Dol Breed Listings

[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.

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.

If you re-read my post I said WELL trained, not backyard trained!!!! Also if you want to be bitten by an untrained dog that is fine but if it is a big strong dog that is uncontrolable I doubt anyone will get it off you..........the trained one will come strait off and more to the point would more than likely be recalled before it bite you.

As I said most people dont understand "attack" dog training just like they dont understand "aggression"

Edited June 17, 2010 by Stud Dog

[shortstep]

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.

Prior to people using the breed to finish off their bad ass image, with a hand gun in the house and a pit chained to the front door, they were not viewed as 'agressive' dogs. I did watch this for 20 years, it was very sad to see the first time the breed was banned due to these people who had miss used these poor dogs. Sorry you see humor in it.

[shortstep]

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.

So is your picture a dog playing a tug or an attack dog at work?

[K9Nev]

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.

No that's incorrrect Kavik. The GSD is not intended to be a solo tasking dog. A "good" GSD can do it all, versatitly is the breeds forte

[blissirritated]

Prior to people using the breed to finish off their bad ass image, with a hand gun in the house and a pit chained to the front door, they were not viewed as 'agressive' dogs. I did watch this for 20 years, it was very sad to see the first time the breed was banned due to these people who had miss used these poor dogs. Sorry you see humor in it.

It was a needlessly dramatic and ridiculous thing to say. Of course I saw humour in it. Evidently we're all doomed to be eaten alive by 'attack dogs' anyway, so why not have a giggle before my arms are ripped off?

You talk about BSL like you were the sole person fighting against it, but it was over-emotive, deliberately ignorant and uninformed dribble (of similar calibre to what you're spouting about 'attack dogs' now) that drove the legislation in the first place. You don't seem to be taking in any of the posts made by people who are actually involved in the fields of protection and associated dog sports, so much as twisting them to suit your own warped perception that anything described as drivier than an unconscious pug is a killer.

The word 'aggressive' isn't just a description for hostile or violent behaviour. Thesaurus.com (for want of a better example) also offers assertory, bold, brassy, cheeky*, cocky*, come on, domineering, dynamic, energetic, enterprising, flip*, forceful, fresh*, get up and go, go after, hard sell, imperious, masterful, militant, nervy, pushing, pushy, sassy, shooting from the hip, smart alecky, smart*, strenuous, tough, vigorous, zealous...

Schutzhund and other areas of so-called "protection training" revolve around insanely high levels of obedience and control over the dog before they move onto bite work - which makes up a tiny fraction of what they're trained to do. One of the most important aspects of bite work is teaching the dog to let go. A dog that's aggressive in the way you keep describing would not be able to do that.

What you're describing as an 'attack dog' is no more a protection trained animal than my local butcher is a dentist. *Any* dog in the hands of an idiot could be "trained" to be the sort of 'attack' animal you keep describing. That's not an issue with GSDs, protection work, the ANKC or any other topic raised here except for irresponsible dog ownership.

[Jeff Jones]

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.

So is your picture a dog playing a tug or an attack dog at work?

It is a picture of a Labrador playing tug.

[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 :D

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.

No that's incorrrect Kavik. The GSD is not intended to be a solo tasking dog. A "good" GSD can do it all, versatitly is the breeds forte

I didn't say solo tasking dog. When I think of companion breed, I think of something like a Cocker Spaniel etc, something that most families can probably cope with. If you work in a field where you see a lot of pet dogs and their owners, and the level of training they want to do and what they want the dog to be able to do (go to park, play with other dogs, be friendly with all with not too much work on their part) and if you have any experience with dogs working in any field that GSD are supposed to do (herding, SchH, security, police, scent detection) you will know that a dog that is capable of work is too much for the average pet owner. They make fantastic companions for those that are aware of their needs, capabilities, drive and temperament and are willing to put the time in. But they are not or should not be a Golden Retriever Like ALL working breeds

Same with my other breed, working Kelpies. I would say they are not a pet breed, for the average owner. But they make fantastic working/sporting/companion dogs if you understand their temperament and their needs and are willing to put the time in.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Kavik

[K9Nev]

'Stud Dog' date='17th Jun 2010 - 12:51 AM' post='4610412']

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!!!

Excellent video stud dog Interesting how the decoy could pat the black GSD as it sat there calm and relaxed. I would like to see that happen with some of the dogs bred for their sharp/civil traits........good luck

[shortstep]

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.

If I see the topic of 'aggression in ads and what it means to me about dogs in Australia differently than you do, I must surely be wrong or at the very least uneducated. I understand.

Yes you are right, I should just be quiet and listen to what the self proclaimed pro attack dog trainers are telling me as the truth as they know it.

And I have listened, I now know that when I meet a not very good but thinks he is a pro attack dog trainer, I will know the difference when his dog rips me half and then will not call off. So that is an education that has changed everything for me.

Anyway I am not sure I just want to be educated. Maybe I would rather share information, experiences and points of view. You know like equals thrashing over a lot of information where there are many opinions. I may not know how to train attack dogs, but I do know how I feel.

Right now I am person who would not vote to ban all attack dogs but I would vote that only trained registered handlers could own them or train them. I am sure this will work everyone up into a lather. But what you might find more interesting is I had no thought of any opinion on that subject until reading this thread. So at least in my case your education has help to form opinions, likely not the opinions you wanted.

Back to the original topic, I would have not liked to see any breeder use words like aggression in their ads to the general public (and I do not care what aggression means in attack dog talk), but would not want to make a rule about it. I have read why you and others think that is good, but I still disagree. Why? Because purebred dogs and dogs in general are under enough threat as it is without promoting them as human attack dogs. Some times discretion is the better part of valor. I would think that Valor in attack dog handler and trainer would be a very very important trait. Not twisting anything.

Anyway I am off for a day so not avoiding the topic, just out of town.

Edited June 17, 2010 by shortstep

[shortstep]

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.

So is your picture a dog playing a tug or an attack dog at work?

It is a picture of a Labrador playing tug.

Thanks!!

[shortstep]

Prior to people using the breed to finish off their bad ass image, with a hand gun in the house and a pit chained to the front door, they were not viewed as 'agressive' dogs. I did watch this for 20 years, it was very sad to see the first time the breed was banned due to these people who had miss used these poor dogs. Sorry you see humor in it.

It was a needlessly dramatic and ridiculous thing to say. Of course I saw humour in it. Evidently we're all doomed to be eaten alive by 'attack dogs' anyway, so why not have a giggle before my arms are ripped off?

You talk about BSL like you were the sole person fighting against it, but it was over-emotive, deliberately ignorant and uninformed dribble (of similar calibre to what you're spouting about 'attack dogs' now) that drove the legislation in the first place. You don't seem to be taking in any of the posts made by people who are actually involved in the fields of protection and associated dog sports, so much as twisting them to suit your own warped perception that anything described as drivier than an unconscious pug is a killer.

The word 'aggressive' isn't just a description for hostile or violent behaviour. Thesaurus.com (for want of a better example) also offers assertory, bold, brassy, cheeky*, cocky*, come on, domineering, dynamic, energetic, enterprising, flip*, forceful, fresh*, get up and go, go after, hard sell, imperious, masterful, militant, nervy, pushing, pushy, sassy, shooting from the hip, smart alecky, smart*, strenuous, tough, vigorous, zealous...

Schutzhund and other areas of so-called "protection training" revolve around insanely high levels of obedience and control over the dog before they move onto bite work - which makes up a tiny fraction of what they're trained to do. One of the most important aspects of bite work is teaching the dog to let go. A dog that's aggressive in the way you keep describing would not be able to do that.

What you're describing as an 'attack dog' is no more a protection trained animal than my local butcher is a dentist. *Any* dog in the hands of an idiot could be "trained" to be the sort of 'attack' animal you keep describing. That's not an issue with GSDs, protection work, the ANKC or any other topic raised here except for irresponsible dog ownership.

Look I lived right next to and worked in an area call the Hilltop Tacoma, look it up on you tube and watch a couple of videos of the hood and then tell me again what I should think.

[K9Nev]

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 :D

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.

No that's incorrrect Kavik. The GSD is not intended to be a solo tasking dog. A "good" GSD can do it all, versatitly is the breeds forte

I didn't say solo tasking dog. When I think of companion breed, I think of something like a Cocker Spaniel etc, something that most families can probably cope with. If you work in a field where you see a lot of pet dogs and their owners, and the level of training they want to do and what they want the dog to be able to do (go to park, play with other dogs, be friendly with all with not too much work on their part) and if you have any experience with dogs working in any field that GSD are supposed to do (herding, SchH, security, police, scent detection) you will know that a dog that is capable of work is too much for the average pet owner. They make fantastic companions for those that are aware of their needs, capabilities, drive and temperament and are willing to put the time in. But they are not or should not be a Golden Retriever Like ALL working breeds

Same with my other breed, working Kelpies. I would say they are not a pet breed, for the average owner. But they make fantastic working/sporting/companion dogs if you understand their temperament and their needs and are willing to put the time in.

The GSD is a working dog Kavik, all of them if bred correctly, one breed, one dog and a companion animal is it's first and foremost role. Why is a dog defined as a companion animal too much for the average pet owner???.

[Kavik]

Have you ever worked in the pet industry? Have you seen what the average pet owner is like? What they expect their dog to do, the amount of work they are prepared to put in? The problems they face and cannot deal with with even fairly low drive small companion breeds of dog? And compare that to the temperament of a dog that is supposed to be able to herd, do SchH, security, personal protection, scent detection? How do YOU think they would fare?

[Aidan]

How do YOU think they would fare?

Or the dogs. Mine can "herd" a soccer ball for 6 hours at a time, then come for an hour's run with me and still want more. She's 8.5 years old, going blind and missing half her insides.

[K9Nev]

Have you ever worked in the pet industry? Have you seen what the average pet owner is like? What they expect their dog to do, the amount of work they are prepared to put in? The problems they face and cannot deal with with even fairly low drive small companion breeds of dog? And compare that to the temperament of a dog that is supposed to be able to herd, do SchH, security, personal protection, scent detection? How do YOU think they would fare?

The GSD is not for everyone, size plays a factor amoungst exercise requirements etc, but what reason to you feel the temperament is unsuitable???

[Kavik]

I don't think the average pet owner wants a dog that has a lot of drive and the potential to protect them. If they did they would already own a working line dog A lot of dogs (of all breeds) end up in the pound because their owners could not handle them - too much drive or exercise requirements, were too destructive or protective etc. Unsuitable dog for them.

[K9Nev]

I don't think the average pet owner wants a dog that has a lot of drive and the potential to protect them. If they did they would already own a working line dog A lot of dogs (of all breeds) end up in the pound because their owners could not handle them - too much drive or exercise requirements, were too destructive or protective etc. Unsuitable dog for them.

Good point, thanks

[arawnhaus]

I don't think the average pet owner wants a dog that has a lot of drive and the potential to protect them. If they did they would already own a working line dog :D A lot of dogs (of all breeds) end up in the pound because their owners could not handle them - too much drive or exercise requirements, were too destructive or protective etc. Unsuitable dog for them.

Just touching on this part, many average Aussies want a companion, and a "watch" dog they go to the local paper or online classified in search of one and they do not generally consider working lines or showlines, just a breed of dog.Then said person gets disappointed when the dog will let all and sundry through the backyard and say "oh but it's a (insert breed here) and are caught by surprise...I hear this all the time from just regular dog owning people..........I dare say many end up in the pounds and given away because they weren't what was expected..

Edited June 17, 2010 by arawnhaus