From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Re: German Shepherds for Adoption
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501
Date: 13 Jan 93 03:24:37 GMT

Dan Sugalski writes:
> Realistically, how many people do you think will bother to
> [learn how to train, including temperment training.]

Only the responsible pet owners.

> Basic obedience is too much work for far too many.

Responsible pet ownership is too much for many.

> Temperament testing looks at the dogs basic temperament.
> Many of these things are simply inherent in the individual.

More depends on what happens to the dog after birth than before
conception.

> One of the things that a temperament test evaluates is trainability.

"Trainability" is a term that applies better to the trainer.
Competent trainers get results across species, individuals,
behaviors, reinforcers, situations.

> Why set yourself up for a failure by assuming that you can change
> something when it is an inherent trait in the dog.

Because you needn't attempt to train the dog, say, to be a different
color or size.  That would indeed be a set-up for failure, attempting
to change an inherent trait in the dog.

> Not all dogs are suitable for all people or all situations.

Of course.

> This is why you should test for and select for X.

Of course.  And it's an even better motivation to arrange for X.

> Otherwise, why should you pick out a dog at all?  By that logic,
> you should just let the shelter hand you any dog at hand.

Nope, they might give you a hundred pound dog.  Most people don't have
space for a dog that size.

> Were the dogs x-rayed?

Nope.

> If not, you can't be sure that they weren't [dysplasiac]

Noted.  Although I'm also waiting for the first return on account of
this.  And we do see returns for other reasons.  But as you point out,
this doesn't prove we've never had a dysplasiac dog, or adopted one
out.  Chances are it's probably happened sometime.

> Especially in a puppy or young dog.

That's about 10 to 20 percent of the population we see.  Well,
depending on how young is "young".  We see a fair amount of dogs aged
six months to a year.  As well as a lot of older dogs.

>> A good shelter discloses everything known about the dog, good and bad,
>> inherited or acquired, easy or difficult to solve.

> Not at any shelter I've been to.  Most can't even identify the
> breed/cross/type correctly.  The closest shelter to me seems to be fond of
> cute little poems or pleas on the cage doors.  Not informative at all.

Then it sounds like a volunteer opportunity for you.  It's a lucky
shelter that gets you.

> Most [shelter pets] are dogs/cats left to run free
> that have gotten lost/picked up or have been thrown away.

Not at the Alameda Animal Shelter, the Oakland SPCA, the Hi-Tor
Shelter, the Rckland County SPCA.  Used to be the case.  Doubtless
still is the case in some other places.  It varies.

> If I am looking for a dog for a specific reason, be it a
> health guarantee, specific characteristics or traits, I will look
> to a breeder.

As will many people.  What they get varies.  Whereas the contribution
of what you do after the animal's birth -- health care, training,
diet, socialization, and so on -- is something we all agree on.

> While I agree that we need to limit the over-reproduction of
> pets, I don't feel that we should eliminate all planned breeding.  To do
> this ends up with a lot of unplanned, poor breedings, making for a less
> healthy population overall.

A common claim.  How much less healthy?  How have you measured it?
What's your control population?

> Do you want a negative population growth for pets?

Hmmm, what would a negative growth be?  Fewer pets?

I want no more abandoned and euthanized pets.  I want as many pets as
there are good homes for.  I want all pets to be wanted.  Again, this
is something we all agree on.

> Greater education as to the relative merits of AKC (or other registry)
> papers and replacing "common knowledge" that mutts are healthier with
> facts will help to control the population as well.

Sorry, it's neither "common knowledge", nor have facts to the contrary
been presented, nor has this been demonstrated to reduce the number of
unwanted pets, nor is it likely to.

> I hate it when animal rights people promote the "fact" (as they
> present it) that purebred dogs aren't healthy and that mutts are
> better.

Sorry, I'm unaware of any facts to this effect either.
Where's the data?  What's their control population?

> Karen

Whoops!  Is this Karen or Dan?

-- Jon
--
Jon Krueger  jpk@ingres.com