speaking of which, if you love GSDs do yourself a favor and check out his book "The German Shepherd Dog". He pretty clearly lays out his intentions for the breed and what the breed was/is supposed to be. It even has pictures! Warbadger fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 23:13
|
|
|
WolfensteinBag posted:I thought the reasoning for the darker pigment was to stand out against a flock of sheep? Obviously you always want to put working ability over color, but is it really not in Stephanitz's book? When I've heard people talk about the standard and color, I thought that's what they were referencing. Nope, there was no official breed coloration mentioned in his book, at least not that I can find (or find any reference to it in his other writings online). White shepherds were present (though a rarer color) from the very beginning of the breeding right up to the end for the simple reason that Greif von Sparwasser, the grandfather of Horand von Grafrath was a white coated herding dog. The coloration was considered fine right up until 1933. The Nazi party had declared a state of emergency in the 1930s and took control of pretty much everything they could, including the Verein fur Deutsche Shaferhund (the organization Max had founded which controlled the breed standard). Unfortunately for the GSD, the Nazi party was positively bananas about Eugenics -more famously tied to their various genocides and attempt to create a superior race of Aryan Übermensch- and they took interest in the GSD breed because it was a widely recognized and useful German dog. A bunch of the members of the Verein fur Deutsche Shaferhund were Nazis and through party connections put a shitload of pressure on Max to make changes to the breed. He refused, was harassed, and was supposedly even threatened with being "disappeared" to a camp before he gave up. He conceded his leadership at the SV and thus lost his control over the breed standard, which was quickly changed. A belief held at the time was that the white shepherds were the source of many genetic problems including "fading out" that caused darker shepherd’s coats to pale into an light color and also a sign of albinism and "disease". All bullshit, of course. To that end the Nazi party made white coats a disqualifying feature in 1933 through the breed club and went a step further by having white GSD puppies drowned (this actually happened) and the associated records of their births destroyed. I believe they also killed off a lot of the existing white coated adult dogs, but there's less material on that. The thing is, it's not a new color. It's an old color that was entirely within the bounds of the breed as determined by its creator and only disallowed because the most hated regime on the planet controlled the VS for a decade, spit in the face of the creator of the breed, and proceeded to change the standard by applying the same misguided theories to their favorite dog breed as they did to justify the genocide of millions of people. Nobody has identified any actual reason to disallow white coats or any associated genetic problems. It's just a different color and the *actual no-poo poo Nazis* said your dog can't be that color before being scoured from the face of the planet. That's enough reason for me to dislike it. One more quote from Max von Stephanitz: “No good dog can be a bad colour.” Here's Greif von Sparwasser. A good dog.  Sorry about all the editing, but I had to look over a bunch of my old notes. El Gar posted:Changing the breed standard is not 'eugenics' please stop using this word as it has absolutely zero relevance in a discussion about breeding animals. Also what the gently caress is with your weird nazi fixation jeez. Take it back to your creepy nazi roleplay thread, thanks. Actually, changing the breed standard to disallow white coats (to discourage their breeding) and attempting to kill the existing and newborn white coated dogs, all in an effort to improve the breed's genetics, is textbook eugenics. You should look up the word and check out the Nazi party's fixation on the theory. Here's a handy place to start if you'd like to know why it's a useful word when discussing dog breeding (aside from the connection in this case to the loving Nazi party): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purebred_%28dog%29#Eugenics_and_history Also, I play the communists in the internet tank game not the facists thankyouverymuch. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Dec 15, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 04:42
|
|
v haha I dunno, GSDs as a whole are a whole big issue, that's why I decided not to get into breeding them in the future.
|
Triangulum posted:That being said, the reason most of us disagree with white shepherds, Panda Shepherds, Shilo Shepherds, and King Shepherds being recognized as their own breed (or being bred at all) is because they're being bred only for color (in the case of the first two) or size (in the case of the latter two). GSDs already have tons of issues with soundness and intentionally breeding them larger and larger exacerbates this problem. Whites, pandas, blues, livers, and goldens aren't being intentionally bred to improve the breed, they're being bred for their "rare" coat coloration and that's it. We've already seen what happens to GSDs being bred for looks alone, that's how the show strains got so hosed up. People breed specifically for colors regardless of the standard. There are plenty of white dogs out there that are not products of breeding specifically for the coat color and it's not a coincidence that you generally see dogs bred specifically for white in places where the color falls outside the breed standard. The comparison to King Shepherds or anything else that isn't just a color swap in the coat is a strawman. It doesn't matter whether breeding for larger dogs introduces health issues because the white coat (or any other color coat for that matter) doesn't. White shepherds still exist regardless of whether you breed explicitly for them or not. Due to the recessive nature of the trait responsible it has not been entirely wiped out and remains present to varying degrees in the US and Germany. On top of that many places never accepted the change to the breed standard. In Canada, for example, the CSC only began penalizing white coats in 1998, largely due to pressure to conform to the existing rule in Germany/The US. Plenty of white shepherds in those places that are not products of breeding for the color. Triangulum posted:If the standard is going to be changed it should be to help improve the physical and tempermental soundess of the breed not because other coat colors are nifty and weird guilt about ~eugenics~ and Nazis. I agree that we should strive for changes to the rules that would help improve the physical and temperamental soundness of the breed. So why support retaining a *change* that did and continues to do the exact opposite in any case it actually applies? This rule does nothing but define one of the existing coat colors as "not nifty enough" regardless of any actual consideration of health. Every time a dog is excluded based on coat color rather than health it damages the breed. Sure, you won't save the breed in one stroke by making a change like this but it at least has the potential to help unfuck things a little bit in cases where dogs are actually being selected for health. I also fail to see the issue with reversing a change that is at best arbitrary, at worst harmful, the ideological product of a mass murdering regime, and was only made in the first place through threats and strongarm tactics by said regime. No guilt required in that decision and I'm not sure why you think there would be. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 08:23
|
|
|
WolfensteinBag posted:We already talked about it, it's not that the color's "not nifty enough," it's that the darker colors are preferred to lighter ones based on visibility against livestock and snow. I see absolutely zero problem with leaving these lighter colors as a fault. The changes weren't made for that reason, though. It was originally made to combat the stated "health issues" in 1930s Germany (coat color fading, albinism, etc.) and later for much the same reason, specifically "coat color fading" in darker coated dogs by the GSDCA in the 1960s. They did not hide their reasons for making these decisions and the "visibility against snow/animals" explanation only came about later on when the reasons above started to look silly. It also makes little sense when you consider: 1) The varying coloration of animals and landscapes they work in. A white dog will stand out better among black/brown livestock and a dark black/brown dog will blend in spectacularly with scrub and dirt. You can cherry pick a livestock coloration and opposite palette environment in which the same two arguments could be made for any common color pattern of GSD. It actually makes a lot of sense for a utilitarian breed to exhibit a range of colors - because there is no universally useful or detrimental color for a general-use working dog. 2) White coats were present in some of the best performing dogs in the predecessor "german shepherd dogs" that this breed standard was based upon -where it does not appear to have been considered a detriment- and the pure white color remains the norm in many other herding breeds where it does not appear to be considered a disadvantage. 3) Higher and lower visibility is as often an advantage as a disadvantage. For example, the US Air Force avoids white dogs for patrols around airstrips here in the US (they're still present in some of the sourced working lines) because they're more visible at night. Some Eastern European border patrols/military meanwhile favored the white colored dogs because they were LESS visible in snowy areas. Meanwhile among SAR dogs high visibility is actually considered an advantage - so a disadvantage in snowy places and advantage pretty much anywhere else. WolfensteinBag posted:You realize that people that breed responsibly WILL use dogs with faults if what they bring to the table outweighs them, right? Discounting show breeders (who are always breeding for "looks", so hardly fall into the responsible sector as far as this discussion goes) anyone doing what they are supposed to are looking at genetic health (weighing pros and cons of their lines and what's been tested for), sound structure, and working ability/temperament. If a dog is an awesome example of the breed but has a splash of white or washed out color, they're still going to be used. Yes, and they may not use them if they judge that the disqualifying fault of white fur outweighs actual health benefits they bring to the table. Discounting show breeders who are breeding for appearance, anyone doing what they're supposed to be doing should be looking at genetic health - which at this point we know has nothing to do with what color the fur is. A rule that differentiates based on color without regard for health can only have a negative influence in those situations - there is no positive decision that can be made on that criteria. Anyone who doesn't care will do what they want to do regardless of what the standard is, as you've pointed out yourself. It doesn't really matter if they show a white colored dog with frog-legs and call it a GSD rather than a tan and black colored dog with frog-legs. WolfensteinBag posted:As far as PURE white dogs goes, I'm sorry that I'm bias here, but from what I've seen, these dogs tend to follow more (in the US at least) the American Showline type and temperament and are bred predominantly for show. If this is the case, then, yes, people are breeding them just for the color. It might just be me, but I haven't seen these dogs going high level sport, and I'm guessing it would be a far stretch to find a white dog that could compete both temperamentally and structurally with working line dogs. If the goal is to continually improve your lines, you would want a particularly spectacular dog to breed with and I just can't see it coming from these white lines. In places where the GSD breed standard disqualifies for white coats, such as the US, it's detrimental for any GSD breeder to have lines containing or to advertise white dogs in their lines if they give a drat about the breed standard or sell to people who do. That also carries over into what GSDs people compete with - the white dog is not as desirable regardless of how it performs because it has a disqualifying cosmetic trait. Examples of the pure white dogs doing high level sport are not that hard to find (first one to come up on google was Vom Sutumer Grund's dogs - there have been quite a few). The "Berger Blanc Suisse" you see showing up in European competitions now, for example, are just GSDs bred from US White Shepherds purchased in the 1970s while breeders in the US were busy trying to get rid of them. WolfensteinBag posted:The comparison to those other types of shepherds is just based on the breeder's motives. Color, "family companions", oversized "old world shepherds", these are all just people selling family pets without regard to what the original goal of the breed was, and are only looking to produce puppies without proving them outside of conformation first. I know that, however the "original" goal of the breed had nothing to do with color as supported by the opinions on record of the person who set those goals. This is a stance supported by current science. I do not believe that excluding white dogs based on coat color is consistent with the original goal for the breed (even more so considering how strongly the change was resisted and by whom). It is no better than an institutionalized version of the above. WolfensteinBag posted:Dude, give it a rest! It doesn't matter who made the revision, just that it happened. If it was just some group that happened to not like white dogs, you wouldn't be able to use the same argument, there's nothing "evil" about it. I personally think it does matter WHY they made the revision and that it relates to who made it. Nonetheless, if it had been some other group you could still make the same argument - that it was still a baseless revision with at best no beneficial results, based on a false premise, which was implemented originally only through threats and intimidation. Don't misunderstand me, it's not a super high priority thing because the affected dogs are (at least here in the US) relatively rare now and selecting against healthier white dogs isn't really going to be a common thing compared to say - continuing the lines of frog-dogs with wet noodles for joints. The benefits of keeping it around are nonexistent but at this point most of the damage has already been done. I'll leave it at this point because the discussion is already veering into what-ifs and generalizations on people's decision making, which aren't things I expect can be proven either way. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 22:08
|
|
|
a life less posted:Which ones? White coats are common with the Samoyed, Polish Lowland Sheepdog, Hungarian Puli, Polish Tatra Sheepdog, and the Old English Sheepdog probably counts too. There's also the pile of livestock guarding dogs with white coats like the Great Pyrenees or Maremma, some breeds in that category are/were used for herding as well.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2012 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 16, 2024 23:49 |
|
|
Triangulum posted:Of the breeds you listed only two are straight up herding dogs, one of which does not accept solid white dogs (Old English Sheepdog). Livestock guardian dogs are not the same thing as herding dogs. All examples given are used to herd livestock aside from the two guardian dog examples and I made the distinction between livestock guardian dogs and herders in my post - hence the two examples. Some dogs are used in both roles and I don't really care if you use a more narrowly defined definition, because it isn;t at all relevant to the topic. "Solid white" Old English Sheepdogs may not be accepted but they come awfully close, which is why I called it a "probably counts" on this topic and I'm sure if you really want to look you can find other herding breeds that are acceptable with solid white coats - such as the original GSDs. Warbadger fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Dec 19, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2012 00:41
|
|