Protective But Not Aggressive Breeds

[Guest rhapsodical78]

wow what did I miss in 2 days. Rhapsodical for something you show you know little about then general perceived notions you sure have a lot to argue about. This thread is becoming another car driven by the backseat drivers. No dog will be scarred for life FFS. It's easy to see a dog that is not right and you end it there, make friends to show it was just an act afterwards and the dog gets on with life. Adult dogs being traumatised are more times owner perpetuated problems unless the dog has absolutely shite nerves, even then there is ways to rehabilitate.

This thread is absolutely brimming with hubris. The argument "I know everything and you know nothing" doesn't really fly with me.

I'll say it again, Jeff has not specified which tasks will be carried out and you're kind of making assumptions about them aren't you?

I think people need to understand that yes, your dog may put on a show - just like the teenager who has done some karate lessons may try and defend himself in the street - he may try but when it gets serious he'll get his arse kicked. The difference is how they come out the other end. A protection trained dog treats it like the real deal, it knows how to behave and it has been through the paces and knows what to expect from an encounter. A swift kick by an intruder will send most displaying dogs scuttling and peeing themselves, whereas a trained dog will not back down as its training has given it a conditioned behavior to the scenario. Two of my dogs have been physically attacked by intruders (one hit over the head, the other had a hind leg gashed open) and both are fine, stable and still friendly to visitors as their training conditioned them to be.

A show of aggression is probably all that is needed most of the time. Not everyone wants to spend their days protection training and because of that they look to the next best thing - breeds with predispositions for guarding. My argument is simply that it's a legitimate request for someone to ask for breeds more liable to protect, even if this isn't up to the standard of a protection trained dog. This ridiculous stance that implies all dogs have equal protection drives unless trained is just nonsense. Even a show Rottie generally has more of a drive than a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel.

And no, I would never purchase a primarily show line dog with the hope it would be a worker. You want a worker you buy from proven workers not just because it is a gsd, rottie, dobe etc. Many members of working breeds cannot step up to the plate anymore and that's a fact. If you want a dog that will DEFINATELY protect you in any situation you buy a trained dog or one of the more primitive/LGD breeds still from proven workers (But as lilli said dont expect to have control like you would the more traditional guarding breeds). The logic is not that hard to grasp.

Who here is arguing against this? Please point this out.

A fearful reaction from a human can illicit a guarding response from most dogs. Have that same person confidently walk up to the dog brandishing a stick and see the difference. Most tuck their tails and go 'SHITE IT DIDNT WORK MUUUUUUUUUM HELP!'. That is the difference and THAT is what you are relying on not to happen.

Most of the time that's all people need or want. Not everyone is cut out for or interested in protection training.

[Nekhbet]

The argument "I know everything and you know nothing" doesn't really fly with me.

So you're happy arguing about things you obviously know little about.

I'll say it again, Jeff has not specified which tasks will be carried out and you're kind of making assumptions about them aren't you?

Jeff doesnt have to specify which tasks and he doesnt have too. Those of us on here who have experience with PP training have a good idea what it will be so what is the problem. Why does everyone have to justify everything to you on an open forum?

RHaps you are playing merry go rounds with your 'argument' so let me make it basic.

- getting an 'aggressive response' as you call it, from your untrained dog is not something to be necessarily happy about. Many dogs, after incidents, cannot cope with what has happened and hence their behavior changes usually for the worst.

- you can buy protection trained dogs so if the issue is that people dont want to 'dedicate their lives' they dont have to

- the POINT of the training is to provide the dog with a coping mechanism and a learned series of behaviors for these situations. I think anyone that simply purchases a dog, raises it with no training then relies on it to be a guardian (saving the LGDs which are meant to be this way) is frankly sometimes bordering on just cruel.

- I never said all dogs have equal protection drives.

Not everyone wants to spend their days protection training and because of that they look to the next best thing - breeds with predispositions for guarding. My argument is simply that it's a legitimate request for someone to ask for breeds more liable to protect, even if this isn't up to the standard of a protection trained dog.

Most of the time that's all people need or want. Not everyone is cut out for or interested in protection training.

If you are going to RELY on your dog to PROTECT you, you do the right thing and TRAIN IT so it CAN PERFORM THE FUNCTION PROPERLY, SAFELY AND IN A WAY THAT IS IN THE DOGS LONG TERM INTERESTS. You dont want a dog that then pisses itself every time when in a similar situation because YOU relied on an untrained dog to do the job of a trained one.

Anyway, last week there was an incident when a mentally disturbed man attacked me verbally and then attempted to punch me. I ducked to avoid hima nd let go of my GSD's leash. My 4 year old GSD promply bolted and left me to try and avoid this guy.

This was what made me post in the first place. This untrained dog is expected to perform - perform what rhaps?? a bark and hold? FFS. The flip side of this scenario could have been a post that said 'my dog attacked a man and I couldnt pull him off and now I'm in a world of legal trouble'. Untrained dogs expected to do ANY protection behaviors be it even bailing up and barking out in the street is NEGLIGENT on the owners behalf - and the OP was IMO dropping the leash and expecting a result. You dont have to fully protection train a dog to have a guardian but you do need at least control and temperament.

[Guest rhapsodical78]

So you're happy arguing about things you obviously know little about.

Who said I know little about it? Just because I don't agree doesn't mean I know nothing about it.

Jeff doesnt have to specify which tasks and he doesnt have too. Those of us on here who have experience with PP training have a good idea what it will be so what is the problem. Why does everyone have to justify everything to you on an open forum?

No one HAS to justify anything, I just find it's bit odd that they would choose to hide that information.

RHaps you are playing merry go rounds with your 'argument' so let me make it basic.

- getting an 'aggressive response' as you call it, from your untrained dog is not something to be necessarily happy about. Many dogs, after incidents, cannot cope with what has happened and hence their behavior changes usually for the worst.

- you can buy protection trained dogs so if the issue is that people dont want to 'dedicate their lives' they dont have to

- the POINT of the training is to provide the dog with a coping mechanism and a learned series of behaviors for these situations. I think anyone that simply purchases a dog, raises it with no training then relies on it to be a guardian (saving the LGDs which are meant to be this way) is frankly sometimes bordering on just cruel.

- I never said all dogs have equal protection drives.

No, let me make it basic for you, since you seem to have missed everything I've written, considering you're just putting forth the same arguments.

An aggressive response from my untrained dog potentially save my life. I couldn't care less about whether or not you approve. Incidents are rare, if they take place then you can deal with any psychological repercussions then, both your own and your dog's. Besides, it really depends on the level of escalation, my point is that a dog may only need to 'display' to be effective and that wouldn't have the same degree of psychological impact.

Protection trained dogs are expensive and not everyone prioritises protection to the degree that they would use that as a sole reason for purchase.

No one is RELYING on any dog here, nor planning to. I'm sure this is about the tenth time this has been reiterated. What is happening with reading comprehension these days? People often want a dog as a pet that has an increased likelihood of responding when the situation requires it. I think sometimes education can get in the way of commen sense. Dogs bred for guarding have an increased likelihood (NOT CERTAINTY) of stepping up, trained or not. You cannot compare the potential of a Rottweiler to that of a Cavalier King Charles.

And that, kids, is why the OP is asking for breeds. Some breeds have more potential than others, trained or untrained. To deny that is ridiculous. To recommend a protection trained dog to someone simply looking for a family pet is just over-kill.

If you are going to RELY on your dog to PROTECT you, you do the right thing and TRAIN IT so it CAN PERFORM THE FUNCTION PROPERLY, SAFELY AND IN A WAY THAT IS IN THE DOGS LONG TERM INTERESTS. You dont want a dog that then pisses itself every time when in a similar situation because YOU relied on an untrained dog to do the job of a trained one.

LOL. Calm down, Nekky, it's an internet discussion. No one is RELYING. No one is taking risks. Incidents generally happen rarely and essentially what you're implying is that everyone who may or may not have some kind of incident in their lives (i.e everyone) should get a protection trained dog just in case or stick with a cavalier. Come on. Be sensible. There is a middle ground between a high drive trained GSD and a Cavalier. There are plenty of breeds more likely to display or even act. Whether or not this will have an impact of them is hard to know, but a) it's unlikely they'll need to attack anyone, ever and b) getting a protection trained dog in case this ever happens is overkill.

This was what made me post in the first place. This untrained dog is expected to perform - perform what rhaps?? a bark and hold? FFS. The flip side of this scenario could have been a post that said 'my dog attacked a man and I couldnt pull him off and now I'm in a world of legal trouble'. Untrained dogs expected to do ANY protection behaviors be it even bailing up and barking out in the street is NEGLIGENT on the owners behalf - and the OP was IMO dropping the leash and expecting a result. You dont have to fully protection train a dog to have a guardian but you do need at least control and temperament.

Please. If someone is punching you in the stomach and your dog goes them I seriously doubt that a) this is negligent of you to allow this to happen and b) you will be prosecuted.

Sure, I'm sure the OP realises her mistake now. I'm not suggesting you go out and buy any type of guarding breed without training it.

One thing I have learned from this thread is that people involved in protection sports are very angry people.

Maybe the next time I'm in the park at night I'll hire myself a protection sports TRAINER to froth at the mouth and ward off the baddies. Do you all come from high aggression lines?

Edited September 15, 2009 by rhapsodical78

[Kavik]

Protection trained dogs are expensive and not everyone prioritises protection to the degree that they would use that as a sole reason for purchase.

No one is RELYING on any dog here, nor planning to. I'm sure this is about the tenth time this has been reiterated. What is happening with reading comprehension these days? People often want a dog as a pet that has an increased likelihood of responding when the situation requires it. I think sometimes education can get in the way of commen sense. Dogs bred for guarding have an increased likelihood (NOT CERTAINTY) of stepping up, trained or not. You cannot compare the potential of a Rottweiler to that of a Cavalier King Charles.

IMO the way the OP was worded she EXPECTED her dog to do SOMETHING when the mentally disturbed man came at her. That is the difference IMO in this situation. I did not get a GSD with the expectation that he would do something if I was attacked, I got him to do obedience with (OK, so he is not even great at that but anyway ) and as a pet that I could take places. If you actually have expectations that the dog will do something, then it is not fair on anyone (dog or you) to rely on a pet dog that may not have the temperament to step up and does not have the training to build their confidence in their ability to step up. A bit different to the dog stepping up unexpectedly, this is expecting the dog to step up when there is no reason to think the dog would (and the dog did not).

I think everyone knows that if you are going to choose a dog that looks intimidating, has a good bark and may react to something happening, it is best to choose from the breeds where this is known to be a trait. Most times walking a big dark dog is a deterrent to problems. But you cannot then be disappointed if it does not step up without training or evaluation just because it is a certain breed. If you want to bet your life on a dog, best to be fair to all and get one with the right temp and train it properly.

[Nekhbet]

Who said I know little about it? Just because I don't agree doesn't mean I know nothing about it.

Because you write with huge holes in your knowledge, which shows your practical experience in training and handling PP dogs is limited - none.

To recommend a protection trained dog to someone simply looking for a family pet is just over-kill.

this especially. There are varying degrees of trained dogs and most are better trained and more reliable then the average pet or sport dog.

And that, kids, is why the OP is asking for breeds. Some breeds have more potential than others, trained or untrained. To deny that is ridiculous. To recommend a protection trained dog to someone simply looking for a family pet is just over-kill.

I have 2. They are perfect pets and come everywhere with me. Void.

The OP was posting to look for a dog that would protect her if an incident like this happened, which to me is NOT the role of a 'family pet' as you put it, it is the role of a protection dog. You now expect more then companionship and hence you need to provide your dog with a necessary set of tools to adequately perform it.

DOLers seem to take a dim view on protection and seem to think these dogs cannot function as family pets. I guess that comes from living in a country that mystifies and victimises it.

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. As I stated as well PP training does not mean manstopper, frothing at the mouth dangerous dog (which by the way they never are) they are well balanced, highly trained animals that behave predictably which IS what the OP wants. The dog may never take a bite or bark at anyone in its new home but the owners will have reliability which is what counts, not practical examples of tough mean dog every time someone approaches.

Please. If someone is punching you in the stomach and your dog goes them I seriously doubt that a) this is negligent of you to allow this to happen and b) you will be prosecuted.

again you have not read. I said

Untrained dogs expected to do ANY protection behaviors be it even bailing up and barking out in the street is NEGLIGENT on the owners behalf

. Also you do not know if your dog will then become over reactive after the fact and the next scenario may be a kid that scares the dog or a disabled person that confuses them. Aggressive responses towards people ESPECIALLY LUNGING AND BITING is not something you allow a dog to take upon itself to decide when to do. Yes OK shite happens occasionally in life and you deal with it the best you can when it does but as I state (again) my comments are for people who walk around with untrained dogs thinking "yup they will protect me if push comes to shove' and drop the leash like the OP did

One thing I have learned from this thread is that people involved in protection sports are very angry people.

Most of us are not just protection sport people, we've dealt with real life situations as well and trained dogs for them hence we may know what we are talking about.

[Guest rhapsodical78]

IMO the way the OP was worded she EXPECTED her dog to do SOMETHING when the mentally disturbed man came at her. That is the difference IMO in this situation. I did not get a GSD with the expectation that he would do something if I was attacked, I got him to do obedience with (OK, so he is not even great at that but anyway ) and as a pet that I could take places. If you actually have expectations that the dog will do something, then it is not fair on anyone (dog or you) to rely on a pet dog that may not have the temperament to step up and does not have the training to build their confidence in their ability to step up. A bit different to the dog stepping up unexpectedly, this is expecting the dog to step up when there is no reason to think the dog would (and the dog did not).

I think everyone knows that if you are going to choose a dog that looks intimidating, has a good bark and may react to something happening, it is best to choose from the breeds where this is known to be a trait. Most times walking a big dark dog is a deterrent to problems. But you cannot then be disappointed if it does not step up without training or evaluation just because it is a certain breed. If you want to bet your life on a dog, best to be fair to all and get one with the right temp and train it properly.

Sure, in the initial post, but all comments since, including my initial comment, all recommended breeds with the disclaimer that there were no guarantees. Subsequently many people came on and said nothing but a protection trained dog will ever do as 99% of all other dogs will run away. I don't think either of these statements is true. There are never any guarantees, but in the absence of going out and getting a high drive trained dog, there are breeds/lines you can look into.

[Nekhbet]

high drive trained dog, there are breeds/lines you can look into.

Just to clarify for everyone else, a PP dog does NOT need to be generally high drive and high maintenance. I have seen a few that are happy to laze about all day with you at home, go for the odd walk but apart from that just roll over for a tummy scratch and snore on the couch. I know one man who has an ex german police dog (GSD) who he imported recently. He lives in a small unit and the dog is happy to spend the days with him going wherever he goes, or just hanging about. He doesnt froth and pull fences down at anyone that walks past, he barely cares that you knock on the door. Break in and you will get a surprise though.

I'm sure there are many more PP dogs wandering about then you imagine, you've probably met one and not even realised. These dogs are MEANT to be calm, quiet and bombproof, and able to live in the average family home. We are not talking military grade hard headed high drive dogs we're talking PP. A dog happy to live with your family but protect when required in a controlled manner.

PP is not schutzhund. It works with similar yet different drives. Same goes that a schutzhund dog may not be a good PP dog. There is a big difference between a dog trained purely in prey drive and a dog tipped over into defence/territoriality. Different completely.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Nekhbet

[Akayla]

Just a simple point my ex RAAF girl who had all the training was the best family pet. You can get a dog that has this type of training and other than up keep of training you dont have to think about it. Once the dog is trained its not like you have to go out and get into trouble once a week to keep the dog happy

Nope Akayla happily sat on our couch snorring away the rest of her days

[Guest rhapsodical78]

Because you write with huge holes in your knowledge, which shows your practical experience in training and handling PP dogs is limited - none.To recommend a protection trained dog to someone simply looking for a family pet is just over-kill. this especially. There are varying degrees of trained dogs and most are better trained and more reliable then the average pet or sport dog.

Oh? Maybe you'd like to point out those gaps instead of making blanket statements that mean very little. Not everyone wants to pay for a trained dog, and in fact the OP specifically said she did not. In the absence of wanting a trained dog, I was recommending the next best thing.

I have 2. They are perfect pets and come everywhere with me. Void.

The OP was posting to look for a dog that would protect her if an incident like this happened, which to me is NOT the role of a 'family pet' as you put it, it is the role of a protection dog. You now expect more then companionship and hence you need to provide your dog with a necessary set of tools to adequately perform it.

DOLers seem to take a dim view on protection and seem to think these dogs cannot function as family pets. I guess that comes from living in a country that mystifies and victimises it.

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. As I stated as well PP training does not mean manstopper, frothing at the mouth dangerous dog (which by the way they never are) they are well balanced, highly trained animals that behave predictably which IS what the OP wants. The dog may never take a bite or bark at anyone in its new home but the owners will have reliability which is what counts, not practical examples of tough mean dog every time someone approaches.

She quite clearly stated further down that she was looking for another pet, but a non-trained dog who had greater potential to act. I know protection dogs can be family pets and I have no problem with them, stop making assumptions about my beliefs regarding protection training or protection trained dogs. However, the OP clearly stated that she did not want a trained dog. She's learnt that she cannot rely on any breed and I have stated that in my recommendation, but she has asked for breed recommendations and I have offered them. I think very few show line shepherds show much potential in this area, which is why I recommended away from show lines.

again you have not read. I said Untrained dogs expected to do ANY protection behaviors be it even bailing up and barking out in the street is NEGLIGENT on the owners behalf. Also you do not know if your dog will then become over reactive after the fact and the next scenario may be a kid that scares the dog or a disabled person that confuses them. Aggressive responses towards people ESPECIALLY LUNGING AND BITING is not something you allow a dog to take upon itself to decide when to do. Yes OK shite happens occasionally in life and you deal with it the best you can when it does but as I state (again) my comments are for people who walk around with untrained dogs thinking "yup they will protect me if push comes to shove' and drop the leash like the OP did

I've read perfectly and I don't agree that allowing a dog to perform a protection behaviour in a suitable situation is negligent - especially not if it saves your life. Damn. Wait. This is one big merry-go-round. You're not actually countering any of my points here. You're just reiterating yours which forces me to reiterate mine. This could go on forever.

The OP of course realises her mistake, especially after so many people coming in and saying the same thing, over and over and over. We get it. You can't rely on any dog who isn't trained to protect. That doen't mean that no dog ever will and there are breeds you can get to heighten the chances of that happening. There is a middle ground between a protection trained dog and a Cavie.

Most of us are not just protection sport people, we've dealt with real life situations as well and trained dogs for them hence we may know what we are talking about.

Most of you have reading comprehension and anger management issues it seems. Also, the garbage proliferated by you lot that no dog other than a protection trained dog will ever be useful in a threatening situation is just pure, unadulterated crap.

[Guest rhapsodical78]

high drive trained dog, there are breeds/lines you can look into.

Just to clarify for everyone else, a PP dog does NOT need to be generally high drive and high maintenance. I have seen a few that are happy to laze about all day with you at home, go for the odd walk but apart from that just roll over for a tummy scratch and snore on the couch. I know one man who has an ex german police dog (GSD) who he imported recently. He lives in a small unit and the dog is happy to spend the days with him going wherever he goes, or just hanging about. He doesnt froth and pull fences down at anyone that walks past, he barely cares that you knock on the door. Break in and you will get a surprise though.

I'm sure there are many more PP dogs wandering about then you imagine, you've probably met one and not even realised. These dogs are MEANT to be calm, quiet and bombproof, and able to live in the average family home. We are not talking military grade hard headed high drive dogs we're talking PP. A dog happy to live with your family but protect when required in a controlled manner.

PP is not schutzhund. It works with similar yet different drives. Same goes that a schutzhund dog may not be a good PP dog. There is a big difference between a dog trained purely in prey drive and a dog tipped over into defence/territoriality. Different completely.

Yes, but the OP doesn't want one. . . . . . .

If you replace the word 'PP' with the word 'dog' - that's exactly what I've been arguing. My dog is calm, great with kids, allows people that I approve in to the property, has never shown unwarranted aggresison before and is very easy to live with. No one would ever guess that he has attacked appropriately before. In my opinion, there are plenty of dogs with this kind of intuition out there, Jed has mentioned several examples with her Boxers (show line!) and others have relayed their own similar stories.

There are no guarantees, but then there are also no statistics from real situations in which family pets have been required to respond, so it's just not science to state that 99% of dogs will not display any type of guarding behaviour in appropriate circumstances unless they're out of control, aggressive individuals.

[Nekhbet]

Most of you have reading comprehension and anger management issues it seems. Also, the garbage proliferated by you lot that no dog other than a protection trained dog will ever be useful in a threatening situation is just pure, unadulterated crap.

and you can get off your abusive high horse missy. As for reiteration you seem to not understand my points at all. Oh well.

The statement was that you cannot rely 100% on an unproven dog in a threatening situation. Quite simple really. You can rely on the reaction from a trained dog. That is the difference. Not that an untrained CANNOT offer up behaviors, but you cannot guarentee the behavior, that is my point.

The OP stated she did not want 'attack trained' which meant she maybe does not know what the training and dogs involve. Many people do not. Maybe if she actually met a few PP dogs and saw how they lived in a family home she would change her mind and think it is a good idea if she wants a dog that will behave predictably and for her own piece of mind.

I was also giving examples where the notion that PP dogs are all high drive nutters is far from true, so to say that they cannot fit into family life or they are 'over-kill' is frankly untrue. And your statements of this show your true lack of experience with the subject and the dogs.

Again my point is about predictability in the dogs behavior, guarenteed performance in a situation and a dog that is stable, well trained and fits the profile of the OPs expectations.

Nope Akayla happily sat on our couch snorring away the rest of her days

seems to be a theme in these dogs, the more training the less they want to do

Edited September 16, 2009 by Nekhbet

[mita]

Just on a lighter note, it can be amazing what an 'everyday' dog can do in a crisis situation.

Months back, when Brisbane women were being attacked on walking paths, the only creature that sent the attacker off, was a girl's pet dachshund. When the bloke grabbed the girl, the dachie fastened on to his leg & couldn't be shaken off. It was easier for the bloke to give up & run away.

And, on an even lighter note, enjoy these pics from a dachie bulletin board where someone's pet dachie, Maggie, does a sneak play-attack on their other dog, pitbull Molly. And guess who finishes up on top, in the play wrestle.

http://www.dachsie.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=35400

[Guest rhapsodical78]

Most of you have reading comprehension and anger management issues it seems. Also, the garbage proliferated by you lot that no dog other than a protection trained dog will ever be useful in a threatening situation is just pure, unadulterated crap.

and you can get off your abusive high horse missy. As for reiteration you seem to not understand my points at all. Oh well.

The statement was that you cannot rely 100% on an unproven dog in a threatening situation. Quite simple really. You can rely on the reaction from a trained dog. That is the difference. Not that an untrained CANNOT offer up behaviors, but you cannot guarentee the behavior, that is my point.

The OP stated she did not want 'attack trained' which meant she maybe does not know what the training and dogs involve. Many people do not. Maybe if she actually met a few PP dogs and saw how they lived in a family home she would change her mind and think it is a good idea if she wants a dog that will behave predictably and for her own piece of mind.

Again my point is about predictability in the dogs behavior, guarenteed performance in a situation and a dog that is stable, well trained and fits the profile of the OPs expectations.

Out of all your lot of angries I think I have been the least abusive, 'missy'. And high horse? Pot meet kettle - you have made a lof of assumptions about what I do and do not know and you refuse to clarify where I have shown my deficit in knowledge.

Now. One last time. I will enbolden this in case it actually helps. No one is saying that there are guarantees with an untrained dog .

The arguments being made earlier by your comrades was that most other dogs will not react in a threatening situation - this is the entire basis for Jeff's little test and pretty much the entire debate. Since you came in guns a blazing in their support I assumed you agreed with their stance. If not, then maybe you could elaborate on that?

[Guest rhapsodical78]

Just on a lighter note, it can be amazing what an 'everyday' dog can do in a crisis situation.

Months back, when Brisbane women were being attacked on walking paths, the only creature that sent the attacker off, was a girl's pet dachshund. When the bloke grabbed the girl, the dachie fastened on to his leg & couldn't be shaken off. It was easier for the bloke to give up & run away.

And, on an even lighter note, enjoy these pics from a dachie bulletin board where someone's pet dachie, Maggie, does a sneak play-attack on their other dog, pitbull Molly. And guess who finishes up on top, in the play wrestle.

http://www.dachsie.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=35400

Awww.

Now Dachies would make a good protection dog.

[Akayla]

Yup, she was a bit unsure when when first brought her inside and let her explore. She prefered to sit in mums fishpond best It must have been a bit strange for her.

The guys at the airport where we picked her up couldnt stop laughing when we rocked up at the base with our club sport

Oh well she is such a spoilt girl now and she has proven time and again to be invaluable. Even though it seems like such a small thing but mum cant chase after her dogs due to injury but she knows if they get away Akayla will get them back. She wasnt trained to do that but I think she is smart enough to have figured to extend her training into other areas. Then again from her behaviour with kids maybe we are just lucky and got one with a gold personality.

Either way I know my mum is safe because Akayla is watching over her Even if she is quite over weight ATM and as I said happily snorring away on the couch

[Aidan]

She may not realise it, but she is already taking those risks. She has had three of these incidences. My original post was suggesting that people would be better served learning how to identify and manage these risks appropriately.

I don't agree that that's a given. I lived in a bad area and we had several different types of incidents on more than a few occasions and it had nothing to do with taking risks or relying on dogs.

We will have to agree to disagree on that one.

So you would remain completely calm if someone was pointing a gun at you? If "ring nerves" are still a performance problem in the UD ring (arguably "correctly trained obedience dogs"), then I would suspect there is a reasonable probability that a dog, particularly one with a naturally protective instinct, might falter in this particular scenario if it had not been proofed.

If your life relies on your dog shutting up I'm sure you could give the command.

At the risk of sounding condescending (which is not my intention), this does rather show the holes in your experience. Just because you can issue a command does not mean your dog will follow it, even if you have trained specifically for it (which you are suggesting isn't always necessary, and I agree).

Operant behaviour is dependent upon antecedents and consequences, that is all the things that come before it, and the history of what has come after it. If the antecedents change, and there is no reinforcement history, what is the probability of the cued response? Furthermore, if a dog has to make his own decisions when 'stepping up', why would you expect him to do something which his survival instinct is telling him to ignore?

If you've ever worked with very fearful dogs you might have some idea of what state the back of the brain goes into when a completely normal, stable dog is presented with a serious threat. A dog doesn't have to recognise the immediate danger for this to happen, they just have to recognise that their handler has recognised the immediate danger.

Also, I would like you to be less condescending in your replies to me, but apparently we don't always get what we want.

I'm not being condescending. I am deliberately being very measured and dry, and I feel that I have the right to ask for a standard of reply from you if I am to continue this discussion. No-one is forcing you or I to have this discussion.

I think you're still not stating exactly what your position is here. Aside from the fact that people shouldn't take risks, which I'm sure we all agree with - what other point are you trying to make that relates to our conversation?

Perhaps it might best be summed up as - work with the probabilities.

[Nekhbet]

The arguments being made earlier by your comrades was that most other dogs will not react in a threatening situation - this is the entire basis for Jeff's little test and pretty much the entire debate. Since you came in guns a blazing in their support I assumed you agreed with their stance. If not, then maybe you could elaborate on that?

most untrained dogs will not behave to the expectation of the owner. If it does like the little Dacchy well fabulous you got lucky.

I do agree with their stance. I wholeheartedly support Jeff and I will not hide the fact I think he knows a heck of a lot more then most people on this forum when it comes to dog training.

you have made a lof of assumptions about what I do and do not know and you refuse to clarify where I have shown my deficit in knowledge.

I keep writing it, obviously you're scanning and not reading my posts so I'm not bothering. I cant draw a diagram for you to simplify any further either. Empty carts make the most noise Rhaps and you're rattling like an old van on a gravel road. The fact you stated that simply purchasing a breed that is known for protective tendancies is the 'next best thing' shows it as well. What if that one cannot fulfill the role? buy another? Or that one well hell we have to get another? and another? until one finally fits the bill heavens above, if you want a dog that does a job you get a proven dog. They make great pets and the OP can have the confidence in her dog should a situation arise.

As for you Rhaps calling people names because they do not just bow down to your flawed and frankly uneducated posts despite the fact we have practical experience in these matters is rude. We have every right to an opinion, and why not allow people to understand what PP dogs are actually like. You seem to have a vendetta against protection training, the only reason I can think of to warrant your behavior and immature language.

[Guest rhapsodical78]

At the risk of sounding condescending (which is not my intention), this does rather show the holes in your experience. Just because you can issue a command does not mean your dog will follow it, even if you have trained specifically for it (which you are suggesting isn't always necessary, and I agree).

Operant behaviour is dependent upon antecedents and consequences, that is all the things that come before it, and the history of what has come after it. If the antecedents change, and there is no reinforcement history, what is the probability of the cued response? Furthermore, if a dog has to make his own decisions when 'stepping up', why would you expect him to do something which his survival instinct is telling him to ignore?

If you've ever worked with very fearful dogs you might have some idea of what state the back of the brain goes into when a completely normal, stable dog is presented with a serious threat. A dog doesn't have to recognise the immediate danger for this to happen, they just have to recognise that their handler has recognised the immediate danger.

You're making the assumption the dog is defending out of fear and you're underestimating the role of proofing and the role of generalisation. Proof a dog in any kind of heightened state and you have a higher chance of them performing under pressure.

This is kind of a moot point, really, considering we're talking about such an incredibly rare potential ocurrence. How many people are held up at gunpoint in their lifetime?

I'm not being condescending. I am deliberately being very measured and dry, and I feel that I have the right to ask for a standard of reply from you if I am to continue this discussion. No-one is forcing you or I to have this discussion.

There is nothing wrong with my standard of reply. If you want to critique my replies, then perhaps you should do so more specifically rather than just saying 'your replies suck' because that simply reflects poorly on you.

Perhaps it might best be summed up as - work with the probabilities.

How very over-simplified and vague.

My points:

- Although no untrained dog can be RELIED on for a protective response, this does not mean that some breeds don't have a greater propensity for reaction in threatening situations even without training.

- If you're looking for an UNTRAINED dog with a greater chance of threat deterence, you're better off going with a guarding breed than a gun dog breed.

- A dog who is intuitive enough to protect at an appropriate moment is not necessarily a liability.

This should enable you to respond more accurately.

[Guest rhapsodical78]

most untrained dogs will not behave to the expectation of the owner. If it does like the little Dacchy well fabulous you got lucky.

I do agree with their stance. I wholeheartedly support Jeff and I will not hide the fact I think he knows a heck of a lot more then most people on this forum when it comes to dog training.

How vague. What are the expectations of the owner? Which owner are we talking about? Are we putting all owners in the one basket now as well as all dogs? Cesar knows a lot about training, so does Victoria and Stanley Coren - does that mean people must agree with everything they say all the time? Accept that sometimes you are going to be questioned and try to deal with it like an adult.

I keep writing it, obviously you're scanning and not reading my posts so I'm not bothering. I cant draw a diagram for you to simplify any further either. Empty carts make the most noise Rhaps and you're rattling like an old van on a gravel road. The fact you stated that simply purchasing a breed that is known for protective tendancies is the 'next best thing' shows it as well. What if that one cannot fulfill the role? buy another? Or that one well hell we have to get another? and another? until one finally fits the bill heavens above, if you want a dog that does a job you get a proven dog. They make great pets and the OP can have the confidence in her dog should a situation arise.

Looks like this reading comprehension thing is not going to improve no matter how I alter the text to make it more clear. Should I bother to repeat it one more time? The OP does not want a protection trained dog. She wants breed with an inherent guarding instinct. Is the next best thing a Cavie or a Rottie? She has specified that she's aware that there are no guarantees and that she's not getting the dog purely for the purpose of protection and that if the dog is not protective it will still be a valued pet - she is not prioritising the dog's protective qualities.

As for you Rhaps calling people names because they do not just bow down to your flawed and frankly uneducated posts despite the fact we have practical experience in these matters is rude. We have every right to an opinion, and why not allow people to understand what PP dogs are actually like. You seem to have a vendetta against protection training, the only reason I can think of to warrant your behavior and immature language.

Who called anyone names? Your hubris is laughable. The protection people in this thread are clearly unable to have any kind of debate without having their egos bruised and their sense of inflated self-importance and superiority diminished. Consider that perhaps my responses appear rude because I'm responding in kind.

I have no vendetta against PP training. That's a huge leap of logic. I do, however, have a new appreciation of some of the trainers out there to avoid.

[Aidan]

I'm not being condescending. I am deliberately being very measured and dry, and I feel that I have the right to ask for a standard of reply from you if I am to continue this discussion. No-one is forcing you or I to have this discussion.

There is nothing wrong with my standard of reply. If you want to critique my replies, then perhaps you should do so more specifically rather than just saying 'your replies suck' because that simply reflects poorly on you.

I was very specific, I asked you to be more accurate. I did not say 'your replies suck', this is another example of you inaccuracy and misrepresentation.

Perhaps it might best be summed up as - work with the probabilities.

How very over-simplified and vague.

I have neither the time or the inclination to repeat myself to someone who has no interest in reading and comprehending what I have to say.

My points:

- Although no untrained dog can be RELIED on for a protective response, this does not mean that some breeds don't have a greater propensity for reaction in threatening situations even without training.

- If you're looking for an UNTRAINED dog with a greater chance of threat deterence, you're better off going with a guarding breed than a gun dog breed.

- A dog who is intuitive enough to protect at an appropriate moment is not necessarily a liability.

This should enable you to respond more accurately.

Those are all good points, and I have never argued against them. You wouldn't know that because taking the time to comprehend my posts would cut into your time spent trying to argue with me because you didn't comprehend my posts.