Diablo

I have to agree here too. If the dog approached the toddler and attacked..........different story, and I am not familiar with Victorian laws but in SA, there are no laws unless it's food preparation that restricts dogs from being in the workplace so the dog has a legal right to be on it's owners premises. I don't see that the little girl had any rights to interfere with someone elses dog...........provoked an eating dog to protect it's food??? Other people's dogs are not fair game to approach and mess around with in hope that everything will be ok. The little girl should have been supervised by her father and not been allowed to run around. She may have approached the roadway unsupervised and been hit by a car.............who's fault is that???

'Danois' date='21st Nov 2009 - 08:25 PM' post='4135720'] Pretty extreme comment! I have no experience with Aussie Shepherds and don't know their characteristics, but as a working dog should the puppy be a GSD acting like that.............it has a temperament fault and would be getting my money back also. From a working dog perspective, Nekhbet's comment is not "extreme" at all.

What a terrible thing to happen, and have wondered what happens legally in those circumstances where dogs are in work places open to the public???.

Are you suggesting that ANKC recognised breeders simply slot the unpapered Pits into their breeding program ? or even worse falsify breeding records to produce papers for Pits ? Harldy a good idea to undermine the integrity of the ANKC register. I wondered if there are any APBT's with Amstaff papers???

It is a sad situation and being dog lovers preservation of life far outweighs the alternative, but there is a line and not every dog can be saved and rehomed. A classic litter of BYB Rotties not even the owners want...............health checks, genetics, temperament, who's the sire, hip scores etc etc. Is that the right place to obtain a Rotty pup for the best opportunity to adopt a quality dog???. What's right or wrong in these instances is a very hard call

I understand this suggestion to be a bit left of centre...........but I am thinking if people are serious to preserve the APBT breed, it wouldn't be difficult to breed them as Amstaffs and 99% of the problems from a legislation perspective is solved???. Papered ANKC recognised breed It would be a simple exercise for an Amstaff breeder to also produce quality APBT's........who could really argue the difference???.

Here's our boy jump training, tail hangs down

Restricted breed legislation doesn't specifically target the APBT as I understand it, but targets a group of breeds with a fighting origin and the APBT falls into that group. There is a government definition I have read that says basically, breeds displaying the courage and gameness for the ability to fight are not considered suitable pets in the community which is the basis behind their legislation. There is no denying that the APBT regardless how friendly and stable some bloodlines may be, do have a fighting origin in the breed and is the reason the breed is categorised as such. It seems to look like an APBT target, but only due to the ABPT being the most common of the restricted breeds, which I believe only very small minorities of the other breeds exist in Australia if at all???. The APBT isn't considered a guardian breed as some have mentioned, but a fighting breed which becomes the issue in terms of legislation. Guardian breeds fight if they have to which is the difference as they primarily issue a warning component to scare off potential prey and are not classified as an all out fighting dog as the group containing the APBT. Having read so many different angles on BSL and the APBT, it doesn't appear that many acknowledge the "fighting dog origin" being the basis of the legislation. :rolleyes:

I agree with Nekhbet's advice..........the thumb under the tongue is a brilliant correction for needle sharp teeth nips, works a treat

Food aggression is common amoungst dogs where it appears to be where the growling originated. Having experienced that in the past with two dogs an older and younger adopted dog I have since proofed my dogs from an early age in training that food is nothing that they need to protect and makes life easier down the track. In the OP's situation, I would feed each dog separately in another room intially to avoid the onset of an aggressive episode which in time should calm any necessity or reason for unrelated aggression towards each other. It appears that food being the trigger has extended into other unwanted behaviours which ultimately needs to be assessed by a trainer/behaviourist to determine what is really happening and the best method of correction.

Having owned GSD's for many years, they are most happy being with you and follow along where ever you go. They don't use the opportunities of a large yard to exercise themselves unless you are with them to play. GSD's although need a good level of exercise to keep them healthy and active, they can easily live happily in a one bedroom flat.

Excellent post Erny totally agree Many I have noticed in particular behaviours that they are trying to resolve, you find the general obedience of the dog is also lacking. It may for example refuse to stop barking on command, but it also doesn't recall on command, doesn't drop on command or do much at all without a tempting bribe. It's amazing what other offensive behaviours are easily corrected from good basic obedience which tends to go hand in hand.

No, I don't think it really does depend on the type of aggression you are dealing with and what needs to be achieved. You made a very broad statement and I disagree with it. My reasons for disagreeing are valid whether you believe the risk of inappropriate aggression in future is negligible or not. To believe a dog is not going to aggress inappropriately, you are still making a risk assessment. You just judge the risk on whether the behaviour is occurring or not. I would judge it on other things as well, such as the body language of the dog when it was in a stressful situation that would have previously triggered it. And that would hold regardless of the breed and the nature of the original problem, and the overall aim, because I think the more information the better. Working dog aggression is completely different to aggression caused by instability and stress as the aggression is reliable. Working dogs are not unstable when trained by any means, but unless you have owned and worked these type of dogs it would be difficult to imagine how they do react. The safety net when trained is the ability to out the dog in a full blown attack as these dogs are not anger driven, but prey and defence driven in confidence, more of a game than loosing their temper and flying off the handle as in some aggressive behaviour exhibited in other types of dogs.

I think that this attitude is a bit of a dangerous one. I believe that once a behaviour is in an animal's repertoire, it's always in an animal's repitoire. If it never crops up ever again, then maybe you were lucky, maybe you addressed the root of the problem so well that it's no longer a problem, or maybe you are really good at management and have always erred on the side of caution. You'll probably never know. Suppression is all well and good as long as it works, but you have to consider whether you've addressed the root of the problem or not. If you haven't, then you're pinning everything on your power to suppress the expression of whatever emotion caused the aggression in the first place. Whereas if you address the root of the problem by changing the very response to whatever first caused aggression, then you don't have to pin everything on whether you can intimidate your animal sufficiently or not. Assuming that suppression can only be achieved through intimidation - someone jump in if I'm wrong - and continues to rely on intimidation. You have the choice to suppress the symptoms or address the root of the problem. You may be lucky to have the exact same results whichever you choose to do, but to say that it doesn't matter what method you chose as long as the aggression isn't displayed is over-simplifying it. For myself, what is even more relevant than whether the dog exhibits aggression or not is the risk of it exhibiting aggression in the future or not. Behaviour modification in general is very much about assessing likelihoods. I don't want to sound rude or derogatory, but to ignore that I think would be like jumping into the surf and trying to bob over every wave with the reasoning that a wave is only relevant when it dumps you. Sooner or later you'll get dumped. Unless you swim in a bay. :D Corvus, it depends upon the type of aggression you are dealing with and what needs to be achieved. Civil and social aggression in a working dog for example the GSD, is not a problem behaviour or fault in the dog, it's an instinctive trait to protect and defend against perceived threats and is the reason why GSD's are sucessfully worked in protection/security roles. The problem in society is that unmanaged, the aggressive behaviour escalates as the dog perceives everything and anyone outside of it's family/pack as a threat creating a dangerous uncontrollable dog of extreme high risk liability. This type of aggression is reliable and predictable that the dog wants to attack and bite anyone outside of it's family/pack and the correction of this aggression is teaching the dog that an aggressive reaction is not tolorated and not necessary achieved by focus redirection, correction and praise. The dog learns to relax in training and enjoy that not needing to aggress is a more pleasant experience. Considering aggression is in the dog's repertiore, re-introducing aggression provides a clear direction in training for the dog to learn when to aggress, when not to and can be switched on and off on command. The dog isn't cured of aggressive instinct, it's cured of exhibiting aggression unless commanded to do so. In fact, these type of dogs when trained to aggress on command are more stable in their ability to resist an unwanted aggressive reaction with good reliability, but is a training process that needs to begin early in the dog's life at the initial signs of aggression and far more difficult to correct in adulthood.

I agree that irresponsible owners do give the GSD a bad name at times Pockets, but having said that, serious line GSD's are difficult dogs to handle in the training phase when faced with nervous strangers is the time they will fire up on the end of the leash and bark making matters worse.. Having owned traditional GSD's for many years, I am actually glad people do take a wide berth until I have reached an adequate level of public behaviour.

I'm not sure that there is a clear and universally agreed upon definition, but it is used in working circles to describe that the dog will show aggressive behaviour towards people. Again, aggressive behaviour could mean all sorts of things, so the context has to be taken into account, namely that these behaviours are useful for the purposes of the sport or job. Looking at that, it's not hard to see why we often just say "aggression" but also why this means different things to different people. Civil aggression in a working dog means a dog that will bite for real when pressured and will fight for it's own life and that of the handler if provoked. It's an aggression of sharpness driven by a nerve component which can often be misdiagnosed as fear aggression. Civil and fear aggression are similar in their characteristics to the inexperienced except that the body language of a civil and fear aggressive dog determines the difference. Civil aggression is a sought after trait for police and protection dogs. Civil aggression along with prey drive are instincts commonly bred in working line German Shepherds for example and is an aggression used for a purpose and unmanaged, will appear as a dog displaying high levels of stranger aggression usually surfacing in a puppy at around 4 months of age. Civil aggression is directed outside of the dogs family/pack.

What strategies a dog has learned has no relevence Kelpie-i. The only thing of relevence is simply if the dog exhibits a particular behaviour or it doesn't.

No, my GSD is aggressive civil and social and managed with training to obey commands basically.

I know the real story Aidan, thanks for the debate

Come on Aidan, I read your posts and your website and you dropped your guard telling us about your GSD's aggression issue and I picked up on it............that's what you are hostile about be honest???. It doesn't take psycho analysis and any other mumbo jumbo to correct civil aggression which after 30 years of owning and training high drive GSD's, the behaviour that your dog exhibits is common in a good working dog and can be corrected in a few days. In fact, it should have been recognised and dealt with by 6 months of age if you genuinely have experience handling dogs of that type. Civil aggression is dangerous Aidan, and not having bullet proof control of a civil dog can land you in a whole lot of strife. It's not about swapping sides and running around the corner and convincing yourself that avoidance is sensible, it's about tackling the situation head on and correcting the problem.........perhaps you should consider contacting Mark Singer for some advice???

Ask Nekhbet Erny..........she has experience with this. I tried my GSD with an ordinary ladder layed down walking him backwards over it. After a couple times, he was stepping between the rungs with silly look on his face....."what are doing this for"???.

Why is that Corvus???

Are you "STILL" working on that aggression problem Aidan What on earth are you talking about? I can heel my dog past other dogs, I am just sensible about it and put her on the other side if appropriate. Your comment is highly inappropriate and ignorant of any facts. Why you would seek to discredit me is unfathomable, I have made no personal attack on you. I am not the first trainer that you have tried to discredit on this forum, what is your agenda? Aidan, I asked a simple question in response to what you wrote given that is was some time ago you told us about your GSD's aggression, a Von Forell working line bitch by memory???. Obviously the situation hasn't been resolved with a necessity to provide saftey margins between your dog and others according to what you wrote???. I agree that it is being sensible to provide a margin with a dog that is not under full control and can't be trusted, I commend your responsible action where aggression is involved. I was actually surprised given your training passion and expertise that the aggression issue remained a relevent factor in your dog's present behaviour, or if you were speaking about it's former behaviour which inspired me to ask the question to get the facts. Regarding appropriatness of the question, I am mystified as to your interpretation. I have a lot of interest in your training methods on the "purely positive", personally I reserve my opinion if such methods can result in a reliable enough dog to pass Schutzhund testing and title a GSD in extreme obedience trials, and therefore have an interest in the control you have attained in a high level working dog trained with your methods. We can theorise training methods for ever Aidan but the proof is in the performance and results is what counts with me.

After reading through this thread which is a very interesting read, how many of us have done the annual vaccination routine, the heartworming etc etc, without adverse reactions and the dog living a long and healthy life???. With any unnatural drug interruption of the immune system could always cause a potential health threat with an adverse reaction, but at what ratio of risk factor are we talking???. If 50% of vaccinated dogs suffered adverse reactions which is of high incidence then it would be time for serious consideration, but the adverse reactions "possibly" caused by vaccination that have occurred in the vaccinated majority, what 0.1%, 2%, 10%, at what ratio of incidence is something of interest to me???. How many vaccinated dogs would have contracted disease had they not been vaccinated..........such data is near impossible to gather???. Having a dog die too young from a disease that is vaccinated against when choosing not to vaccinate, is no consulation to conclude that at least the dog died without a skin condition which "may" have occurred if I did vaccinate I would still like to see the incidence and proof expressed as a ratio of risk factor???

Are you "STILL" working on that aggression problem Aidan :D