Genetics or training - Page 9

Hans,
I found that comment by Daryl interesting, or, should I say disappointing also.
To me that sounds like someone who only breeds "lines" instead of  breeding "dogs".

Prager, the study I read said that the ENS puppies weren't any more advanced/trainable/whatever than other puppies raised in a good environment. It didn't imply that ENS puppies were no better than the ones raised in a shoebox. So I'm not sure the "extremes" logic works here.

This is what Darrel said :I've conducted these tests more than a few times, with exact same parent litters, with and without ENS. There's various detailed reasons and complicated explanations as to why I say so, but just know that I think the "ENS" protocol is B.S., just marketing hype causing a mass delusional faith, and general confusion about the priority of genetics.
I have used the shoe box example as a extreme of stimulation. If the ENS has no effect then it would follow that any stimulation has 0 effect. 0+0 =0. Thus the shoe box example. According to the article there is no effect in comparison to usual GTC stimulation. What is GTC stimulation is not described.
IN contrast I state as obvious that the pup introduced to proper amount of stress will be a dog which is better equipped to deal with stress. What is military, training, police training and so on? One of the most important parts of such trainings are to produce persons with increased abilities to deal with stress.  What I am saying is that if induction of  increased but healthy amount of stress is  not necessary to improve organism's ability to deal with stress; than why to do it at all?
Isn't that what socialization is all about?  If you start to stimulate the pups through stresses which are appropriate for their age, would not then follow that that this will improve the dog's ability to deal with a stress. Off course rubbing the pup between the toes must not be the end of the story but must be followed by increased levels of such stimulations through the development of the pup/dog. I KNOW that pups with minimal stimulation do not develop as well as  pups with adequate or increased stimulation. And I say it is empirically proven that it is ridiculous to think otherwise. If that would not be the truth then why to spend time on socialization of pup/dogs at all.

Prager Hans

http://www.alpinek9.com

 

I would like to ad to that that increased or adequate stimulation in my book is the amount of stress with which the pup can deal and in later tasks to deal with them and find the resolution to the problem through intelligent solution or through mustering the courage to encounter the problem head on. For example  I take pups to climb rocks , dead fall, walk across logs or ford shallow creaks. I put pups through many other situations besides these. But I start with handling of pups from day one . And  I know that these pups do much better then the pups which do not get such stimulations. For example If otherwise  healthy  how many times have you heard that runts are better dogs eventually. I believe that is because they go through much more stress of fight for survival.
Prager Hans
http://www.alpinek9.com

I think it's complex, and the jury will always be out on this debate, but there is no question that much of a dog is genetics, my own opinion is that genetics are most of what a dog is temperament-wise and of course physically.  Look at how dogs were domesticated and selected for tameness, and think about what traits are selected for breeding today.  Look at Belyaev's foxes.  A wild fox would panic and be extremely stressed near humans, very flighty and fearful since they are wild animals.  The more he selectively bred for tameness/docile, they ended up all being black and white and getting floppy ears!  Whenever we breed for certain traits, things can come with it that we don't necessarily want. When you breed tameness, you may end up with physical characteristics-- short muzzle, floppy ears, etc. Basically an animal that retains juvenile characteristics into adulthood. Continually selecting a trait you want, as a breeder, can cause some very unwanted side effects. For each litter of foxes that Belyaev bred for ONE TRAIT, there were increasing behavior abnormalities. Mothers were cannibalizing their puppies and losing maternal instinct, he was basically ruining what nature had created and he was seeing the fallout.  It's like when breeders choose a certain head shape, like maybe a pencil head (AKC collies) or a head with a very pronounced stop (rotties or cockers), they were actually selecting for dogs with brain abnormalities!  Or the more obvious example, Bulldogs and all the health problems with the breed.  They are an abomination of nature.

Fear is a highly heritable genetic trait, both in dogs and in humans, etc.  Another word for fearful is shy.  And this is why it's so tough to really change a shy dog though training, yes it can be done but it's a challenge.  Who wouldn't rather train an exuberant outgoing dog.  Read studies with genetically fearful Pointers. They selected groups of fearful Pointers and bred the most fearful ones over many generations. The resulting animals were so terrified they would freeze and be totally catatonic. They would never "bounce back" or recover from the paralyzing fear when a person walked into the room, they would just stay frozen. It did not matter if they took one of the puppies from the fearful group of mothers and put it with a normal mother to be raised, it was genetic. A pointer's pointing is an orienting response so it's linked in a way to fear.  If you were to continually select the dogs that point the best, it may have unintended side effects due to that link with an orienting response.  This is why it should bother everyone when a breeder is prioritizing one thing, like Dalmatians and their spots, huge emphasis for show is how their spots are.

To support "how they are raised"-- There have been studies raising cats and dogs with no or little stimulation, for example raising a litter of puppies in complete darkness with no visual stimuli, or raising a litter in an empty concrete kennel. What happened was later on they would over-react to simuli, fear reactions because they were more sensitive.  They were probably also more curious, but they would be flighty.  The same genetic dogs raised in normal conditions would be fine. The sad thing is these results were permanent, the dogs would over react to things their whole lives.  The early deprivation had actually caused their brains to be hyper-sensitive to stimuli.  The moral of that is you can still ruin a good genetic dog.

Hans, you twist my statement and seemingly have a bit of tone about it.  Of course environment and stimulation and imprinting and conditioning and training and whatever else you want to factor in, has an affect on the end result.  Examine the diagram previously posted, GENE TO ENVIRONMENT CORRELATION.  Genes are obviously not expressed, if there's no environment in which to express them.  In the pitch black of distant space, it doesn't matter what color your dog is.  All those things mentioned matter, but genetics FIRST and foremost.

OGBS, I find your comment insulting, and leave it at that.

When I mentioned the "ENS protocol", I was refering to wet rags and Q-tips, they don't make the dog super!  If it did, there wouldn't be soooo many POS dogs out there, since 'everybody's doing it'.  There are many OTHER factors to consider that affect the overall development of a pup, like the maternal state of mind from time in the womb even, that will affect the whether or not the expression of a particular gene is activated or not.  And there are many other windows of time well after those first sixteen days that are every bit or more important in early development.

If you just want to argue, then present something substantial to back the ENS claims.  I have tested pups, with and without ENS, in multiple comparisons and with a control group, and found that there not only exists no correlation, but the non-treated pups will just as equally often outperform the pups that were treated with ENS stimulation.  If you've done the same, then you would know this, but a lot less likely if you're doing it to all the pups, and comparing them to litters of previous times involving different parents!  To do this, they must be in all other terms relatively equal, they must all be treated otherwise the same, aside from the ENS only.  Put your ENS'd pups in a shoebox, and tell me how that works for you.

Daryl said: 
All those things mentioned matter, but genetics FIRST and foremost.
Off course as I said . Genetics is the foundation, (on which building of training is build). I am glad that you  agree.
Daryl said.
Of course environment and stimulation and imprinting and conditioning and training and whatever else you want to factor in, has an affect on the end result.
Daryl, any stimulation or lack thereof has some effect. That is my point. 

Also 

I am sorry that you feel that I have had a "tone" in my last post. Because of that statement , I have re-red my last post to make sure and
I have found out that I have had no "tone" there.  I just disagreed. Unusual concept? Huh?
Now that can be classified as a "tone"  :))
Sorry just kidding.
Take care.
Prager Hans

darylehret
So, Darryl, you are saying that stimulation of puppies have no effect on their development. Long time ago I have learned that if there is a argument the truth becomes more apparent if we bring the situation into extremes. Thus if you allow me here, according to your reasoning, if you lock a pup into the shoe box, it will develop exactly the same way as it would, if this same pup would be properly stimulated during the same period of his development. And from that you deduct that handling the pups and touching them is a marketing ploy.
HMMM...
Hans Prager.
 

I meant the marketing ploy part, but ultimately the mere idea of depriving an animal completely of any stimulus was disturbing, though I should not have taken offense to that.

Although to an extent, I believe there is a lot of truth to it.  My Tiekerhook dog was a complete "natural" talent for bitework, from the moment I first got him.  But soon after at 3 months old, I stepped on his foot and completely broke a toe in half.  I didn't notice him favoring it at all for a day or two, because he just let out a little yelp, then kept on fighting for the tug.  When I put a cast on it, it didn't last 48 hours before he freed himself, and the second cast only lasting a day.  Trying to keep his activity level to a moderate level, I crated him quite a bit and worked on obedience only for the next 5-6 months, after which time he completely threw himself into the bitework with every bit of fight and natural aptitude he had in the very beginning.  Not so much as a hiccup, never missed a beat.

We've all shared similar stories, of dogs that just "are what they are", without any sort of required development.  From a breeder's perspective, I want to know what's in the dog that is purely transferable to the offspring, and want a whole lot less obfuscation by result of conditioning, repetitious training, and confidence building.  Mild stresses are introduced for the sake of evaluating their response and recovery time, to preview their ability to handle stress, rather than to familiarize them to novel circumstances by desensitization through repetition.

Genetics are the Key and are Paramount to Training, You can have a top Trainer but if he does not have the material to work with then Yes' he or she may get a little more from the Dog than a mediocre Trainer would, but it will never reach the heights that top Trainer wants.
It is like expecting an handicapper Horse to win the English Derby, it does not happen
If that was the case all German Dog owners or Breeders would just go and pick up the first dog they see regardless of how it is bred and the Genetics it has running through it and make a great dog out of it and i do not mean any specific work in particular
Steve1