# Anyone try a Tibetan Mastiff?



## TedH71 (Jan 19, 2003)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tibetan_Mastiff


----------



## jordan (Nov 29, 2006)

I seriously looked into them about 10 years ago, but after a year of research, started hearing stories of instability. I've met 8 in person and each showed a difficult temperament. All were from different kennels. Though impressive in looks, I saw nothing in those dogs I met that made me regret not getting one. 
Our Kennel Club has a huge informational event every year and the TM is no longer represented simply because of temperament and safety issues.
For some reason, they always make me think of the Fila in temperament...
Lois


----------



## Waiting Falcon (Nov 25, 2010)

My friend had one and would swear by him. He was a fabulous dog but they are not for everybody. They have a strong personality. You can not be passive, you must have a dominate attitude. They must be trained.
She got him after he frightened his original family. They treated him as a play toy.
My friend took him and taught him who was boss. He would do anything for her .He guarded their farm of sheep, goats, horses, and chickens as well as their family. he died this year at 8 of a tumor on his back.


----------



## PNP Katahdins (Oct 28, 2008)

Another great breed ruined by the show people!

Peg


----------



## jordan (Nov 29, 2006)

PNP Katahdins said:


> Another great breed ruined by the show people!
> Peg


How so Peg? This breed was just recently accepted by the AKC. Most of the dogs I met were prior to their acceptance. 
Throughout it's history, the TM has been known to have an extremely strong and aggressive temperament. Some of the breeders I spoke with years back had imported their dogs directly from Tibet and were not able to handle them themselves and yet had no qualms about selling the offspring to inexperienced buyers. At the time, it had nothing to do with showing or the AKC.
Sorry, but I get so tired of people blaming showing or the AKC for poor breeding practices or the ruination of various breeds. It wasn't the AKC or showing that ruined breeds such as the lab, it was the backyard breeders who figured that because they spent the money on a couple of 'purebred' dogs, they could breed them regardless of poor health, poor structure and lousy temperament.
BTW, I don't show dogs and I am not a member of the AKC (nor is my breed recognized by them).
Lois


----------



## Pops2 (Jan 27, 2003)

jordan said:


> Sorry, but I get so tired of people blaming showing or the AKC for poor breeding practices or the ruination of various breeds. It wasn't the AKC or showing that ruined breeds such as the lab, it was the backyard breeders who figured that because they spent the money on a couple of 'purebred' dogs, they could breed them regardless of poor health, poor structure and lousy temperament.
> BTW, I don't show dogs and I am not a member of the AKC (nor is my breed recognized by them).
> Lois


but it was the show community that produced the hyena backed hip dysplastic health train wreck of a german sheperd while the working community retained the square bodied functional form. this is equally true of several working breeds for example although not a huge difference, show bred hounds (scent & sight) do have higher incidence of HD, ED and other genetically passed defects that completely prevent the dogs from performing the task they were created for. HD for example occurs in about 3% of showbred sighthounds, but only occurs in .0001% of stags & coldblood greys used by wolfers to catch coyotes. so for people who are focused on working ability & health then yes showing ruins the breeds. a big part of the problem is the number of show people that genuinely believe conformation breeding ONLY ensure's working ability.


----------



## Goatress (Feb 4, 2011)

Pops2 said:


> but it was the show community that produced the hyena backed hip dysplastic health train wreck of a german sheperd while the working community retained the square bodied functional form. this is equally true of several working breeds for example although not a huge difference, show bred hounds (scent & sight) do have higher incidence of HD, ED and other genetically passed defects that completely prevent the dogs from performing the task they were created for. HD for example occurs in about 3% of showbred sighthounds, but only occurs in .0001% of stags & coldblood greys used by wolfers to catch coyotes. so for people who are focused on working ability & health then yes showing ruins the breeds. a big part of the problem is the number of show people that genuinely believe conformation breeding ONLY ensure's working ability.


Pops2 I agree. Same could be said for many other breeds. And these are the products of big time professional 'show breeders', not hobby breeders. 

You can have the best show conformation in the world and it won't mean jack to me, if the dog can't do what it was originally bred to do. 

But back on topic with TM's, I personally would never say of any breed they all aren't any good, every breed has good and bad in it. There are some good Tibetan Mastiffs out there, but they are definitely not the breed for the faint of heart, much like a Kangal, they can be a handful and I think it takes a special or particular kind of person to own one. Never appealed to me (don't care for their looks at all) but I have read where there are some successfully being used as LGD's for stock with no human or livestock aggression issues. I figure, to each his own....


----------

