Aggression And Natural Protection.

[BJean]

this one is better

www.takasvolkodav.com

(other one is old and no info I don't think! )

Aphra sent you PM for boo boo

[Erny]

Remember ... the only dangerous dog is one that makes up its own mind.

For those reading and commenting on the above, I wouldn't take it too literally, (although I do think I know what Nekhbet means by it). By that I mean it doesn't mean the dog shouldn't be able to think and make decisions. After all, "training" is about the dog making decisions but making it so that those decisions are the ones we want the dog to make.

IMO, earning the respect as a higher ranking animal within the pack is a combination of "dominance" (yep - the word so many looooove to hate) and "leadership". A very diluted explanation of what I mean by that is that the "dominant" component is about showing the dog what not to do and the "leadership" is the component which is about showing the dog what to do.

When I think of "Leader" I think of someone whom I can follow; someone who can show me the way; someone whom I can trust to not lead me into harm; someone who will protect me. Eg. My Mum and Dad.

When I think of "Dominance" I think of someone who would compete to have their will imposed. By that I don't conjure images of bullying; harshness; hostility; abuse; etc. etc.. More "Thine Will Be Done" springs to mind. Eg. My Dad (who has never in his life raised his voice or fist to me - the quieter he spoke the bigger the trouble I knew I was in) .

Training is part of "Dominance" and "Leadership". Hence training is part of the earning of respect as the higher ranking animal. But training isn't the whole of it. Daily interactions - the way we interact : responses/initiatives .... that's the foundation of it.

The result of "dominance" is submission, affection, and dependency, whereas "leadership" provides the basis for social cooperation and interactive harmony.

(Credits .... I think I read the above line somewhere and that they may not be my own words, but I can't think where I've read it. I do not intend any plagerism by writing it here.)

IMO and in essence.

Edited December 18, 2008 by Erny

[MAC]

My understanding is that the pack leader should be protecting the lower pack members, so if your dog is attempting to protect you then doesn't this mean that in his eyes, you are unable to protect him and he is assuming the role of pack leader?

this sentence grasped my attention only because when i started out with all this kind of training and dogs i wondered the same thing.. however one thing my mentor suggested was watch documentories of wolves in the wild and their pack how they act....

i know when i had 6 dogs running together and i can say they were pretty much the replica of this kind of documentory aka wolf mentality... so this is what my impression IS from this sentence.. the Alpha male and female as there is always a pair... but the bitch is the one thats the main one... in a pack.. she will protect her young.. she will allow the other members to play and teach the young.. she and the chosen alpha male will be the only ones to produce BUT when it comes to protection... the PACK protects their ALPHA aka their Queen. so NO i think when you have established your pecking order the dogs natural instinct is to protect you! they must.. their Alpha is the one that keeps the pack alive.. she's the producion so to speak.

i have recently got myself a dominant male Sarplaninac.. BUT he's learnt very quickly that IM ALPHA (80 kilos or not he will NOT challenge me OR try to)... and i can tell you this much he DID protect me today when ever he felt a threat.. IF i saw he was wasting time i would of pulled him up BUT he knew his job and did it well and he's had not one day of protection training.. so personally this is my opinion.

so i find this rather interesting you bring this up.. as i have wondered the same!

[Nekhbet]

By that I mean it doesn't mean the dog shouldn't be able to think and make decisions

Yes Erny you are right, I should have clarified. Yes I mean that a dog that doesnt turn to any leader figure it just takes it upon itself to do what it sees fit in the situation with no control from the owner.

eg - the typical SWF ball off terror that has its owner screaming 'no no no' and dog has decided 'nope bugger you I'm taking charge of this situation how I see fit'.

lack of predictability then pops up for the owner and you get 'oh he's never done that before' (even though you probably saw it building months ago but you see what I mean from the owners perspective)

[kyliegirl]

I didn't intend to include them as imo their guarding is more instinctual, where breeds like the GSD, Malinois, Rottie, Boxer, Dobes seem to have the relevant drives but they won't protect effectively without pretty serious training. I know many like to think their dogs (of the previously specified breeds) can protect effectively without training but I'm not really interested in that debate

More talking about people with pet dogs who THINK the dogs are naturally protecting them, but any discussion including that on LGDs is wanted!

I think its situational really. For example you could have a well socialized guarding breed dog, he will not make any moves if you have shown him you are the one in control and are the pack leader, however say if you get attacked by another person, your emotions would change, the dog would sense this and knowing his pack leader is in trouble takes it as his duty to protect his pack. While they may not have chosen the best way to protect you, it is still a means of protecting you so therefore it is still an effective example of natural protection.

Edited December 18, 2008 by kyliegirl

[MAC]

By that I mean it doesn't mean the dog shouldn't be able to think and make decisions

Yes Erny you are right, I should have clarified. Yes I mean that a dog that doesnt turn to any leader figure it just takes it upon itself to do what it sees fit in the situation with no control from the owner.

eg - the typical SWF ball off terror that has its owner screaming 'no no no' and dog has decided 'nope bugger you I'm taking charge of this situation how I see fit'.

lack of predictability then pops up for the owner and you get 'oh he's never done that before' (even though you probably saw it building months ago but you see what I mean from the owners perspective)

does this also apply to handler aggressive dogs?

[Bulldust]

I think it depends on the particular breed whether a dog is 'barking its head off' to protect itself, or doing so to protect us, our Maremma barks her head off at people and she is not protecting herself but 'her' property, and will only stop if i tell her too. She is used to the regulars who come past daily except for this one old guy who every time will yell at her to shut up she doesnt bite but she gets mad and will move about a centimetre from his butt and bark more The only thing a person can do to make her run for the hills is to produce a rifle, she knows what theyre all about

Great thread Midol, sorry i didnt have anything informative for you

[Lablover]

If you don't believe in the dominance theory then fine, but I'm not really interested in the views of those who don't in this particular thread.

[Just Midol]

If you don't believe in the dominance theory then fine, but I'm not really interested in the views of those who don't in this particular thread.

:D

What?

I've discussed training with people who don't believe in it but this particular thread requires you to believe in pack rank/dominance theories in order to contribute properly.

If you don't, then you obviously don't believe in leadership... Which is the main point of this thread.

A useful contribution would be nice, but I guess I can't expect that from everyone.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Lord Midol

[Kelpie-i]

I've discussed training with people who don't believe in it but this particular thread requires you to believe in pack rank/dominance theories in order to contribute properly.

If you don't, then you obviously don't believe in leadership... Which is the main point of this thread.

Always keep an open mind I say! The answers you seek aren't always in the places you look.

What has leadership got to do with pack and rank? I can be a good leader but I am not necessarily a dominating boss.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Kelpie-i

[Erny]

I can be a good leader but I am not necessarily a dominating boss.

Kelpie-i .... are you using the term "dominating" in the dog-technical sense? Or is it only coincidence that you've used the term "dominating boss" as we humans know it to occur amongst ourselves? Just querying because I'm not sure if you are saying that dominance does not comprise part of what is commonly only referred to as "leadership" (because people became disapproving of the term "dominance").

[Kelpie-i]

Erny, merely coincidence....just a term I used to reflect that we don't have to "dominate" our dogs (as in a bully boss) in order to be leader.

Edited December 19, 2008 by Kelpie-i

[Erny]

No worries Kelpie-i ..... I wasn't sure. Because when speaking in terms of dogs, unlike many others who have for quite a number of years decried the word, I do not think of "bullying" when I use or hear the word "dominance".

:D

Cheers!

Erny

[Tonymc]

This topic is seen very clearly in the Wild dogs.A lower ranking dog may sight or hear a threat or percieved threat to the pack.The lower ranking dog will raise the alarm which of course alerts pack leader.The pack leader sizes up the potential threat and he decides what course of action is taken such as fight or flight.

Thats how it should be in our situation with our dogs.Ours at Home will raise the alarm but then I have the say as to whether any action is taken or not. Tony

[Kelpie-i]

What sort of wild dogs are you referring to Tonymc? I mean from where and how are they wild...do you mean strays?...just curious!

[Nekhbet]

does this also apply to handler aggressive dogs?

a whole wonderful subject here. Bad training, weak nerves, lack of leadership etc can contribute to this problem (and can be quite rattling when you are on the receiving end of one of these dogs too)

just a term I used to reflect that we don't have to "dominate" our dogs (as in a bully boss)

IMO you dont have to be the human perception of 'dominating' (gruff, harsh, etc) to be the dominant force in your dogs life. Control the resources, be the leading example and why can you not be a dominant influence?

[Erny]

IMO you dont have to be the human perception of 'dominating' (gruff, harsh, etc) to be the dominant force in your dogs life. Control the resources, be the leading example and why can you not be a dominant influence?

That's what I am saying, and what Kelpie-i has clarified, Nekhbet, just in case you were directing this to Kelpie-i and me thinking you misunderstood her post??

[Just Midol]

I've discussed training with people who don't believe in it but this particular thread requires you to believe in pack rank/dominance theories in order to contribute properly.

If you don't, then you obviously don't believe in leadership... Which is the main point of this thread.

Always keep an open mind I say! The answers you seek aren't always in the places you look.

What has leadership got to do with pack and rank? I can be a good leader but I am not necessarily a dominating boss.

If you believe in pack & rank, then you have to believe the pack has a leader, well, you don't have to but the entire hypothetical in my post is based on there being a pack structure with a leader.

If you don't agree with that theory, then how can you contribute in a constructive manner to this thread? I was asking for some pretty specific views/opinions, it isn't and was never intended to be a thread to discuss pack & rank theories.

Main question was:

Is it possible for a dog with no aggression and who is definitely low down in the pack to exhibit natural protection behaviours?

If you don't believe in pack ranks then you can't answer my question.

[Jed]

I've had a couple of boxers step up to the plate. One was the pack leader, one not.

the first would assess what she perceived to be danger, and take steps she saw as necessary - this could involve being between me and the person she saw as danger. I could order her back, but she would still be alert and watching.

Once she was sitting in the back of the car, and the passenger, a person previuosly unknown to her, offered me something - she reached over to the front seat and took his wrist in her mouth - did not bite, just held.

She also guarded possessions, particularly horse gear at shows. She didn't bark much, but if someone tried to enter, she would growl - which stopped everyone, but I have no doubt that if pushed, she would have bitten.If she knew someone, they could enter the truck, or the house, have a meal, sleep there, take the TV when no one was home - no problem. If she didn't know them, they were stopped at the door, unless she was told they were ok. She had her own grading system for friends, acquaintances and strangers.

She was not protectimg herself, but she would protect what she perceived as "hers" which included the family. If the children were in the yard, and someone came, she would bark, but she would always keep herself between the children and the person, until I was friendly towards them, and then she relaxed. She would never begin a fight, but if another dog began one, she would finish it.

She was a friendly, outgoing, confident dog, who ran around at horse shows, making friends, cadging treats, wagging, wagging - but amongst her family and their things, she was a watchful dog. If she was tied up outside shops, she would be friendly to anyone who spoke to her.

The second was not the pack leader, but was the one who went out at night, and bit and chased a prowler who was in the yard. She didn't behave aggressively before or after that act - in fact she was everyone' s friend.

The current pack leader sees his role as a guardian. He hasn't bitten anyone, because he hasn't needed to, but I have no doubt he would.

I do believe that a good example of a guarding breed will step up to the plate without any training - it should be innate in the breed, but isn't always. I think it is instinctive. JMHO

[Erny]

Once she was sitting in the back of the car, and the passenger, a person previuosly unknown to her, offered me something - she reached over to the front seat and took his wrist in her mouth - did not bite, just held.

My previous dog (my avatar girl, bless her cotton socks) did something similar with my ex. This dog was timid of other people and when they entered the house the visitor would walk ahead of me down the hallway, with my girl bringing up the rear (ie behind me) - more than happy to not be near the other person, but not so shy as to preferring to be out of the room altogether. On the occasion of my ex making a visit, the same thing - he first, me following, dog behind me. On this day, to my disbelief, Kal trotted quite calmly and relaxed past me. When she reached my ex (who was still walking) she calmly and purposefully took his fingers in her mouth and closed on them - not a bite; no aggression, then let go. Second time, she did the same to his ankle. I took her hint - the second time was the last time I saw him .

In my case, although I wasn't conscious of it, I guess there must have been an air of tension from me which she picked up on and consequently in her own sweet and meaningful way, stepped up to the plate as well, in what I consider the most appropriate way.

Neither before then nor after then did she show anything other than deference to my leadership and always looked to me to sort out anything that she considered worrisome, and to protect her.