Intelligence in bird dogs

Somehow, I keep coming back to this... What separates the 'special' dogs from all the others? It always seems to be some combination of talent, physical ability and presence, personality, and intelligence. 

With bird dogs it is hard to overestimate the importance of intelligence. They learn from birds, from us, from each other, from everything around them. They can learn things that please us, or things that displease us. Purposeful, self-directed ground application when hunting reveals learning and intelligence. We say that birds make the dog. True. All we can hope to do is expose the dog to birds, help him to be successful, and add some polish to their manners. Most of it is on the dog.

Some people say that dogs cannot think. Maybe not, but they can sure figure things out.

One example that comes to mind is a border collie that was in the news recently, the dog had learned over 1,000 words and would associate other words to modify a request - “Get the green ball.” as opposed to “Get the ball.”

But measuring canine intelligence is always polluted by the fact that the researchers are human and limited in their ability to understand and interpret observed behavior. I think that, perhaps, the dogs we think are most intelligent are the ones that have lived close to us and put in the effort required to understand us and that, by itself, requires a good deal of intelligence. My setter, Ted, just came to sit next to my chair, cocked his head and made a tiny whine. “Outside?” I said, and he gave a yip and headed to the back door. He learned how to communicate what he wanted without my training him to do it – he trained ME.

Wikipedia reports:

Psychology research has shown that human faces are asymmetrical with the gaze instinctively moving to the right side of a face upon encountering other humans to obtain information about their emotions and state. Research at the University of Lincoln (2008) shows that dogs share this instinct when meeting a human being, and only when meeting a human being (ie, not other animals or other dogs). As such they are the only non-primate species known to do so.

Did you know this? Well, apparently your dog does.

When I look into a dogs' eyes I can see that there is an intelligent presence. There's someone at home.

The economics of quality breeding

In a recent exchange on one of the Internet bird dog bulletin boards, breeder Scott Berg replied to a poster who suggested that a 'free' pup from a  casual breeder is as good a prospect for the average hunter as a carefully bred pup form a conscientious and informed breeder. Here is his (edited) response...

The difference between free and $700 is $54/yr. The difference between the (pup from) a guy in the back yard and the most experienced, accomplished, and proven breeders as compared to a backyard breeder is about $300/pup or about $23/yr over a 13 yr lifespan.

Even the most conservative estimates suggest the average person spends $600/yr to feed and care for a dog. This does not consider training cost. And, even if you train the dog yourself, equipment, vehicle costs, birds, etc are not free. It’s quite reasonable to say that we spend $1,000yr on a dog. Therefore, the additional cost of buying a dog from the most accomplished breeders in the country vs a backyard breeder equates to 2.3% of what you spend on a dog annually. It’s rounding error.

Additionally, if we consider what we spend on hunting, training, and possibly trialing I put on 20,000 miles a year doing those things. If we use the IRS estimate of 45 cents a mile that’s $9,000/yr. For a modestly serious hunter, let’s say they don’t spend a dime at shooting preserves or have a lease, between vehicle costs, hotel, shells, license, equipment, what would you estimate they spend? Obviously, expenditures vary vastly but to estimate $2,000/yr would be conservative for anyone we could call a serious hunter with the possible exception of someone with unlimited land access in very close proximity to their home and no desire to travel to other places. Between the dog and actually hunting we are talking minimally $3,000yr. In this context, 23 bucks looks very insignificant. I guess if the individual has two dogs it’s 56 bucks.

Your position suggests that relative quality is somehow improved because a breeder has one or two litters each year. There is absolutely no relevance or correlation between number of litters and relative quality. That is determined by the degree of selectivity and the quality of the selection process applied by the breeder. 

For example, Breeder X could have two producing females and have evaluated four females to get those two females. This is quite common in the scenario you have posed. Breeder Y could have 10 producing females but evaluated 100 females to get those 10 females. Breeder Y has practiced 5X the degree of selectivity. Of course, the relative quality of the parents would be particularly important. I think it’s pretty logical to assume that if both breeders have been breeding for the same number of years, Breeder Y’s producing females will also be superior after having applied this degree of selectivity for a number of years. Breeder Y also will accumulate considerably more experience in the selection process over the years. Bob Wehle, taken as an example, was probably quite a bit better at this process than a guy with a couple dogs in the backyard..."

What do they say about opinions? Everyone has one... or something?

Merry Christmas!

The latest in sanity

California Senate Bill 250 has been amended and set for a hearing in the Senate Local Government Committee for April 15th. All California fanciers, responsible dog owners and breeders, and clubs should write and oppose this legislation. Letters must be received by April 8 to be reflected on the committee analysis.

SB 250's primary intent is to penalize owners of intact animals and force sterilization of an at-large or unlicensed dog or cat on a first offense - at the owner's sole expense. This is an unreasonable standard as even a responsible owner can have a single incident where an animal is let out by a meter reader, neighbor or faulty gate.

As amended on April 2; SB 250:

 > Allows an unaltered license to be revoked if one citation is issued for a dog being at-large or stray. No legal resourse is provided. Appeals must be made to the animal control agency that is bringing the action against the owner. It also appears that ALL intact animals in an owner's care would be subject to forced sterilization on a single offence.

> Requires a person selling, trading, or placing for adoption an unaltered animal to post the license number if the animal is older than four months, or the age required by the local licensing agency. (The prior version of the bill required a licensing number for any sale of an unaltered animal, and it was unclear how this would affect the sale of puppies and kittens younger than four months who were not required to be license.)

> Requires any unlicensed intact animal that is impounded to be sterilized, even on a first offense.

> Adds a new definition of "custodian" as follows; "Custodian" means any person who undertakes the personal care and control of a dog or cat, or any person who intentionally provides care, security, or sustenance for a dog or cat on the person's property for any period exceeding 30 days. "Custodian" does not include a licensing agency."

Existing state law already requires owners of intact animals to pay a license fee that is at least double that to license a sterilized animal (Food and Agriculture Code Section 30804.5); and provides for enhanced and graduated fines for owners whose intact dogs are impounded (Food and Agriculture Code Section 30804.7). These statutes are sufficient to incentivize owners to sterilize their animals and to address animal control concerns with specific intact animals who are repeatedly impounded.

Please help defeat this harassment... write or fax in opposition.

Thoughts on dog ownership

While the animal rights people pound away on spay and neuter legislation they say will "reduce the population of unwanted puppies in shelters", there are a couple of things that need to be borne in mind...

1. Puppies are almost always cute and adoptable. In fact, in many areas of the country there are not enough puppies available for adoption to meet the demand. This has led to shelters importing puppies from other states, or even from foreign countries. Adoption will absorb almost all 'unwanted' puppies - if an effort is made to get them to the people who want them.

2. Most dogs are surrendered to animal shelters due to problems with the temperament of the dog, housebreaking problems, destructiveness, or aggressive type behavior. And, yes, this includes puppies adopted from shelters. Puppies, with any luck, grow into dogs and they may not be so cute and cuddly at 2 years old as they were at eight weeks. Additionally, owners usually create their own problems through neglect, lack of time and attention, and plain ignorance of what a dog needs to be a successful pet. Before deciding to get a dog or puppy, which usually entails a 10-15 year commitment of an owner's time, money and emotions, they should take the time to think about and ask themselves if they fully understand what dog ownership requires.  

This is an puppy distribution and owner education problem, not a population problem. What is needed is a positive effort to get puppies to those who want them, and to educate owners before they get a puppy. What is not needed is a punitive, heavy-handed bureaucracy put in place by ignorant, if well meaning, lawmakers.