Guide Dog Killed

[Aphra]

What are we actually talking about when we're talking about DA or HA? I know what it means in the expression of behaviour, but what is the drive in the dog being triggered? Aggression is inherent in being alive, it's the way animals gain and protect resources, including food, territory and mates, so some level of aggression is pretty much necessary for survival.

As Haresdown said, the herding instinct is modified prey drive, so what I'd like to understand is what is at the base of DA and HA? Because I think we lump a lot of behaviours together in that basket, but the cause of those behaviours is not always the same.

My Neos would probably have been considered dog aggressive, but they weren't in the sense that most people think of dog to dog aggression. As a guarding breed they had a very strong pack drive, which expressed itself in high erritoriality ... a bit like a clique of teenage girls. So for dogs within their pack they were non-reactive, playful and friendly, dogs outside the pack were a threat to be driven away. They could accept new dogs into the pack, but it took a bit of time, they weren't automatically friendly.

For some dogs DA is reactivity, which I'm guessing is form of prey drive. It's pretty typical of terriers, because they were bred for hunting small, fast animals and needed to be quick of the mark. So those dogs have a low tolerance level but high tenacity. A terrier which saw a mouse and took ten minutes to decide to chase it, or got bored halfway and gave up wouldn't have been much use.

For some dogs DA is fear, and they see offense as the easiest form of defence.

So if someone was breeding dogs to be extremely dog aggressive, what are they selecting for genetically? A very high level of reactivity and a very high prey drive that will see other dogs as prey? Extreme pack drive? Extremely fearful dogs?

And what is being selected for with HA dogs? I'd pretty much assumed that HA was a combination of lack of good experiences with humans/socialization combined with dogs who were very fearful. I suppose it might also be a very dominant dog with poor human socialization, but the truly dominant dog is, I think, pretty rare.

I'm just guessing here, there are clearly people who know this stuff and can explain. I just wonder if it would help if we understood what was actually going on, rather than just lumping behaviours which are expressed in a similar fashion, but have very different causality, together.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

My intention in sharing the anecdote is to demonstrate that a dog which is neither of a fighting breed, nor bred for work, is nonetheless aggressive. I would have expected it to be obvious to just about everyone, on the basis of their common experience if nothing else, that aggression is an inherent component of just about all dogs temperaments, irrespective of breeding. However, given some of the frankly baffling comments I read on this forum, and indeed in this thread, I thought I'd offer an example.

It surprises me that you agree, given that earlier you said that a generic pet exhibits nil aggression.

When I say he's useless, I mean in his capacity as a working retriever.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Lo Pan

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Excellent post Aphra.

[sandgrubber]

What are we actually talking about when we're talking about DA or HA?

My impression of this very sad story is that we're talking about the particular aggression that a pack will show to outsiders, or perhaps toward prey. Something like territoriality, but a little different. It's a dangerous form of aggression because multiple dogs act together in attack.

[Salukifan]

My intention in sharing the anecdote is to demonstrate that a dog which is neither of a fighting breed, nor bred for work, is nonetheless aggressive. I would have expected it to be obvious to just about everyone, on the basis of their common experience if nothing else, that aggression is an inherent component of just about all dogs temperaments, irrespective of breeding. However, given some of the frankly baffling comments I read on this forum, and indeed in this thread, I thought I'd offer an example.

It surprises me that you agree, given that earlier you said that a generic pet exhibits nil aggression.

When I say he's useless, I mean in his capacity as a working retriever.

Sorry, but I did not say that.

I suggested that surely those breeding "pets" would be aiming for zero aggression. There is the odd dog that will shut down rather than aggress but it's not that common. But you can certainly select for lower levels of it and its precisely what happened in fighting breeds when they culled dogs that aggressed to people. And now that they're no longer culling it, guess what.

You didn't actually say the GR was aggressive by the way. You postulated that in certain circumstances he could be. I won't argue with you - I agree. They also seem to be more prone to resource guarding than some breeds - that's expressed in aggression a fair bit of the time.

As for ingression being inherent in all dogs' temperaments, it's hardly a level playing field. As I said, we've selected for lower triggers to aggress, harder bites and greater tenancity in some breeds - that tends to produce higher levels of aggression in the breed, if not individual dogs.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[Salukifan]

What are we actually talking about when we're talking about DA or HA? I know what it means in the expression of behaviour, but what is the drive in the dog being triggered? Aggression is inherent in being alive, it's the way animals gain and protect resources, including food, territory and mates, so some level of aggression is pretty much necessary for survival.

Good question. I think that combinations of drives can be involved but I"m no expert.

I do wonder however if there's a reason why certain combinations of breeds in crossbreeds seem to produce dogs that feature reasonably frequently in attack stories. If you take a breed with a low trigger to react, a hard bite and tenancity (but low HA) and cross it with a breed that's suspicious of strangers, territorial and bred to guard but doesn't tend to aggress as easily, it seems to me that certain individuals of that breed will inherit a pretty volitile combination of characteristics. Place such pups in the hands of someone who fails to socialise and train it and I think you've got a recipe for disaster. Frankly I think this is what we see play out in quite a few of the attack stories we read in this country.

Some years back there was a litter of Golden Retriever/Maremma pups, most of whom became well known to trainers in this area. They had low triggers to bite (gundog genes), but bit hard (LGD genes) were highly territorial and very protective. At least one was also a serious resource guarder and aggressing to the owners family aged 5 months.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[Quickasyoucan]

On a different note and this is not to take away from what happened. Did it anywhere say if the guide dog and its canine companion were on leash? I am still trying to understand how it managed to run under a car if it was on a leash.

I only say this because I have heard of so many preventable accidents where people think it is safe to walk their dog on a busy road off leash only to have their seemingly bombproof dog see a rabbit, be spooked by something etc to go under a car. I see it every day. How hard is it to put your dog on a lead. It seems to be an ego thing. When I have said to people whose dogs rush mine put yours on a lead they say my dog is friendly and it is my right to walk my dog off leash - well not it isnt.

As I said this is not to take any blame away from the roaming dogs but if the guide dog was indeed of leash this makes the tragedy possibly preventable. Irrespective of the breed of the dog this dog might have been spooked by a pack of any dogs if it were off lead (I have seen it a million times with one dog being chased in a dog park by even friendly dogs) to go under a car.

I know these dogs were not friendly but the guide dog (even more so as it is such a valuable commodity) should also have been on a leash.

[Cosmolo]

Guide dog was on lead. It slipped from the handlers hand when he became spooked and ran from the other dogs.

[Kavik]

A Labrador can pull the leash out of your hands, they are very strong - I have had one pull me over and I tore mt medial ligament because of it (didn't want to let go of lead because it was not my dog and I was told it had a poor recall - but I should have let go!).

[Quickasyoucan]

Guide dog was on lead. It slipped from the handlers hand when he became spooked and ran from the other dogs.

Thanks, I didn't read that in anything I read.

As I said I don't condone the behaviour of the aggressing dogs' owners, but I do wish in general people would put their dogs on a lead and not abuse you for suggesting that they should - although the guide dog was - so many accidents could be avoided.

[Zhou Xuanyao]

No, this is what was said -

I'd say most generic pets would have zero HA and DA tendencies, very high bite thresholds and bite inhibition and be totally unterritorial and friendly to all. No prey drive either.

Obviously absurd, which is why I didn't reply other than to state that I didn't agree.

Re the GR, I don't need to explicitly state that it's aggressive; aggression is implicit in the behaviour I described.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Lo Pan

[Salukifan]

No, this is what was said -

I'd say most generic pets would have zero HA and DA tendencies, very high bite thresholds and bite inhibition and be totally unterritorial and friendly to all. No prey drive either.

Obviously absurd, which is why I didn't reply other than to state that I didn't agree.

Re the GR, I don't need to explicitly state that it's aggressive; aggression is implicit in the behaviour I described.

Always dangerous to quote a person out of context Lo Pan:

And here it is :)

I'd say most generic pets would have zero HA and DA tendencies, very high bite thresholds and bite inhibition and be totally unterritorial and friendly to all. No prey drive either.

Is that what your dog's breeder was aiming for?? A Cavalier King Charles Spaniel in a different suit?

[Zhou Xuanyao]

You defined a generic pet, then asked me if that's what my breeder was aiming for, not that 'nil aggression and prey drive' (to summarise your definition) is an ideal that pet breeders aim for. Do you understand the difference, or is it just beneath you to concede a mistake?

[Salukifan]

You defined a generic pet, then asked me if that's what my breeder was aiming for, not that 'nil aggression and prey drive' (to summarise your definition) is an ideal that pet breeders aim for. Do you understand the difference, or is it just beneath you to concede a mistake?

What's the "mistake" I'm meant to concede? That I defined the qualities of a supposed "generic pet" as including no aggression? From that you interpret my response as suggesting that I think such an ideal is possible?

No such thing as a generic pet Lo Pan. But shouldn't that be what breeders with no interest in function should be aiming for? I don't hold with the concept but if you throw breed function out the window then wouldn't that be what pets should be for most people? You said your breeder was producing 'pets'. You were asked a few times to define what "pet' was and you've yet to offer a definition. When I asked:

How about you explain how dog aggression, human aggression low bite inhibition, a low bite threshold, territorial drives or prey drive assist a canine in any way to be a good pet.

Your carefully considered and constructive response was:

Why would I want to do that?

I've discussed dog aggression on this forum often enough for you to know fully well that I don't hold that any dog can't aggress. God knows I've stated it often enough.

But at least I'm putting ideas out there rather than focussing on finding fault with those of others. I honestly don't know what you want from me here.

How does "you are right and I am wrong" do for you. No bloody idea what the point of this is but hopefully it might move you on from picking my posts to pieces by selectively quoting me. It would actually be nice to read what you think rather than what you think about what others write.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Haredown Whippets

[Zhou Xuanyao]

The point is (and yourself or others may not agree with my approach) to discuss a topic with due diligence in order to gain some insight, something beyond the usual platitudes. I press you, you press me, we strengthen our arguments in response to one and other, and something tighter and more logical may emerge that we can all learn from.

[Salukifan]

The point is (and yourself or others may not agree with my approach) to discuss a topic with due diligence in order to gain some insight, something beyond the usual platitudes. I press you, you press me, we strengthen our arguments in response to one and other, and something tighter and more logical may emerge that we can all learn from

That presupposes that you actually engage explaining your point by answering questions posed by posters and resisting the urge to post dismissively or insultingly. You've been dodging expanding on your posts in this thread for some time. "You are incorrect" and "why would I want to do that" isn't the sort of response you generally give when you wish to discuss a topic with 'due diligence". Debate involves the expression of counterpoints not dismissal of arguments in such a manner. Play the ball, not the man.

My conclusion two days ago from our engagement in this thread is that you've got some kind of pre-existing personal issue with me. If that's not the case, then perhaps some adjustment in your posting style might be an idea?

[Zhou Xuanyao]

Ok