Bob
…..re : "I may have to look back over these posts but I don't recall anyone saying a "social butterfly" was genetic.”
re :….."I vote genetics!”
- that was your quote too Bob, so I thought you were clear where you stood
re : Jeremy’s post….
bingo
everyone with a decent knowledge of canine behavior knows the pros of a social dog, and has experienced it first hand if they’ve owned a few. but for me, to not consider the conditioned aspect and how that can and does create huge problems is would not be covering the issue in depth.
- conditioning is training and training is conditioning. for me the terms are interchangeable even tho one term might imply some "added value”
- hope we would all agree that every dog owner and handler conditions and therefore ‘trains' their dog, whether they are doing it intentionally or unintentionally.
when you spend most of your time working with other people’s dogs, the unintentional type becomes easier to see
actually it is often hard to evaluate a dog on its own, without seeing it interact with the owner or handler. with different humans it can be a totally different dog. if you don’t agree with that you won’t agree that nurture is as important as nature and further discussion is pointless.
whether it’s how much gas comes in the tank or how it uses the gas its got, both are necessities for the car to run.....duh
- but if you base the limits on gentics, you are imposing limits, whether valid or not, just like most people will stop for gas b4 they run out. in most cases i’ve seen, that’s the point the owner or handler stops conditioning....
and for me, canines respond more to nurture than almost any other creature on the planet !
----------------------------------------------------------------------
have fun girls !!!! i'm sure you can spin this into a joke or gif. or try and relate it to a song or tv show one way or another //rotflmao//