Question:

<Andy sez: <Oh spare me the truth and stupidity routine, and not <having anything to <contribute to this NG. How many times have I heard that Yes, I’ll just bet you have. Hmmm . . . I wonder why . . . (snippage) <Trainability according to your own definition has nothing <to do with the dog <breed but rather than the relationship the owner has with <the dog itself. <Willingness to perform, I think it was what you said. All <dogs are born with <a willingness to perform…or better said yet, to please <their <masters….providing the relationship is right. Bull. Some breeds (the sporting breeds,e.g.) have a much greater propensity than others (terriers, e.g.) to please their masters. Of course, individual dogs within a breed do vary, as well. <You have no idea how many books I’ve read, but I will give <you a clue. Books <are pieces of work….that frame work ideas, opinions of <people who write <them. I have read loads of books that were out right <wrong in what they <claimed to be (your word not mine) truth! <Why am I on this so heavy? You make statements that are <not true, but <insinuations out of line to the fact of knowledge about <what you say. By suggesting that I read books rather than rely on my own <dogs for <information, says what? It says that I don’t read books, <and what I see is <not reliable information to what you’ve read! Do you say it <out right? <Insinuation to the point of fact is what you are doing. So <it goes with your <argument on trainability! What Daisy meant is that you can’t make generalizations about dog behavior based on your observations of only a few dogs. There are some crappy dog books out there. There are also some really good ones written by people who have observed and worked with hundreds or thousands of dogs in their lifetimes and who are far better qualified than you to disseminate information about dog behavior. BTW, you might want to get your ass off the net and into a remedial writing course. You are almost completely incoherent. <Don’t worry, I’ll be more than glad to let it rest. But don’t <tell me I have <nothing to offer an NG! Did I tell you that? Daisy has plenty of good advice and info to contribute. You, silly troll, do not. — Andy Capp  Tis……Tis! ‘Tis an idiot I spy here in this newsgroup.

Response:

.  If you are really concerned with speaking only truth on this newsgroup, I’d suggest you do some reading instead of relying only on your own dogs for your data. Andy sez: Oh spare me the truth and stupidity routine, and not having anything to contribute to this NG. How many times have I heard that load of bull. Come down off your high horse and stand by what you say, not fish around the back door to mean something other than what you said. Trainability according to your own definition has nothing to do with the dog breed but rather than the relationship the owner has with the dog itself. Willingness to perform, I think it was what you said. All dogs are born with a willingness to perform…or better said yet, to please their masters….providing the relationship is right. You have no idea how many books I’ve read, but I will give you a clue. Books are pieces of work….that frame work ideas, opinions of people who write them. I have read loads of books that were out right wrong in what they claimed to be (your word not mine) truth! Why am I on this so heavy? You make statements that are not true, but insinuations out of line to the fact of knowledge about what you say. By suggesting that I read books rather than rely on my own dogs for information, says what? It says that I don’t read books, and what I see is not reliable information to what you’ve read! Do you say it out right? Insinuation to the point of fact is what you are doing. So it goes with your argument on trainability! Don’t worry, I’ll be more than glad to let it rest. But don’t tell me I have nothing to offer an NG! Did I tell you that? — Andy Capp  Tis……Tis!

Response:

>Mitch and Amy’s post is very well taken. I have no problem with Daisy….per >se. It is what Daisy said that I took issue with. Let me explain. >It is so easy to generalize an over all condition that we tend to lose sight >of the key elements that keep it all together. >Terriers are not anymore difficult to train than any other dog. When someone >says that this dog is more intelligent, or this dog is easier to >train….look out for bias remarks. >I found an intelligence’s list on this NG that stated that Chows were on the >bottom of the list….just plain old stupid. I’ve owned Chows….and they >are exceptionally smart. I now have a smooth fox terrier….super smart, and >he is most definitely one of the easiest dogs that I have ever trained.

Intelligence is not the same thing as trainability.  As I said. If you care to read the book I mentioned, you’ll see that trainability has more to do with how much the dog wants to please its human.  Sporting dogs want very much to please, and you can make a lot of mistakes training them and they’ll still come out OK.  Terriers are not as much into pleasing their owners, due to their being bred to be more spunky and spirited and brave (going down holes to kill rodents etc), so consequently they get the rating of less trainable.  But all dogs can be trained.   A terrier would probably do better with shorter reptitions and with positive-only methods, since they are so smart and they do not like to do the same thing over and over and over again, just to hear a word of praise.  Whereas a sporting dog will still slobber kisses all over you even after you’ve made him do 75 downs in a row (speaking in general and somewhat in jest…)  So, in my opinion, terriers are *smarter* than sporting dogs since they won’t put up with that kind of boring baloney.  And this is what the book says too. The book (both of them that I mentioned) also give hounds the lowest trainability rating.  It’s not that they aren’t smart; it’s that they have some traits that make them not really give as much of a damn about sitting still for 5 minutes with a piece of jerky on their nose waiting for their human to say they can eat it.   Terriers and hounds are both groups that are bred to work independently of humans, for the most part.  They both run out away from the humans to find the prey — hounds hold it, and terriers kill it.  This sort of work requires a more independent mind, an ability to make decisions on their own, and spunkyness (although in hounds, I would substitute doggedness.)  Sporting dogs, on the other hand, do not leave their human’s side, at least not very far, while working.  And they are not expected to kill live game.  And they are expected to turn over the game that they do find to their human, and to obey their human at all times during the hunt and to look to their human for direction as to what to do.  We don’t want them thinking on their own or making decisions… "Hey, I’ll just eat this bird myself."  Nope, that’s not going to work.   Herding breeds are somewhat a mixture of the above traits.  They do "chase prey" although they’ve been bred to have an arrested prey drive, one that ends with the chase and maybe a nip or two if necessary but that does not go beyond that into actual harm. They work directly with their humans more than hounds, but less than sporting dogs.  They still have to obey signals and commands while in relatively close proximity to their humans, but they have to deal with a bit more than sporting dogs do, because their "game" is not dead.  Working breeds are variable, as some are meant to guard flocks, some are meant to pull carts or sleds, some are meant for protection of humans and property beyond livestock, etc.  And of course the non-sporting group is a really mixed group. So, hopefully you can see that if I’m denigrated *any* group based on their level of independent intelligence (which I’m not), it would be the sporting group, not the terriers.  And of course this is all *in general.*  Your anecdotal evidence proves nothing, and it’s especially worthless to this discussion since you and I are not even defining our terms in the same manner.  If you are really concerned with speaking only truth on this newsgroup, I’d suggest you do some reading instead of relying only on your own dogs for your data.   >If we sit idle by and let people throw this stuff out there for all to >see….that has no validity in truth, now what do you have? A bunch of >misinformed people is what you have. We don’t need one breed trying to leg >up in another breed  but a broader appreciation for what all breeds do >without running down some other breed to make a point or to specialize the >breed of your bias.

Again — I was certainly not "running down" terriers.  I was saying what the books say about their trainability.   Daisy – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I hope this clarifies your statement that I have a personal problem with >Daisy….I don’t even know Daisy, how can I have a personal problem with >her? I do have a problem with what she said….in relation to my own >experience and knowledge of the matter.

Response:

Mitch and Amy’s post is very well taken. I have no problem with Daisy….per se. It is what Daisy said that I took issue with. Let me explain. It is so easy to generalize an over all condition that we tend to lose sight of the key elements that keep it all together. Terriers are not anymore difficult to train than any other dog. When someone says that this dog is more intelligent, or this dog is easier to train….look out for bias remarks. I found an intelligence’s list on this NG that stated that Chows were on the bottom of the list….just plain old stupid. I’ve owned Chows….and they are exceptionally smart. I now have a smooth fox terrier….super smart, and he is most definitely one of the easiest dogs that I have ever trained. If we sit idle by and let people throw this stuff out there for all to see….that has no validity in truth, now what do you have? A bunch of misinformed people is what you have. We don’t need one breed trying to leg up in another breed  but a broader appreciation for what all breeds do without running down some other breed to make a point or to specialize the breed of your bias. I hope this clarifies your statement that I have a personal problem with Daisy….I don’t even know Daisy, how can I have a personal problem with her? I do have a problem with what she said….in relation to my own experience and knowledge of the matter. — Andy Capp  Tis……Tis!

Response: