intelligent hounds

[cobalt]

How does a person gauge the intelligence (I.Q.) of a hound? Is intelligence based on personality? Is it based on trainability or learnability or the amount of commands they acquire? Is it a label we put on dogs that seem to catch game where others can't so they must be smarter? Do the smart dogs catch the smart cats because they outsmart them or is it the dogs nose, relentless determination and experience that in the end, put the end to it? Is instinct more or less important? Can smart dogs be rattle-headed enough to be worthless (kinda like PEOPLE!)?
I'm kind of up in the air on the whole "intelligence" thing. Is there a dog or better yet, a hound I.Q. test? I know that intelligence is necessary to a degree in all dogs and I like what I perceive as a smart hound. I raise hounds, not border collies (assuming they're real smart, by most standards) or hounds that act like border collies and don't want to. I guess I just don't think it takes a genius type dog to be great, but rather the perfect balance of "hound" traits that make a hound perfect or at least the perception of it.
Not saying anyone is wrong, by any means. Whatever works for a person should be what they they use. Just been thinking about it.

Mr. pegleg, I often wonder about dogs that tend to end up off on their own game when all the other dogs who were put on the same track, end up together. Is this an action that might be due to a dog who is smart and has figured out it is more fun, or whatever, to do it by itself? This might be where higher intelligence and thinking may not be to its benefit. I don't know. I think when sensitivity and intelligence mix thickly, there's always the possibility of things going wrong. A trainer can't control all scenarios and a dog left to make its own choices, like when it's hunting, sometimes make choices that effect them negatively, maybe forever and brains or not, they better have a strong enough constitutuion to get over it.

[pegleg]

Like has been said intelligent dogs aren't for everyone they bring a bit of baggage just the rest however a intelligent hound to me is one that has many traits that can only be attributed to thought and when you say to yourself well hell Ol tige is figuring that out on his own more then not its a pretty good indicator if you have a dog that you turn to every time you have a track you know didn't disappear but the cost pulled a trick or wierdo behavior out well most times tree, nose, speed, voice, or build isn'twhat your asking for I've seen the intelligent hound that has been taught its better not to stand out in anyway and I've seen a couple as smart as any collie dog so its the fact not every hunters looking for the same dog again. To touch on something you said though I've never seen a dog ruined by any experience except those being directly connected to a human they don't seem to make those modifications unless we put them in a position where they have to make a choice with out perhaps thinking it through

[mike martell]

Cobalt,
Might as well make it two on board.....Better have a strong enough constitutuion to get over it mentality is my preferance....Once i thought "brains" to be the main component, I see obvious situations to debunk the myth(daily)...Hounds by and large are not real smart compared to many other breeds....They are simple and need handled accordingly....

Once i fall victim to the "brains" theory I reference back many years to a Plott dog I owned that was Ignorant Beyond comparison, could not make the dog shut up, bay dog, catch and tree bear, lion, alone and caught more bobcats on the ground than my walker/running dogs.....Why? Not sure....I just figured he wanted to "catch".....somethink like "prey" drive....

One of the issues I have with alot of intelligent dogs, so many are so thin skinned they crack with the elements long before they do by handeling compared to a good solid haired up style hound....The dogs in my kennel are dumber than grass....ALL OF THEM.

Compare two solid cat dogs.....One will stick like glue on a mean bear and the other will quit....Why is it that both can get it done on bobcats but one is scared to death of a bear? Must be "brains"......Not sure I totally agree about the whole brains theory in hounds....Prey drive is a huge factor and some dogs just prefer one species over the other.....Those that quit mean bears are smart catdogs......

[slowandeasy]

Quote Cobalt : I'm kind of up in the air on the whole "intelligence" thing.

Quote Cobalt: Mr. pegleg, I often wonder about dogs that tend to end up off on their own game when all the other dogs who were put on the same track, end up together.


Cobalt,

I'm sort of in your camp when it comes to depending on intelligence 100%. I sort of put it all in perspective. Dogs or people the latter I believe we can all agree has the highest intellect supposedly . But when it comes to athletic ability both in dogs and people they can be an Einstein, but without the tools to get the job done be pissing in the wind. So I guess, if backed into a corner and had to make a decision as to whether I would want natural ability or hundred percent intelligence. I would take the one with natural ability that had no idea why it was doing what it does it just does it and does it well. But if you do ever get the opportunity to see one with natural ability that also possesses intelligence. You will never forget it. They will leave you scratching your head and wondering how do they always get the first strike, get treed first, get through clear-cut tops first, and leave you standing at vertical bluffs wondering how the hell you can get yourself up there. As for why some dogs get off on their own although having been put on the same track with others. I believe that that comes because the dog is never capable of running the front. And quickly figures out if I get off on my own I get a full nose full which is what they truly desire. Only remedy for that is to start pairing them up with partners of equal speed so everybody gets a chance at a full snoot full.

However I will still float my canoe feeling that intelligence in conjunction with natural ability and desire is what I strive to find. But after 40 or 50 years of running hounds. Being able to admit for the first half of those years. Being like the Incredible Hulk and the absolute most heavy-handed human being on earth. I probably bypassed and ruined a couple of those special hounds that had the combination of natural ability and brains. As the smart ones figure out very quickly if I don't do anything I never get in trouble. But unfortunately around me that also got you dead. I have learned to be a lot more patient and less heavy-handed. But by no means will I wait for them to be ready to collect Social Security to get the job done.

Take care, Willie

[tomtom]

A dog does what it does because that's what it wants to do. Thats why we hunt with hounds. I still believe that if a dog could completely process human language it would find whatever you want at 6 months old.

I'm on the side that believes the dog that catches wanted to catch it more than anything. Beyond a look good running noise maker that appears to have gotten outsmarted. I have seen dumbass young hounds that could catch game before they grew out of being clumsy. I will take a dog that RUNS TO CATCH anyday. To me that is the hardest dog to find.

[cobalt]

I'm all in favor of intelligence. I think a solid definition of it would help straighten me out.
If the definition is strictly about catching game, then I'm all on board and will consider my good dogs, smart, but if it is correlated with things like obedience or standoffishness, I'm afraid my dogs are in a lesser class of intelligence. Those of you who know me, know my dogs handle, and handle well, but the game drive in them makes them far less controlable than other, "smarter" breeds, like border collies and poodles.
As a long time beagle owner, I do believe I know what a smart dog is. I've never seen a hound smarter than an average beagle. My beagles have locks on their kennel doors, because they all will be out in short order if I don't and they will also let the dumb hounds out of THEIR KENNELS. Crazy! Having hunted them for many years and many dogs, I have an opinion of intelligence vs hunt and my best beagles were machines in their style and machines have no brains, my best hounds were the same. Most people think that beagles are stupid. Stubborn, yes. Mischievous, yes. Stupid, no. Wild animals are very simple creatures. They don't study up on eluding predators intelligently. Their reactions are based on instincts. The better the instincts, the longer they live. Is that smarts?

Here's a scenario that my or may not pertain. A "smart" hound jumps up on a tailgate for the first time ever and catches it's toe in something. You have to get ahold of the dog while it's freaking out to release its foot. It takes 2 years for the dog to load on its own. That, to me, is dumb, but I've had hounds like that and they were what I think is perceived by some as a dog with high intelligence. Chit happens, that is life and if I have to be extra careful because of intelligence, I'm sorry but I'm not that hard on dogs in the first place. I'll take my idiots any day.

Balance, balance, balance and what you like in a hound is the best recipe. IMO.

Good thread. Been ponderin' this issue for a spell.

[JTG]

Related information on a guide dog for the blind name Frankie. JTG

Genealogical chart shows how line-breeding and inbreeding can be used to perpetuate and concentrate desirable genes. By mating sire named Frankie to dams A, B, C and D, then mating resulting half-brothers and half-sisters, 50% of genes passed on to offspring in the next two generations are Frankie's. Thus Frankie is, in effect, the sire of generations II, III and IV. If generation III were bred directly back to Frankie, then the genes passed on to generation IV, or current offspring, would be 75% Frankie's.
CURRENT OFFSPRING
Generation IV PARENTS
Generation III GRANDPARENTS
Generation II GREAT-GRANDPARENTS
Generation I
8/16 F + 2/16 A + 2/16 B + 2/16 C + 2/16 D 8/16 F + 4/16 A + 4/16 B 8/16 F + 8/16 A Frankie
A
half-brother to half-sister
8/16 F + 8/16 B Frankie
B
8/16 F + 4/16 C + 4/16 D 8/16 F + 8/16 C Frankie
C
half-brother to half-sister
8/16 F 4- 8/16 D Frankie
D
The most unusual commencement exercises in the country took place last week on a wooded campus in San Rafael, Calif. Eight of the graduates were dogs; but in their intelligence they seemed almost human. They were, in fact, byproducts of a study project in human behavior which used puppies as subjects for basic experiments. The findings on people are not yet in, but the project produced some radical discoveries about dogs that should be of great interest to every prospective pet owner. For example:
•All puppies of all breeds have mental capacities of almost zero until they are 21 days old.
•Inbreeding, usually considered a sure way to make idiots, actually can produce superdogs.
•The finest dogs in the world may become completely untrainable if they are left in the kennel beyond the age of 13 weeks.
•The best time to start training a dog is at 8 weeks, not 6 months as has always been supposed.
These and other discoveries were used as the foundation of a special program of breeding and training at Guide Dogs for the Blind Inc., where the eight dogs received their diplomas. This program, initiated by volunteer Director of Research Clarence J. Pfaffenberger, has proved so spectacularly successful that it may very well influence the future training and breeding of all dogs everywhere.
When Guide Dogs for the Blind was started in 1942, its founding members scouted the kennels of Europe and the U.S. to find the best possible animals for lead work. They settled on four common breeds—the German shepherd, the Labrador, the Chesapeake and the golden retriever. Within each breed, they then set out to choose the best individuals for the job. This proved difficult.
"We found that even among carefully screened adult dogs, bred and raised under normal dog-raising conditions," says Pfaffenberger, "seldom more than two out of 10 could be trained to our standard."
Refusing to accept such a poor success ratio, Pfaffenberger determined to find some means of testing dogs while they were still puppies, so that only those with the highest aptitudes would be kept for training.
He discussed the idea with people he met at American Kennel Club meetings, dog shows and field trials, but to his disappointment he found that the kind of tests he was interested in did not exist. Pfaffenberger then took his problem to Bar Harbor, Me., where a social psychologist and Rhodes scholar, Dr. J. Paul Scott, was directing a project aimed at understanding humans through a study of the behavior of dogs and other animals.

Dr. Scott proved more than helpful. In his studies he had uncovered a whole series of critical periods in the life of a puppy which directly affect the way he will behave as an adult. These critical periods apply to all breeds of dogs and fall into five categories:
1) Birth to the 21st day: During this period it is impossible to teach a puppy anything. His brain is like an electrical circuit without power. The puppy's only needs are food, warmth and his mother. Says Pfaffenberger, "This was basic knowledge about dogs which had not even been suspected through the thousands of years in which men and dogs have lived together."
First glimmer
2) The 21st to the 28th day: Abruptly on the 21st day the brain begins to function, and a puppy not only becomes capable of learning but will start to learn whether or not he is taught. During this fourth week a puppy must continue to have the absolute security of his mother; for at no other time in his life will emotional or social upsets (being left alone, frightened by loud noises, moved to a strange place) have as harmful or lasting effect.
3) The 28th to the 49th day: This is the time when a puppy starts to venture from his mother to investigate the world around him. Now he can learn to recognize his master, to respond to voices, to other animals and toys. The end of this period is the best time for a puppy to be weaned and taken to a new owner. Under no circumstances, however, should the puppy be weaned and then left in the kennel with his mother to wonder why he is not feeding as he did before.
4) The 49th to 84th day: At 7 weeks, although the pup is still physically immature, his brain has attained adult form. He can be taught to obey simple commands like sit, come, heel and fetch. But any training at this stage must be informal. The instruction periods must be brief, and there should be no punishment if the puppy fails to respond to a given command. For, during this period, what the puppy learns is not as important as the fact that he learns how to learn. This is also the time when the puppy begins forming his permanent attitudes toward people—those who feed, play with, teach or reprimand him. The kind of relationships he forms will affect his later acceptance of direction and education.
5) The 84th to 112th day: This is the final critical period, the time when the puppy is ready to declare his independence and man and dog decide who is boss. Informal play training must end here and serious adult training begin. However, the advanced training will be fully successful only if simple, informal training occurred earlier.
"Regardless of the inherited differences between breeds," says Dr. Scott, "all dogs, when given proper socialization from 3 weeks to 16 weeks of age, will reach a satisfactory level of behavior."
With Scott's critical periods as a foundation, Pfaffenberger set up a system of testing and training at Guide Dogs for the Blind. Although his program, described in technical detail in a recent booklet published by the American Kennel Club, has been worked out specifically for lead dogs, its broad outlines can easily be applied to all dogs.
Here is the Pfaffenberger formula: •From birth until 5 weeks of age—or during the first two critical periods plus an extra buffer week—a litter should remain with its mother in a small puppy room.
•At 5 weeks of age the pups are moved with their mother to a kennel, where they have access to an enclosed run. From the run they see other puppies and mothers, but until the 7th week contact with human beings is limited to the few kennel workers who clean the runs and bring food.
First training
•At 8 weeks the pups have their first extensive contact with people. One day a week each puppy is given 30 minutes of informal training. He is walked on a leash and shown how to sit, heel and come when called. Most important, he is taught to fetch a rubber ball rolled on the ground. This exercise, Pfaffenberger discovered, is particularly significant because it reveals much about a puppy's willingness to please. After the fetch test the dog is introduced to a succession of new people, new noises and new animals (such as cats), which he may meet in later life. Throughout this phase of training two observers rate each pup on his responses, scoring him from zero to five according to how quickly he learns, how playful or shy he may be and how well he reacts to each new situation he meets.
•At the end of the 12th week the pup gets his final exam, scored by a board of eight experts, who decide whether or not to keep the dog for lead training. For the exam, the pup is taken out on a simulated city block, complete with sidewalks, curbs and fire hydrant. He is walked on a leash along the street, past strolling people, past the hydrant and a tricycle or some other object deliberately left in his way. A potentially trainable dog will show definite interest in each of these situations and will not be frightened or bewildered by any of them. The ultimate test the puppy faces is to be confronted by a hand cart being pushed directly toward him. The cart comes right up to the puppy, passes by him, and stops. Then the puppy-is led back to the cart. This, like the earlier fetch test, is particularly important because it is almost certain to bring out any basic shyness, instability or indecisiveness in the dog.
After two years of testing and relating the test scores to success in later adult training, Pfaffenberger found that he was able to predict with reasonable accuracy which 12-week-old puppies had guide-dog potential and which did not. But still there was trouble. A large number of the puppies either failed the tests or passed with such low scores that they could not be kept for training. This meant either that the tests were too hard or that the average puppy being born at the Guide Dog kennels was simply not good enough to be trained for lead work.
Pfaffenberger talked to Scott and his colleagues again, and together they decided that it was probably the dogs which were at fault.
Since these dogs were among the finest of their breed anywhere in the world, the only way to improve them was to develop better strains within the existing stock—that is, to breed dogs which produced high-scoring puppies, and then breed only those puppies which rated highest on the tests. Because the high scorers frequently were in the same family this meant inbreeding and line-breeding—where brother is mated to sister, father to daughter, mother to son, etc.—a practice on which no two dog breeders have ever agreed. The scientists believed such breeding would concentrate and intensify desirable genes to produce superdogs—not canine Jukeses.
They were right. Beginning with a magnificent German shepherd named Frankie of Ledge Acres, and working along breeding lines set up by Frankie's owner, William F. Johns, executive director of Guide Dogs, the organization began producing a higher and higher percentage of trainable dogs. Although Frankie died two years ago, through a complex and carefully controlled system of line-breeding (worked out by Johns), his genes still make up [8/16], or 50% (see chart), of the inheritance of the majority of German shepherd litters born at the Guide Dog kennels.
Beyond these discoveries in training and breeding, the program at Guide Dogs for the Blind revealed one more significant factor in dog development. That is, no matter how carefully a dog is bred or how high he scores in puppy tests, he may turn out to be worthless for adult training if he is not made part of a family environment in close contact with people by the time he is 12 to 13 weeks old.
It is hard to believe," says Pfaffenberger, "that the potential of a superior puppy can be so reduced, but there is no question that many fine dogs of all types have been ruined by remaining too long in the isolation of a kennel."
Today 90% of the puppies bred at Guide Dogs for the Blind complete adult training and become lead dogs. Compared with an original 20% to 25% success ratio, such results mark an achievement without precedent. "Our results indicate that we often produce much better puppies than we ever realize," says Pfaffenberger. "There is no reason why comparable testing and breeding programs could not be applied with equal success to the improvement of all dogs, no matter what the purpose for which they are intended."

[dwalton]

JTG: Thanks for the information, it gives one a lot to think about. Bottom line is a complete dog that catches game. To me a smart dog is one that does not run a back track, that takes one look at a bluff and goes to the top to see if the cat came out not treeing until you get there. That almost always picks up the loses, does not run down the road past when a cat has left it. Come when you call it no matter how far or if he is on a track. When walk hunting, when it comes to a Y in the road looks at me to point which way to go. On a lose looks up to see which way is the most likely way that the cat could of went. Will not over run a track when the cat has turned and turns with it. Trees or holes 99% of the cats it jumps and completes most of its cold trails. When you take it to the woods it catches cats in any and all conditions. One that the owner does not have to make excuses why they did not catch the cat. A good smart dog is a good dog not matter what kind of trash we run coon,bear, fox, lion or even bobcats. Dewey

[pegleg]

So who's going to breed hounds on these guidelines let us know how it works

[slowandeasy]

J TG,

That guiding eyes for the blind is the real deal. When dad was younger he probably spent the better part of three years on his lunch breaks visiting one of their big offices in Westchester County New York. Where he met a guy in charge of the breeding program. I guess he had a degree in genetics. But we used everything that guy told Dad in most of all the beagles and hounds that we were breeding. And although we probably didn't have enough knowledge to fill a thimble. One could easily see that we were having a little better success than a lot were. But you probably already knew that I agreed with that type of breeding due to past posts. But I just wanted to let you know that I have also heard and been aware of that the guiding eyes for the blind is at the top of the game when it comes to reproducing what they want.

Take care, Willie

[JTG]

Dwalton,
Yes Sir, I agree and it is lots to think about. I have found it to work very well.

Pegleg, I have been using this method for 9 years and improved on it with some of my own methods, however I started with dogs from a breeder who has been using a similar method for 40 or more years. For many years before that I listen or read the same old junk. So and So told me this, I read that or breed the best to the best etc….
This article explains it pretty well go back and read it several times. I posted this article because it uses fractions instead of inbreeding coefficients which makes it much easier to understand.

Sir Willey, I do remember and enjoyed your information about your dad and his friend.
Thank you for telling me about it.

JTG

[pegleg]

I know there's some breeders using this method and some who use similar methods and then there's a larger number who Think they are using one if these methods but the results are telling. It s obvious when its employed then its nearly as obvious when the method is successful and when its failing. My question is always which hound did you b;reed from and how close are you keeping your results? And finally at some point they all seem to hit a rough spot in the road and they have to work very hard to correct it and its generally far enough in they have no access to the original blood lines and only have the generation that is the problem And those that sired them. So how are you choosing to get through These issues? With frozen semen being a viable option now this seems the best solution to me

[mike martell]

Pegleg
Most guys really don't know for sure how the pups turned out....That is another separate post....How many breed and sell 60-80% of the litter to incompetent hunters who know little or nothing about hounds just because the check cleared the bank?

How do you accurately track the development of a hound when you let a dollar or your wife interfere with the placement of pups? Once you allow a buck to control your breeding program You start to lose.

Unless you know where a pup goes and the level the handler hunts, you really don't know how well your breeding program is working out....You base breeding results on the one or two guys you know plus yours to determine the outcome.

Finding like minded breeders and hunters is more difficult than finding that once in a life time hound....I tried once to have a core of hunters keep all pups and see how well they developed....Once there was a large litter the for sale sign went up....

Genetics play a huge role but good solid handlers play as big a role in breeding programs.

[JTG]

Pegleg, you have very good questions. First very few breeders use this method I have describe. The ones who say why it will not work have not stuck with it or heard why it would not work, read it from some book. You will have more problems and less success by outcrossing.(Scientific fact)It’s very good to have frozen semen but not for the reason you may be thinking. Hounds are meant to be hunted hard so it would be good to collect semen so if something happens and you lose a good stud you have a backup.(Cars, rough game etc…) I like to rotate brothers and of course they both have to be at the top of their game. If bred correctly the hounds will improve with each breeding so semen from a dog from the past will not be as good as the hounds in the current litter or as good as a future litter.
Jtg

[slowandeasy]

JTG,

Boy I sure am spot on with most all of your posts. I would just like to add one thing. For the most part I would say that half to three quarters of the people have no business breeding dogs. As honestly they wouldn't know a good dog if it bit them in the ass. Not that there's anything wrong or bad about them. Because I truly believe as long as they're having fun that's what counts. But when they confuse themselves to believe they should be breeding, that's where it goes to hell in a handbasket.

I have often said, a good dog man that wants to make a decision to breed top hounds. Has to weigh his options. You must choose to either follow the Hawk. Or choose to take care of loved ones. These two choices plus some bumps that you hit going down life's road. Are really the only thing that prevent people from being able to complete the task of breeding top hounds. So like I have said in the past if it is your ambition to follow the Hawk, there is a famous spot just waiting for you. However I can only say personally that when I came to the fork in the road, I sure am glad that I took the one that I did. The above reasons are pretty much why we are not tripping over good hounds.

Take care, Willie

P. S. Carey, sure am surprised you didn't weigh in on this. You too Paco