Genetics Or Trainning ?

[socks 32,253]

Training must play a major part as a good dog man wilL always have decent dogs around him whether he has bred them himself or bought them in ... Obviously genetics plays a part in the dogs capabilities i.e. speed tenacity etc ... But a man that understands dogs and is flexible in his training techniques and is willing to adjust his set goals for different pups as he brings them on will always produce a decent animal ...........

[Dewclaw69 484]

this is gonna open a right can o worms. i've been working lurchers for about 30 years. go to plenty of shows but never shown a dog yet. most of the best lurchers i've seen, and that only most, have come from good working parents. .

but all of the best lurchers i've seen have been owned by lads who put a lot of time into their dogs.

given time an training all lurchers will fill the pot but some better than others. seen too many lads enter dogs and bin them after 1 night cos the dog aint producing.

the three best dogs i've ever seen work ( one i ended up with at 4yrs due to a mate falling on hard times) were all bred differently

best was a black 1/2 cross hancock dog. took everything and in spades , 2nd was a 28" dh/gh that i ended up with 3rd was a crap looking brindle dog i would never give house room ( this one spent more time in the boozer with its owner than anywhere else as he liked a jar or 20) but took rhf for a pastime

only one of the 3 above was from good breeding , 1 was commercially bred by hancock and the other was an accidental mating.

all 3 had had masses of time put into em by their first and in 2 of their cases their only owners.

so i'd go training all the way .

lurchers aint terriers. and you're asking much more things from them. more you put into em the more they give back

 

[Neal 1,857]

The problem with assuming that it's one over the other (re nature vs nurture) is that it's so easy to give a great argument for either side. There are also so many examples which appear to disprove a rule.

 

For example, somebody mates two great dogs together and produces nothing of note so the assumption is made that nurture is more important because the dog and bitch concerned had nothing good (genetically) to pass on and therefore they themselves must have been made good by training. However, mate one of them to a different dog or bitch and the opposite could happen. This is one of those occasions when a good knowledge of genetics and the importance of line breeding can realize their full potential.

 

But...give them to crap owners and...nobody's any the wiser.

 

This is one occasion when lines of working dogs can suffer. People use certain collies, kelpies, gundogs etc because of their trials success but may only be breeding in one valuable trait i.e. tractability, to the possible exclusion of natural working ability.

Edited May 27, 2013 by Neal

[paulsmithy83 567]

Need bit of both tbh all that say it just the trainin are full of em selves and most that say it just the breedin so if all goes rong they got an excuse haha

Takes both natural potential and great training

[Boss-Hog 269]

all good dogs start from somewhere they wasnt born great,but supose people pay for em as pups it keeps lines going

[lad101 57]

i think its all down to training mate .. someone could buy a a dog out of best 2 dogs around but could still end up poop if not trained right.. you could have a dog whos the best dog in the country and could ave a bitch whos the best bitch in the country doesnt mean the pups will turn out like them all down to you

[whippet84 2]

Can take the best bred pup from great lines and if you cant train it the dog will never show its true potential

But the odds are better to produce decent pups

 

On the other hand a dog bred from average dogs with good training can be a good dog

But the odds are a little more stacked against it producing the goods

 

What ever you chose a pup from if you dont put the work in and the training into the dog it still will never reach its full potential

[Ideation 8,216]

Anyone who says or thinks that it's all of one or all of the other. . . . . . .needs to have a think.