Rex

My GSD is "extremely" effective in a non protection trained dog and useful in a threatening situation as he is instictively a stranger aggressive dog. However, I would be less confident in non aggressive friendly dog's reaction in the same circumstances.

By the way she already owns a GSD, how many more 'protection breeds' does she need? The point is if you are going to rely on the fact the dog is an X breed alone to protect you then you are simply deluding yourself. This is the bit I don't understand with the expectation that another breed could be more effective than a GSD for what the OP requires in a dog. From a visual deterrent perspective, a GSD given it's reputation in protection especially in handler deployed attack training is to a large extent the top of the tree. Perhaps a Rottweiler or Doberman may provide a similar visual effect to deter a potential attacker in a well known guardian breed. Understanding that the OP's GSD failed her at a time of need, wouldn't it fair to say that her individual dog failed her, not the breed??? Perhaps the GSD she has trained accordingly could result in what she needs???.

Don't they hate bodyless heads poking over the fence, it's true that most dogs will go ape!!!. These type of incidents like in my mothers case is what I believe some determine as their dog "stepping up to the plate" in protection.

I have some experience with dogs who are bred for this line of work. They need training, lots of it. All of them need to be trained to be completely sociable and civil (if that is possible), and then to either never bite (proofed) or to bite when cued (also proofed). Anything less is a liability. It would be a terrible mistake to purchase a dog from working lines then just hope that one day it will do it's job, for it probably will - whether you want it to or not. If we are talking about dogs not from working lines, then I'm wasting my time. The probabilities are reduced further, as the OP has already found out the hard way. At last a realistic post that tells it how it is, well done I have a hard line GSD who's lines have been successfully used in security/police work and in fact from breeders who actually advertise their litters capable of this work, not the usual "unsuitable for guard/security purposes" common in many GSD sales advertisements. These lines are "NOT" lovely sociable friendly animals as many who knew a police dog etc etc try to maintain, they are high drive instinctively nasty disposition dogs who want to bite everyone and the training required to make them sociable and civil is extensive and on going and an "absolute" liability untrained and in the wrong hands as they "WILL" chase and bite no question.

Are you comfortable that your dog will always make the right split second decision? It's not just my dog, poodlefan, it's potentially many, many dogs who are currently co-existing in suitable dynamic with their owners who have not yet had the question asked of them. I'm MORE than comfortable, poodlefan, I'm ALIVE. And what are you suggesting I should do with my dog because he did this? One of the most tragic stories I ever heard was told to me by the owner themselves. One day they were carjacked at knifepoint by a known criminal with serious prior offences. The usually friendly and stable family dog reacted by jumping from the back seat and taking the criminal down, then holding it until the police arrived. On the strength of the kind of crap you're dispensing the owner chose to put the dog down for fear it would attack the family. Is that what I should do with my dog? Whoa there Nelly... quantum leap of logic there!! How on earth did we get from me asking if you were confident a dog would always (emphasis there) make the right decision about threats to you deciding I advocated that any dog that did protect its owner should be put down??? What I'm saying is this. People who confidently assert that their untested dog will instinctively know when a person means harm (and as importantly when they don't) and will take the leadership role to engage are asking more of their pets than a the handler of a trained security/protection dog does. I hope people think about that. I said that whether a pet would protect you was a matter of luck not certainty. How you conclude from that I think a dog that protects its owner should be PTS escapes me. I agree with that statement Poodlefan. I beleive it's a huge call in the confidence of an untested and untrained dog that it instinctively will determine a threatening situation and act accordingly to protect.

I am yet to see a Maremma however in pictures they resemble a Golden Retriever in appearance. Are they larger than a GR or in the flesh look nothing like them???.

Not in all types of protection work. My GSD for example as suggested to me by a police K9 trainer has the right disposition for a security officers patrol dog perhaps school security, shopping centres, factories at night, places where people shouldn't be other than for the wrong reasons. A dog high in prey drive and alert to movement with social aggression where they fire straight out of the blocks without cue provides a safer environment for the security officer in that work. Someone hiding around a corner waiting to plonk the security officer with a dog that accepts strangers and works on que only, may be too late to remove the threat, dog too slow to react and protect.

So a dog that is never allowed to exercise leadership over a person is expected to take the lead in defensive situation? Dogs that have been socialised from puppyhood never to put teeth on a human are expected to "naturally" take a person on? Unlike past times, we generally socialise our dogs to greet strangers positively, not tear strips off them. We've had plenty of discussion on alpha wolf theory on this forum. Most of those discussions note that the original research that developed the theory was conducted on captive wolves and was fundamentally flawed. None of that theory has ever been tested in an inter species context. Dogs know we ain't dogs. If they do protect us, are we a resource to them? Professional protection dog trainers have said time and again on this forum that people are deluding themselves if they genuinely expect an untrained dog, even of a guarding/protection breed, to step up when required. Those views have been poo pooed by many owners. I'd say this thread proves the pros right. You may get lucky.. but then again.. why put your safety down to luck? :D My mother tells a story which happened about 10 years ago where a spate of break in's were occurring in the area where she lived. One day she heard the door bell ring whilst in the backyard with her trusty old Golden Retriever and just as she was about to walk inside to answer the door a rough looking teenage kid poked his head over the side fence. Her old Goldie saw the kid, rushed at the fence barking furiously and the kid pulled his head back over. My mother asked the kid what he wanted and asked if John lived there???. Mum swears on a stack of bibles that old Sammy was about to tear the kid's head off in full protection mode, he did the job, too big a dog with a big bark for the kid to be brave enough to case her house again, but ultimately old Sammy I know for a fact would have done "nothing" if the kid had jumped the fence and would have hid behind mum for protection in the crunch or run away. The result was good, mum felt safe and the kid was wary of the dog never to return. The moral of this story is an incident where as my mother does, believed her dog had stepped up to the plate to protect at all costs which many do. This type of occurrence although removed the threat does not indicate that the dog was fired to fight for life and death.

I wouldn't call that a cleaver practice to believe that you can dominate every cranky dog and remain uninjured. Try out a police K9 GSD next time you see the squad. Ask the officer if you can give his dog a yell and run to see if it backs down. Most dog handlers would be glad to oblige and let us know what happens.

Furthermore to protection dogs, are they "really" protecting something or someone, or are they being deployed to react in a certian way to a particular situation as a defence mechanism or tool of the trade. I don't believe that my GSD is protecting me personally, I believe he is more dominating strangers but the result of that is a big set of bared teeth and big bark between me and a possible threat which makes the threat retreat. Either way it achieves the same effect.

Your GSD Brooke sounds like the temperament that we were hoping for lol!!!. Our's is completely different where he will reliably fire up at any strangers people and dogs unless we command him not to which has been the focus of his training to date. With this thread in mind, I tested him today on our walk and watched his reactions. Walking along at ease when spotting a stranger he is alert to them and watches intently, neck stretched, tail out straight. On a "leave it" command, he looks at me and the tail drops, keeps looking at the stranger but doesn't react. Without a "leave it" command, he will gather speed to the end of the leash when the stranger is about 10 meters in front of us approaching and bark furiously pulling on the leash up on his back legs bearing his teeth. An "out" command now trained, he drops back into a heel position and behaves. In a "leave it sit command", he will sit quietly where a stranger can approach and talk. If I command "up", he will fire up bark and lunge at them. His instinct is to "get em", his training is to behave. He won't fire up on command or bark on command, he behaves on command. A great natural defender, but a handful of dog to control.

What is the purpose of testing breeds that are essentially not used in protection work. Wouldn't the testing of these breeds have been done before, evaluated as unsuitable and be the reason they are not used???. Because, as Jeff said, numerous breeds like Labs/Blue heelers/kelpies have been mentioned in this thread as capable of acting in protection of their owner. So, he wants to find one of these breeds to assess to see if that really is the case. Jeff should already know given his experience what breeds work and what don't. I am thinking out loud here, but we don't need silly results from this test for example testing a weak nerved Rottweiler against a feisty Cattle Dog then claiming a Cattle Dog to be a better protector when we all know in reality that a hard line Rotty would eat the most feirce of Cattle Dogs for breakfast?? Same applies with some small breeds, totally driven by aggression massive protection instinct except that a 6 year old kid could nail one with a pair of Adidas runners. Hardly a useful protection dog but has the correct drives???

Brooke just out of interest, how does your GSD act in the presence of strangers generally, does he fire up at them, allow strangers to pat him, is he generally cranky with stangers or friendly. Off lead if a stanger appeared in a park, would he chase them and bail them up barking given the opportunity and does he fire up at strange dogs???.

What is the purpose of testing breeds that are essentially not used in protection work. Wouldn't the testing of these breeds have been done before, evaluated as unsuitable and be the reason they are not used???.

This is what I'm questioning, Huski. If my dog and other dogs (Jed's dogs for example) can do it with no problems, so can other dogs. What Huski is saying is absolutely correct from my experiences. My GSD could only interpret that "strangers" were a threat be it a knife weilding bandit or a 4 year old child, no difference, he wanted to "get em" regardless which was the problem. Training is the "only" way I believe that a dog can interpret situations. A generally friendly dog that barks and perhaps snaps at situation dangerous to it's owner pushed harder untrained will flee not fight at the crunch. I know my GSD will fight a stranger and protect untrained, but I wouldn't guarantee he would protect me for real if a mutual friend of mine and the dog's ended up in a scrap together as his instincts to protect are focused upon strangers.