Dol Breed Listings

[Kavik]

I am referring to the "aggression" concept in promotion of the working GSD as the dog's major essential trait. In other words, do we need to be breeding genetically extreme aggression to do the job???.

No, and as I have said earlier, I don't know of too many breeders who think that is the case either. Certainly the ad in question does not suggest that these dogs are extreme in aggression, quite the opposite, just that they are not suitable for pet homes. Whilst aggression might have a part to play in this (if not competently handled), the bigger issue is that working line dogs necessarily have more drive than most pet homes can provide outlets for.

The dog couldn't pass a Schutzhund BH as it's shapness and aggression cannot be tamed enough to get through a traffic test without a reaction...........a GSD that fails a BH in reference to a GSD breed quality test is not a good GSD, working dog or not. The classical working dog's I mentioned previously passed those tests....

The litter in question is a line-breeding on one of those classic working dogs you mentioned, and very closely related to your own pup. Passing a BH is no guarantee that anything that dog produces will fit in well in a pet home.

Some have mentioned the breeder and litter in this debate, but personally, I don't know them or be inclined to critisize their dogs or practices as such, from my perspective I am looking at a general overview of advertising extreme aggression being the supposed ultimate of a working GSD breeding. As a man stopping yard dog I agree that extreme aggression and sharpness would make a fantastic yard worker, but IMHO, that's about where it ends. I don't believe that the GSD is the best breed for that purpose either, but that's another story.

Offshoots in the ideal GSD temperament are plentiful from soft weakness to over aggression and everything in between with too many excuses and reasons why "balance" is missed. This breeding is only for pet homes and the other is only for working/security homes are not "balanced" GSD's as they should be, but extremes at each end. A "good" GSD regardless if the breed may be unsuitable for some people, should be able to do it all, and a companion animal is one of those roles.

It doesn't and shouldn't mean that a dog capable of security/protection work can't be a pet. If can't be a loyal and trustworthy pet at least with it's primary handler, there is something far wrong with that breeding IMHO

Extreme aggression is NOT being advertised here.

If you have seen the soft temperaments of some show line dogs, you would understand that the ad is making sure people know this breeding is NOT like that. I agree that an ideal GSD litter would have some that are suited to companions, some sport and some security, if you go by the breed standard where the GSD is a jack of all trades. The reality is that this is not often the case. There are many who cater for the show/pet scene. This ad is catering for the security etc sector.

[DerRottweiler]

I am referring to the "aggression" concept in promotion of the working GSD as the dog's major essential trait. In other words, do we need to be breeding genetically extreme aggression to do the job???.

No, and as I have said earlier, I don't know of too many breeders who think that is the case either. Certainly the ad in question does not suggest that these dogs are extreme in aggression, quite the opposite, just that they are not suitable for pet homes. Whilst aggression might have a part to play in this (if not competently handled), the bigger issue is that working line dogs necessarily have more drive than most pet homes can provide outlets for.

The dog couldn't pass a Schutzhund BH as it's shapness and aggression cannot be tamed enough to get through a traffic test without a reaction...........a GSD that fails a BH in reference to a GSD breed quality test is not a good GSD, working dog or not. The classical working dog's I mentioned previously passed those tests....

The litter in question is a line-breeding on one of those classic working dogs you mentioned, and very closely related to your own pup. Passing a BH is no guarantee that anything that dog produces will fit in well in a pet home.

Some have mentioned the breeder and litter in this debate, but personally, I don't know them or be inclined to critisize their dogs or practices as such, from my perspective I am looking at a general overview of advertising extreme aggression being the supposed ultimate of a working GSD breeding. As a man stopping yard dog I agree that extreme aggression and sharpness would make a fantastic yard worker, but IMHO, that's about where it ends. I don't believe that the GSD is the best breed for that purpose either, but that's another story.

Offshoots in the ideal GSD temperament are plentiful from soft weakness to over aggression and everything in between with too many excuses and reasons why "balance" is missed. This breeding is only for pet homes and the other is only for working/security homes are not "balanced" GSD's as they should be, but extremes at each end. A "good" GSD regardless if the breed may be unsuitable for some people, should be able to do it all, and a companion animal is one of those roles.

It doesn't and shouldn't mean that a dog capable of security/protection work can't be a pet. If can't be a loyal and trustworthy pet at least with it's primary handler, there is something far wrong with that breeding IMHO

Extreme aggression is NOT being advertised here.

If you have seen the soft temperaments of some show line dogs, you would understand that the ad is making sure people know this breeding is NOT like that. I agree that an ideal GSD litter would have some that are suited to companions, some sport and some security, if you go by the breed standard where the GSD is a jack of all trades. The reality is that this is not often the case. There are many who cater for the show/pet scene. This ad is catering for the security etc sector.

Key point.

Do not know where people are plucking extreme aggression from.

And yes the ideal GSD would be a bit of everything and there are a few dogs going around with these qualities, but most are all show and no go, too far from the breed standard...

Edited June 16, 2010 by DerRottwelier

[K9Nev]

'DerRottwelier' date='16th Jun 2010 - 07:12 PM' post='4609685']

Key point.

Do not know where people are plucking extreme aggression from.

And yes the ideal GSD would be a bit of everything and there are a few dogs going around with these qualities, but most are all show and no go, too far from the breed standard...

A level of "go" beyond the use as a companion animal doesn't comply with the breed standards either No better than the all "show" one's except at the other end of the spectrum when looking at the breed in an overall perspective. But the point is, it's a complete misconception IMHO, that only aggressive difficult to handle dogs are better workers than the well balanced dog. Many of these over sharp, civil dogs can't pass a Schutzhund test, can't pass an inspection, can't be walked in public without constant correction. They do bite well with courage and fighting drive, but so does a well balanced working dog, the dog which I call "extreme" in aggression doesn't do the job better, it's just more difficult to handle and control.

A good dog needs some sharpness and civil drive along with some rank drive to provide some trainablility and handler focus and prey drive. A dog of that balance and again this just my perception, is far better dog overall than a dog driven entirely by sharpness, civil and defence. The only advantage I see in a truely sharp civil dog, is faster light ups and takes less training to generate the fight in the dog...........other than that, they are a pain in the butt to handle & trust.

[DerRottweiler]

'DerRottwelier' date='16th Jun 2010 - 07:12 PM' post='4609685']

Key point.

Do not know where people are plucking extreme aggression from.

And yes the ideal GSD would be a bit of everything and there are a few dogs going around with these qualities, but most are all show and no go, too far from the breed standard...

A level of "go" beyond the use as a companion animal doesn't comply with the breed standards either No better than the all "show" one's except at the other end of the spectrum when looking at the breed in an overall perspective. But the point is, it's a complete misconception IMHO, that only aggressive difficult to handle dogs are better workers than the well balanced dog. Many of these over sharp, civil dogs can't pass a Schutzhund test, can't pass an inspection, can't be walked in public without constant correction. They do bite well with courage and fighting drive, but so does a well balanced working dog, the dog which I call "extreme" in aggression doesn't do the job better, it's just more difficult to handle and control.

A good dog needs some sharpness and civil drive along with some rank drive to provide some trainablility and handler focus and prey drive. A dog of that balance and again this just my perception, is far better dog overall than a dog driven entirely by sharpness, civil and defence. The only advantage I see in a truely sharp civil dog, is faster light ups and takes less training to generate the fight in the dog...........other than that, they are a pain in the butt to handle & trust.

again, where are you getting over-sharp etc from.

This has nothing to do with the dogs in question.......the topic isn't is a sharp dog a good working dog.

The topic is, is it okay for working dogs to have a degree of aggression in them and have it advertised that way.....right?

I think you agree with what we are saying, you are just going off on your on tangent that has nothing to do with the dogs in question, wtih 'over-sharp' and 'extreme aggression', neither of which are mentioned in the ad...

Edited June 16, 2010 by DerRottwelier

[Jeff Jones]

K9 Nev it is no good for you to post your general thoughts on working line German Shepherds and the word aggression in this thread as you are just confusing people with your constant comments on extreme aggression. This thread was started due to a dolers concern over the word aggression in an advertisement.

These should prove to be incredible working dogs, with natural drive, aggression and balance.

I am amazed as to how this thread has gotten to be 9 pages long over something so simple as the word aggression.

Seeing as aggression isn't part of German Shepherd dogs nature I wonder what the role of a decoy is? I always thought the role of a decoy was to stimulate different forms of aggression in a dog. Depending on the end goal the decoy will dictate to the dog what form of aggression to display and for how long before being rewarded. I guess seeing as "aggression is not in a German shepherds nature" decoys have been winging it so far with training?

I am not talking about extreme forms of aggression and neither was the breeder in there advertisement. I find it stupid that some posters on here are continuing to argue when they clearly do not understand forms of canine aggression and how it can be displayed.

[Stud Dog]

There is nothing at all wrong with advertising like this, in fact I would say this kennel is being very honest and more people should take on board the temperament of the dogs when breeding and advertising instead of just their looks.

Most people dont understand the teminology used in working dogs. Words such as aggression, prey drive, defence drive, courage, dominance, etc are used to decribe the working ability of the dog. In a well bred and well trained dog all these traits have a place and are needed for the dog to be balanced. When this is achieved you get a very confident dog that will fit into any situation........from being at home playing with kids to taking on attackers in a riot on the street. The balanced dog can be turned on and off and is very reliable..........if more people bred and trained dogs like this there would be far less dog bite problems!!!

This video clip may help you understand how a balanced dog is turned on and off and is under total control in all situations:

Note aggression in a dog does not mean it is dangerous!!! In fact a dog with no aggression is therefore unbalanced and is more likely to bite a person out of fear, compared to a well trained balanced dog with natural aggression!!!

Edited June 16, 2010 by Stud Dog

[K9Nev]

K9 Nev it is no good for you to post your general thoughts on working line German Shepherds and the word aggression in this thread as you are just confusing people with your constant comments on extreme aggression. This thread was started due to a dolers concern over the word aggression in an advertisement.

These should prove to be incredible working dogs, with natural drive, aggression and balance.

I am amazed as to how this thread has gotten to be 9 pages long over something so simple as the word aggression.

Seeing as aggression isn't part of German Shepherd dogs nature I wonder what the role of a decoy is? I always thought the role of a decoy was to stimulate different forms of aggression in a dog. Depending on the end goal the decoy will dictate to the dog what form of aggression to display and for how long before being rewarded. I guess seeing as "aggression is not in a German shepherds nature" decoys have been winging it so far with training?

I am not talking about extreme forms of aggression and neither was the breeder in there advertisement. I find it stupid that some posters on here are continuing to argue when they clearly do not understand forms of canine aggression and how it can be displayed.

Should we be promoting dogs in this fashion considering all the new laws they are trying to bring in, I am disappointed to read this as aggression is not a natural part of the GSD nature and shouldn't be promoted in this way

Jeff, the above is the question that the OP asked which is fair enough. I can guarantee that the BSL bloke would like the add as much as the people supporting it the next time a GSD bites someone which is the context of the thread in relation to the laws governing supposed dangerous dogs. Why on earth on a public forum are we promoting GSD aggression and arguing with people who claim aggression is a myth???. We have the breed standards on our side here that stipulates that a properly bred GSD is not aggressive..........so, isn't best to run with that??? The exact predicted traits of a working litter can easily be explained more in detail on enquiry I think. Plenty of time when the pups are not on the ground yet

Edited June 16, 2010 by K9Nev

[BOSSFACE]

We breed showline GSD's but personally have no problem at all with the wording of the advert. We would have a working line dog in a heartbeat if there was someone anywhere within cooee of where we live, to help us train it properly.

In my humble opinion, I think that obviously the problem lies in the general publics lack of understanding of the word "aggression" when used in this context. This is evidenced, as JJ has said, by the very fact that we have 9 pages of discussion over the word "aggression". Unfortunately, public perception of the breed is extremely important in this age of BSL, and while I really hate the idea of having to tip toe around what sounds to me like correct terminology in this case, public perception needs to be a constant consideration. I am well aware that it is a real pain in the butt, but it is reality nonetheless.

It really all comes down to a lack of education about what a correct German Shepherd should be. Some of the enquiries we get for puppies are just ridiculous and it really concerns me when people looking for a working line dog contact me for a puppy. We obviously breed showline dogs (well it seems obvious to me anyway). What is going to happen when these people get there hands on a true working line dog....they obviously have no idea what they are looking for.

I don't really know how the lack of education can be overcome, there is certainly no quick fix. It does however, seem to be at the heart of the problem, when we can't advertise our dogs for what they are without risking such a well meaning but negative reaction as that in the opening post.

[Kavik]

A level of "go" beyond the use as a companion animal doesn't comply with the breed standards either

Yes it does. From the standard

The German Shepherd Dog must be of well balanced temperament, steady of nerves, self assured, totally at ease (except when provoked) and good natured as well as attentive and easy to train. He must possess instinctive drive, resilience and self confidence in order to be suitable as a companion, watch dog, protection, service and herding dog.

To be able to do many of these jobs a dog needs a higher level of "go" beyond that which you need or would desire for a companion animal.

[shortstep]

Jeff, the above is the question that the OP asked which is fair enough. I can guarantee that the BSL bloke would like the add as much as the people supporting it the next time a GSD bites someone which is the context of the thread in relation to the laws governing supposed dangerous dogs. Why on earth on a public forum are we promoting GSD aggression and arguing with people who claim aggression is a myth???. We have the breed standards on our side here that stipulates that a properly bred GSD is not aggressive..........so, isn't best to run with that??? The exact predicted traits of a working litter can easily be explained more in detail on enquiry I think. Plenty of time when the pups are not on the ground yet

Oh don't spoil all the fun by saying caution is a good approach.

I'm sure there are many who are enjoying these posts about the right kind of bite an attack dog should have. It might be good that hard protection dogs enthusiast are letting it all hang out for everyone in the world to read.

Some could say this thread is a public service, that people needs to know all about this corner of the dog world and to have full understanding of the term 'aggression' when applied to dogs bred and trained to attack humans.

That is how I see it, but I am a libertarian.

[Jeff Jones]

Jeff, the above is the question that the OP asked which is fair enough. I can guarantee that the BSL bloke would like the add as much as the people supporting it the next time a GSD bites someone which is the context of the thread in relation to the laws governing supposed dangerous dogs. Why on earth on a public forum are we promoting GSD aggression and arguing with people who claim aggression is a myth???. We have the breed standards on our side here that stipulates that a properly bred GSD is not aggressive..........so, isn't best to run with that??? The exact predicted traits of a working litter can easily be explained more in detail on enquiry I think. Plenty of time when the pups are not on the ground yet

Oh don't spoil all the fun by saying caution is a good approach.

I'm sure there are many who are enjoying these posts about the right kind of bite an attack dog should have. It might be good that hard protection dogs enthusiast are letting it all hang out for everyone in the world to read.

Some could say this thread is a public service, that people needs to know all about this corner of the dog world and to have full understanding of the term 'aggression' when applied to dogs bred and trained to attack humans.

That is how I see it, but I am a libertarian.

K9Nev is not saying caution is a good approach. He is saying letting people run with misinformation is a good approach. Letting people run with misinformation is more dangerous than informing them on the truth... Oh that's right BSL started because politicians were informed of the truth instead of being mislead by false reports and misinformation about the breeds involved.

[shortstep]

Jeff, the above is the question

K9Nev is not saying caution is a good approach. He is saying letting people run with misinformation is a good approach. Letting people run with misinformation is more dangerous than informing them on the truth... Oh that's right BSL started because politicians were informed of the truth instead of being mislead by false reports and misinformation about the breeds involved.

Yes misinformation is dangerouse.

I know the ANKC has said they do not allow dogs to be trained for attack work on humans.

Is it legal (all states or which ones) for anyone to train dogs for attack work on humans or is there some sort of government oversight of this sort of training? What is required to hang up your shingle?

Can any one own a dog that had been trained to attack humans in Australia? Or do you have to be licensed, permits by governement, any oversignt at all on who owns these dogs?

Edited June 17, 2010 by shortstep

[DerRottweiler]

Jeff, the above is the question

K9Nev is not saying caution is a good approach. He is saying letting people run with misinformation is a good approach. Letting people run with misinformation is more dangerous than informing them on the truth... Oh that's right BSL started because politicians were informed of the truth instead of being mislead by false reports and misinformation about the breeds involved.

Yes misinformation is dangerouse.

I know the ANKC has said they do not allow dogs to be trained for attack work on humans.

Is it legal (all states or which ones) for anyone to train dogs for attack work on humans or is there some sort of government oversight of this sort of training? What is required to hang up your shingle?

Can any one own a dog that had been trained to attack humans in Australia? Or do you have to be licensed, permits by governement, any oversignt at all on who owns these dogs?

In Vic, at a minimum you need a security license. On top of that, the dog must be listed as dangerous with the council and have additional containment measures in place. Even then it is pretty hard to find a trainer, but there are a few good guys around.

Othen then that, there is Eagle Heights Sch. Club, but they are always full and i believe they don't do bitework.

Edited June 17, 2010 by DerRottwelier

[Wazzat Xolo]

Anyhow what would I know !!!!! Gee whizz there are so many experts and a few spurts lol. My comments were made from personal experience from a Senior Police Dog Trainer, but what would he know anyhow !

I stand by my initial comments and I am sure if you research YOU will find they are spot on!!

Good luck with your mass debate

I'm sorry then, what type of "drive" were you talking about if you don't mean prey drive, and don't mean aggression?

It's interesting to hear different people's views on what working dogs "should" be like. But when it comes down to it, and no offence intended to anyone here, I agree it does make sense to take the word of people with real life experience in handling police & security dogs. And the ones I have talked to appear to have no hesitation in decribing their dogs as having "aggression".

Staranias this is the reply to the question I asked in what the WA Police look for in a WAPOL Dog

Base Criteria

German Shepherd or Rottweiler, ( will look at cross breds) males preferred

12 months to 24 months

very active retriever

sound temperament

not overly aggressive but will stand their ground when challenged;

physically fit with good conformation ( not show standard but healthy)

very alert

Some of their dogs have been family pets, rescued from shelters and from breeders.

G emphasised the main point they look at is the drive for the article ( be it ball, sleeve etc) and the non overly aggressive dog but able to satnd their ground. I poersonally donot like the word aggressive as I think its been done to death by the BSL people and the general community has a new meaning for this word when associaetd with dogs.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Wazzat Xolo

[DerRottweiler]

We've been saying all along that such dogs should not be 'overly' aggressive....

[Wazzat Xolo]

We've been saying all along that such dogs should not be 'overly' aggressive....

Yes I know lol it wasin reply to a qoute I made and someone mis read it, maybe I shpould have PMed it

sorry for the confusion!

carry on !!

Very good thread by the way!

[Stud Dog]

Jeff, the above is the question

K9Nev is not saying caution is a good approach. He is saying letting people run with misinformation is a good approach. Letting people run with misinformation is more dangerous than informing them on the truth... Oh that's right BSL started because politicians were informed of the truth instead of being mislead by false reports and misinformation about the breeds involved.

Yes misinformation is dangerouse.

I know the ANKC has said they do not allow dogs to be trained for attack work on humans.

Is it legal (all states or which ones) for anyone to train dogs for attack work on humans or is there some sort of government oversight of this sort of training? What is required to hang up your shingle?

Can any one own a dog that had been trained to attack humans in Australia? Or do you have to be licensed, permits by governement, any oversignt at all on who owns these dogs?

In every state bar Victoria anyone can own a dog trained in Personal Protection. In Victoria you must hold a security licence to own a trained Personal Protection dog.

The crazy part is a well trained personal protection dog is far safer than an untrained dog (which any Victorian can own) as you have both full control and experience on the trained dogs side. The untrained dog will be unpredictable and will bite on its own accord. All dogs can bite, so before anyone complains about trained 'attack' dogs, ask yourself if you have to be bitten, which would you prefer, by one that is trained and under control or one that will do what ever it wants.......'Attack' training is very misunderstood just like the term 'aggression' is. As per the video clip in my previous post not all "attack" dogs are dangerous..... well trained balanced ones are only when they are called upon.

[shortstep]

Jeff, the above is the question

K9Nev is not saying caution is a good approach. He is saying letting people run with misinformation is a good approach. Letting people run with misinformation is more dangerous than informing them on the truth... Oh that's right BSL started because politicians were informed of the truth instead of being mislead by false reports and misinformation about the breeds involved.

Yes misinformation is dangerouse.

I know the ANKC has said they do not allow dogs to be trained for attack work on humans.

Is it legal (all states or which ones) for anyone to train dogs for attack work on humans or is there some sort of government oversight of this sort of training? What is required to hang up your shingle?

Can any one own a dog that had been trained to attack humans in Australia? Or do you have to be licensed, permits by governement, any oversignt at all on who owns these dogs?

In every state bar Victoria anyone can own a dog trained in Personal Protection. In Victoria you must hold a security licence to own a trained Personal Protection dog.

The crazy part is a well trained personal protection dog is far safer than an untrained dog (which any Victorian can own) as you have both full control and experience on the trained dogs side. The untrained dog will be unpredictable and will bite on its own accord. All dogs can bite, so before anyone complains about trained 'attack' dogs, ask yourself if you have to be bitten, which would you prefer, by one that is trained and under control or one that will do what ever it wants.......'Attack' training is very misunderstood just like the term 'aggression' is. As per the video clip in my previous post not all "attack" dogs are dangerous..... well trained balanced ones are only when they are called upon.

So if anyone can own and train attack dogs (except in Vic), why would you think that is safe. Seems that 'anyone' could easily be training incorrectly, selecting the wrong type of dog or managing their dogs in a unsafe mannor.

I watched as the pitbull was discovered in the hood. They were all owner taught attack dogs and it was and still is far from safe. Here we are 30 years later.

Two wrongs do not make a right. I do not want to be bitten by any dog but if I had to pick I would prefer to be bitten by a untrained dog. No way I would want a well practiced attack dog takeing me down with "anyone" on the other end of the leash. I always fear people a lot more than dogs.

Edited June 17, 2010 by shortstep

[blissirritated]

I watched as the pitbull was discovered in the hood.

What, like David Attenborough? Peering through gaps in a broken, graffiti covered fence? "... and here we see the bogan discovering the 'pitbull' for the first time... he immediately commences 'attack training' on the untamed beast..."

There's a whole world of difference between a well bred dog trained properly in protection (or any other sport) and a malcontent in "the hood" with an uncontrolled snarling mutt.

[Jeff Jones]

So if anyone can own and train attack dogs (except in Vic), why would you think that is safe. Seems that 'anyone' could easily be training incorrectly, selecting the wrong type of dog or managing their dogs in a unsafe mannor.

I watched as the pitbull was discovered in the hood. They were all owner taught attack dogs and it was and still is far from safe. Here we are 30 years later.

Two wrongs do not make a right. I do not want to be bitten by any dog but if I had to pick I would prefer to be bitten by a untrained dog. No way I would want a well practiced attack dog takeing me down with "anyone" on the other end of the leash. I always fear people a lot more than dogs.

Good god, Why do you have to always try and bring extreme examples in to your posts to try and make a point on something you clearly are not educated on. Are there people in Australia that train and sell dogs with a poor level of training to people who should not own them...Yes. Does that have anything to do with this thread or Stud Dog's post...no...

I have no problem with educating people regarding working lines or protection training but you are constantly arguing with experienced handlers and trainers on the forum with no reasonable point to be made. You openly state this is a "new world" for you and you lack knowledge on the subject yet you continue to argue and twists posts around to try and make an arguable statement.