THE IMPORTANCE OF A BOND BETWEEN MAN & DOG (Yes / No)

[bolero]

My bad for showing my lack of reading skills today, Bolero.

lol no worries i know u r a straight up dude

[FarmersChoice]

well i guess ill post on this i have seen frosty argue this before on chatroom convos but my feeling to this is kinda tossed up but never the less the answer to this poll is a matter of opinion i will say two the best dogs i can think of were treated like royalty dbl gr ch tornado and gr ch queen of hearts as well as a male i can remember ch ostevens homer all three treated like kings and queens and are 3 of the best ever now i will also say there are many more greats out there that probably had minimal or way less attention and did just as good my feeling on anything you yourself feels helps you then it can only hurt or help you either way there is no way to prove this will or will not help to have a great bond i will say i like having a bond with mine and every dog is valued here and i do my best to make sure my dogs have excersize good feed but i also enjoy working them do i over love my dogs i dont think so but i do spend alot time with my mutts and i personally feel this has helped but no way to prove it right or wrong many ppl have diffrent opinions on what makes there dogs better or helps but this is one opinion i dont think can be proved one way or the other in the []

[Officially Retired]

frosty i said some it was not a blanket statement. and i also do not think u need to sleep or cuddle with a dog to dond with it i actually beleive giving the dog everything it needs to to thrive as in good food good housing clean water and good exercise is all that is needed to bond with a dog simply taking a walk with the dog is bonding no need for talking or anything dogs can sense when someone genuinely has there best interest at heart. but another fact is that many dogmen including the ones that most love and including a man i highly respect to a point tend to look at these dogs as livestock and nothing more they are simply there to fight and i know of some ppl that have shot a dog because it stepped in crap and then jumped on them to me that is ridiculous and cruel and i have said as much to that man. so whle some care about these dogs for what they are some only care what they can do and when they can no longer do that they dont care about them

Exactly.

And because dogs can sense whether someone genuinely has their interests at heart, they will simply be better served in their job by being cared for genuinely by their owners than they will being treated like shit.

Nothing wrong with treating dogs as livestock, insofar as providing optimal care goes, as this only brings the best results. Still, truly good dogs have intelligence and bonding instincts way beyond mere livestock, and as such they will thrive and do better overall when given more than just basic care.

Plus, as you mentioned, other benefits (such as sending a dog in) are also better able to be employed as well when the necessary time/training is put it.

Jack

[Officially Retired]

I guess I'll finally get in this conversation for a piece or two.
First I'd like to say that bonds are not VITAL to success. As I've said many times, I do think they can play a part in a small number of dogs, but overall, it's not vital to success.

My own vote is that a bond may (or may not) have an impact on success. I can think of certain dogs that didn't give a damn whose hands they were in, they were going out there to kick ass regardless. I can think of other dogs who, even in the hands of the most loving of owners, were going to quit (if the going got rough) regardless. However, between these two extremes, I can also think of several dogs who, in one man's hands, would NOT perform at the same level as they would when in their true owner's hands ... and these particular dogs were absolutely outstanding animals too, not average. Thus I think the formation of a bond is helpful to the best and most intelligent of GAME dogs ... while a bond is not really necessary for GAME dogs that aren't too bright.

I would like to say that I know, over the years, there have been some dogs I've bonded with, but there have been countless others I have not. I can't sit here and honestly say that I've ever felt like it made a difference or not. So this nonsense about not being man enough along with whatever other hogwash was said in that particular vein is just that, nonsense. I've cried over dogs that have never won when they died. I've cried over dogs that did win and passed on. Hell, I've cried at pretty much everything at one point or another, because I'm the exact opposite of what bolero says. I'm about the most emotional person I know in regards to most everything.

I am not sure if you 'having' emotions has to do with your will to extend those emotions/effort towards a bond. I actually think the emotions of making the effort to bond, only to be disappointed later, is one of the primary reasons many owners stop trying to get attached to their dogs--it hurts when you get attached to the wrong dog ...

I will only talk about what I've seen personally. I've known a lot of men in my time in dogs that never developed any kind of bond with their dogs aside from whatever is formed by feeding/taking care of them. One of the owners of Hunter Red never did anything for his dogs but feed, work, and put them back out. His litters of pups were born on the chain spot. The dogs were a means to an end. He won a lot more than he lost. He bred some dogs that went on to form their own line of dogs, and he is but one example of many I can think of that didn't go out of their way to form any bond, and it was never vital to his success.

I think I know the person of whom you are speaking. And I agree that people can "win matches" without forming a bond with their dogs ... but it seems like an awful lot of the greatest dogs have someone do more than just throw food at them and work them. I think people who just throw food at their dogs, and fight them, seldom (if ever) have a truly great dog. I think in order to maximize a dog's potential, it's natural intelligence and affection for people need to be developed also.

Most of the dogs I've used over the years are such nutters that bonds simply aren't something you form with them. You could spend all day, every day, with Smiley and she wouldn't care who you were when it came time to do her thing. I know because I did, and she won without me being there with someone she barely knew. Maybe it's the type of dog I have; I don't know. I have never seen a bond make a dog scratch when it normally wouldn't have. I've seen men use their house dogs, hell, I saw one man use his SON'S dog, with his son there, and it made zero difference.

We both know an old man who does not form a bond with his dogs. And, in point of fact, his dogs (likewise) were "nutters" ... those were the only kinds of dog who could make it on his loveless yard. But the flipside is, most of that man's dogs were nothing special ... just extremely game retards with no intelligence (for the most part). Every single great dog that man had was bred by someone else and BOUGHT by him at pitside ... he never had a truly great dog that he bred, raised, and groomed himself. Why? Because forming a bond and socializing a dog is part of what it (usually) takes for a dog to be truly great IMO.

I certainly don't fault someone who attempts to do everything within their power to have an edge, I just have never seen that type of "edge" factor into play. Or maybe it did factor in and no one knew. Either way, it made no difference in the outcome of the contest.

There is no doubt IMO that forming a bond and socializing with the right dog will give a person an edge ... whereas forming a bond with and socializing the wrong dog can break your heart.

As a side note, it is a contradiction to say, "Or maybe it did factor in and no one knew. Either way, it made no difference in the outcome of the contest." Logically-speaking, if a bond factored in, then it made a difference

One time, many years ago, I owned a dog that wouldn't do anything in a box without me being there. She wouldn't start; she wouldn't run; she wouldn't do anything. She was a one owner dog, and I was the one owner. In the end, she still quit in under 40 minutes.

Well, the way I see it is that your bond with that dog made 40 minutes' worth of difference ... so just imagine what a bond with a truly great dog could do

So yes, bonds are an intangible thing that are hard to quantify so there's no way to accurately say, in fact, that it helps at all. I disagree with the pole in that it's vital to success, as I stated earlier, when it's simply not vital at all.

Well, you're entitled to be a member of The 1% Club ... and I agree that a bond is an intangible factor.

I myself am a member of The 24% Club in this case ... as I agree that a bond is not 'always' vital ... but I do think it sure as hell can be ... if bestowed upon the right dog ... and if he ever gets deep in the trenches with his equal, who does not have such a bond, or visa versa.

That said, because the effort to form a bond will never hurt any dog, and can only help it, that it can only be considered "best practice" to attempt to form a bond with any combat dog. Again, the trouble is, IMO, that because the effort to form such a bond may well in fact hurt the owner ... if his dog doesn't do well ...that many people stop taking the time and making the effort to do so ... because they are the ones who don't want to be hurt in the end (either that, or because they don't really have the capacity to form a bond themselves).

Jack

[FrostyPaws]

My own vote is that a bond may (or may not) have an impact on success. I can think of certain dogs that didn't give a damn whose hands they were in, they were going out there to kick ass regardless. I can think of other dogs who, even in the hands of the most loving of owners, were going to quit (if the going got rough) regardless. However, between these two extremes, I can also think of several dogs who, in one man's hands, would NOT perform at the same level as they would when in their true owner's hands ... and these particular dogs were absolutely outstanding animals too, not average. Thus I think the formation of a bond is helpful to the best and most intelligent of GAME dogs ... while a bond is not really necessary for GAME dogs that aren't too bright.

Dogs that can win in anyone's hands are not an extreme, rather, that is a very common thing for a greater majority of dogs.

I am not sure if you 'having' emotions has to do with your will to extend those emotions/effort towards a bond. I actually think the emotions of making the effort to bond, only to be disappointed later, is one of the primary reasons many owners stop trying to get attached to their dogs--it hurts when you get attached to the wrong dog ...

I'm not disappointed in a dog that I deem to be worth a match, whether win or lose. Would I be disappointed in a loss? Hell yeah, but I'm not disappointed in the dog. I chose that dog, and that dog gave everything he had at that particular time. Unfortunately, whether the dog quit or shows honest or whatever the case may be, I'm convinced the dog gave it's all.

I think I know the person of whom you are speaking. And I agree that people can "win matches" without forming a bond with their dogs ... but it seems like an awful lot of the greatest dogs have someone do more than just throw food at them and work them. I think people who just throw food at their dogs, and fight them, seldom (if ever) have a truly great dog. I think in order to maximize a dog's potential, it's natural intelligence and affection for people need to be developed also.

It's possible you know of who I speak, but I only used the one individual as an example. I've known more men that way than the other way, and one group doesn't win more than the other. The man that wins the most is the man that takes the correct dog to the box. Without us knowing about all the "greatest" dogs and what bond they did or didn't have, we can't make that determination.

We both know an old man who does not form a bond with his dogs. And, in point of fact, his dogs (likewise) were "nutters" ... those were the only kinds of dog who could make it on his loveless yard. But the flipside is, most of that man's dogs were nothing special ... just extremely game retards with no intelligence (for the most part). Every single great dog that man had was bred by someone else and BOUGHT by him at pitside ... he never had a truly great dog that he bred, raised, and groomed himself. Why? Because forming a bond and socializing a dog is part of what it (usually) takes for a dog to be truly great IMO.

My definition of nutters aren't dogs without any intelligence. They are simply nutty dogs attitude wise. I don't know why he never had a truly great dog. Maybe he lacked the ability to create those types of dogs through breeding practices along with whatever other reasons there are.

There is no doubt IMO that forming a bond and socializing with the right dog will give a person an edge ... whereas forming a bond with and socializing the wrong dog can break your heart.

Bonding with the right dog can break your heart just as much as bonding with the wrong one. I think it may give an edge in a very small amount of dogs.

As a side note, it is a contradiction to say, "Or maybe it did factor in and no one knew. Either way, it made no difference in the outcome of the contest." Logically-speaking, if a bond factored in, then it made a difference

If the process of matching dogs is winning, and the bonded dog didn't win, then it didn't make any difference in the outcome of the contest.

Well, the way I see it is that your bond with that dog made 40 minutes' worth of difference ... so just imagine what a bond with a truly great dog could do

I can think of bonds I had with dogs when I seriously believed in all of that, and the dogs were simply better than their opponents. I don't NOT love the dogs I feed. I simply don't believe that is going to make any significant difference in the outcome of things, and I've never seen anything to make think differently.

Well, you're entitled to be a member of The 1% Club ... and I agree that a bond is an intangible factor.

I myself am a member of The 24% Club in this case ... as I agree that a bond is not 'always' vital ... but I do think it sure as hell can be ... if bestowed upon the right dog ... and if he ever gets deep in the trenches with his equal, who does not have such a bond, or visa versa.

That could very well be true, but again, it's simply something I've never seen play out that way between two equal dogs with things hanging in the balance.

That said, because the effort to form a bond will never hurt any dog, and can only help it, that it can only be considered "best practice" to attempt to form a bond with any combat dog. Again, the trouble is, IMO, that because the effort to form such a bond may well in fact hurt the owner ... if his dog doesn't do well ...that many people stop taking the time and making the effort to do so ... because they are the ones who don't want to be hurt in the end (either that, or because they don't really have the capacity to form a bond themselves).

I think the best practice is to take legitimate combat dogs to do perform in combat. I think you're right in your assessment of some people and their feelings for the most part. I also think there are plenty of people who don't allow their feelings to be hurt, for whatever reason, and are more successful than those who do. I agree that a bond doesn't hurt one thing, but in the end, the ability to choose the best dog for the show is what makes the winner a lot more times than not.

[Officially Retired]

Dogs that can win in anyone's hands are not an extreme, rather, that is a very common thing for a greater majority of dogs.

I believe the exact opposite.

Actually, the most common dogs of all are dogs that can't win in anyone's hands ...

The second most common thing are dogs that can win so long as they're in the best of hands ... or dogs that can win with one camp ... but when they get sold, get put in a different keep etc., then suddenly they lose ...

In fact, one of the greatest (and therefore hardest and most UNcommon of) things any dog can overcome is winning a Championship with 3 different men, fed 3 different ways, and put through 3 different keeps ... that is always considered rare, and a testimony to the dog, rather than any special dogman. Fact.

I'm not disappointed in a dog that I deem to be worth a match, whether win or lose. Would I be disappointed in a loss? Hell yeah, but I'm not disappointed in the dog. I chose that dog, and that dog gave everything he had at that particular time. Unfortunately, whether the dog quit or shows honest or whatever the case may be, I'm convinced the dog gave it's all.

Well, it is therefore arguable that "any" dog gives its all at that particular time, any time it is shown. The question thus becomes could the dog have given more under different circumstances? I firmly believe that certain dogs *will* give more for certain owners. In fact, you yourself admitted this when your own dog went :40 for you but wouldn't fight a minute for anyone else.

It's possible you know of who I speak, but I only used the one individual as an example. I've known more men that way than the other way, and one group doesn't win more than the other. The man that wins the most is the man that takes the correct dog to the box. Without us knowing about all the "greatest" dogs and what bond they did or didn't have, we can't make that determination.

I agree with this.

My definition of nutters aren't dogs without any intelligence. They are simply nutty dogs attitude wise. I don't know why he never had a truly great dog. Maybe he lacked the ability to create those types of dogs through breeding practices along with whatever other reasons there are.

I personally saw dogs on his yard that could have been good, had they been worked with, but were so shy and spooky when taken off the chain they never had a chance to acclimate. Had they been worked with as pups, and built more confidence in general, they could have been really good dogs. I would say most completely nutty dogs tend more towards the stupid side than the smart side. That is my experience anyway, and I have always bred for intelligence in dogs. Other lines might be different, but that sure is true of my own. Intensity is one thing, but all-out raving lunatics are usually stupid dogs IMO (though many can be extremely game).

Bonding with the right dog can break your heart just as much as bonding with the wrong one. I think it may give an edge in a very small amount of dogs.

True on the first part, but I think bonding does give an edge to any dog ... it's just that some dogs suck so bad it still won't make a difference ... but they still were better dogs than they would have been without the bond.

If the process of matching dogs is winning, and the bonded dog didn't win, then it didn't make any difference in the outcome of the contest.

The process of matching dogs is trying to win ... and "Best Practice" is doing everything within one's power to get that win ... but the reality is losing is exactly as equal a part of matching dogs as is winning.

So, sure, if the bond didn't help get the win, then it didn't help with winning. This is a tautology. Hell, the same can be said for getting the weight right: if getting the weight right didn't help with winning, then it didn't make any difference as to the outcome of the contest. Again, this is a tautology. (A is A)

Yet are you prepared to say getting the weight right isn't ALWAYS a good thing to do (i.e., Best Practice), regardless of winning or losing? Just because a dog didn't win doesn't mean it isn't ALWAYS best practice to get the weight right, so you have no point here. The point you are missing is, just like with getting the weight right, in some cases the bond will help the dog to get the win ... and it is ALWAYS best practice to form a bond same as it is ALWAYS best practice to get the weight right.

I can think of bonds I had with dogs when I seriously believed in all of that, and the dogs were simply better than their opponents. I don't NOT love the dogs I feed. I simply don't believe that is going to make any significant difference in the outcome of things, and I've never seen anything to make think differently.

We will just have to disagree here then.

That could very well be true, but again, it's simply something I've never seen play out that way between two equal dogs with things hanging in the balance.

I have seen it make a huge difference ... and most of the dogmen I have talked to, who had really great dogs, did form a bond with those animals.

I think the best practice is to take legitimate combat dogs to do perform in combat. I think you're right in your assessment of some people and their feelings for the most part. I also think there are plenty of people who don't allow their feelings to be hurt, for whatever reason, and are more successful than those who do. I agree that a bond doesn't hurt one thing, but in the end, the ability to choose the best dog for the show is what makes the winner a lot more times than not.

I absolutely agree that having a good eye for a good dog is the most important thing of all ... and I agree that a bond will not make a great dog out of a bum. However, like getting the weight right, forming a bond with the dog gives the animal its best chance ... within whatever genetic limitations it has ... and within whatever capabilities its opponent has. And, therefore, taking the time to bond with a match dog will always be "Best Practice" ... every bit as much as calling the weight right, etc.

Jack

[R2L]

How do you feel about if dogs feel their owners. Feel their trust in them before you release, ect
Some say a dog is like his owner. Would a man with a big fighting heart have better/more game dogs.

[Officially Retired]

How do you feel about if dogs feel their owners. Feel their trust in them before you release, ect
Some say a dog is like his owner. Would a man with a big fighting heart have better/more game dogs.

I think "being in tune" is part of the bond ...

Regarding a "fighting heart," I think this comes in a lot of flavors

Some people are very quarrelsome and aggressive, but they're not actually very game, and I think some people are pretty peaceful in general ... but if you cross them bad enough they'll fight fiercely if they have to. And dogs are the same way. So, yes, I think people tend to choose dogs that have traits they admire.

LOL, in fact, I have said this for years, "Stupid-aggressive people like stupid-aggressive dogs ... and intelligent/cagey people like intelligent/cagey dogs."

Regarding fighting experience, it is actually in my book that I think an owner actually fighting himself, and actually knowing what it's like, will only help him understand his dogs better.

Cheers,

Jack

[R2L]

tried to start bonding with a dog who's never been pet before. now he is becoming an anoying attention whore.

his kennel is 30 cm from my house and the basterd hears my every move.

[bolero]

the truth is frosty and jack are both right. we can all sit here and name kennels that have done both and been successfull. but i will say this i beleive those large kennels that simply feed clean and condition are successfull despite the no bonding due to the fact that they have an abundance of individuals to choose from whe u got 30 plus dogs and u are a good conditioner handler and breeder u are going to get some good ones no matter what but i am a firm beleiver in small yards having better quality and percentages 6 dogs max and friends with similar blood that also keep thaat much and u exchange dogs and breedings can be the best chpoice