Talk:Chesapeake Bay Retriever/Archive 1

Archive 1

Questioning Statements

I would question some of Jimwilliams57's statements:

1. "The male Chesapeake is natually dominant and, while he usually won't start a fight over dominance, he will fiercely defend his position as the alpha dog."

In my experience both males and females will try to dominate other dogs (both other Chessies and other breeds). It may be better to restate the above line in more gender-neutral terms. Not sure 'fiercely' is a good term either because of the generalization it makes - the intensity depends on the individual dog.

2. "It is not a good idea to own more than one male. Although, it is not a problem to have multiple female Chesapeakes."

As an owner of two female Chesapeakes, I would say to the contrary that it isn't a good idea to own more than one female. In the end it comes down to the dominance issue covered above; based on this and personal experience contrary to the original statement I think this line should be removed.

3. "The male Chesapeake recognizes only one human master"

Again this is too gender-specific. My experience is that both genders tend to be either single-person or single-family dogs. Breed literature tends to support this as well.

4. "In fact, he would fiercely defend small children against any attacker."

Again, I don't think 'fiercely' is a good term - the intensity depends on the dog. And it may not be the child the dog defends - my oldest dog defends my wife but not my young son.

5. "Training is a necessity with this breed, especially for a male."

Again, the gender-specificness should probably be removed.

--Jmueller71 18:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

When I originally added to this article, I was hoping that someone would find my mistakes and fix them. I'm not a breeder and thus far from an expert. Thanks for your comments. I modified the article per your suggestions. Please review the changes and let me know if further mods are needed. Jimwilliams57 01:44, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

"scolding" the dog.

"A Chesapeake's greatest joy is pleasing its master. While giving treats as a reward for good behaviour works well much of the time, the dog also responds very well to scolding from its master in response to bad behaviour.

When a Chesapeake does something that is strictly forbidden, it will usually tell on itself and willingly accept the consequences. However, in such circumstances, a stern scolding followed by forgiveness goes a long way in gaining the animal's trust."

Does anyone else agree that these paragraphs may need a slight change? To me, they both approve of and encourage physical punishment to a dog fo even the slightest misbehavior. In my experience with training dogs, physical punishment causes more problems than it solves. there are plenty of reasonable alternatives.

Tekana 23:09, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Nowhere in my comments did I mention any form of physical punishment. In my mind, "scolding" refers to using a stern voice and saying "bad dog!" If you believe it should be changed, then I suggest you change it.

- Jimwilliams57 02:00, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Please dont take that offensively! Where i am to "scold" something means to hit it! Perhaps it should be changed to somehing more internationally understandable! Tekana 12:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I just have to plunge in here about this term. Since I've never heard of "scold" being used for any meaning other than for verbal chastising, I went to the dictionary, where I sometimes learn something different. Not in this case; scold indeed means verbal chastising; synonyms listed include upbraid, berate, rail, revile, and vituperate, all of which are verbal. So I have to ask--where are you from?? Elf | Talk 22:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

With this breed of dog, sometimes physical reinforcement is necessary. They can be stubborn; couple this with their natural tendency to try and domainate dogs and people alike (moreso than many other breeds) and you could have a real problem on your hands if you do not make it clear who the boss is. This does not mean a beating for the slightest infraction. It means that for repeated offenses a swat on the behind or, for serious issues, a scruff shake (much as an unruly pup's mother would do) can be in order. They are physically very tough dogs - these means of physical discipline will only bruise their egos. Of course, the physical discipline issue can be hotly debated by both sides, but personal experience and discussions with various Chesapeake breeders suggests that judicious use of physical correction with the breed is sometimes warranted. (And of course, when they're good dogs they get praise!)

Jmueller71 17:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Scold definatally means punish verbally, but a bit of a shake or a swat with a magazine is ok aslong as you dont beat, kick or us wepons on it its ok!

Cleanup Tags

I placed tags on two of the sections that appear to suffer from anthropomorphism. Statements such as "During training, if a Chesapeake is asked to perform something that he believes is against the rules, he will flatly refuse." and "A Chesapeake's greatest joy is pleasing its master." are completely unverifiable unless it is a chessie himself doing the editing. There is a bit of fawning cutseyness that is not compatable with the scientific detachment that is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. I agree that some mention of hard-headedness is appropriate for this breed, but making the dogs out to be lawyers cannot be accurate.--Counsel 17:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions: Style and Health

In its current state, I see two main problems with this article:

• Style: It lacks the formal style expected from an encyclopedia article.
• Health: There is no information concerning genetic disease in the breed. It is highly improbable that no such diseases are important in the breed; thus, information on them would be very important as part of such an encyclopedia article.

--84.74.131.25 23:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Added a health section including literature references. The rest of the article still has stylistic flaws though. --130.92.9.55 12:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, that was fast - thanks! --84.74.138.100 19:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Photos

Is this:

better than this:

or is there room for them both, or what? 138.37.199.206 13:06, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mention in BBC article

I'm not sure where (or if) this could go in the article, but there's a passing mention on this BBC News page that this breed is one of only two recommended by the UK Kennel Club as being suitable with children. (The other is the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, which most of the page is about.) 86.136.255.69 (talk) 14:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Do not use "CHESSIE"

"Chessie" is a common nickname for the breed. Apart from noting this fact in the article, there is no way one can refer to a breed by its (diminutive) nickname when using encyclopedic style. Therefore, please refrain from calling the breed a "Chessie" in this article - it simply does not fit the formal quality of writing that one expects from an encyclopedia article. --128.95.61.22 (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

citing sources

I noticed that someone took an exact quote from the AKC website without sourcing it. Please refrain from being lazy and complete the work.

Ironic. Please refrain from being lazy and add your signature! Jmueller71 02:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

That's not really ironic - he was taking the time to correct blatant plagiarism. That's hardly lazy. Also, plagiarism is fraudulent whereas not signing your name is just a personal choice. By the way, I'm not signing mine either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.7.229.237 (talk) 13:43, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

History

What is the meaning of the statement "While there is no record the dogs Sailor and Canton ever breeding" in the paragraph in the History following the quote from Mercer, when the quotation from Law mentions Sailor's "progeny" known as the Sailor breed? Does it mean there is no record they ever bred with each other? Or that there is no pedigree specifically traced to them? Hieronymus Illinensis (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As a long-time breeder, I recognize this is standard phrasing meaning the two dogs never produced a litter together. Is this something we feel should be explained in the article? Sexy plant lover (talk) 06:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)