Olympicdogs is firstly a geographic reference. We are located on the Olympic Peninsula in North Western Washington State, within sight of the Puget Sound and with our back to the foothills of the Olympic National Forest at a place called Discovery Bay. Roughly 45 miles, as the crow flies or the boat sails, from Seattle Washington.
And despite the fact the word Olympic carries little sheen in a place where it prefaces every other mundane business from Asphalt to Septic design, if ever we relocate I’ll probably keep the name. As using breeds from Europe, Argentina, Africa, and Turkey the innuendo of The Olympics is not lost on me either. Nor that of great heights, lofty aspirations, exceptional athletes from all corners of the world, etc. I’ve made an effort to own/breed the best examples possible from the breeds chosen; so in that sense, I’ll continue to wear the title proudly regardless of location.
Our 30 acres is bordered by commercial timberland and the national forest ( might as well have a million ) which provides endless miles of trails for running the dogs; but also creates an ongoing struggle with predators. Cougars, namely, and the less problematic coyote, and black bear also. As we are building both dairy and meat goat herds, both of which forage not only on pasture, but up into the lush undergrowth of alder forest which represents the practical edge of a vast wilderness, we have a very real testing ground for those working breeds suited to the task of keeping herbivores alive. Not to mention accompanying us humans, big and especially small, on any ventures into the woods.
I don’t own a kennel.
I won’t refer to my operation as a “kennel.” The smallest pen I can keep a dog in is a quarter of an acre; the largest single pen is over four, and those that don’t roam, or kill stock, can run thirty. There is not a one on a chain, or in a cage. Many breeders claim things like,
“quality over quantity ”
Like most breeder rhetoric, it tends to be vacuous, at best. The vast majority keep their dogs in very small kennels or on chains. Irrespective of what one can, or cares to, offer their dogs, I think the following a fair question to ask when viewing a “kennel”
Is this a situation I want to support ?
I have considered all the breeds in dogdom in deciding which ones had the traits I wanted. And have travelled much of the country and to several continents looking at, and for, the best examples of the breeds I’ve chosen to work with. While there are some notable differences in prey drive, or lack there of; independence or lack there of, there are also some common denominators. One hundred, sometimes hundred fifty plus lbs. of intelligent, territorial, protective, athletic, capable and largely un-gentrified canine. All famously good with children, all considered “working” dogs. In a word they are all “watchdogs” be it family, stock, property or some combination there in; their first job is to protect ( be it offense or defense ) As a consequence I am really always looking for much the same temperamental traits; smarts,nerve, courage, heart. And physically, despite working with large breeds, I’ll not sacrifice movement, athleticism, or soundness for size. I’m not in this to make yard ornaments.
I do aim to turn a profit, as a matter of principle and habit, but the fact remains my time would be better spent elsewhere if money was the primary motivation; that’s been proven. That’s why I don’t need dogs to pay my bills, just theirs. At the end of the day, I breed to satisfy my needs, my passion, or my curiosity first. I’ve usually got my eye on a litter for what I want. That’s called the breeders prerogative, it goes unsaid most of the time. I am out, first and foremost, to create dogs that are up to my standards and serve my needs and wants. And though I see no shame in providing a service to others, that is secondary.
Nor are the dogs my surrogate children, family, or friends; I have humans to fill all those roles. And though I grow quite fond of some dogs, I believe that can be a liability to a breeder. I try not to let my heart cloud my vision too much; easier said than done, but necessary just the same, and something I look for in a breeder when I’m buying.
For most of my life I owned one dog at a time, for the lifetime of that dog. The relationship that can develop in that context is a luxury I’m not sure a breeder can afford to indulge. A breeder plays God; as such I believe he also needs to be prepared to play the Grim Reaper. A certain amount of detachment is necessary.
As time passes, I will come to posses better and better examples of the breeds I choose, and the crosses there of, because I’m willing and able to search the world in pursuit of them, and constantly looking to breed better ones. And because I don’t confuse my dogs for people, I’ll always be improving the quality of what’s here.
The perspective is long term; I plan on breeding for the duration. Hopefully, I will have accomplished something by then, and one or more of my many children will be interested in continuing on what’s been built. As anyone that knows me can tell you, breeding is more a less a way of life around here. Be it an abiding respect for natural laws, a fascination with genetics, or just a logical way to run a ranch; I will breed. Mother nature is who I turn to for wisdom; merciless bitch though she may be, she never fails to inspire.
Andrew J
PUREBRED CROSSES
The crossing of breeds is such a controversial issue it seems appropriate I spend some time addressing my perspective, in print, for the record. To the degree that creates some redundancy with sections like ” An overview, ” I hope you will endure. Given the assumption few will read the whole site, it’s more important that each post stand alone. At the very least I can cut and paste this bit on crosses as needed in my online travels, where the crossing of breeds creates endless hoo-hah.
But anyone in animal husbandry, and most genuine dog men, have known forever that there is a payoff to outside blood. Of late the fickle finger of dog fashion has stumbled on the practice. The extent and degree to which this crossing of breeds may be fad driven, there for short-lived, remains to be seen.
Personally I see it as a logical reaction to the pathetic state of purebreds. The problem then, and the only real limitation of the idea, remains the same. As all the dogs crossed, by definition, must be pulled from that same dubious pool. But while most anything would be better than more of the same purebred disaster, and while crossing does address many of the issues associated with inbreeding, it does not begin to address the greater void of a meaningful selection pressure.
Heterosis ( hybrid vigor ) is a scientifically proven reality that minimizes the likely hood of genetic disease and boosts over all health, vigor, even size. A magnification of the gains had by incorporating divergent lines within breed. That said, it is no magic bullet. Crossing breed lines won’t make two dumb dogs smart, nor two cowardly dogs brave. Garbage in will get you garbage out; albeit healthier, possibly more sound…garbage.
Another thing we know is the purebred lines must be kept as such; if not simply out of respect for the legacy of those breeds, then to fully maximize the benefits of crossing them. I personally intend to produce purebred dogs and purebred crosses. I do not see it as either or. I do not care to join any particular camp. I do my own thing.
And I have no interest in covert infusions to any pure breeds gene pool. Where registries have made the mental leap to realize that a closed registry is a genetic dead end, there are processes available to infuse new blood in a documented manner. Where a closed registry is the rule of law, so be it. A pure bred is a pure bred, and is registered accordingly. A cross is a cross; it should be registered as such, or not at all. And where that is the case, and none are miss-represented, the crosses pose no more threat to the purebred’s gene pool than a dog of another breed does. Nothing is lost; nothing is added.
A new and separate thing is created; it does not “pollute” the gene pool of the pure bred, the new cross is not a part of that pool. And the DNA of the dogs crossed is not somehow tainted by the experience. Both dogs can be bred within their own breeds next time around, unaffected.
Common sense?
One would think so. Apparently there is precious little of that commodity available amongst a large vocal sector of purebred enthusiasts. Not to be confused with real dog men, from whom I’ve yet to hear a concern with the practice beyond that of folks sneaking other breeds in unannounced. And that, even after announcing to their faces, that if I acquire a dog from them I may well cross it.
Most hardcore working people have long since jettisoned the closed registry model. Where results are the true endgame, results are all that matter. For example, the Belgian Malinois, which is what police and military use the world over, is allowed to have outside blood infused, a practice not uncommon in working circles where function takes precedent over form.
From the other purebred extreme, the show fancy, there is a tremendous amount of rather hysterical gibberish, which makes perfect sense if you look at the numbers because they are losing money to crosses hand over fist, as their function-less dogs are easily replaced by healthier, less expensive crosses. Many of those that have not, as yet, jumped ship and started crossing are in a veritable tizzy of bitterness.
“ You will ruin the breed”
“ You will pollute the gene pool”
“ They are just mutts”
“ You will create monsters”
“ You can’t have any idea what you’ll get”
“ They won’t be consistent”
Before I stoop to address those supposed concerns, let’s revisit the big picture. There is a recurring pattern for dogs, in America, and much of industrialized world. Breeds, virtually all of which were created to perform some task are increasingly bred for trophies or pets. The working traits are inadvertently lost, or often even selected against. One could go down the whole list of AKC dogs, and almost all of them, even within the breeds classified as “ working dogs,” are no longer competitive as such.
They may still harbor some instincts, some residual tendencies; your AKC retriever will bring your tennis ball, your AKC collie may run circles around your children. But the dogs and their drives and abilities become watered down as sure as the majority of the dog buying public just want pets.
If one really needs a working collie, retriever, livestock guardian, watchdog, etc, then one would do well to hunt out the small sub-culture of folks that are still actively selecting for working ability; chances are they belong to a different registry.
The working ability is one of the first things to go, if it’s not selected for. And often times, the drive to work is a problem for a pet with nothing to do anyway. But that’s just the beginning of the end. Once work is eliminated as a selection pressure, the field is defaulted to the show fancy and the random convenience breeding of the public, a duo no breed can withstand for long.
So, to the assertion
“ You will ruin the breed”
I say
If were talking AKC or dog fancy, chances are that’s already been done. Can an English bulldog be any more ruined? Can an AKC German shepherd, Dane, English mastiff, be made any more of a cartoon. One could go down the whole list of AKC animals and not find much that has not long since been ruined to one degree or another.
To
“ You will pollute the gene pool”
I say not. No dishonesty here, it’s all up front, sneaking nothing in.
“ They are just mutts”
This is a matter of semantics. The dictionary provides a rather useless definition of the term “mutt” as a dog of “impure” origin. As if dogs where ever pure ? As if they stayed behind in the garden. A mutt, in my world, is a mystery, a dog of uncertain make up, unknown origin or component. A cross of known pure breeds is anything but.
“ You’ll create monsters”
I call this the ” Frankenstein paradigm.” It’s hardly more logical than the premise of the film. Nor more reasonable than assuming all the good traits will magically merge in the most desired fashion… which we could call the “cross peddler paradigm,” but they both call into question the next fear on the list
“ You have no idea what you’ll get “
Unless we believe the ” Frankenstein” or the ” cross peddler” paradigms. Again, I’ve found it to be a fairly predictable splitting of the differences as regards the more complex matters such as temperament or overall physical structure… in F1’s anyway. Simpler matters determined by fewer genes like coat type and color, eye color, can be predicted in relative probability by people who are familiar with genetic patterns of dominant and recessive genes, or the software they produce.
“ They will never be consistent”
Actually I wish that was more true. Consistency is overrated in my opinion. People have different wants, and needs, as well as visual preferences. Thus far I’ve found the variation within f1 litters to be not dissimilar to that within purebred litters as regards temperament and over all structure. I’d like to see more variation. Where is it written, aside from somebody’s silly ass standard, that we want cookie cutter dogs?
Athletes who compete in the same extremely specialized sports do come in a variety of shapes, proportions and temperaments. What remains constant is the trade off between size and speed, power and endurance. It is not uncommon to see a much taller rangier man compete against a far shorter more powerfully built man in any number of contests, even when weights are mandated to within a few pounds. Nor is it uncommon for those two men to set about that competition in drastically different manners, reflecting extremely different temperaments. Cookie cutters have no relevancy in the real world; that is largely the residual nonsense of breeding to a visual standard, in my estimation.
But perhaps the most intriguing potential gain of crossing lines, for me, is the amount of change it allows in one generation. Much ground can be covered; broad-brush strokes can be made. It is not the business of baby steps, and in all honesty I have always been more fascinated with the possibilities, and even the unknowns, of a cross.
The truth is there are far too many breeds that interest me to limit myself to one or even two, so I have no intention of doing so. But I have, of necessity, spent years narrowing my choices to a manageable number of purebreds; Boerboels, Dogos, Kangals. And and a couple basic long term divisions for crosses; low prey drive ( the Olympic Farm dogs ) and high, ( the Olympic Road dogs ).
Time, or exceptional dogs of other breeds, may dictate new directions. But for the last several years these are the breeds I’ve been focused on, these I breed and sell pure, these breeds have full descriptions of their own in their respective sections from which a person can make reasonable assumptions as to what they might bring in a cross.
But in this section I want to talk a bit about these breeds, and other I use, like Dane and Akita, as components. I want to address their traits, as ingredients, as they relate to each other; as relates to crossing them.
For the naysayers we have already addressed an essay DEFENDING THE CROSS what follows is written more for the open, or even like minded.
And I want to talk about the major divisions, as I see them, in our dogs.
Prey drive
This is the big one for me; it’s the Mason-Dixon line for anyone with livestock really. Dog’s bred to guard and protect vs. dogs bred to hunt, to get after stuff. Dog’s that can be trusted with stock and dog’s that ….. well really can’t. That’s the primary difference between a road dog and farm dog for me. They are all territorial, they will all protect the home turf from unwanted visitors.
Independence
This perhaps the broadest division but the ramifications of it are myriad. The majority of the breeds I work with are not very independent, and as a result are relatively biddable. The Boerboel, Dogo, Dane these are all yes men dogs to one degree or another; relative to a Kangal anyway, who may well obey, may well be quicker to realize what’s wanted even, but definitely thinks for itself. Or say an Akita who is as independent as anything I’ve owned, and high prey drive. So much so that all I can even keep around anymore is a half Akita.
Argentine Dogo: 1 to 10
Argentine Dogo: as ingredient
Heart: is the first thing I think when I think Dogo. When you look at their heads you know where the Heart comes from. But in a dogo that heart beats in long, tall, athletic body. These are Hunting dogs with a lot of fight, get after it, stay at it dogs. These are not dogs easily discouraged from a struggle once they engage, many will go to the death. The Dogo is a dog of temperamental extremes; both an incredibly sweet, tolerant, loving family dog and a dog capable of often suicidal tenacity. This paradox is hard to comprehend, hard not to respect, and for me impossible to resist. In a nutshell a Dogo is a dog with balls, in a world where most breeds are born half neutered any more.
Toughness: A delicate distinction I’m making from heart here, the pain tolerance I’ve experienced in these dogs is pretty impressive, they’re scrappers.
Athleticism: Big time, these dogs are extremely athletic for their size
Prey drive: very high, if that might present a problem, you probably don’t want much Dogo in the mix
Dog Aggression: Very high also, despite the ” pack hunter” lip service
Intelligence: I find them to be quite sharp really, if a bit quirky at times
Size: it’s a touchy subject in Dogos, but I like the big ones, the longer taller ones, because otherwise they start looking very much like pit bulls. So I’ve made it a point to have and breed dogs on the high side of the range, and will continue to do so.
Health: The Dogo is quite possibly the canine poster child of inadequate genetic foundation ( too few, too closely related…the opposite of a landrace breed ). This may seem counter intuitive to those who know a little of Dogo history (the breed was created by mixing a variety of breeds ) and it may have been had the Martinez brother’s plans not been impacted by their respective fates. The plans of mice and men often do go astray, and so it was that the Martinez brothers were forced to “reconstruct “ from a far smaller base then they intended. As a result Dogos suffer from a a variety of issues associated with inbreeding. Various auto-immune issues; most often evidenced in skin problems, diminished fertility, and more. Not to mention issues associated with being all white; sunburn, deafness, etc. As such they are prime candidates to benefit from a cross, so long as it’s not to a white dog, and they bring much to the table.
South African Boerboel: 1 to 10
South African Boerboel: as ingredient
Gravity: The Boerboel, first and fore most, is sticky. A family dog, great with kids and will become their new shadow out of the crate and as long as it lives. They will wait outside whatever door you last went in, often sleep there in the rain rather than seek shelter. They will move with you all day long if your work keeps you moving. They are born to stay by your side, like secret service agents.
Biddability: The second thing I think of is biddable, they are by your side they are looking to your eyes to see what you want. Thirdly they bring a moderate amount of
Minimal prey drive: They are manageable around stock, it’s no uphill battle to get them to refrain from killing your other critters.
Protective: This what their supposed to be all about…that’s job one. They should be wary/suspicious of strangers, and confident enough to want to get between them and you.
Coats: Short, and well suited to hot sunny climates, they also do fine outdoors in moderate cold.
Size: everybody lies; I’d say 130 was probably a generous “average size male” probably 100 for a bitch. Although they do vary and it’s not uncommon to get 160 lb males…. and some as large as 180 or more, it does become a challenge to find one that size that still moves well.
A guardian breed; family, farm, livestock. A real boerboel might be the perfect farm dog for me, might be all I needed, might be for a lot of people. The hard part is finding one that lives up to the superbly orchestrated Afrikaner marketing. And then finding two. As a component, one is all we need, and you can see how they might be useful to mix with many a breed.
Kangal 1 to 10
Kangal as ingredient:
Born and bred to protect livestock. The Kangal is my livestock guardian of choice. Also the only one in the final four that brings extreme cold weather tolerance, without the extreme shaggy often problematic coats of many of the livestock guardians. Or for that matter any degree of independence. I also expect a healthy dose of overall health and heartiness, as the Turks are historically less inclined to baby their dogs. Generally better hips than all the “mastiffs” ( penn hip .45) And excellent vision, for use on the endless vistas of Turkeys rolling sheep country. Little to no prey drive and a strong desire to protect everything in their domain from creatures that don’t belong, two or four legged.
Temperamentally they are possessed of some combination of nurturing or absence of prey drive sufficient that they can be trusted left alone with livestock. They watch, they guard, they protect. They don’t need to be in your lap. They don’t need your approval, and they are not inclined to work to hard to get it.
Intelligence: I find them to be the smartest dogs here, not yes men, but thinking to be sure.
Independence factor is high. A double edged sword to be sure, and perhaps the most significant difference in Dog temperament. It is a thing of pros and cons. Having raised Akitas ( super independent ) and Boerboels ( super biddable to the point of being needy ) I do find both extremes annoying at times, and helpful at others; but as the other three in the the final four are basically biddable, the Kangal will be a much needed infusion of independent thinking and spirit that I look forward to mixing to suit.
Health: To the extant the kangal is a sort of land race breed I hope they will bring a needed helping of overall health, hardiness and temperamental soundness that is often lacking in the breeds composed of more limited foundation stock. They do tend to live a very long time.
Cold weather tolerance: Can not underestimate that. The other three breeds of my choosing, most bully breeds for that matter, tend to be short coated dogs that can only tolerate so much cold. And what good is any form of watch dog if it’s curled up shivering in the bowels of it’s shelter throughout winter ? If I’m on a road trip in winter I want a dog to be comfortable sleeping under the truck, not one whining to be in the back with me. The Sivas region and much of Eastern Turkey is bitter cold, and wicked hot, these dogs, historically, were anything but pampered.
Nurturing: I believe that this is at the heart of a livestock guardian, an instinct to care for and protect, that has been selected for and made prominent over the prey drive that exists to some extent in all dogs. For anyone on a farm ( not to mention mad scientist dog breeders on farms ) this modulation of the prey drive is huge, this is critical. And I believe this basic temperament is easily shifted towards human family, cats; you name it. You raise em with it, they won’t kill it; they will protect it. Having had more than than my share of dogs for whom not killing is not natural, I very much appreciate it.
Eyesight: I can’t prove it, but I spent a month exploring the rolling vistas of Turkey and I’ve got to believe that if ever a breed would evolve good eye sight it would be one expected to guard livestock in that kind of terrain. Mine clearly has amazing vision, I no longer assume him to be barking pointlessly….I just look through a scope. His vision is hands down superior to any other dog on the farm.
Length/scale : These dogs are long and tall, thirty plus inches at the shoulder yet built to cover ground if needed, athletic, not clunky not too heavy.
Great Dane 1 to 10
Great Dane:
The Great Dane is a stretch for me I’ll admit. It’s the bodies though that get me, I like the scale. I like a tall leggy dog, a dog that covers all sorts of ground. Granted the temperaments and smarts that I’ve found, leave a lot to be desired, but I’m going to literally scour the earth for a Dane with enough smarts, nerve, and guts to warrant feeding. I believe there must still be some out there, needle in the haystack of dopey Disney Danes though a good one most certainly is
Good with kids: On thing they have in common with the rest of the final four is they are truly good with children, true family dogs. I am hoping that I can find Danes as close to Danes of old to begin with but with the addition of working molosser lines, I anticipate producing something similar to a Dane of lore, in body and in spirit.
Dog aggression nil: Many people may find a Dogo or a hard Boerboel a little much to handle, more dog aggression than is ideal, or more liability than they want. The Dane cross, at least until I find hard Dane, is a sure way to water that down; without needing the watered down Dogos or Boerboels.
Good Hips: Another point that bears mention regards the contribution I expect the Dane to make is that for all their size they do tend to have good hips, better in fact than any mastiff. (See the pennhip scores) At present I have a gorgeous Dane with better movement than any dog I’ve seen anywhere close to his size with a pennhip .21 .24. …. ah if he only had a brain…. and a heart… he might leave a mark.
Coat: short
Size: 32, 33, 34, 35 inches… at the shoulder, scale baby, scale.
Let’s start with the big picture, the context. After all it’s been some time since the likely parasitic relationship between cave men and wolves somehow became something more. But ever since those first cave dwellers began to lure wolves with food, or that first injured wolf, or pack-less cub, was obliged to accept human help; man has been shaping the creation of dogs, consciously or otherwise, into what is now possibly the most physically divergent mammalian species on earth.
There is nothing quite like the relationship between man and dog. Chimpanzees, though smarter by most measure’s, have been proven to lag behind dogs in their ability to read hand signals and body language ( anybody got that study ) Horse people make claims that border on the absurd regarding their potential telekinesis, but by any measurable means there is no comparing with what humans and dogs can get done.
Given mankind’s largely tooth and nail existence for the vast majority of evolutionary time, I think it’s safe to say even semi-domesticated dogs were expected to pull their weight. The predominate factor in the shaping of all breeds, all over the world, for all but the most recent strobe light blink of modern history was work. They were expected to contribute in some tangible way to get fed. Over time that basic relationship, and the dogs that were a part of it, became specialized to a wide variety of tasks as a result of the selective breeding of man, and the selection pressures of the various environments he inhabited.
Which is not to say that there was not more to the relationship between man and dog than this pragmatic matter of survival. I fully expect that whatever instincts move us to love and make pets of the canine have always been there. I suspect that the most ”primitive” men developed bonds with their dogs that were not much different than those who work their dogs today; and I expect that the bonds transcended those pragmatic ends. Dogs, I suspect, have always found their way into the family unit to one degree or another.
Maybe ancient man evaluated the temperaments of a litter of pups much as we do. Perhaps they called them spirits; however that was said in a hundred different tongues. Perhaps they made jokes about missing the cave-wife after she exclaimed
“ There is not room enough for me and that damn wolf dog in this cave “
Some things have probably always been the same.
But as the industrial age arrived and spread from one country and continent to the next, the need for working dogs has likewise declined, and will continue to do so. Just as economic wealth and birth control has made it easier than ever for “advanced” nations to provide for their relatively few new humans. As a result pet’s, it seems to me, are increasingly called upon to satisfy the nurturing and rearing instincts previously occupied by an abundance of hungry children and grandchildren.
It’s no accident that dogs are clubbed to death in the streets of China, and eaten in much of Asia to this day. It’s no coincidence that dogs are generally disregarded in most parts of the world where humans still struggle to feed their own. The absurdity of notions such as “animal rights” is a by-product of the unnaturally barren state of industrialized nations and the relative ease with which they sustain themselves.
Dogs, purely as pets, is a relatively new idea. And make no mistake about it, the vast majority of all dogs in industrialized nations, if not the world as a whole, are pets. And the vast majority of pet owners are not vary discerning or knowledgeable about dogs. The pathetic pandora’s box of pure bred dogs today is more than anything a proof positive and a reflection of that reality.
