There has been a lot of  lively discussion over the last few months about the conformation and health of dogs but little has been said about the need to breed and nurture good temperament in any dog, whether pedigree or not.

I am one of the first to harp on about dogs needing to have good temperaments and, of course, this is particularly true with a Guide Dog that invariably works in very busy urban areas with loud noises, unusual smells and even unusual people!!

But I would argue that there is no logical reason why this should not apply to all dogs that live with us in the twenty first century.  We live in times when litigation is rife plus a happy,       confident dog enjoys a much enhanced lifestyle.

All dog owners will have in their mind what they regard as a temperament they like and this, quite rightly, will invariably be ''good''

I have often been asked to actually attempt a definition of ''Good Temperament'' but I find putting my thoughts into words quite difficult as I plunge the depths of my mind (and they do not go too deep!!) I find it is quite difficult to       actually come up with a definition which can be understood, and most important, is accepted by the majority.

Certainly, in my opinion one of the worst      mistakes any breeder can make is to consistently produce ''nervy'' puppies: that is the types which remain frightened of their own shadows even if socialised thoroughly.

However, I do not believe the perfect dog has ever been bred.  Look hard enough and you will always find something wrong.

If a dog is bred genetically sound for temperament and then taken out and about during its  formative months then you will have every chance of owning a dog that will be friendly and sound in virtually all conditions.  Certainly, there is always something that will 'spook' a

dog but they should recover quickly and not go to pieces.  I am always wary when I see dogs that are continuously worried and their handler attributes this to some possible unfortunate    experience during its earlier life.  Perhaps, this is the case but I have seen many rescue dogs that have endured the most horrendous experiences be placed in new, caring homes and bounce back to acting as dogs should.  Is it because they are actually genetically sound for temperament and others simply are not?

So, the question remains.

What is good temperament?

I have asked lots of respected dog people and one reply did give me food for thought and could prompt a few debates… ''Your dog has good temperament if it does what you want it to do''

Basically, this suggests that if you have a        thoroughly aggressive dog and that is what you want then, as far as you are concerned, he has good temperament.  A simple example but this can not be right?

You might be happy with the dog and believe his temperament is good but in the eyes of     virtually everyone around you it has not!

However - and this is where it gets tricky- if his aggression is not based on nervousness and has been acquired through encouragement and   training and he does not bat an eyelid at loud noises, etc, then is he any better, or worse than a shrinking violet living next door?   

I know hasten to add that I am not advocating breeding or either extremes but simply raising the question.
In reality both types are a pain to live with, probably a danger to themselves and society and generally do not enjoy an acceptable lifestyle.

We have all known dogs used extensively at stud that are not averse to a punch up with other