Good dogs are born not made?

I recently read in a dog related book that the author felt that, as the heading says, "good dogs are born, not made".

How true do you think this statement is?

I suppose it is the old nature vs nurture debate to an extent. I think by "good dog" it is meant free of problems and true to the temperament of its breed type.

Obviously dogs can be "helped" either way - ie with lots of positive socialisation, training and an experienced, kind owner a pup who may start out as a rather nervous, shy individual can become more bold and outgoing. Also, an outgoing, bold pup can be made less friendly and more fearful with inexperienced or harsh owners.

In my own experience, especially with the last two litter of collie pups we have had, I can say I believe the statement to be generally true.

All pups have been born to the same parents and raised in exactly the same way. Yet, some are bold, friendly and not fazed by anything and you could take them off the farm into any situation and they would be fine. Others may be a little more shy and retiring, more aloof and wouldn't fare so well if they were taken into new situations.

What are your thoughts and experiences?

A very famous competitor in one of my sports once said:

It is better for a mediocre dog to be with a good handler than a good dog with a mediocre handler!

I have seen plenty of good dogs not realise their full potential due to their owners lack of skills, knowledge, ability training and experience and seen some mediocre dogs achieve great things because THEIR owners DO!

Genetics however play their part, very well bred and researched litters (re genetics) result in far more even litters re outlook than those which have been less well researched, so the importance of putting not only the right sire and the right dam together but looking at GENERATIONS of both lines, to determine what may be lurking underneath, minimises these variances.

Ah! The old nature vs. nurture debate!

I would like to agree with the 'born not made' argument as I have a bad dog and then it's not my fault.

Ok, she's not really 'bad' at all she is just a full on terrier type, some of whose habits I struggle with. So was she born like that, coming from a less than perfect breeder? Or is it because she was bought by a first time dog owner who, despite struggling to do the best she could, may have made some mistakes? How can you tell? Short of cloning her and giving the clone to an experienced owner?

In comparison my 2 boys are a (lovely, relaxed ) walk in the park. But is this because of all I've learnt from my first dog? Because they're a different breed? Because they are a different gender? Or because they come from an excellent breeder?

Same with kids, you can't possibly isolate genetics or environmental factors so this is one of those discussion that is just going to run and run as we have no empirical evidence to resolve it.

J.

Well I have to say that I think it is true, we have two dogs who are the same age, same sex, and same breed yet they could not be more different in their personality and behaviour. It's true that Baruska had a difficult five months with her first owners and had to go back to the breeder, we still don't know what went on in that time period but even so I think she would always have been a difficult dog, she is super itelligent, and dominant, and a control freak, and also has some long standing medical problems which were not immediately obvious.

Rianna on the other hand is the perfect dog, we often say she hasn't got a bad bone in her body, we have had her from a pup and she was nervous of strangers at first but is now a fully mature and socialised dog.

Sadie was born good, training just made her better.

I think as with all nature, nurture debates (Having done an A-level in Psychology - well I failed it but only because of the science part) it is a bit of both that eludes to what is being discussed.

Louie is a lovely tempered dog and like Sadie, training has just made him better.

Would anyone say or think the same about human children then? Not having a dig at anyone but the "nurture" element for humans is always taken as a given, whilst with dogs it seems that perhaps more emphasis is put on the "nature" part.

I agree. Nurture does swing things one way or the other, but nature is the foundation and the main pointer.

You will get some dogs that will always go against nuture - for example those dogs that are still loving, gentle and trusting even though their only experience with people has been physical abuse. Its just in their nature - you certainly couldn't say that nuture made them that way.

Humans and dogs are very different.

If a child is just bad mannered, then of course that is nuture rather than nature, but there are other things which, certainly these days (though not so much in years gone by) have been recognised as nature rather than nurture....e.g. it is now well recognised that it isn't necessarily bad parenting if a child is hyper-active, but there is something in the child's make-up that makes them that way.

I'm on the fence, and think it's 50/50 nature and nurture.

Both of my dog have great temperaments, but had very different starts in life.

One came from an awesome breeder, wonderful parents, health tested,raised in a house and socialised, and then we had her. She was a dream from day one. As far as I know all the pups from her litter are outgoing, happy dogs.

The other dodgy breeders, not health tested, have no idea what his parents were like, raised outside, and not socialised, and had already had one home at less than 3 months, that wasn't brilliant. He was a fiesty,cocky little pup. I have found a few from his litter, and some them have been rehomed for behavioural problems, including his Mum.

Yet, both have turned out okay. So both very different starts, but both excellent with people and dogs.

Does it matter? You work with what you`ve got. There is no such thing as a perfect dog or a perfect handler. And neither spring from the womb able to speak the other`s language.

When I saw the title of this thread I immediately thought it was to do with a dogs potential to do work of some kind or it's ability to reach the level you are aiming for. In this respect I do think it's a case of good dogs are born not made. You have working sheepdogs Moobli so you'll know what I mean. Some have a natural ability, others lack it no matter how much training they get.

I think with personality or temperament it's down to both nature and nurture and sometimes people are too quick to blame a bad dog on a lack of socialisation. Flynn has had loads of socialisation with dogs, right from pre-vaccinations when he attended puppy classes at the vets, that has continued right through his life, yet he's never been brilliant with them. He's never been attacked so I cannot use that as an excuse.