PennHIP result

[nepstein]

Anne Anasha Seven did not earn a schutzhund *working title, a big difference because in the GSD world you can’t validate a breeding if both dogs have not earned a *working title*. Moreover it is not about whether one excludes the other it is the chances that a show bred Boerboel would be able to perform/work on an ongoing basis given his or her pedigree was first selected because it mirrored the standard over a Boerboel whose pedigree was selected because it was proven able to the work. There is no serious working breeder that will use a show dog in breeding because the show dog brings nothing useful to the breeding equation. Just ask the working Lab breeder if they will let your show Lab cover his bitch, and I hope your fast. Or ask any performance horse breeder if they will they will let you show horse cover their working mare. Same answer. The why is simple the show (fill in the blank) brings nothing useful to the breeding equation. The only way to create a useful animal is to breed it to another on an ongoing basis, there is no other way.
Please advise what other Anasha dog has earned a working schutzhund title and what degree, I would be most interested..

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

Norman you are really starting to annoy me.
I have bred working Labradors and German short hairs pointers for 25 years and I train my Boerboels as working dogs so stop your patronising. I know exactly how it is in the Labrador world. And I know my dogs. I do not have to make tests to know whether they will protect me and my family or not.

I know you have discussed this issue with Meike before and I know she has been working with Bakkies in Schutzhund BUT YOU claimed it was not your kind of Schutzhund, so it did not count.

Anasha Rogue has never done that, he is just a working dog being used every day as a working dog, BUT he did not do the test so that does not count for anything.

The dogs we have here who have prevented burglars from entering the house did do the job, but sorry, they did not pass your test so they are no good, better get rid of them.

There are 2 dogs here in Denmark who have made the schutzhund but are you sure it counts?? They are also trained as police dogs. Sorry could not resist.

The dogs working as farm dogs you forgot to mention. It that because they do what they were bred to do? Or do we have to make a test before we can trust them to do the job?

Anasha Seven was the first Boerboel in USA to take a Schutzhund AD plus earn a Master degree in shows plus do weightpull. That is not a week show dog with bad nerves but you would never give him credit for anything and that shows what kind of person you are.

Anne

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

Hello Norman,
"It seems you have chosen to avoid responding to my post “ Re: PennHip results #22 on June 1,2008 @2:38 PM, where I wrote in detail about why we are two communities, working and show and how we became those communities, and decided instead to respond to one regarding type. OK my response"
Sorry, I did not realise that you expected a response. Let me just say that you deal things up in black and white and then you generalise. That is your reality, I am not critisising you for this as you are one amongst many who do this. My reality tells me that what I am looking at is a rainbow (no, I am not on drugs), this rainbow has all shades of colours, it ranges from the purely show to the purely work. Like all rainbows, there are only 2 colours on the outside, the bulk of the rainbow is on the inside. Here you will find different colours too, one changeing slowly into another as breeders align themselves with certain opinions and accept other opinions. You see to me, black and white are boring absolutes and greys are interesting shades that can be described differently depending on the opinion of the person describing them. The closer you look at a rainbow, the more obvious it is that there are more than red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet, there are a multitude of shades of these colours as well. So it is with breeders too. There are not only 2 communities, there is one whole community and that has 2 ultra factions, and regardless of how wanted this is, it is a pattern that follows with human nature. You belong to one of those ultra factions, and I belong within the main body.

"Shaun lets be clear, when I speak of breeders I am not speaking in the absolute, but in the collective."
Norman, if generalise negatively about others and put them all in the same pidgeon hole, you will never have your views accepted. Most people here do not subscribe to absolute thoughts. I certainly do not wish you to tell me what thoughts and motives I have, when you know so little about my thoughts and motives. The fact that you do, says much more about you as a person than it says about me as a breeder.

"Shaun, few in this community are considered experts by most in our community, including yourself, it is just that Casper has been around a bit longer than you and has seen a bit more"
I am sure that Casper can represent himself here and I do not know enough about him to confirm or refute your claims. I also get the impression that you have absolutely no idea about what I have seen or what Casper has seen, so that claim is certainly invalid. As for me being regarded as an expert, my ego does not need this. The reality of the situation is that each person finds themselves on different levels of expertise withing the Boerboel world, we have owned more than 100 Boerboels and have PennHIP/elbow/entropion/ectropion/vaginal prolapse tested at least 80 of these, where it comes to expertise, this is our level. We accept that others are at different levels and we improve our knowledge of the dogs by listening to what others with some experience have to say. You have owned 1 boerboel, your knowledge of the dogs is related to this fact and is affected by what you hear from others, if you select to only listen to those who have a similar opinion to yourself, this will be reflected in the overall amount of knowledge you retain.

"Regarding the SABT for anyone to conclude they changed the standard to accommodate a larger dog for no apparent reason, is to believe they really care about this breeds movement and agility. Again all prudent reasoning would conclude that this change was made for the market place and not for the betterment of the breed."
Niether you or I are present when the reasoning behind the decisions are discussed, so we can only speculate. Your nature makes you speculate negatively, looking for some dark motivation, my nature leaves it open to discussion, for me it could also well be that having looked at the combined appraisal scores and then seeing that the Boerboel is getting smaller, they decided to let the top height increase. I do not know this though, just like your effort, mine is also speculative.

"It take the same commitment as a mother has for its child to support the SABT given there antics as of late. Moreover given the SABT’s lust for secrecy and stealth it would take the likes of Sherlock Holmes to determine any facts coming from them that they didn’t want to be found out. "
I am sorry but I do not know the organisation that well, I somehow have difficulty in imagining them as some sort of Spanish inquisition. To me they are just a group of breeders who try and organise the Boerboel world. I am also a member, not out of any special interest but because I wish my dogs to be registered in South Africa.

"Are you saying that this breed looks the same as it did in 1980 and if it does not, why does it not?"
I am not prepared to generalise like that Norman, I did not see all the dogs in the "80´s" and I have not seen all the dogs now, but the pictures I have from the "80´s" look remarkably similar to the pictures I see today. There have always been different lines.

"But our breeders are trying in every way they know to breed away from these differences and towards nirvana, the standard. As a testament to that you correctly reported that these different types do not earn high appraisal scores and therefore are considered less breed worthy, by those that really know. It is also the reason that the same group that is breeding for a high appraisal score will avoid them like a plague, ipso-facto 95 percent of our breeders."
What a funny thing to say Norman, our appraisal results lie at what must be the very top in Europe, in at least half of the years that we have been breeding, one of our dogs has been a top scoring male or female in Europe, yet we maintain a line that does not score well. You will just have to face up to the fact that the breeding world is more complicated than you give it credit for.

"As a testament to that you correctly reported that these different types do not earn high appraisal scores and therefore are considered less breed worthy,"
I did not say anything at all about breedworthyness in conection to appraisal scores. This has nothing to do with the SABT or EBBASA, it has everything to do with the individual breeder´s decision to breed or not.

"said why I am a member and that is to learn and to give others facts and opinions that they would seldom see on this on any other forum directed towards beauty breeding."
That is only part of the reason, the other part is that this board is open to hear your opinions, you have permission to tell your side of the story, you are in fact a welcome member even though you disagree with some points of view. The fact is that some other boards do not tolerate seeing things from another angle than the moderators.

Regards
Shaun

[bakkies]

Hi all,

we did not make our VPG A and AD in March because we have had trouble in our dog school.
I do not want to annoy anyone but maybe someone is interested in the titles Bakkies has earned (sorry but only one FCI title)

11. Platz Silverclass Night-Working Event 2006 of the AVD www.alanos.de
1. Platz "Best Boerboel Agility" 2007 and 1. Platz "Best Boerboel paperchase" 2007 of the 1. Boerboel Clubs Deutschland www.1bcd.de
1. Platz "Character parcours" Schleswig-Holstein 2007. Pictures here www.boerboel-info.de/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=93&Itemid=57
1. Temperament Test of the 1. BCDs in May 2008 passed.
Score was 1: Umwelt und sozial sicheres Verhalten (Gestik und Mimik: Kopf- und Körperhaltung normal, der Hund zeigt sich aufmerksam und interessiert)
BH at the SV Kropp in May 2007

Sorry still did not improve my english

I do not want to brag, I think there are other Boerboels with more titles, I just wanted to say that I still work my dog (together with our police dog - a German Shepered from performance line) but have not recieved "official" titles. My dog does the process of VPG1-3 (no tracking, I am too lazy for that, but we are doing mantrailing together with the police).

I will try to make a video, Anne once asked for that

Meike

[nepstein]

Anne lets be honest, I’ve always annoyed you (g). I have read again my reply to you and I don’t find it patronizing at all. What I said was factual and based on breeding science and breeding history. The fact that you were aware of some of these facts doesn’t necessarily mean, others were equally aware. If I may suggest that in any future dialog, please make an effort not to personalize isolated comments made by me that were in fact not personal in nature. For example you wrote: “That is not a week show dog with bad nerves but you would never give him credit for anything and that shows what kind of person you are” Really, so the fact I don’t acknowledge your dogs achievements shows others what kind of person I am. That may show you but let me hazard a guess that it doesn’t show others. When you disagree with me, and you most times do, it would be more constructive IMO to argue these disagreements directly and leave personal assessments out. Now to your post.

You wrote” I would just like to add that Anasha Seven was the first Boerboel in the world to earn his Schutzhund title. That claim can’t with any accuracy be authenticated because you are not privy to those records. You have since corrected that by posting. “Anasha Seven was the first Boerboel in USA to take a Schutzhund AD”. Not that it matters, Gordo was the first and still to my knowledge, only Boerboel in the USA to earn a working schutzhund title and I find it sad because there should be many more. Many more being trained many more being worked many more doing something other than being appraised. It is good to remember the Boerboel is supposed to be a working dog not a show dog.

Anne wrote in part:

I do not have to make tests to know whether they will protect me and my family or not.

Did you feel the same way about testing for the working Labradors and German short hairs pointers you bred for 25 years? In that you really didn’t have to test those dogs to find out the weakness and strength in each in order to identify compatible breeding partners in order to better and or maintain a particular working line. Maybe you can tell me why testing is demanded for all other working breeds that work and not necessary for the Boerboel. I bet that Meike has a few problems your contention that “I do not have to make tests to know whether they will protect me and my family or not”.
Regarding the want to protect, as you are aware there much more required for a correct Boerboel than the want to protect, there is also the critical trait of biddability. How can one assess that trait without first putting the dog in a situation where he is asked to protect and then require the dog to stop and do something he doesn’t want to do, stop and be obedient to another command. i.e.,a test. This is exactly what the protection (working) part of schutzhund demands and it is asked of the dog on a strange field at least asked four times in a given routine. I am not referring to any one breeder when I say talk is cheap in this community. Prospective purchasers constantly hear, your dog, if you buy it form me, will protect because one or both of his parents scared away an intruder, or temperament is very important in my breeding and the obligatory, they are great with children. Then when asked to prove their claims, a blank look comes over their face and they fall back on, because I said so. Their dogs may very well be and do all of those things but when I am paying around two thousand dollars for a pup that when grown, will weigh approximately 150 pounds supposedly bred to guard and protect, I want a bit more than the word of any breeder especially if that breeder doesn’t train for the trait most advertised. Permit me another fact. No trait or traits can be maintained without being aggressively bred for on an ongoing basis. This includes but not limited to, biddability, guardian/protection, work ethic, correct temperament, and proper nerves. If any breeder wants these traits to survive they *must* select them first over all other phenotypic traits. However if there goal is to mirror a show standard then by all means select for that first, and often. Because of what is selected first, in dogs bred for beauty, is the reason you seldom find dogs selected for showing doing well in working trials. Are there sometimes show dogs that will perform? Sure, but even then they are not used for breeding by serious working breeders because of the many that wouldn’t in there pedigree plus the unfortunately long history of show dogs not being able what they were bred to do. It is very difficult to breed for traits you can’t see and so much easier to breed for ones you can.

Anne wrote in part:

I know you have discussed this issue with Meike before and I know she has been working with Bakkies in Schutzhund BUT YOU claimed it was not your kind of Schutzhund, so it did not count.

It is obvious from your above you have little knowledge of schutzhund which is completely understandable as you don’t train in the sport. Schutzhund is, for every one else, is the breed specific test for the German Shepherd Dog. First of all schutzhund is a world wide sport having only one set of rules and regulations. Therefore there is only one “kind”. The discussion I had with Mieke had nothing to do with one kind versus another therefore for obvious reasons, I am unable to make a rational response. By the way I don’t consider the participation in weight pulling necessarily advantageous for our breed. Just I as don’t see the participation in just bite work advantageous for a breeder when selecting breed stock. Because neither of those two behaviors/disciplines will facilitate or define the traits that are necessary for a breed bred first to be a steady companion that if called upon have the agility, movement, temperament and conformation, nerve and work ethic that will permit it to do the work of a farm dog that will protect.
Regards Norman

[nepstein]

Shaun wrote:

Let me just say that you deal things up in black and white and then you generalize

Sorry I didn’t realize I generalized to the extent you say I do. Maybe you could point out some of these generalizations, as that is not my want.

Shaun wrote:

My reality tells me that what I am looking at is a rainbow (no, I am not on drugs), this rainbow has all shades of colours, it ranges from the purely show to the purely work.

I also see shades of color if you will it is just I have not found anything useful that a dog selected for beauty brings to the breeding equation, given I define dogs by what they do not what they look like. My reality is seldom if ever a dog selected for beauty does well at its function when compared to a working dog and seldom if ever does a working dog do well at shows. The reasons are many and obvious and I have gone over them at length before and for the sake of brevity won’t again, save one. They look different and act different because they are selected for different reasons.

Shaun wrote:

What a funny thing to say Norman, our appraisal results lie at what must be the very top in Europe, in at least half of the years that we have been breeding, one of our dogs has been a top scoring male or female in Europe, yet we maintain a line that does not score well.

This begs the question why have you kept a line that doesn’t score well if your main goal is to produce high appraisal scores, which scores you have by often listed on different Boerboel boards. Did you keep this line just for historic reasons or maybe for sentimental reasons like not getting rid of the old jalopy or to remember what the Boerboel use to look like when it necessary to have a different conformation in order to its job. Ah the good ole days when the Boerboel had a job. When the first question that was asked of a breeder wasn’t how much will he weigh but what can his mother and father do. Oh well back to reality.

Norman wrote:
"As a testament to that you correctly reported that these different types do not earn high appraisal scores and therefore are considered less breed worthy,"

Shaun replied:
I did not say anything at all about breedworthyness in conection to appraisal scores.

Maybe not, but the rest of the Boerboel community sure has. This community is now for the most part breeding for beauty via high appraisal scores and has been for almost twenty years, and has been selecting breed stock to accomplish that goal. To think otherwise is indeed whimsical, much like the pot of gold (a community of a particular breed that can perform at work and show with equal success) at the end of your rainbow. Permit a few of those nasty facts. The result of our ongoing selection process is the Boerboel (collectively) is now a show dog not a working dog. Why? Because we have gotten what we have selected for. No species since the beginning of time that has been able to reproduce has been able to retain a trait/behavior without having selected for it first on an ongoing basis. First by the species in its will to survive and next by man for his own needs. Which translates into, and I am not being condescending, no trait resides in a breed, just because it is that breed. The lament of all beauty breeders is my high line (show lines) dogs could do what those working line dogs can do, and just as well. They can’t for the reasons given above and to believe otherwise is akin to fitting a square peg in a round hole. Just a note I have never, because of my views, been asked to leave a board dedicated to the Boerboel. That said I do appreciate your allowing me to express them here. Regards Norman

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

Hello Norman, You are not serious about generalisations are you, if you cannot see them yourself I need not go far to help you, I will just stick to this last page.

"They look different and act different because they are selected for different reasons."
If this was a precise description, you would have to know all Boerboels. I cannot say that you do not, but I think I can safely assume that you do not. Therefore this is a generalisation.

"Anne lets be honest, I’ve always annoyed you " once again you could never know that, and btw it is not true. A generalisation.

"No trait or traits can be maintained without being aggressively bred for on an ongoing basis."
So a cross breed without a shadow of a pedigree and not coming from any parents with know working abilities will never bite an intruder?
Let´s face it Norman if your statement was precise, the only dogs that would defend are dogs that were bred for doing that purpose and it would be 100% safe to go onto a property that had any other type of dog. I think it is fair to say that this is also a generalisation.

I will not continue look at your own posts, if you take all the unconfirmed generalisations out of them, they would not be worth the effort to write. (That was a generalisation from me

"dog selected for beauty brings "
I think the trouble with your definition of breeding a dog to a standard is that it is too simple. You equate standard to beauty, in other words if the dog fullfills a standards requirements it is beautiful. Personally I cannot see the connection between beauty and a required physical standard. It is just a requirement and no-one has asked me to consider the Boerboel as a thing of beauty. It just has to look like a Boerboel, and in the case of the Boerboel there are a couple of requirements about behaviour. (Something I find irrelevant in connection to genetics).
Showing a dog that takes several days of grooming and maybe disguising scars etc is in my way of thinking not to be compared to asking a trained person to check your dog against a standard (appraisal). We have never prepared any dog for an appraisal unless leash training counts. Most of our dogs never go on a leash, they do not have to and they find it unnatural, so up to an appraisal I usually train them to the leash if I have the time. Some Boerboels have scars, these dogs have never been penalised for these scars as far as I know. Big dogs are not so squeemish about using pain as correctional motivation as I am.
I see no reason that would disqualify a "show" Boerboel from doing well at a working competition, and vise versa, it is only a matter of training. Boerboels are intelligent, it doesn´t even have to be aggressive to learn bite training.
All of our house dogs are trained to take anyones sleeve/arm away from Anne if they make any aggressive moves. It has never been difficult to train any of them to do this. Sometimes it is better to wait until they are older (1½ or so) before starting the training, and sometimes it can be started already when the puppy is young, it depends on the dog, but they all learn it because it is a part of their job here. Nikita never learned it, we got her when she was already an adult, but if anyone makes any aggressive moves here it is shall we say unwise. She will stop that sort of behaviour before I would register anything. Take her off a leash and she goes happily around doing what dogs do, put her on a leash and it is like pushing a button, it doesn´t mean to say that she is unattentive when she is free, she is very attentive when she has a leash on. However she has scored 87,4 and 88,8 in the 2 main registries. Very imposing dog on a leash. This is definately a dog that would love to compete in "work" competitions.
An appraisal is a one-off event where the dog is compared to a standard a show dog goes to repeated shows throughout its career. I do not see how an appraisal can ruin a working dog. Without the appraisal, there is no way to determine that a particular dogbreeder stays within the standard. If that does not happen, it will only be a matter of time before the geographic location of the dog would determine its appearance, in other words the race would split up without a central focal point.
You know all this Norman, and the thread is getting very boring.

" This begs the question why have you kept a line that doesn’t score well if your main goal is to produce high appraisal scores"
This very question shows how you itemise us, how on earth can you allow yourself to dictate what our main goal is? You do not, you do not take the trouble to seriously think about what you see or read and give it enough thought to come to a reasonable conclusion. This makes conversation with you difficult at best, boring at worst. A constant battle to try and curb your misquoting and generalising.
Let me answer your question, it should be blaringly obvious to any person with a reasonable amount of thinking power, that our main goal has got nothing to do with high appraisal scores. As said earlier, we have 3 different lines here.
One of them maintains the type of dog shown, we get them appraised but try and maintain the original look. The other 2 lines both score well, one is a heavy dog and one is a light dog. All 3 lines have excellent PennHIP results.

Our main goal has always been to eradicate structural health problems. This is no secret, and you already knew it. So your statement is a cheap shot designed not to bring anything positive into the debate, but to provocate. This tells me that there is really nothing more positive to be gained from this thread.

When I brag about scores, it is not because they mean so much to us, but more because I know how much they mean to others. It seems that we are nearly always in the limelight for something or other, and the high scores are very annoying for those that do not wish us well for their own personal reasons.

"Just a note I have never, because of my views, been asked to leave a board dedicated to the Boerboel. That said I do appreciate your allowing me to express them here." Anyone who has a point of view and expresses it is welcome here as long as they adhere to the general rules.
We have never been asked to leave, but we have been chucked out. We were chucked out of the Norwegian BB club board for suggesting that prospective puppy purchasers demanded to see copies of hip testing before paying a deposit. And I was chucked out of the UKBC board for relaying some information that was unwanted. They accused me of being a liar and told me to apologise. A person who relays a message (and makes this clear)is not lying and has nothing to apologise for. For me it has always seemed like the exclusion was because my view generally differs from that of the UKBC board in nearly all aspects and I was prepared to say so and why. When I see the health problems there are today in the UK, I know I was and am right.

Regards
Shaun

[bakkies]

Jun 4, 2008 17:00:05 GMT nepstein said:

The discussion I had with Mieke had nothing to do with one kind versus another therefore for obvious reasons, I am unable to make a rational response.

That´s true, Norman and I were discussing about the BH as far as I can remember (ling time ago). I was wondering why Norman said he has done his Schutzhund BH (correct me if I am wrong), it was an "american name" for these titles.

BH, AD, FH, ... have nothing to do with Schutzhund. Schutzhund titels are VPG 1-3, VPGA. The old names are Sch1-3 or SchA. Even WH has nothing to do with it.

As far as I know we have no Schutzhund titels here in Europe, I tried to be the first one here

I will now lay back and follow this interesting discussion

Meike

[buliebuse]

Shaun & Norman 'pull your necks in' & stop winding each other up its boring.If I want to read a book I'd get one off the shelf!
Ju
No disrespect intended to either parties.

[nepstein]

Regarding being bored, it would seem by the interest this thread has sparked, you and Shaun are in the minority. My I suggest you don't open any more of our posts and go to one of the many other forums on this site. By the way no offense taken. Norman

[nepstein]

Regarding generalizations Shaun below gave an example of what he felt were some of my many generalizations .

Norman wrote in part:
"They (Boerboel’s) look different and act different because they are selected for different reasons."

Shaun reasoned?

If this was a precise description, you would have to know all Boerboels. I cannot say that you do not, but I think I can safely assume that you do not. Therefore this is a generalization.

No I wouldn’t need to know all Boerboel’s individually. All I would need know is the results of those selections made by their breeders. In the same way it is not necessary to know all that are afflicted by a debilitating disease in order to devise a cure. The science of genetics is based on the results of selection, natural or otherwise. Therefore we get what we select for, is not some harebrained idea it is proven, fact that has been recognized by geneticists all over the world.

Another example given by Shaun of my many generalizations: I wrote:

"Anne lets be honest, I’ve always annoyed you

Shaun reasoned?
" once again you could never know that, and btw it is not true. A generalization

Shaun this was my attempt at one of man’s civil behaviors, “humor” one apparently with which you are not familiar.

Norman wrote:

"No trait or traits can be maintained without being aggressively bred for on an ongoing basis."

Shaun reasoned?

So a cross breed without a shadow of a pedigree and not coming from any parents with know working abilities will never bite an intruder? Let´s face it Norman if your statement was precise, the only dogs that would defend are dogs that were bred for doing that purpose and it would be 100% safe to go onto a property that had any other type of dog. I think it is fair to say that this is also a generalisation.

Fair? Shaun your above is incorrect on so many levels it is difficult to know where to begin. But I will start by suggesting, you must have been on vacation or asleep when the science of genetics was taught in your school (Humor), because my above is the foundation of that science (genetics). For you to not accept that maxim is to take no notice of that science. Now I wasn’t there (humor/generalization) but it is widely accepted that the first gray wolf probably appeared in Eurasia sometime about a million years ago. Around 750,000 years ago, it is though to have migrated to North America. All of them had teeth and they had them because natural selection dictated that they have them for eating, hunting and protecting there territory and family. Just because we had not written a standard for them doesn’t mean selection was not taking place as selection is always taking place. What science believes happened was that man *selected* particular wolves that hung around the camp i.e., more acceptable of man, and *selected* those evidencing that behavior on an ongoing basis. The result of that selection process was according to the American Society of Mammologist was Canis Lupus Familiaris and has now recommended that the domestic dog be reclassified as a new subspecies of wolf. What happened after that was that man selected a certain particular trait or traits inherent in all wolves that were of benefit to him and then bred those examples to like examples on an ongoing basis. The results of that selection process are the different types of dogs and soon after additional selection became different breeds of dogs. All dogs can bite and they can because of natural selection, however because of our selection process some bite more readily than others. For example in scent hounds the behavior of biting was deselected and threfore inhibited because biting is not necessary for the most part to do scent work. Therefore we selected away from scent hounds that were aggressive towards man i.e., the Bloodhound. However man did select towards the biting behavior in herders because gripping is needed for that type. He then selected herders with an excessive want to bite and produced of most breeds used in police work. So you see Shaun just because most any dog can bite does not disprove what geneticists have accepted long ago. “No trait or traits can be maintained without being aggressively bred for on an ongoing basis. Likewise without this aggressive selection process these needed traits would then be reduced to what they once were, good but not good enough for man's needs. Or they may in fact disappear much like the work ethic has in dogs bred for bench shows. That is why in order for them to be successful, working dogs are for the most part only bred to other proven working dogs and show dogs are seldom if ever bred to a working dog. The reason is, to use your words, ”should be blaringly obvious to any person with a reasonable amount of thinking power” However I can understand your reluctance to accept that fact because if you did then you would have no reason not to test all your breed stock for *all* the traits assigned to the Boerboel and not just your favorites. Because as science as told us, if you didn’t those unselected traits would in time disappear and for some that is very good news.

Shaun wrote:
I see no reason that would disqualify a "show" Boerboel from doing well at a working competition, and vise versa, it is only a matter of training. Boerboels are intelligent, it doesn´t even have to be aggressive to learn bite training. All of our house dogs are trained to take anyones sleeve/arm away from Anne if they make any aggressive moves

Ah, the lament of all show breeders its not what is selected (the breeding) and why, it is just the training that separates the show dog from its working counterpart. You wrote "Boerboels don't have to be agressive to learn bite training “ Agreed but they have to have courage, biddability, nerve and correct temperament to be taught protection work correctly. You went on to say, "Boerboels are intelligent” talk about a generalization (g). First of all Shaun it is not about one or the other being disqualified it is whether they could compete in the others venue with equal success. For the record, they haven’t yet. Of the tens of thousands of GSD's that compete in schutzhund every year, there may be about five show bred that have competed on even a regional level successfully, if it was just the training then why this discrepancy. I would wager that the same percentage holds true in all working venues for all working and show breeds. It all a matter of training which begs the question of how can you train a for a different phenotype for the show ring. Again Shaun the reason that they don’t and haven’t since there have been working dogs and show dogs, is because they are selected for different reasons and goals. In order for a working dog to be successful it needs none of the qualities that a show dogs needs to be successful. I note from your above, that you train all of your *house dogs* in bite work, then why don’t you likewise train all of your breed stock in protection work as well. I know the reason must be they will all do it, it is just a matter of training so there is no need. Right. Moreover from what you described just training a dog to bite a sleeve is very far removed from vetting a dog’s courage nerve, temperament and protective instincts because I can train any dog to bite a sleeve. What I can’t train is temperament, nerve and courage. Norman

[nepstein]

Meike wrote in part:

I was wondering why Norman said he has done his Schutzhund BH (correct me if I am wrong), it was an "american name" for these titles.

Meike, the SV structured the BH much like they structured all of the working phases in schutzhund and made passing it (the BH) by any GSD under there umbrella a prerequisite before you could trial. Moreover the BH is peculiar to the sport of schutzhund as no other sport or discipline uses it. So it is understandable that one would refer to it as a schutzhund BH. Regards Norman

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

Hello Norman, "But I will start by suggesting, you must have been on vacation or asleep when the science of genetics was taught in your school (Humor), because my above is the foundation of that science (genetics)."
Thank you for that disparraging remark, hiding behind what you describe as humour is to be expected of you. The truth is that as a proffesional bioanalyst, I have quite adequate formal qualifications in the sciences, one of those being genetics and my qualifications are way beyond school level. I have also worked in the department for Biochemistry and Genetics at Odense university hospital for 10 years, giving me a hands on insight to add my academic qualifications. What formal qualifications do you have to write about genetics?

The truth is that if we were all to believe you, it would be impossible for a person to harm or kill another person unless they come from a long line of people that had harmed or killed others. I suggest that given the correct circumstances (self protection or protection of family/friends/a child) we could nearly all do it. It has very little to do with genetics other than an instinct to survive personally and an instinct to survive as a group. This instinct is so embedded in social animals like humans, dogs, apes, monkeys, lions etc etc, that short term breeding goals will never remove it. It is still in humans after several thousands of years of being illegal and does not follow any traceable ancestral pathways. If you are looking for a science to explain this instinct, look to a social science, not genetics.

"it is just the training that separates the show dog from its working counterpart"
If you think this, then why bitch about breeders? They are not trainers per se. I have no interest in actively training my dogs to do anything other than to protect us and our property, and to exhibit acceptable social behaviour in the company of other people and other dogs.

I find both things relatively easy to train dogs in, even the ones we get back as adults can learn correct social behaviour to a high degree. I would even go so far as to say that I have never met a Boerboel yet where it is impossible to train it away from the bad habits its owner gave it, and to acceptable behaviour within a matter of hours. With an ½ hour per day training most dogs are completely compliant by the end of a week. It doesnt matter whether it has dog aggressive issues, human aggressive or just uncontrolled bad behaviour it is all relatively easy to fix.

I am sorry Norman, you still come across as a person that can only see things from one angle. I am sorry for you, this will inhibit your enjoyment of the dog, and it makes it difficult for you to understand that others enjoy their dogs in different (and just as important for them) ways than you do.

Regards
Shaun

[nepstein]

Shaun wrote in part:

What formal qualifications do you have to write about genetics?

I don’t have many and that’s why I quote *and learn* from those who have far more experience than either of us. Moreover I have as many qualifications in genetics as you do in protection work and that hasn’t stopped you from offering advice.

Shaun wrote:

The truth is that if we were all to believe you, it would be impossible for a person to harm or kill another person unless they come from a long line of people that had harmed or killed others. I suggest that given the correct circumstances (self protection or protection of family/friends/a child) we could nearly all do it. It has very little to do with genetics other than an instinct to survive personally and an instinct to survive as a group

Let’s get back to the genesis of this discussion. My contention is the same as geneticist in that selection is always taking place, natural selection in order to survive and or by man’s selection, for need. The instinct for survival is therefore a selected trait/behavior. The reason man will defend is eons of natural selection. Now to use you example, if we decided to select men that had a exaggerated want to defend and then bred then to women who also had alike propensity to defend, in a given time frame the results of that selection process would be offspring that had an exaggerated want to defend. Additionally canines can and have been altered in a much shorter time frame than humans . Again all dogs will bite but because of selection we can amplify that trait or inhibit it. As an example of this please if you will refer to the now famous Russian Silver Fox study: It is good to note that the Silver Fox in its normal state has an exaggerated need to defend exhibited by an extreme aggression, and through just selection with no handling in forty years, this once aggressive wild Fox was changed into a friendly lap dog. Once avoiding humans now requiring contact with them. The following is part of that study. “ Selection for tame behavior was started at the Institute of Cytology and Genetics (ICG) in Novosibirsk, Russia in 1959 with 130 farm-bred foxes that demonstrated the least avoidance behavior towards humans. Subsequently, only the tamest individuals in each generation have been allowed to breed, while at the same time a deliberate effort was made to avoid inbreeding (Trut, 1999, 2001; Trut et al., 2004). The tame population developed relatively fast in response to selection The following web address cbsu.tc.cornell.edu/ccgr/behaviour/index.html will take you to the rest of that study and also provide videos of that experiment, now transpose this study to our breeding selections, or the lack thereof, in dogs or breeds today. For example all dogs have the ability of scent but by selection we have created a breed, the Bloodhound, which lives to scent and therefore will work all day for just to participate in that one behavior. Moreover that breed’s phenotype has been changed to aid man in that work. Again Shaun you get what you select/breed for. If you can't, with all of your education accept that then you can't accept genetics because that one statement is the taproot of that science. No man induced trait can survive without an aggressive selection process for it on an ongoing basis, not biddability, not courage, not the guardian/ protection trait and not correct temperament and nerve. None of them can survive because they did once evidence themselves in a type of dog. Traits don't remain in a breed just because it is that breed. Don't believe me, then ask Meike.

Shaun wrote in part:

"it is just the training that separates the show dog from its working counterpart" If you think this, then why bitch about breeders? They are not trainers per se. I have no interest in actively training my dogs to do anything other than to protect us and our property, and to exhibit acceptable social behaviour in the company of other people and other dogs.

Because Shaun they also to the selecting and many times just select for a single given quality, beauty.

Shaun wrote in part:

I find both things relatively easy to train dogs in, even the ones we get back as adults can learn correct social behaviour to a high degree. I would even go so far as to say that I have never met a Boerboel yet where it is impossible to train it away from the bad habits its owner gave it, and to acceptable behaviour within a matter of hours.

In a matter of hours you can fix a behavior that took years to create. Well that puts you right up there with the best trainers in the world. Let me be the first to congratulate you. But of course this discussion is not about what the owners have done, but what they have selected and why, but I am still none the less still impressed. To bring you back, this is about the damage that has been done to our breed because of poor selection by breeders. You pride yourself on bettering the hip scores in your line. Would you select a very dysplastic dog on an ongoing basis because it was beautiful and because of that get you closer to your standard in order to get a high appraisal score. If selection matters for a phenotype why does it equally matter for a genotype? If selection doesn’t matter why the rush to favorite sires and the tight breeding so prevalent in the show community.

Shaun wrote in part:

I am sorry Norman, you still come across as a person that can only see things from one angle. I am sorry for you, this will inhibit your enjoyment of the dog, and it makes it difficult for you to understand that others enjoy their dogs in different (and just as important for them) ways than you do.

Call me crazy but I choose to do things that would first benefit the dog before it would benefit me. I find no joy in the results of beauty breeding such as exaggerated phenotypes, loss of function, loss of health. vitality and withering in pain because of the a onslaught of one of the many genetic diseases brought about for the most part, by a limited gene pool and selecting of breed stock that benefits the dog owner and not the dog. Regards Norman

[bulieboerboels]

Hi Norman I was wondering if you have ever bred any dogs and if so what breed?Also if you have what qualities did you decide were important in selecting your male and female?
Regards Paul.

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

Hello Norman,
"Moreover I have as many qualifications in genetics as you do in protection work and that hasn’t stopped you from offering advice."
What advice have I offered you in protection work? I freely admit that protection work is not my strong point and I know very little about how to implement training in this sport for anything else than our own needs at home. I do not tell you how to train, you tell me how to breed, and you also tell me what I breed for, you might stop telling me about myself and my goals and ask me instead, that might create a better platform for communication and understanding.

"if we decided to select men that had a exaggerated want to defend and then bred then to women who also had alike propensity to defend, in a given time frame the results of that selection process would be offspring that had an exaggerated want to defend."
And you can prove this or are we still in the realm of Normans wishfull thinking?

The truth about dogs is that in any wild dog group/pack there are cowards/nervous dogs, these dogs never mate because they never get the chance. The dominant dogs mate. Why then if only dominant dogs mate, are there still cowards/nervous dogs being born? According to your "genetics" they should have been bred out and only dominant dogs would be born. Social dynamics in a pack dictate that there is a need for these nervous dogs, they are positioned in the perifery of the pack and act as sentrys. A nervous dog will alarm the pack to
dangers that a more confident dog would miss, in other words nervous dogs are born to confident parents because nature dictates that they are ESSENTIAL to the survival of the pack. This has nothing to do with selective breeding by the breeder, any breeder that tells you that they only breed confident puppies is telling you something that is against the nature of dogs breeding. In other words a lie. Regardless of how long mankind will breed on confident dogs, nature has been doing it longer, and there will still be nervous puppies. The only real tool a breeder has is to destroy the most nervous of the offspring. Your posts confuse the reader into thinking that the breeders have total control over the outcome of their breedings and deliberately breed for traits that you do not wish. This is very far from the truth, each breeding, even with dogs with known results is an experiment. The outcome is unknown to a large degree, and if breeders could get the wanted results by wishfull thinking, everyone would be good at it. Breeding is like painting a picture, you get the raw materials, you make a plan for the outcome, and then you start. Then you correct your mistakes, then you start again, then you adjust mistakes etc. until you have the desired, refined end product. In the case of breeding take 20 years out of your life and then you might achieve your goals.

"Because Shaun they also to the selecting and many times just select for a single given quality, beauty."
There you go again Norman. How on earth can you simplify everything so that it fits into such neat boxes? I do not believe that I have met a single dog breeder that only thinks of beauty, most of them also think of health and temperament to some degree.

"Would you select a very dysplastic dog on an ongoing basis because it was beautiful and because of that get you closer to your standard in order to get a high appraisal score."
In our case a very dysplastic dog would never get old enough to be considered for appraisal. Each puppy is looked at before it is sold or retained, we look at movement in the hind quarters, if the puppy has any serious deviations from the norm it is destroyed. It never leaves us. Of the dogs we use for breeding, each is screened by PennHIP when it is a year old or so. These days our average for PennHIP is under 0,45, the breed average is 0,56. If a dog has nothing positive to offer us, either in looks, attitude or health, we do not breed on it and try to find a pet home. If the dogs are in balance, the appraisal scores will be acceptable and that is good enough for us. So you see, your question about beauty is irrelevant in our breeding. The appraisal scores of our breeding dogs range from >90% to >75%, each dog has something special that we wish to retain.

"If selection doesn’t matter why the rush to favorite sires and the tight breeding so prevalent in the show community"
You cannot really expect me to answer a question that is directed at such a broad array of people, so I will answer for ourselves only. Niether we (Anasha) or any other breeder we work together with, "rush" to favourite sires and tight breeding. We do occaisionally use tight breeding, to attain a goal, but mostly prefer genetical variation.

"Call me crazy but I choose to do things that would first benefit the dog before it would benefit me."
I find that hard to swallow Norman, you select dogs because they will work for you, if they wouldn´t work for you, you would not own them. This is about what you want and can get from the dog, not what the dog wants and can get from you. In that respect you are no different than any other dog owner.

Regards
Shaun

[jannikbb]

Shaun I found your reply to Norman fascinating regarding the dominant alpha male and female only breeding, but still there are subordinate dogs being born. I have always said there are all sorts born within the one litter, regardless of whatever temperaments you choose in the first place, we can only choose the dogs we believe will produce what we are looking for, but do you also think that if two subordinate dogs mated they would also produce both dominant as well as nervous dogs? jan

[jannikbb]

I also wonder what are the results when you as a breeder put together a dominant male and dominant female, does the litter usually consist of more dominant pups than subordinate pups or just an average mix, as opposed to putting together say a dominant male with a subordinate female, would you get less of the dominant pups born?? jan

[bakkies]

Norman, the BH is not only used by the SV, it is unsed by every FCI club.
The BH is needed for all trials, not only SCH trials. It has nothing to do with VPG. You can do the AD without the BH but FH, WH or any other test not.
It is ioncorrect that you refer VPG to the BH it has nothing to do with it.

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

Hello Jan, if you put 100 people in a room, within a few days it will be quite obvious who the leaders are and who the subordinates are. If you then remove the top 10% of leaders, give it a couple of days more, and the new leaders will have taken the old positions. It is flock mentality. It is the same with dogs.
If 2 beta dogs leave a pack and survive, they will mate and the puppies will be just as fit to survive as puppies in the original pack, in a short time they will establish a pack order.
If an alpha female dies/is killed in a pack, a beta female will rise to the occasion and become an alpha. It has to be this way otherwise a pack would disintegrate everytime an alpha dies.

At the moment we have a beta female here for mating, it had trouble coming into season because it was dominated by the on-site alpha female, I suggested letting someone without female dogs look after the female and it came into season within a couple of weeks. It is important that this female is isolated from the dominant female on its return to its kennel. After the birth of the puppies, this female´s nature will probably change drastically, her status will have risen and she will now be more difficult to dominate. She might even challenge for leadership.
It is my belief that any litter, regardless of the status of the parents, will be a mix of about 5% alpha pups 90% average pups and 5% ultra submissive pups.

Regards
Shaun

[jannikbb]

thank you shaun I belive that is a very good observation, i have four females, it was only when my dominant male had to be seperated as he had an ongoing leg problem that a previously quiet bitch took over 'guarding' the property, this same bitch before when at home didn't bother guarding, but when she went to my daughters where there are no other dogs suddenly turned into an amazing guard. thanks jan

[nepstein]

Norman wrote in part:

"if we decided to select men that had a exaggerated want to defend and then bred then to women who also had alike propensity to defend, in a given time frame the results of that selection process would be offspring that had an exaggerated want to defend."

Shaun replied

And you can prove this or are we still in the realm of Normans wishfull thinking?

Shaun you are the one who used mankind to make a point. I have tried to stay with dogs. It seems you have not yet read or understood the Silver Fox Study cbsu.tc.cornell.edu/ccgr/behaviour/index.html I offered regarding how easy it was to breed away existing traits and or ingrained behaviors by selecting one trait or quality over all of the others, in the studies case, biddability by breeding only those animals that exhibited that trait in an overt manner. I noted in you reply to me you avoided commenting on that critical poof. I can understand why. One can easily replace biddability with beauty in the above example as what can and has happened when breeders select for one quality or trait over all else.

Shaun wrote in part:

The truth about dogs is that in any wild dog group/pack there are cowards/nervous dogs, these dogs never mate because they never get the chance.

So nervous dogs in a group never get a chance to breed. Just when you think you've heard it all, this.

Shaun wrote in part:

Why then if only dominant dogs mate, are there still cowards/nervous dogs being born?

Please stop going from *dog group* to *wolf pack* because there is a big difference between the two. Wolf "Pack behaviors are much more complicated than just hierarchies of social status. They are learned through social play and care-soliciting behaviors during the juvenile period". A wolf may be subordinate in the pack does not mean they are subordinate on the hunt. In fact subordinate wolves are often found to be very good and courageous hunters. The goal of the pack is survival and if these examples can aid in that function they are not driven out. There is no need for a wolf that doesn’t aid in the hunt as the wolf pack is very pragmatic and it will be run out, not because it is subordinate but because it is of no help in the hunt.

Regarding identifying a dominate dog. Why would you think the modern handler is capable of correctly identifying dominate behaviors if he has seldom if ever trained a guardian breed in that function. I have found in my thirty plus years of training protection breeds a handler very often identify what he thinks to be a dominate behavior, only to find after TESTING, the dog is only fearful, exhibiting behaviors the handler incorrectly believed to be dominate. Since today an extremely small segment of the handlers ever train there guardian/protection breeds in there function most are not capable of telling the difference between fear and dominance. Therefore fearful dogs are often bred producing many generations of dogs with weak nerves that handlers believe to be courageous and dominate. That said even in a correct working breeding there are cowards being born as dogs are products of all of there pedigree and the genetics of breeding. The effort in a correct breeding is to have as few as possible and unlike the beauty community, those few are not bred.

Shaun wrote in part:

Social dynamics in a pack dictate that there is a need for these nervous dogs, they are positioned in the perifery of the pack and act as sentrys. A nervous dog will alarm the pack to dangers that a more confident dog would miss, in other words nervous dogs are born to confident parents because nature dictates that they are ESSENTIAL to the survival of the pack.

Essential to the survival of the dog group are they. The social dynamics in a dog group dictate there is a need for a nervous dogs. Really? What do you do, make it up as you go along. Well it seems those who make a study of such things have a very different opinion, but yours sure sound good. First of all dogs don’t live in packs they live in very small groups. Wolves live in packs but dogs and wolves are now both very distant in behaviors and behavior triggers. This from “Excerpts from Raymond Coppinger book, Dogs, A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior & Evolution
“Dogs do Not mimic Wolf “Pack” Behavior
Most dogs live alone or in very small groups. Notice that the word is “Group” not
“Pack”. Dog group behavior does not mimic wild wolf pack behavior. In fact, contrary topopular belief, dogs around the world do not (or only rarely) exhibit “Pack” behavior. I don’t see much in dogs that Indicates they have the fundamental behavior that would allow true wolf like packing. Pack behaviors are much more complicated than just hierarchies of social status. They are learned through social play and care-soliciting behaviors during the juvenile period. A trainer who pretends to be the Alpha leader of a wolf pack-say, by turning a dog over onto it’s back and getting down and growling at its throat-is intimidating the dog, no doubt. But to a dog, the message is not what the trainer thinks it is”.

It seems I keep offering proof while you only offer conjecture.

Shaun wrote in part:

In the case of breeding take 20 years out of your life and then you might achieve your goals.

Well congratulations you are way ahead of schedule. From what you have written you have in less than ten years eliminated hip dysplasia, vaginal hyperplasia and for the most part poor temperament in your lines.

Shaun wrote in part:

Regardless of how long mankind will breed on confident dogs, nature has been doing it longer, and there will still be nervous puppies.

From your above I can only assume you are now talking about natural selection in feral dogs? No one has yet estimated the number of nervous puppies in a feral dog group. Moreover feral dogs breed just because they like to, and owe little or no allegiance to anyone but themselves. Wolves breed for a single purpose, survival and owe total allegiance to the pack. When survival is the primary goal, natural selection dictates there would be far fewer if any sub-standard wolf puppies. Why? Because weak pups would not lend themselves to the survival of the pack. Moreover if we are to judge mankind’s breeding success by the character and health, i.e., loss of vigor, loss of temperament, loss of health, loss of function and loss of work ethic, of its pure breed dog population man has failed miserably. Moreover, the issue is not whether there are still nervous, pups but the frequency of those pups as compared to pups not bred for there function. If you think they occur equally just ask the many Boerboel owners who complain constantly about nervousness in there pups and adults selected for beauty as opposed to the nervousness of pups bred form working proven breed stock. Would you have us to believe that selection is not critical to the overall dynamic of the group, in that you don’t get what you select for. That the genetic scientists are wrong, That the working breeders of all working breeds that produce dogs for their handlers livelihood and or survival are equally wrong, that the breeders of all performance animals are incorrect. That all of there efforts to identify and breed only proven breed stock that evidence all the genotypic traits assigned to that breed or animal, has been a waste of time. That they could have just as well picked any show dog for breeding and got the same results. I know, I know its not the selection it’s the training that makes the difference. I’ll be sure to tell them all, and then run like hell.

Shaun wrote in part:

So you see, your question about beauty is irrelevant in our breeding.

I realize this is a difficult concept, but this is not about what you do.

Shaun wrote in part:

Your posts confuse the reader into thinking that the breeders have total control over the outcome of their breedings and deliberately breed for traits that you do not wish.

No one said anything about *total* control, but breeders do make calculated decisions regarding breed stock and those decisions and there results can differ radically depending on that breeders goals. Let’s take a beauty breeder as an example. He or she has a dog whose good appraisal score has been negatively affected by size of the dogs head, and so noted in the appraiser report. The beauty breeder has to make a breeding decision between two dogs, one with below or just average temperament with a larger head than normal or one that has very good temperament but with the same size head or maybe a bit smaller than the breeders dog. The large majority of beauty breeders given this choice wouldn’t hesitate. They collectively would pick the dog that would improve head size. Why? Because mirroring a standard is the primary goal of beauty breeders and in the show community the standard is the method employed for quantifying beauty. The working breeder wouldn’t give a d**n about the size of a breeding dogs head and would be more concerned about what’s in that head. Therefore the working breeder would always pick temperament over conformation. Why? Because there goals are different because what is critical to a working breeder has little import to a beauty breeder.

Shaun wrote in part:

There you go again Norman. How on earth can you simplify everything so that it fits into such neat boxes? I do not believe that I have met a single dog breeder that only thinks of beauty, most of them also think of health and temperament to some degree.

Most of them also think of health and temperament TO SOME DEGREE! Out of the mouths of babes. Shaun your correctly summed up the beauty communities views on the importance of temperament, as temperament although trumpeted in all web sites including yours as a primary goal seems to be, if you are correct, the last thing considered. Again you get what you select for, and we have been getting it, and lots of it.

Shaun wrote in part:

We do occaisionally use tight breeding,* to attain a goal*, but mostly prefer genetical variation.

And that goal is? Let me guess to produce a beautiful dogs that were created from other beautiful dogs but can do anything a working dog can that was selected from a proven working pedigrees, and they can do it all day long. If you can accomplish that in 100 years you will be the only breeder that has. How do I know because no one has in the last 100 years.

Norman wrote in part:

"Call me crazy but I choose to do things that would first benefit the dog before it would benefit me."

Shaun replied:

I find that hard to swallow Norman, you select dogs because they will work for you, if they wouldn´t work for you, you would not own them.

Shaun I think you forgot the Boerboel is a working breed and what good is a Boerboel that wouldn’t step up, if called upon. I know he would be plenty good for some if his appraisal score was 90, I’m just not part of that community.

Shaun wrote in part:

This is about what you want and can get from the dog, not what the dog wants and can get from you.

I’ll tell you what the dog can get form me. He will not be kept for the most part in a pen. He will be trained. He will be fed good food and will have excellent medical care irrespective of whether he or she has good breeding potential. I will not drag the poor dog around form appraisal to appraisal in hopes of a better score. I will not hide its faults. Regards Norman

[buliebuse]

Norman, dearest
Why would I be more interested in a different forum when I am Chairperson of ABC ?
Ju
PS It was a shame that I did not meet you down at Devon last year - was not allowed to be present. LOL

[nepstein]

Ju I meant another forum in the Active Boerboel Club. Regards Norman

[nepstein]

Paul wrote:

Hi Norman I was wondering if you have ever bred any dogs and if so what breed?Also if you have what qualities did you decide were important in selecting your male and female?

Yes I have bred GSD's. Regarding the qualities I look for in a male and female. In different breeds I look for different behaviors and degree of those behaviors. In a working GSD the pedigree has much information regarding each dog in that pedigree which is about 10-15 generations. This information includes but not limited to, a detailed description of what they look like, there registration number, when they were born and the breeder name and address, there OFA hip scores, how many was in the litter and working titles earned by each, if there were any still-born, the line breeding if any and in which generation it occurred and the tattoo number. All of these things, for a working GSD breeder are necessary to know. Moreover the GSD working community although large in number, is in fact small in that you can find out from others particular behaviors inherent in particular line. Because of prior selections these traits or behaviors will evidence themselves in there offspring to a greater or lesser degree. For example if you have a dog that has a propensity of handler aggression or does not have a strong work ethic or has low behavior triggers or lacks biddability you need to pick a bitch that complements your dog so that the pups of that breeding have a better chance to be a brave, sound, easily trained working companion. I need all the qualities that are necessary in a working dog. Since all the dogs that are to be considered for breeding have been tested by the breed specific test for the GSD, schutzhund, the problem for the GSD breeder is not, if the dog has the qualities/behaviors necessary, because most all of those dogs have those necessary qualities to a greater or lesser extent. The problem for the GSD breeder or prospective purchaser is to be able to gauge the level of those behaviors each in prospective or actual breeding partner and every dog in the pedigree of the parents or prospective parents.

The qualities I look for in a Boerboel are the same as qualities I look for in a GSD however it necessary to be aware of what behaviors are intrinsic a mastiff type as opposed to a herder. Because no information is available on the Boerboels pedigree regarding the qualities necessary in working dog it is for me critical that the breeder of the litter be able to show me that the parents of a prospective or actual litter have the behaviors and temperament necessary for a working Boerboel. This does not mean the parents are bouncing off the wall when they are not working. It means the parents are mentally sound and are good companions, that they able to be around non-confrontational strangers and not show aggression, that a loud noise does not send them to the floor or running away. That they are able to withstand the required training pressures. That they can face an advancing threat without retreating. I want to see if one or both of the parents are dog aggressive. I want to see that the parents are not to large or wide to do hard work on an ongoing time frame. In a effort to gauge there biddability and work ethic I want to see them do some advanced obedience work or, and this is the most important, if possible see them do the work of a farm dog. I know that’s a lot to ask but I hesitate to take a breeders word for any of the above if he or she has never trained a working Boerboel to do all that is asked of this WORKING breed. Moreover a correct working Boerboel requires so much more than his showing counterpart. Notice I didn’t find important his ear or tail set, the size of the head or shape of the eye or if it had a perfect top line or if its front feet turned out a bit. Regards Norman

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

Hello Norman, sorry about the delay in answering.
In your comment regarding foxes, I did not read the article because it was about foxes and not dogs, I am sure that you are aware that the fox is only remotely related to dogs and has a completely different social structure.
The study has interest but there is no mention of a group of foxes that were/are kept as a control group, this disables the conclusions that can be drawn.
"with 18 percent of foxes from the tenth generation demonstrated extremely tame behavior. Little behavioral variation was observed by 1985 and thereafter" in other words by the tenth generation only 18% of the foxes showed any markedly differing characteristics, 82% did not. Because there was no control group mentioned, it is impossible to say whether this also reflects on the natural population. This ratio (0,18/0,82) has not changed markedly in the last 23 years according to the report.
It is just a report. Hardly what I would call proof of anything, certainly not critical proof and very little to do with dogs.

"So nervous dogs in a group never get a chance to breed. Just when you think you've heard it all, this."
It seems that I am constantly overestimating your knowledge about dogs, I apologise for that this is obviously an error on my side. I have included a couple of links for you to read.

At www.animalinfo.org/species/carnivor/lycapict.htm you will find the following chapter relating to sexual suppresion in a wild dog pack.
"Wild dogs are social, communally hunting carnivores, which live in small cohesive packs typically composed of a dominant breeding pair, a number of non-breeding adults, and their dependent offspring. Within the wild dog pack all the males are related to each other, and all of the females to each other but not to the males. Females migrate into the pack, whereas males usually stay with their natal pack. Only the highest-ranking male and female normally breed, and they inhibit reproduction by subordinates. Pack size ranges from 2 - 43, with the average number usually between 8 - 11"

To improve your knowledge about dog behaviour more, I also suggest visiting the following site:
www.mmilani.com/canine-pack-dynamic.html
There are several interesting and enlightening subjects so take your time to check the whole menu out. This might also help the reader understand some of the prevalent problems with owning a canine and how to solve those problems.

"Please stop going from *dog group* to *wolf pack*"
It is impossible to stop something I have not started, where have I gone from "dog group" to Wolf pack"? You are a funny person Norman, if you cannot find fault you create it !!!! Whether a person is used to calling a group/pack of dogs a "pack" or a "group" is completely irrelevant to the content and nit picking.

"It seems I keep offering proof while you only offer conjecture"
Norman your definition of "proof" is quoting someone who agrees with you.

"I realize this is a difficult concept, but this is not about what you do."
Since you are discussing with us (or as we are breeders, accusing us ) and since nobody can reasonably expect me to answer you on the behalf of others, it is precisely about what we do. What others do is their responsibility.

Regards
Shaun


"He will not be kept for the most part in a pen. He will be trained. He will be fed good food and will have excellent medical care irrespective of whether he or she has good breeding potential. I will not drag the poor dog around form appraisal to appraisal in hopes of a better score. I will not hide its faults."
That is absolutely nothing unusual. You are aware that Boerboels can only be appraised once in any season? At the appraisal the papers are taken in, and you cannot get a dog appraised without the papers, and they first come back in 6 months or so. I have only ever seen one owner try to hide faults in their dog at an appraisal, so it is not commonplace.

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

Hello Norman,
"Well congratulations you are way ahead of schedule. From what you have written you have in less than ten years eliminated hip dysplasia, vaginal hyperplasia and for the most part poor temperament in your lines. "
It seems that your understanding of mathematics is just as frugal as your understanding of many things. The truth is that the closer a breeder is to the goal, the less is achieved at the same tempo. Let me give you a demonstration of the dynamics at work.

a 70 hp engine in a small car will let a person drive at 80 Mph (130 kph), in order for that same car to drive at 100 Mph (25% more), the engine power will have to be increased by about 30%. If the same car had to drive at 120 Mph (20% more), the engine power would have to increase about 35%. Now lets make that car drive at 240 Mph (100% more), the power needed would be in the range of 300%. You see this curve becomes more steep, the faster the car drives, in the end there would not be enough power in the whole universe to enable the car to drive at speeds in excess of the speed of light (a small but important practical problem).

Now with genetic problems this curve would be the other way round and the goal of no problems at all is mathematically impossible.
On a graph paper the curve would drop steeply in the beginning then it would slowly even out never crossing the x axis. So you see, if any goal set should at least be attainable, never set the goal at zero problems, any breeder saying that they have no problems and will get no problems is quoting a mathematical impossibility. Knowing that, I also know that I have never claimed to you or anyone else that we have eradicated any illness or condition.

One of the irritating things about trying to have a discussion with you, is that when you know you are wrong and losing a debate, you resort to untruths and manipulating peoples posts like this. It is good to see that you have not changed a bit where this is concerned, although I would prefer another more honest behaviour (for example opening your mind to other points of view or even admitting that you have learned something.), it allows me and everyone else to see when you feel that you are losing.

Shaun

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

We have just updated our website, at the moment the Danish site at www.boerboels.com/Dansk/vores_hunde.htm
shows the new dogs including their PennHIP scores, elbow status, eye entropion ectropion status and vaginal hyperplasia status.

The average PennHIP score for our dogs is 0,39, the average for Boerboels in general is about 0,56.

Regards
Shaun

[nepstein]

Shaun wrote in part:

"In your comment regarding foxes, I did not read the article because it was about foxes and not dogs, I am sure that you are aware that the fox is only remotely related to dogs and has a completely different social structure"

From the National Geographic group
Today humans have bred hundreds of different domestic dog breeds—some of which could never survive in the wild. Despite their many shapes and sizes all domestic dogs, from Newfoundlands to pugs, are members of the same species—Canis familiaris. Although they have domestic temperaments, these dogs are related to wolves, foxes, and jackals. Domestic dogs still share many behaviors with their wild relatives.

So in your opinion, that makes a difference. And those differences render the fox study impotent, regarding whether traits can be altered by man's selection. Given that I can only presume that when you wrote “I have also worked in the department for Biochemistry and Genetics at Odense university hospital for 10 years” your position was other than a student. Shaun, our disagreement now, as it always has been, is whether, by selection genotypic traits can be altered i.e., exaggerated or muted. I maintain they can and you maintain they can’t. IMO It doesn’t matter what so ever how close one animal is to another, the only thing that is of consequence is, all animals have traits and either they can’t be changed as you argue, or they can, as is my position. Given that I don't see how anyone can believe that your above conclusion has any relevancy in today’s science. It seems science has proven to every one but you that traits have been changed and are in fact changing in all animals, even as we speak. If one accepts that, and I certainly hope one does, then one must also acknowledge that traits can also be selected and or deselected unnaturally by man and in that effort exaggerated or muted. This oft proven fact is what breeding science, breeding history and geneticists have shown us. If what you argue is accurate, then whether a trait is selected, or not selected, all working breeds in time will arrive at the same behavior point. For anyone to think that the radical differences between the behaviors of the AKC show German Shepherd Dog and the working German Shepherd Dog has nothing to do with mans selection is akin to thinking the world is flat or the moon is made of green cheese.
Regards Norman

[Shaun Eric Ewing]

Hello Norman,
"So in your opinion, that makes a difference."
yes, it shouldn´t really need to be said that a fox that lives a more or less solitary life and does not form or exist in packs, has a different set of social rules than a dog. A study with more relevance would be about wild dogs, these are at least dogs. A wasp is closely related to ants if I wanted to choose to study ants, I wouldn´t pick a wasp nest.

"And those differences render the fox study impotent, regarding whether traits can be altered by man's selection"
No, what makes that particular report irrelevant is that there is no control group. No way of seeing how the animals would have developed without any stimulus by man, note that a wild fox in Russia is normally (and with reason) wary of man, in an invironment where man did not normally exist or was not a threat, would this still be true? The test animals have for 9 generations not been taught by their parents that man is a threat (non genetic factor), is this a factor in the analysis of the experiment? A control group would answer these questions and more. Without a control group too many unknown factors can have an effect on the results.

Note that in spite of selective breeding the manipulation of selected individuals did not give any better than a 18% fraction, and this did not change regardless of how many years the experiment was conducted over, this can lead to the suspicion of a dormant trait that allows the fox to coexist within a group like other canidea even though this is not normal behaviour for a modern fox, maybe a remnant of a time when foxes existed in a pack or a possibility for a time when it may become important for a fox to live in a pack. If it was a relevant indicator of purely genetic selection, why does the result stagnate at 18%? I would expect a tendense towards 100% just like modern dogs. This 18% block may well indicate another factor.

"Shaun, our disagreement now, as it always has been, is whether, by selection genotypic traits can be altered i.e., exaggerated or muted. I maintain they can and you maintain they can’t. "
I am sorry to put the skids under you Norman, I have never maintained in any post that genotypic traits cannot be manipulated by selection. In fact I am quite convinced that they can, I will go one step further, if they couldn´t Darwins theory about evolution would be pure humbug.
Where we differ in opinion is how breeders (ourselves) should react to the Boerboels unique position. Where we maintain that each breeder at this stage has to prioritise what problems should be tackled and in what order, your opinion is that we should only think about working ability. I also note that even though working ability is high on your agenda for others, you do not work your Boerboel in the way it was originally intended ie as a farm dog.

In our opinion we, the public are still learning about what problems affect the Boerboel, the breeders we work together with have all started working on health and conformity problems, some breeders have started their selection process based on working ability as well. Nobody we know of works on all fronts, and that is ok, there are many problems and not very many are in the position to structure a properly structured breeding program that tackles all problems.
Many pay these facets of breeding lip service, this is not ok.

Shaun