Original TMs

From the old text - The Mastiff Type [quote=Mr. Bennet]... the Thibet mastiff is bred on the Himalaya mountains, on the borders of Thibet, for the purpose of guarding the flocks and the women who attend them. They are the watch dogs of the plateau, and guard the women and homesteads while the Bhotans are away on their trading excursions. Mr. Bennet stated that these dogs are the defenders of almost every considerable mansion in Thibet and that he had to pass by a row of wooden cages containing a number of them, when on an embassy to the court of Tesloo Llama in Thibet, and that they were so savage that it was unsafe to approach them.Some years ago I met with a gentlemen who had seen many of these dogs brought down to Calcutta for sale by the Bhotans, and he said that they resembled Newfoundlands far more than English mastiffs, and that the heads of all the specimens that he saw were pointed and wolfish. In colour they were generally of a dusky black, with light tan paws, that some were a kind of dun approaching to fawn, and that they stood not above 27 or 28 inches at shoulder, and in his opinion, had little claim to be considered mastiffs.[/quote] Any thoughts on this quote from over a hundred years ago?

Good points TMMum. I see that all working breeds will soon become useless as workers and relegated to house pets. Sad times for the canine specie.

[quote=TMmum]Times have changed, attitudes and family status have changed when it comes to dogs of all breeds. Jobs for which breeds were bred 100+ years ago are no longer in need. Many MANY breeds are taking up the job of housedog/ companion as apposed to guardian/hunting/retrieving/ ect... While to see a dog doing what it was bred to do initially is great to see, honestly a dog so fierce that no one could approach it safely is in no way desirable in todays day in age. Thats just my feelings on it.[/quote]That's all fine and understandable. My only question would be, WHY get a TM then? I mean, why not go for a Golden Retriever or a Newfie perhaps? I hear Bernese Mountaindogs are big, fluffy and nice companions. Why did you choose a TM? Just curious. :) Gary, the quoted passage of Mr. Bennet reminds me of this dog... resembling more the type of today's Sar rather than today's TM...;)

[quote=TMmum]I have no idea as to why I have to answer my reasoning for getting a TM based on what I said.[/quote]Why so defensive?! I just asked politely and even included a smiley. :) [quote=TMmum] Should breeds be encouraged to be aggressive if they were bred to be eons ago?[/quote]OK, but should breeds be encouraged to therefore undergo a severe transformation to end up in the same ranks with all the other pets and basically expose the same boring disposition? See, when the steam engine proved obsolete as a vehicle, we simply "let it go". Maybe that would be wiser than transforming a breed into something it's not. Just a thought. Generally speaking (and this is not meant towards you specifically but all pet owners), I believe it's actually very hypocritical of today's pet owners; they LOVE to show off with what their breed was once bred to do, but at the same time they despise that very behavior in their dogs and want something completely different. I mean, if a breed is changed to satisfy the palate of today's society, then at least have the decency to NOT show off and omit the heroic history of these dogs altogether (in books etc). ... Or leave em as they were... 8) Dan

I disagree with your disagreement but agree that you have the right to disagree with my disagreement of your agreement :lol:

The dogs mentioned in the original quote maybe "Bhotiyas" which are a regional variation of the breed, they take their name from the Bhotiya community who are nomadic traders and shepherds who traditionally traded with Tibet( Till the borders were sealed after the wars in the early sixties). There is a brief description of the variations/breeds influenced by the TM on this page: http://www.sarastibetanmastiffs.com/breed.shtml#breed Regards, Yaj.

Yaj, Thanks. This is a nice text about the TM's and other breeds of the region, but I find it very hard to believe that the various "sub-breeds", which were kept to guard sheep and cattle, supposedly [u]descended[/u] from dogs that were mainly kept to guard households. Anthropologically, the proposed direction of influence doesn't make any sense. To me, it sounds just a little too "TM biased", being the "mother of all" those LGD's etc. But maybe someone more knowledgeable on Asian breeds could shed some additional light on it? :) Dan

[quote="Astibus"]Yaj, Thanks. This is a nice text about the TM's and other breeds of the region, but I find it very hard to believe that the various "sub-breeds", which were kept to guard sheep and cattle, supposedly [u]descended[/u] from dogs that were mainly kept to guard households. Anthropologically, the proposed direction of influence doesn't make any sense. To me, it sounds just a little too "TM biased", being the "mother of all" those LGD's etc. But maybe someone more knowledgeable on Asian breeds could shed some additional light on it? :) Dan[/quote] Well Dan I wont go into who descended from whom but they definitely seem to be related. I dont know why you find it so hard to believe. These dogs exist in the same geographical region with an exchange of men, animals and goods for centuries, probably millenia. As for function: the terms Mastiff, LGD etc are all western concepts.The dogs here are expected to do more than one job. I have traveled the region where they are found and I have seen Bhotiyas with the nomads doing their job guarding the livestock as well as Bhotiyas in households doing guard dog duty.The Bhotiyas can range from dogs who cannot be distinguished from TMs(Huge heavy, Mastiffy dogs) to much lighter leggier,narrow muzzled specimens. Even the sighthounds in India function as property guardians when they are not being used for the hunt.Indeed some lines of the Pashmi in the Marathwada region seem to be more guard dog than sighthound, huge heavy boned and strong muzzled dogs that can measure upto 33" :) Regards, Yaj.

[quote="yajnesh"][quote="Astibus"]I find it very hard to believe that the various "sub-breeds", which were kept to guard sheep and cattle, supposedly [u]descended[/u] from dogs that were mainly kept to guard households. Anthropologically, the proposed direction of influence doesn't make any sense. To me, it sounds just a little too "TM biased", being the "mother of all" those LGD's etc. [/quote] Well Dan I wont go into who descended from whom but they definitely seem to be related. I dont know why you find it so hard to believe. These dogs exist in the same geographical region with an exchange of men, animals and goods for centuries, probably millenia.[/quote] Yaj, maybe you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I do not have a hard time believing that the breeds of the region seem more or less interrelated. All I said was that considering the historic development of mankind itself, the first domesticated dogs were likely employed to work with livestock (or hunt) rather than to just guard the homestead. Declaring the TM as the source of all the aforementioned sub-breeds, rather than the product of these indigenous working dogs, seems very counterintuitive. That's all. :) Dan

[quote=Astibus] Yaj, maybe you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I do not have a hard time believing that the breeds of the region seem more or less interrelated. All I said was that considering the historic development of mankind itself, the first domesticated dogs were likely employed to work with livestock (or hunt) rather than to just guard the homestead. Declaring the TM as the source of all the aforementioned sub-breeds, rather than the product of these indigenous working dogs, seems very counterintuitive. That's all. :) Dan[/quote] Dan, That is why I said that I will not comment on who originated from whom since that is very difficult to determine hundreds of years later. Having said that I think guarding the owner and his property is a more basic and instinctive behaviour than guarding livestock which is more specialised. We were hunter gatherers before we started rearing livestock and the earliest dogs were probably used for companionship,food source (in times of scarcity),guarding(early warning system), and later as a livestock guardian. There are still primitive communities living as hunter gatherers which do not rear livestock but use pariah dogs for hunting and guarding. I can understand your dislike for the "TM is the father of all molosser breeds" theory. I hate assumptions without proof too. We are facing the same problem in sighthounds with the"Saluki is the mother goddess of all sighthounds" too. Regards, Yaj.

[quote=bushlover]I disagree with your disagreement but agree that you have the right to disagree with my disagreement of your agreement :lol:[/quote] Sentence of the day! Excellent.. :lol:

[quote1255943891=admin] [quote=Astibus"][quote="TMmum]Times have changed, attitudes and family status have changed when it comes to dogs of all breeds. Jobs for which breeds were bred 100+ years ago are no longer in need. Many MANY breeds are taking up the job of housedog/ companion as apposed to guardian/hunting/retrieving/ ect... While to see a dog doing what it was bred to do initially is great to see, honestly a dog so fierce that no one could approach it safely is in no way desirable in todays day in age. Thats just my feelings on it.[/quote]That's all fine and understandable. My only question would be, WHY get a TM then? I mean, why not go for a Golden Retriever or a Newfie perhaps? I hear Bernese Mountaindogs are big, fluffy and nice companions. Why did you choose a TM? Just curious. :) Gary, the quoted passage of Mr. Bennet reminds me of this dog... resembling more the type of today's Sar rather than today's TM...;) [/quote] I have no idea as to why I have to answer my reasoning for getting a TM based on what I said. The OP asked "Whats your take" and seeing as though no one seemed to have a take on it, I figured I would add mine. I will however. I do not really like Goldens, too easy going for my taste and well everyone and their grandma has one it seems. Same with GSD just too common, my heart is always going to be with Rottweilers, however with their popularity as byb cash cows. I figured I would be doing the breed a better service to continue with rescue efforts with them. I didn't want a Newfie as again, they are just a little to easy for my liking. For some reason BMD's had never crossed my mind. After doing some research on the TM and understanding their "attitudes" and commitment required for training, being that they are independant thinkers, and relatively un heard of. I saw a challenge. I would prefer a breed that needs a strong guiding hand as apposed to your every day CD Ch's. Also I really liked the idea of being in the show ring with this breed in particular, smaller community of conformation showing TM's would make for less of a political show venture than my previous one with Boxers. I could go on and on for my reasoning, but I'll stop there. [blockquote]nahhh thats not even close...expand your mind and think...theres a bigger and more diversed world out there than your specific community or because you don't partake in the below activities...doesn't mean there isn't alot of folks out there doing them and using various breeds for thier intended functions... [/blockquote] Take a good look around, especially in North America. The numbers are not there for each job that dogs should be doing especially in North America, honestly now, do you really believe the same number or ratio of people are using their beloved family pets as they were bred? [blockquote]duck/goose huntin isn't going away = retrievers are doing what they've been bred to do... pheasant/quail hunting isn't going away = pointers/flushers hoghunting isn't going away = bulldogs used for holding and curdogs finding and baying... ranches/farms aren't going away = herders, lgd's and cowdogs doing thier thing as intended... protection and security needs with use of canines isn't going away due to crime = many breeds doing as intended and trained to do... plenty of opportunity for vermin control = terriers/earth dogs doing thier intended jobs... sighthounds/lurchers are still used for coursing and from hunting to sar = various hounds used for tracking the only one i can quickly think of is "deer hounds"...don't know where that is legal any more...but various breeds that were used for deer are inturn used in hoghuntin or crosses for such...[/blockquote] again the ratio of fanciers of specific breeds to workers of specific breeds have changed dramatically. In a suburban or city setting where would these breeds do this? However, my "take" on it may just "be an excuse" but the demographics of 100 years ago vs today are different In MANY ways. Does this mean I agree with the way working breeds are ending up? NO, I said in my first reply that I loved seeing dogs doing what they were bred to do. However a TM as described above would just be too much of a liability in this day in age. I mean look what has happened to the "bullies" especially here in Ontario. Should breeds be encouraged to be aggressive if they were bred to be eons ago? And also end up on the BSL lists? [/quote1255943891] Please allow me here a comment. IT is really strange for someone to get a dog for ...harder handling and asking for softer temperament. I mean why to make you life more difficult if you are NOT suppose to use the benefit of the specific breed? fierce temperament. Also i think we should not generalize like is not desirable a dog with fierce temperament in our days? Who says so and why, for istance is very desirable by me, as long as FIERCE CRIMINALS exists, actually crime rate is higher than ever IN OUR MODERN DAYS, specially in urban areas. So, my opinion is to care more for the softening of criminals (even by using fierce dogs which are far away more safe for neigboor's kid than his gun is for our kid, which he choosed for his defence, check statistics worlwide daily deaths because of gun accidents vs guard dogs, comparison is lethal by definition), than the softening of guard dog breeds. Finally my opinion also is that breeders will be entitled to srive for the softening of a guard dog breed when criminals becomes softer, till then its their obligation to stive to breed for sharper, harder and more fierce temperament, compared to the past, as exactly the modern crime is. Even if the crime start to be softer and limited, guard dog breeds should continue to be bred for the hardest and true temperament, to my opinion, as a recognition and appreciation to the breed 's instinct and character, for so munch offered to the humanity against criminality. I totaly agree with Astibus, those people they don't like big guard dogs should pick st. Bernards, Newfoundlands etc, but they damage the breed if they contribute any how to the softening of the temperament. Thousands of dedicated generations both humans and dogs struggled up to establish this trait/instict ito THEIR breed. NONE has the right to degenerate this out. Just my opinion Regards