Dominant puppies - Page 3

Yogi, depending on the breeding (I will tell of my experience with the offspring of a mother and daughter), if one or two are consistently slightly away from the others, it (perhaps coincidentally, but bears mention, imo) they may end up being quite strong-willed, independent, and I don't mean that in a stubborn way, but a stronger way- they are not easily "corruptible" for lack of a better word. You might not want to send one of them to a regular pet home (hypothetically speaking).

One of the toughest dogs I have ever bred was almost always just off by himself from the group at that age. He stood out from the beginning and by 2 weeks I was in love, LOL. He's a thinker and very committed once he has an idea in his head. All around strong dog by any measure; this is not breeder bias talking. Ask anyone who has seen him or worked him. Independent bad@$$ from early on. No need for the security of the group. No issues getting along with other dogs, just doesn't "need" them. Again, this is my ONLY my experience over 7 litters with 2 females who were mother and daughter. I am not trying to purport that this is true for all genetics but I've gotten pretty darn good at gauging pups out of these lines due to the strong similarities.

Jenni I take what u say on board and will watch what u have pointed out . I've seen some of the dogs u have breed and have said before u raise to one of the highest standards. I also want to thank all for sharing there knowledge and experience in this matter :-)

I wouldn't get too carried away with the dominant puppy nonsense. I have a male who is as dominant as any dog that has walked on 4 legs but he was the runt of the litter. The breeder reported that she heard a huge commotion coming from the whelping box and found two of my now large and strong male's siblings performing a draw and quarter on him. One had him by the ears and the other sibling had him by the tail and they were dragging him around the pen. She had to separate him from the rest of the litter because he was the runt of the litter but was trying to be dominant. Dominant behavior and dominant outcome are two different things. I had a litter of nine puppies that I raised in their entirety to maturity. When the pups were 2 1/2 to 3 months old I had to split the litter into two groups. One group was larger and stronger ( A team ) and consequently more aggressive with their smaller siblings. All nine were very strong and strong minded pups. There was a group of 4 or 5 larger and stronger pups and a group of 4 or 5 smaller pups ( B team ). The groups were allowed to play together as a family of nine with a female nanny dog (unrelated to them) running the show and keeping order for most of the day. If one of the pups was picking on one of their siblings or the pups were acting out as a group the female nanny dog would put the pups back in their places. At night rest or sleep and during feeding time the groups were separated. Some pups remained always in their respective groups while others floated between the two groups as I decided who belonged in which group. The smaller ( they were all large ) and less aggressive B team pups slept under my bed at night .. the larger ones ( A team ) had a large pen. In the end it did not matter so much. The largest and strongest male from a group of four very large and strong males was from the B team and he was never in the A team group as a puppy. The largest and strongest female was a floater between the A and B teams. One of the A team males was always an A team member because of his size but he grew up to be a very sweet and non-aggressive male. Females and males were mixed until about 6 months and prior to the onset of puberty individual sex had little to do with either aggression or dominance. Looking at pups for the first 8-12 weeks is not as accurate a predictor as the armchair experts would have you believe. When pups in a litter are separated and go into artificial conditions in a human home with other dogs the outcome can vary based on the individual environment more so than some genetic blueprint that does not exist.

I reckon the most significant sentence in Bubba's post ^^^ is the one that goes "Dominant behaviour and dominant outcome are two different things".
And how !

I cannot count the number of times I have seen dogs (and bitches) of ALL age-stages 'try it on' to get one over on a more dominant sibling or pack member. About all sorts of issues, mainly food or toy possession. Sometimes the manoeuvre is successful, sometimes it fails. There is an ebb and flow to dominant behaviour within the pack structure. The more alpha a dog is, the better it will handle such usurping attempts (ie it need not degenerate into fighting !) This is why I always fall about laughing when some 'behaviourist' wizz-kids try to convince us that dogs are NOT 'social climbers'.

Looking at the pups for the first 8-12 weeks is plenty accurate **if you're looking at the right things and more importantly, understanding what you're seeing and how to appropriately file it away for future reference.** I find it mind-boggling that you could really mean that **consistent behavior patterns** expressed early on don't mean anything. Surely that isn't an accurate representation of your beliefs, Bubba.

@Jenni

If A group has 4 alpha apples and B group has 5 beta oranges under the bed on Monday 20th how many apples does bubba's nanny have on Tuesday 21st in group A under the couch?

If you can answer this you may ask a question of him. Until then you will have to stay seated in your armchair.

Classic!

42.

Everyone who has raised complete litters to maturity under identical conditions please hold up your hands .. the rest of you are blowing the usual smoke from the usual part of your anatomy. You can not compare litter mates or siblings ( they aren't the same thing ) raised in different households under different environmental conditions. Environment makes the dog .. breeders want to claim they know what their dogs will become but the truth is the environment that the dog grows and develops in has a greater influence than any other factor .... period ... forever and ever .... Amen. Genetics is not the factor determining the health or development of 90% of dogs .. environment is. This fact is backed up by research which shows that 90% of diseases and maladies of humans and dogs have a majority environmental influence. I have raised litters to maturity from several different sets of parents and the puppies behavior at 8 weeks was not a significant factor in predicting the future personality or attributes of the dogs at 2 years of age or more importantly 4 years of age. The dog sellers telling you they know what their puppy will become are blowing smoke .. they don't and can't know. It is all just part of the dog business set of lies and deceit that makes selling eight week old puppies before they are ready to be separated from their mother and litter mates supposedly correct when it is actually just more profitable and convenient. The entire system of rearing and maintaining pets has been turned upside down by the profits and lies meant to reward veterinarians, pet food corporations, pet breeders, vaccine makers, pest product makers, and the other leeches that make billions from selling, poisoning and mistreating pets. The biggest factor by a large margin that determines what your dog becomes physically, mentally, and emotionally is the environment they experience from conception to death. Fewer than 10% of dogs have a genetic component that plays a major role in their development or life and many of those dogs suffer as much as they profit from some theoretical genetic bonanza. On any given day with any given litter of puppies the most important factors in predicting the outcome of any individual within a litter of puppies is the environment and the qualities of the sire and dam .. they will all be like mom and dad more than anything else and they will all fail or succeed based on environment. Predicting an individual puppy's outcome versus it's litter mates at eight weeks is like predicting the future of a group of two year old humans at a day care center based on observation. It's like picking the next Miss Universe based on baby photos. The fact of the matter is that the future of most human children is better predicted by who their parents are and the environment they have from conception to death rather than any test or observation at two years of age. So don't expect that whether the puppy sleeps closer to his mother or farther away than it's litter mates to be a predictor of anything.

Not sure why you have such a huge chip on your shoulder, Bubba, but if you would slow down and think instead of just wait your turn to type the same nasty-toned propaganda, selection is only as successful as the person observing and choosing what home to place which pup in. If *that* is done correctly, ie, the right genetics head to the right environment, I will argue til the cows come home that you will get good results more often than not.

Keeping entire canine families in kennels on the breeder's property for many months to several years, I'm sure, throws a whole lot of things out the window that could have been selected for or against at puppyhood, and molded into what you want...if you want to get snippy about it. Who knows what the dogs could have gone on to do if their inherent, genetic temperament was recognized early on and they were groomed in such a way going forward as to maximize their potential.

I have no problem keeping my hand down as to your question about who has raised entire litters to maturity under identical conditions. That doesn't even sound humane, to me. And I don't believe in identical conditions. I think it's impossible. You will have favorites, their behavior will dictate certain factors...not possible imo.