working VS Show - Page 20

You know what, I am really agitated by this (5%), if this is true and I knew this earlier I wouldn't have paid what I paid for my working line GSD puppy. But in my heart I know it must be not true.

Ibrahim

Good point!

I know Steve1 and those in line with his (side prospective) said correct points and ideas and out of real experience which I do not challenge at all, but I think steve1 was so strong, rather too strong in putting forward his opinions that he covered big part of the other reality and truth of the other (side prospective).
I wish some one straighten things out as Steve1 exagerated the role of training/environment and diminished the genetics role in a dog (Steve1, this is what I feel in heart).

Ibrahim 

 If you want a service dog, more likely show lines than working lines

Er...what?  There are lots of working lines out there doing service work.  My next SD is going to be a working line puppy

   What I mean is when you look at finished dog then 5% was  genetic foundation,  the rest was training. Now if you do not have that 5% you can not do much . Now when you are starting with a pup the genetics is all you have thus it is 100% . So you may say genetics are everything at that point. It is depending on a point of view.  So you did not waste any money if you got genetically sound dog to train .  Now it depends what you are going to do with it. He /she can have godly genetics but if you tie him to 5 ft chain for 3 years and feed him every other day what do you get ? Shit house.
 The Bedouin dogs are probably great dogs. And they are 100% based on genetics since there is no formal training.(Just like the puppy).  But if you would teach them S&R or SchH then that would be a his foundation. And imagine how much training they would need to be SchH3: 99,99,99. By the time you get to score like that the genetics would be only miner part of the total effort.
 By the way Ibrahim can you PM me what is the name of those dogs. Can you get me a picture and description.
Prager Hans
http://www.alpinek9.com

If it is only 5% than those puppy prices better come waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay down.

Not very many people have pups with great genetics though. Thus the price.   It is really only relativistic issue.
:))
Prager Hans

Prager,

They have no names really, they are local not a breed, those you find in desert, village outskirts and in the woods. No training at all, still they are good shephers and excellent watch dogs at night, not fearful at all. Ofcourse you select one like that maybe out of five or six. I still think this 5% is too little.

Ibrahim

OK;'.... 6%.
Prager:)

I think some are misunderstanding Hans' point. I first saw 5% and thought "no way." Genetics is crucial, and IMO, waaaay more important than training, b/c without proper genetics, you have nothing worth training.

I read what he said carefully, and I see what he's saying...

He's saying that even though genetics might only be 5% of the finished dog sitting before you, it's still a crucial part b/c without it, no amount of training will work. Look at his example of the house/empire state building.

I'm not sure I agree about the number "5%" but I do see what he's saying now that I re-read his post. By assigning genetics a small number, he's still not downplaying it's very important role. Rather, he's simply saying that while you need correct genetics to accomplish anything worthwhile w/a dog, 95% of the finished product is what you put into it.  This, I totally agree with.