Protective But Not Aggressive Breeds

[cramet]

most dog will react of the bad guys actions if the badguy comes at the handler showing agression in the body and voice the dog reacts its the way they are trained there is more to it but thats the very shortend vers

there has be cases in the states were the handler has dies and the dog wouldnt let any one near the body the only were to move the dog is to put it down or get a person that the dog knows well top move it along

[poodlefan]

That may be your view, poodlefan, but it's a very contested one.

It's an opinion on a dog issue Rhaps.. they're ALL contested.

I don't think you see too many pups headed for protection work socialised just like pet puppies though. I don't think the method or the outcome are the same.

Most protection dogs are obedient to their handler. I'm not sure how many are trained to act independently of handler cues but will defer to the professionals on that. Isn't the whole point of a trained protection dog that it engages and disengages with a 'stranger' only on cue?

Sure, protections dogs are trained to protect on cue. What does that have to do with the average dog?

What it has to do with is who is in charge. Clearly the dog isn't. They aren't "stepping up" they are doing what they are being told do do... there is no decision making and no change of leadership involved.

Now lets compare that with what you are saying a pet dog, socialised with strangers and trained in bite inhibition is going to have to do.

It has to determine that there is a threat.

It has to determine that it has to take charge.

It has to overcome its social conditioning and engage.

That's a big ask.. and one some people say their dogs can do. I know dogs do this.. I also know that sometimes they take down the wrong people, over react and cause unnecessary harm. I say that's not a good outcome for anyone.

There's also one more thing to consider.. a dog has to be offlead to do this. Some handlers will hang on to that lead for dear life.

Edited September 14, 2009 by poodlefan

[Jeff Jones]

Most protection dogs are obedient to their handler. I'm not sure how many are trained to act independently of handler cues but will defer to the professionals on that. Isn't the whole point of a trained protection dog that it engages and disengages with a 'stranger' only on cue?

That is correct Poodlefan. The cue can be verbal or via contact with the handler, the response by the handler to the contact being made is the most important cue. This way nothing is left up to the dog to interpret what is real and what isn't it is a trained response to the handlers reaction.

So theoretically, what would happen if a handler was incapacitated before cueing the dog to engage? Would the dog go to the handlers assistance uncued?

[Lets forget about the dogs that have a go at the handler ]

If I am unable to verbally cue my dog because I have been assaulted and fall to the ground I train the dog to engage the person who just assaulted me. This is a standard exercise done by most departments who use police / protection dogs. The usual scenario trained is you have your dog in a down stay some meters away from a suspect you are going over to talk to / search, all of a sudden the suspect attacks you and you fall to the ground without saying a word and your dog engages the person.

ETA: there are more scenarios and situations trained for but this is a standard one between all departments.

Edited September 14, 2009 by Jeff Jones

[poodlefan]

Most protection dogs are obedient to their handler. I'm not sure how many are trained to act independently of handler cues but will defer to the professionals on that. Isn't the whole point of a trained protection dog that it engages and disengages with a 'stranger' only on cue?

That is correct Poodlefan. The cue can be verbal or via contact with the handler, the response by the handler to the contact being made is the most important cue. This way nothing is left up to the dog to interpret what is real and what isn't it is a trained response to the handlers reaction.

So theoretically, what would happen if a handler was incapacitated before cueing the dog to engage? Would the dog go to the handlers assistance uncued?

[Lets forget about the dogs that have a go at the handler ]

If I am unable to verbally cue my dog because I have been assaulted and fall to the ground I train the dog to engage the person who just assaulted me. This is a standard exercise done by most departments who use police / protection dogs. The usual scenario trained is you have your dog in a down stay some meters away from a suspect you are going over to talk to / search, all of a sudden the suspect attacks you and you fall to the ground without saying a word and your dog engages the person.

So again the dog is not "deciding" but reacting to already trained (in this case non-verbal) cues.

[Jeff Jones]

Most protection dogs are obedient to their handler. I'm not sure how many are trained to act independently of handler cues but will defer to the professionals on that. Isn't the whole point of a trained protection dog that it engages and disengages with a 'stranger' only on cue?

That is correct Poodlefan. The cue can be verbal or via contact with the handler, the response by the handler to the contact being made is the most important cue. This way nothing is left up to the dog to interpret what is real and what isn't it is a trained response to the handlers reaction.

So theoretically, what would happen if a handler was incapacitated before cueing the dog to engage? Would the dog go to the handlers assistance uncued?

[Lets forget about the dogs that have a go at the handler ]

If I am unable to verbally cue my dog because I have been assaulted and fall to the ground I train the dog to engage the person who just assaulted me. This is a standard exercise done by most departments who use police / protection dogs. The usual scenario trained is you have your dog in a down stay some meters away from a suspect you are going over to talk to / search, all of a sudden the suspect attacks you and you fall to the ground without saying a word and your dog engages the person.

So again the dog is not "deciding" but reacting to already trained (in this case non-verbal) cues.

Correct. Unless cued a protection dog should be trained not to engage.

[Guest rhapsodical78]

That may be your view, poodlefan, but it's a very contested one.

It's an opinion on a dog issue Rhaps.. they're ALL contested.

I don't think you see too many pups headed for protection work socialised just like pet puppies though. I don't think the method or the outcome are the same.

Most protection dogs are obedient to their handler. I'm not sure how many are trained to act independently of handler cues but will defer to the professionals on that. Isn't the whole point of a trained protection dog that it engages and disengages with a 'stranger' only on cue?

Sure, protections dogs are trained to protect on cue. What does that have to do with the average dog?

What it has to do with is who is in charge. Clearly the dog isn't. They aren't "stepping up" they are doing what they are being told do do... there is no decision making and no change of leadership involved.

Now lets compare that with what you are saying a pet dog, socialised with strangers and trained in bite inhibition is going to have to do.

It has to determine that there is a threat.

It has to determine that it has to take charge.

It has to overcome its social conditioning and engage.

That's a big ask.. and one some people say their dogs can do. I know dogs do this.. I also know that they take down the wrong people, over react and cause unnecessary harm. I say that's not a good outcome for anyone.

There's also one more thing to consider.. a dog has to be offlead to do this. Some handlers will hang on to that lead for dear life.

No, they're stepping up because the sense or realise that at THAT MOMENT the alpha is unable to fulfill their duties.

[Aphra]

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.

But presumably there is some instinct in dogs to"protect" (whether that is just warning off, or actual damage) their territory or resources? I would have though that protective behavior in a dog is probably about guarding a resource (where the owner is the resource) or defending their pack and territory, which are also resources?

I have three dogs from guardian breeds (2 Neos and an Anatolian).

My male Neo displays guarding behaviour, although I have no idea if that would translate into protecting me rather than his territory. My female Neo would run and hide. The male Anatolian has run barking at someone who came into the paddock one day when I was with him. When the person turned out to be someone he knew he settled immediately. Both the male Anatolian and the male Neo are friendly with people in general. The female Neo is shy and nervous and won't go near most visitors, known or unknown.

In both instances I'd say they were protecting their territory and I happened to be in it, but resource guarding is pretty typical dog behaviour, whether the resource is me because I hand out food, a bone or their favourite bed.

[Diva]

While I don't believe in relying on pet dogs for personal protection and don't ever want to deliberately put my dog in that position, I also don't believe a dog has to be alpha or protection trained to come to the defense of its owner. Would I rely on an untested and untrained dog doing so? No. Have I had dogs that did so and definately weren't alpha types nor trained for protection. Yes. Neither was protection trained. One was a show dog. The other was a SAR dog.

Edited September 14, 2009 by Diva

[poodlefan]

No, they're stepping up because the sense or realise that at THAT MOMENT the alpha is unable to fulfill their duties.

Are you comfortable that your dog will always make the right split second decision?

[Guest rhapsodical78]

While I don't believe in relying on pet dogs for personal protection and don't ever want to deliberately put my dog in that position, I also don't believe a dog has to be alpha or protection trained to come to the defense of its owner. Would I rely on an untested and untrained dog doing so? No. Have I had dogs that did so and definately weren't alpha types nor trained for protection. Yes. Neither was protection trained. One was a show dog. The other was a SAR dog.

BINGO.

There are too many examples of this happening to discount it - if you go back through the forum you'll find numerous similar scenarios being relayed.

[cramet]

most dogs trained and untrained will base there reaction of the other persons body langue(spl)

dogs can read human body lan just as well as other dog

its just with protection dogs u take it one step further and put a que with it

[Guest rhapsodical78]

No, they're stepping up because the sense or realise that at THAT MOMENT the alpha is unable to fulfill their duties.

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?

[Jeff Jones]

Whilst I do not believe the evaluations that will be done will change every ones opinion on dogs protecting people, it will clear up some misconceptions for some people on the forum and will give the people getting their dogs tested a greater understanding on their dog’s behaviour.

I will not go in to too much more detail before the evaluations are done but some people are going along the right path with their comments in this thread. Please keep thinking and voicing your opinions though as it is no doubt helping people learn more about dog behaviour. Any misconceptions should be cleared up after the evaluations are complete.

[Guest rhapsodical78]

Whilst I do not believe the evaluations that will be done will change every ones opinion on dogs protecting people, it will clear up some misconceptions for some people on the forum and will give the people getting their dogs tested a greater understanding on their dog’s behaviour.

I will not go in to too much more detail before the evaluations are done but some people are going along the right path with their comments in this thread. Please keep thinking and voicing your opinions though as it is no doubt helping people learn more about dog behaviour. Any misconceptions should be cleared up after the evaluations are complete.

If a random sample of three changes anyone's opinion I'd be questioning their judgement.

And I'm here all week if people wish to learn more about dog behaviour.

[Jeff Jones]

Whilst I do not believe the evaluations that will be done will change every ones opinion on dogs protecting people, it will clear up some misconceptions for some people on the forum and will give the people getting their dogs tested a greater understanding on their dog’s behaviour.

I will not go in to too much more detail before the evaluations are done but some people are going along the right path with their comments in this thread. Please keep thinking and voicing your opinions though as it is no doubt helping people learn more about dog behaviour. Any misconceptions should be cleared up after the evaluations are complete.

If a random sample of three changes anyone's opinion I'd be questioning their judgement.

And I'm here all week if people wish to learn more about dog behaviour.

The point is it will not matter how many dogs we end up testing, the results will still be the same.

[Guest rhapsodical78]

Whilst I do not believe the evaluations that will be done will change every ones opinion on dogs protecting people, it will clear up some misconceptions for some people on the forum and will give the people getting their dogs tested a greater understanding on their dog’s behaviour.

I will not go in to too much more detail before the evaluations are done but some people are going along the right path with their comments in this thread. Please keep thinking and voicing your opinions though as it is no doubt helping people learn more about dog behaviour. Any misconceptions should be cleared up after the evaluations are complete.

If a random sample of three changes anyone's opinion I'd be questioning their judgement.

And I'm here all week if people wish to learn more about dog behaviour.

The point is it will not matter how many dogs we end up testing, the results will still be the same.

Kinda like testing three people who think the moon is made of cheese and applying it to the entire population.

[Aidan]

Hi Rhapsodical, unfortunately my post must have been very poorly written because you have managed to miss or twist every point that I tried to make.

I think people need to spend less time speculating about their dog's willingness or ability to protect them and more time learning how to manage risk (for which a dog and training may or may not play some part).

I don't cinsider my dog to be a risk.

I was referring to risk management as in personal safety, like "don't walk through city parks alone at night".

This thread reminds me of discussions on strength forums where the poster claims certain numbers for a lift, but has never competed. It's just hollow talk, usually stemming from some ignorant perception of what an actual lift under rules of competition looks like.

Nice analogy, but it works both ways. It reminds me of people who actually lift, who then look at the rest of the world's population of muscled men and claim none of them could ever lift. Not only undoubtedly inaccurate but pretty arrogant, too.

The point I was trying to make was that the kid who quarter-squats 180kg would not pass in competition (not that people who don't compete can't be strong, that would not be a logical conclusion to make even for an arrogant person).

The dog who gets agitated and growls when you are approached by suspicious looking strangers may not be able to confront someone with a cricket bat, you won't know if it hasn't been tested properly but plenty of people seem to want to make that claim regardless.

If that person had a gun my dog becomes a massive liability, less chance of talking my way out of the situation with my dog going nuts. I try to avoid that sort of situation wherever possible

You're making the assumption that no potentially protective dog is obedience trained.

No I'm definitely not making that assumption. You're making the assumption that an obedience trained dog won't bark if threatened by someone with a gun.

The original question is a moot point. You can't choose a breed because it is more likely to protect you, you can only choose a breed that will excel in the training required to protect you.

You can choose a breed for whatever reason you like. If you don't prioritise protection and are not interested in protection training, but want a dog with potential, then you're probably going to have a better chance with a Rottweiler than you are with a Cavalier King Charles Spaniel.

People choose dogs for all sorts of reasons. The OP asked a specific question which I was addressing. But tell me, a "better chance" at what specifically?

That is why GSDs, Rotts, Malinois etc are used over, say, a LGD breed. Taking an Anatolian Shepherd out in public is more of a liability than an asset.

This is garbage. I know of at least three cases (seems a small number until you consider the rarity of this breed in Australia) where people take their CAO/Kangal dogs out and about with no problems. You just have to know your dog.

I'm sure there are very well trained Anatolians and even Anatolians with very civil temperaments out there and those are obviously not the ones I am talking about. Consider that you are only seeing the ones that suit life in Australia, and for that matter, the ones that people are willing to take out into public.

In any case, my point was not run down a breed as being a liability in public, but that certain breeds do well in protection work for many good reasons. That in itself is a generalisation that does not take into account lines or individual temperaments, but statistically speaking it is a fact.

[Jeff Jones]

Whilst I do not believe the evaluations that will be done will change every ones opinion on dogs protecting people, it will clear up some misconceptions for some people on the forum and will give the people getting their dogs tested a greater understanding on their dog’s behaviour.

I will not go in to too much more detail before the evaluations are done but some people are going along the right path with their comments in this thread. Please keep thinking and voicing your opinions though as it is no doubt helping people learn more about dog behaviour. Any misconceptions should be cleared up after the evaluations are complete.

If a random sample of three changes anyone's opinion I'd be questioning their judgement.

And I'm here all week if people wish to learn more about dog behaviour.

The point is it will not matter how many dogs we end up testing, the results will still be the same.

Kinda like testing three people who think the moon is made of cheese and applying it to the entire population.

Instead we will be basing the results on fact not fiction. The results of the dogs being tested could cross over to any dog. It does not matter what breed age or sex it is. if you want to prove me wrong and the trainers doing the evaluation / assessments wrong, do so on your own back after the results come out. I am sure the trainers doing the evaluation and assessments would be extremely interested to hear your judgment which will be based on the years of experience, common sense and intelligence that you so clearly display.

[Spot.]

Instead we will be basing the results on fact not fiction. The results of the dogs being tested could cross over to any dog. It does not matter what breed age or sex it is. if you want to prove me wrong and the trainers doing the evaluation / assessments wrong, do so on your own back after the results come out. I am sure the trainers doing the evaluation and assessments would be extremely interested to hear your judgment which will be based on the years of experience, common sense and intelligence that you so clearly display.

lol!

....oi my dog would protect me....right?

[Guest rhapsodical78]

Whilst I do not believe the evaluations that will be done will change every ones opinion on dogs protecting people, it will clear up some misconceptions for some people on the forum and will give the people getting their dogs tested a greater understanding on their dog’s behaviour.

I will not go in to too much more detail before the evaluations are done but some people are going along the right path with their comments in this thread. Please keep thinking and voicing your opinions though as it is no doubt helping people learn more about dog behaviour. Any misconceptions should be cleared up after the evaluations are complete.

If a random sample of three changes anyone's opinion I'd be questioning their judgement.

And I'm here all week if people wish to learn more about dog behaviour.

The point is it will not matter how many dogs we end up testing, the results will still be the same.

Kinda like testing three people who think the moon is made of cheese and applying it to the entire population.

Instead we will be basing the results on fact not fiction. The results of the dogs being tested could cross over to any dog. It does not matter what breed age or sex it is. if you want to prove me wrong and the trainers doing the evaluation / assessments wrong, do so on your own back after the results come out. I am sure the trainers doing the evaluation and assessments would be extremely interested to hear your judgment which will be based on the years of experience, common sense and intelligence that you so clearly display.

LOL.

Are you this abusive to everyone who dares question your holy judgement?

I'm going to repeat this only once more. I don't believe one can formulate a test that accurately and realistically recreates a threatening scenario. Some dogs may respond to the charade, but I believe others can probably tell the difference between a fabricated situation and a real threat, with real chemicals and real emotion.

The results could cross over to any dog, but 'could' implies 'might not' and there's no way of proving what you're trying to prove.