moosmum

Unsocialised dogs facing a new experience can do three things basically. 1:Do nothing. 2:Flee from the unknown in fear. 3:Perceive the unknown as a threat and respond aggressively. IME, the dogs who react "out of the blue" are dogs not so stable in environmental strength that their true character has been masked by heavy socialisation. An unsocialised dog who doesn't react to new experiences either by fight or flight will always be the dog of greater genetic environmental stability. In a breeding program, not socialising dogs is often used to breed on dogs who exhibit genetic soundness over dogs who's apparent stability is the result of training/socialisation. For a pet dog, socialisation is a must and good practice, but my point in regard to this is good genetically sound dog in character doesn't need socialisation to prevent adverse reaction to new experiences as they simply don't care what's new due to their extreme in self confidence, that is they see nothing as scary or threatening to cause reactivity. Maybe I have an over literal mind. :laugh: The do nothing nothing option bothers me. I would expect SOME reaction in recognition of some thing new at least.

Actually, I have been fortunate I guess given that playing tug with potential service dogs and raising puppies for that line of work has extended into people asking me for demonstrations and teaching the game of tug with owners of many breeds. Growling on the tug is sign of pressure that exceeds play....play and excitement in prey drive exhibits high pitched yaps and whines which to date I am yet experience anything different from any breed, not that I have played tug with every breed of course, perhaps there are some breeds who growl in pleasure and if that's the case I will stand to be corrected from the people experienced with growly breeds. Growling in general terms is a precursor to bite aggressively, and although they will all growl eventually dependant on pressure applied and threshold at which a dog switches into defence drive, early growlers on a tug toy with little pressure I have found in the breeds I have tested and taken an interest in the phenomena, have also been the dogs more prone to resource guarding with an aggressive response. If you watch a dog carefully playing tug; on the initial bite and tug there is no growling, then as the dog tugs harder and the handler tugs harder against the dog, the growling begins......then if the handler releases the pressure where the dog starts to win......the growling stops. The growling is actually the dog switching into defence drive to retain and win the tug, in other words protection mode of the possession is what the growling indicates. ...."Play and excitement in prey drive exhibits high pitched yaps and whines" This may well be true of dogs when prey drive is the dominant factor. My last dog was working guardian breed. Not the 1st, last or only. She NEVER gave high pitched yaps or whines, even as very young pup. Growls were her way of vocalizing and she would growl on the tug from the word go,or even to get my attention. She was very vocal with the growls in play with dogs and people. There was a distinct difference in tone when the growl was meant as a warning. In that case tho', she rarely growled but would "roar". That was never misunderstood and she never had cause to do any more than that. Mostly she would work silently with out vocalization, using her body to block, herd or slow the target into compliance. She was not a resource guarder, never bit another human or animal in her 14 years but but would come growling and grumbling to me to to let me know she couldn't get to her dish for the kitten sitting in it, or to wake me in the night if anything needed my attention. I don't think generalizations do people or the dogs any favours where behaviour is concerned. P.S. On truely stable dogs not requiring any socialization... That may be true to an extent. However the flip side can be a dog that reacts with out visible warning "out of the blue" . After seeing "bombproof" dogs, and horses do just that I think I would be very wary of a dog whos owner tells me their dog hasn't been socialized because its "stable" and doesn't need it. A bit of honest reaction I think is both justifiable and normal.

Lou, 14 years. Fun instigator!

Heat stress could well have been a factor.

I'm going to be seeing that in my dreams tonight Congratulations all 'round, and for the day.

And in a perfect position to influence the market the way that suits themselves. What other areas are ripe for an influential voice/expansion of the brand? Its not their current stake or plans that worries me.Its the logical progression unless there are changes to bring closer relationships between breeders and their communities.

I'm more worried about the marketing power this gives to corporate concerns within the pet industry. So it begins in earnest.

well put! :)

on the other hand, if i was deliberately putting myself in harm's way for the benefit of the community, i'd like to be able to look at my dog as a loaded gun, and i was taught to treat every gun as if it was loaded. at the same time, i'd hope that any handler of such a weapon was very well trained and cool-headed. i don't know how much onus should be placed on a dog to discern by itself. some, i assume. i admit to knowing very little of pp dogs. Enough discernment that you aren't going to be hit on the back of the head while your not looking 'cos you didn't give a command, and kids are given a "puppy license". At least here. Enough discernment that my dog trusts me to handle most things myself, and only acts when I can't/don't, and only while there is an active threat.Not just a bunch of people goofing around. Using a gun comparison, yes you would hope the handler is well trained and cool headed.In that case, he doesn't carry his gun around half cocked.

Yes, and he was under extreme sensory confusion with moving lights, incredible noise and likely water in eyes and ears.Very easy to make a mistake I would think.

"Personal" protection is... personal. There may easily be a different set of criteria for choosing a purely "Personal" protection dog over a purely working dog. Discernment would be one of them. To me, a dog bred for police/security/defence force etc is not the same, though they can and do often serve both purposes. I don't see a working security type dog with protection training as the same as a "personal" protection dog. A dog who will bite in offence is not needed. My choice in a personal protection dog would be one I can safely take into any situation,or else its most likely going to be locked away when I need it.

I haven't voted. It would depend on too many other factors. In this case, yes I would likely give the dog back, but as a child I was forced to do just that only to have the dog spend the next 2 years of his life trying to get back to me. He would turn up dragging a chain and I would have to go through the heart ache of handing him back over and over again. When a friends GSD disapeared he didn't wait long enough to get another. He was always comparing the younger GSd to the old. The new dog went missing for a week and was found with a young boy who adored him and wanted to keep him. The friend took the dog back. I asked him to give him up. He didn't, but was killed not not long after in a motorcycle accident. I hope the mans family managed to get the dog back to the boy.

Attacks have always happened. But there was a different attitude 40 years ago when dogs were more of a community issue. Accepted as part the community and dealt with by the community. Like with the kids, the nearest handy adult would deal with what was in front of them. Most attacks weren't news worthy because they seldom got to that stage. Fatalities were rare and usualy fault was attributed to the owner. It was part of life.Don't mess up 'cos stuff happens.

My Lou would cover me with her blanket and get me her toy, as if to say " O.K, lets be silly!" If we tried to ignore a game she would hold her squeaky toy to our ears and let rip. I miss her so much . But she taught me that kind of pain is what keeps us human, as long we accept it as part of life and move on, To let ourselves take it on again. I owe it to her to let her memory make me stronger, not weaker.

I wouldn't want to rely on my horses.The flight instinct is very strong. A pack of dogs would likely be a different story. Most horses that stand their ground will only do so up to point.Once their confidence is shaken flight takes over. Some would be more capable than others, but I've only had one horse I think would chose to fight rather than flee once a dog is actualy attacking.

Yep. And not to base your experiences solely on proven science, We forget too much that way. Its usualy a long step behind experience and observation.

My horses don't run either. They are used to dogs and will approach a stranger very aggressively. The dogs aren't generaly bold enough to stick around. My kids were once trapped on a gate by a "pet" ram belonging next door that had turned very aggro. when I went down to rescue them the horses were there already trying to run him off. Turned into a bit of a melee with me, the horses and dogs all after the dumb beast who didn't want to give up. Those were also minis.

Theres a Mule forum in the U.S that tells of a bunch of people riding out with a few dogs and and a pack mule. A Cougar started to stalk the dogs and the story is the Mule grabbed the cougar by the tail, whipped him 'round a bit then stomped it and rolled on the carcass. Included pics. taken on a mobile. I believe it.

I have a PhD in the natural sciences and am an idiot when it comes to law. I found your post quite confusing. Please define 'natural law'. Do you mean this in the legal sense (Locke) or is it supposed to have something to do with biology? The short answer is Biological Law :laugh:

I have a PhD in the natural sciences and am an idiot when it comes to law. I found your post quite confusing. Please define 'natural law'. Do you mean this in the legal sense (Locke) or is it supposed to have something to do with biology? Thank you sandgrubber, You might have to consider me abnormal :laugh: I don't, but lets say I have a severe form of ADHD possibly bordering on Autism. I avoid any major problems because I do have a very good grasp of natural science and use that to understand people and my environment. It works very well for me. I don't have a PhD in anything, So its difficult for me to find the right words.Its very frustrating because I understand what I'm trying to say perfectly. I guess I see the world differently and its hard to show people what I see. I'm talking about Natural Law all the way. Biology, cause and effect all that. Being human and having so much control over our environment IMHO doesn't negate the effects of natural law on humans as a species. I understand humans by seeing them as a species of animal. What works at the molecular level, with genes etc, is mirrored all the way up. This ties a whole heap of areas together, biology, law, psychology, anthropology. The list goes on almost endlessly once you know how to look. When I look at the rules set out for writing a successful constitution,I understand them because I can apply natural law to understand how they work. It helps that I found an explanation that used natural law to explain their relevence. Because of this, when I've said "constitutional law" I'm thinking biological or natural Law as it applies to a successful constitution. Not the standard meaning, of Law in a Legal sense. I'm not alone in my reasoning. If you want a science based explanation, Maybe you will understand Hendrick Gommer ( A biological theory of Natural Law:Natural Law revisited). As far as I am aware scientificaly speaking, this is a theory only, but one that hasn't been disproved and is able to be applied very broadly, gaining a lot of interest. In my world, its fact, because I live by similar theories very successfully. I apply Natural Laws to most areas of my life. What works on a cellular level seems to work right up the food chain,once you learn to look.I haven't read it myself, just some reviews. Enough to know there seems to be the explanation and the "how to" people need to change the course of pedigree dogs. A rough example for the non- scientific DOLers : The American Constitution specificaly gives the right to bear arms. This is a positive ruling.It favours those who choose to own guns by its active support.Results will be unpredictable, but will act on the American population to encourage gun ownership over time. Those who disagree have no support from the constitution. Because guns are so easily obtainable, people will abuse the right, but getting rid of them is unconstitutional. In that culture, if you feel vulnerable to guns how do you defend yourself? You might get a gun. The more often that happens, more people feel vulnerable and the more pressure there is to get a gun. You have an effect on your environment. If this isn't corrected soon enough, it may reach a point where so many people feel a need own guns they acheive dominance within their population. There is no chance to repeal that part of the charter. The right becomes a "drive" within that population. With out a gun, they are vulnerable. It all comes down to cause and effect of natural Laws. As I see it, the K.Cs have ruled against every thing out side their charter. Thats their environment. That there are problems isn't a mystery. The end result is. Will the K.Cs destroy their environment? Will it destroy them? They destroy themselves? Looks to me like a lot of each is happening. I don't expect it will be easy to get people to see this. The K.Cs are not a supportive environment for people who understand the concept. Hendrick Gommer can explain for the scientists among Dol. I don't have the background to explain simply what an academic has written a thesis on. To me, Its only natural and gives you a whole lot of tools to success.

I don't think you will be on your own there. :) It would take some getting your head around, but if you have the idea its a start. I have an advantage in a very good understanding of natural science/law. IMO What I see backs it up very clearly.And its scarey.

Constitutional Law mimics natural law. Happy to explain if you tell me what you are having problems with. If Pedigree dogs are struggling in their environment, Breeders blame the environment,and fight against it. Its the only one they have. You can't separate yourself from your environment.You depend on it. The behaviour of the population can be modified through constitutional changes.

I like the native American way of looking at it, where dogs would be , not human, but the "dog people"

I could be way off the mark here, but laying on her back with legs in the air suggests kidneys to me.

I don't understand what these rulings bring to pedigree dogs? Without these rulings, A pedigree dog represents breeding with fore thought, purpose and knowledge. Using knowledge, planning and history to breed better dogs. Pedigree dogs could represent a community of people dedicated to maximize the potential of the species. Your membership would come to represent this. It would be pretty hard for people to find fault with that ideal.Communities could respect and support this for a common goal With them,the ideal is corrupted and stands for closed populations,predictability and purity above all other considerations,including those of your market. The pedigree becomes proof of this and assumes more importance than the dog it represents. You are no longer selling "better dogs". You are selling a representation of "purity" and closed lines.A pedigree. IMO These ruling are the source of the elitist label and no efforts to overcome that can be effective while those rules are in place. The battle against your environment is unneeded, and ultimately changes and destroys the environmen. No one can win. I see no reason why the K.Cs should be any more than the registry they set out to be.The addition of those rules demands more with out direction. I hope this is being looked into. I can find only support for this argument, and lots of it.