House Rotti Vs Working Rotti

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Hannibal

If you start out with a working quality rottweiler (which is different genetically than a pet quality rottweiler) and never actually work him in protection (not sch) whether it be in training only or actual daily duty, he will ultimately be different in the house than if you were to work him.

While I OFTEN differ with Hannibal's viewpoints...I think on a certain level this is true. I don't believe all the same genes necessarily are passed down to every pup in a litter. I do believe that a dog's potentials are in the genes. I believe that a high scoring sport dog can still be a great family pet, but I do believe that a high scoring sport dog has definitely received some different genes from it's parents compared to other litter mates. Training will improve everything, but it won't change genes.

[jakesfostermom]

Originally Posted by Skip

I don't believe all the same genes necessarily are passed down to every pup in a litter.

Skip - I would tend to "believe" the same - but without being geneticists, isn't it hard to say as a statement that pet quality rottweilers are genetically different than working quality rottweilers? We are after all, making some educated 'guesses' when evaluating a litter of puppies - when saying this or that pup is of working quality. I was surprised at the statement simply because without scientific study of genetic makeup - I wouldn't think you could back that up....as a lay person.

Looking at two pups from the same litter - pup A is evaluated as having working potential and pup B is evaluated as being pet quality. Let's assume (wrongly, but go with me here) that the breeder allows me to purchase pup A and I simply come home and raise him as a pet. He is allowed to camp out with the family and just be a dog. You purchase pup B, with hopes of stimulating him enough to train and compete successfully in some working venues. You find the reward that motivates pup B and the two of you do okay competing in your chosen venues. At three years of age, these same two dogs are re-evaluted.......wouldn't the eval produce reverse results? Pup A would be pet quality and pup B would be working? I think this is what you are saying about training.......but I was curious about the "genetically different" statement mainly. Sounds a little to me, like saying "he's a purebred", simply because both his reported parents are standing there and appear to be rottweiler (or whatever breed).

[Skip]

Originally Posted by jakesfostermom

Skip - I would tend to "believe" the same - but without being geneticists, isn't it hard to say as a statement that pet quality rottweilers are genetically different than working quality rottweilers? We are after all, making some educated 'guesses' when evaluating a litter of puppies - when saying this or that pup is of working quality. I was surprised at the statement simply because without scientific study of genetic makeup - I wouldn't think you could back that up....as a lay person.

Looking at two pups from the same litter - pup A is evaluated as having working potential and pup B is evaluated as being pet quality. Let's assume (wrongly, but go with me here) that the breeder allows me to purchase pup A and I simply come home and raise him as a pet. He is allowed to camp out with the family and just be a dog. You purchase pup B, with hopes of stimulating him enough to train and compete successfully in some working venues. You find the reward that motivates pup B and the two of you do okay competing in your chosen venues. At three years of age, these same two dogs are re-evaluted.......wouldn't the eval produce reverse results? Pup A would be pet quality and pup B would be working? I think this is what you are saying about training.......but I was curious about the "genetically different" statement mainly. Sounds a little to me, like saying "he's a purebred", simply because both his reported parents are standing there and appear to be rottweiler (or whatever breed).

In your scenario, they would probably be evaluated differently at 3 years due to training, but that is just because of training. It would not have changed what the POTENTIAL would have been for the dogs as puppies, since I believe that's gene related. I think the pup (if properly evaluated) that showed more working qualities as a puppy would have been a much better worker at 3 years old...given the same training opportunities,...because of the genes. I do believe that puppies that are properly evaluated (as puppies) as having more working potential ARE genetically different at some levels than puppies from the same liiter that are properly evaluated as more of a medium drive, temperment littermate. I want to say again that both could still be great pets in a home....I think some people are just taking offense to the term "pet quality". Both pups could still be that, but the stronger working drive pup (in my opinion) will take a little longer (and more training) to be as reliable as a house pet....but nothing wrong with that. The pup that was evaluated with milder drive, temperment (in my opinion) would not be able to reach the same working level as the other pup...given the same training opportunities. Different pups...SOME different genes...different potentials.

[Hannibal]

Genetic variation is what it's all about. That is the reason we have dog breeds in the first place. Visible variation is easier to talk about because it is obvious that a 150lb rott with his hips higher than his withers is different than a 110lb rott with correct conformation. However to most people temperamental variations are obscure. They simply see the colours and the shape of the dog and call it a rottweiler.

It is beyond question that certain quality rottweilers from certain lines have no hope of producing one working quality offspring, if it was agreed upon that a correct rottweiler must have the genetic potential to be able to attain a SCH title and therefore pass a courage test. They may turn out to look nice and are rottweilers but they are pet quality. This is much more prevalent in the GSD as it has a much longer history of poor breeding in this country.

Equally true is that in a litter produced by working parents there will be variation in the temperament of the pups and there is always the possibility that one or more puppies will not possess the sought after working qualities in varying degrees.

That is the ultimate riddle in breeding. Anyone who aims to produce a perfectly homogenous litter as far as temperament is deluding himself. If it were so we would all have dogs perfect to the standard (which in reality is the ideal but definitly not the norm) in conformation and temperament.

That is the reason why in all breeds of dogs where a certain quality of temperament is sought after in order to perform a definite task, most important is the selection of a puppy from a litter. Without selection the tendency in all breeds is towards degeneration of temperament in the direction of a wild canid.

An intersting point is that the worst puppy in a litter can in turn produce the best puppy in the litter.

Tying this back to the original question. While it is obvious that a pet quality rottweilers temperament will be different in the house to a working quality one. Even within the working rottweiler there will be varying degrees of protective behavior and more so depending on whether he is worked as a protection dog. Simply put a working quality rott that has always been discouraged/corrected for barking may simply not bark where as one that was praised/rewarded for it will.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Hannibal

....
It is beyond question that certain quality rottweilers from certain lines have no hope of producing one working quality offspring, if it was agreed upon that a correct rottweiler must have the genetic potential to be able to attain a SCH title and therefore pass a courage test....
.

But I'll question that. What "certain quality rottweilers from certain lines"? While I enjoy SchH, it is really a choreographed routine and not a judge of PP. I believe that there are SOME rotts from ANY line that could eventually pass a Sch 1...maybe even higher..maybe just at it's home club with good training. Even the courage test is a consistently choreographed routine that I've seen a LOT of (less than strong willed) dogs be capable of doing. Now if we're talking true PP, I think the percentage is MUCH higher that most rotts from ALL lines won't cut it.

[Hannibal]

There are pet quality rotts out there that have no drive whatsoever, not even to bite a sleeve. However I did use SCH just as a point of reference for people who believe a correct temperament rottweiler is simply one that can title in SCH. I don't believe that a rottweiler has correct temperament just because it is SCH titled although under certain judges and helpers this is less true. This sets real working rottweilers even further apart from pet quality animals.

IMO the rottweiler originated as a dog used defensively anyways (molloser group) so it follows that offensive use such as a send away was originally not required for correct temperament. Obviously this is not the case today as in SCH or police service work. I wonder how many people think that the ideal rottweiler temperament does not necessarily call for offensive use abilities.
I think I'll start a new thread about it.

[Skip]

Originally Posted by Hannibal

There are pet quality rotts out there that have no drive whatsoever, not even to bite a sleeve....

This I would agree with, and these dogs can still be great pets. I think (surprise) though that we agree on the genetics contributions. I guess part of my point here is that I believe most dogs (correctly evaluated as puppies as potential working rotts) can still be great pets in the house with good training...However, I feel that pups that were properly evaluated as not having proper working drives can still be great pets, but won't really cut it as working dogs. It's a gene thang.

[meginsf]

I think as far as protection goes that every rottie is a like wether it be a working or companion. Most rotties will do whatever it takes to protect there Master, house and property. I honestly don't see there being any diffrence when it comes to a rottie living with humans they are all loyal protective animals weither they are working or not. So i think it comes down to what you want to do with your rottie. If you want a working dog then buy a working quality rottie if not then buy a companion quality.

meg

[Mick Trainer]

Most rotties will do whatever it takes to protect there Master, house and property

Sorry but this simply is not the case. It takes a temperament strength not possed by the vast majority of Rottweilers to protect their owner from a real life human threat. Simply because a dog is a Rottweiler by no mean guaratees that it is capable of protecting their owners. When testing dogs we find that around 5% have what it takes to be trained to protect their owner and about 1% have it naturally. It is that rare. Like many people say "believeing your dog will protect you because it is a Rottweiler (etc) is like believing that because your horse is a thoroghbred it can win the kuntucky derby". Finding Rottweilers truly capable of this work is very rare and takes a lot of work. It would make my life so much easier if they all would.

Mick.

[meginsf]

Well i guess i have met the very few that actually do have the instinces to protect there "property" even mine we had a break in and from what the guy told the police it sounded like she was ready to rip him to pieces. that same guy also saw that i have a beware of rottweiler sign on both my doors and still tried to brake in. but i do have to say that i think my older dog lab/pitt mix is more of the protector and if the rottie sees him doing something she will too. but i'm surprised at the % you just gave as the rottweiler was used as a gaurd dog way back in the day. So i guess that instinct has died out in most breed lines. I don't know anything about SCH or any other sort of training to gaurd,bite on command so this is all new to me. thanks for the correction and info.

meg

[Mick Trainer]

Yes in reality the desire for the dog to protect has largely died out due to no longer breeding for it. Back in the day the dog worked or it died and only the truly strong dogs capable of it were bred from. Now we breed from even the weakest of dogs for money/show etc.

Mick.