u/bdworkingdogs

If you were in a breed where participation in events was very small, to the point where entries were often only 2–3 dogs (sometimes the same exhibitors and dogs competing weekend after weekend across multiple registries), how would you approach evaluating titles?

For example, in conformation, even a dog with an obvious structural fault might still finish championship because of limited competition—not because the judge is bad, but simply because there aren't many dogs entered. The same idea could apply to other venues where participation is very small.

In that situation, would titles still carry the same weight for you when choosing a puppy or breeding prospect? Or would you rely more heavily on evaluating the individual dog, its pedigree, and what the line consistently produces, whether titled or not?

I'm not asking because I think titles are meaningless. I'm genuinely curious how experienced breeders adjust the amount of weight they give a title when participation is very limited.

I'm curious whether this is something I've just noticed more within my breed, or if breeders in other breeds also look this deeply into behavior genetics. This isn't meant as a jab at any breed—I genuinely want to hear different perspectives.

For the sake of this discussion, I'm talking about dogs that have had a relatively normal upbringing—no significant abuse, neglect, major trauma, or life-altering events that would obviously influence behavior. I'm more interested in the genetic component of temperament than behaviors that are clearly the result of environment.

The more dogs I've bred, evaluated, and followed throughout their lives, the harder it has become for me to believe temperament is simply "best dog × best dog = best puppies."

I've become convinced that behavior is highly polygenic and that dogs can genetically mask strengths and weaknesses depending on the pairing. Two stable dogs can produce an unstable puppy. A dog with a few minor quirks can produce remarkably solid offspring when paired correctly. Conversely, two individually decent dogs can produce offspring that express the same underlying weakness much more strongly.

Over the years I've also started paying much more attention to the little behavioral quirks. They may seem insignificant in the individual dog, but when two dogs with similar tendencies—or similar family backgrounds—are paired together, those quirks sometimes seem amplified in the offspring.

For example, a dog may only have a subtle issue with frustration, such as taking longer to settle after excitement, but otherwise lives its life as a seemingly stable, functional dog. Pair that dog with another carrying similar tendencies—either individually or within its pedigree—and some offspring seem to express those traits much more severely, becoming destructive or struggling to "regulate" their frustration.

For those of you who have bred, trained, or evaluated dogs for many years, have you seen similar patterns? Do you think behavior genetics, genetic masking, and polygenic inheritance play a larger role than many breeders acknowledge? Do you think training, socialization, and conditioning can sometimes mask genetic behavioral weaknesses? Or do you think people sometimes overinterpret what they're seeing?

EDIT: Okay, I realized I didn't word my question very well. 😅 I'm not asking whether behavior is genetic or polygenic. I'm asking whether there are breeders who evaluate even subtle behavioral quirks that deeply when planning pairings because they may represent mildly expressed polygenic traits. Do you look at small behavior "quirks" as genetically meaningful when selecting pairings?