Protective But Not Aggressive Breeds

[Diva]

I'd take the offer up if my Belgian Shepherd was still alive, because I have little idea how much pressure she would take and it would be interesting to test in controlled circumstances. I doubt it would do her any harm even if/when she folded early. Finding a genuine bad guy she could tackle seemed to be her raison d'etre, she never got to really fulfill the desire. I'd never do it to the other dog though, even if he hadn't long since passed, it would feel like a betrayal of his genuine willingness to work against his own normal nature when I needed him, even if that does sound like anthropomorphising. Now my current three - they'd be hiding behind me.

[Cosmolo]

Jeff- can i ask your opinion on whether or not chemical changes in a person would produce different responses to scenarios presented?

My OH has done a fair amount of PP work (he's not home now or i'd ask him the same question!) but my experience is limited.

Edited September 14, 2009 by Cosmolo

[Steve]

The Maremma would be happy there as long as you lived with it as part of the family and didnt leave it on its own.

Ive placed Maremmas as pets where they have been in small areas.

Steve, what do you think is the likelihood of a Maremma protecting its owner if the situation required it?

I know they will but their idea of protection is to put them between you and the danger and bark a warning if possible they wont just go in and bite someone unless they are given nochoice.

Example.

Walk with a Maremma in a park any day of the week and people and dogs on leash are not even noticed. If however a dog off leash approached, the Maremma would yell at it to back the hell off and put itself between you and the dog. If someone approached you in a manacing manner or grabbed you it would do the same thing. The chances that it would bite are remote because it would rather not.If it were to fight off a predator in the paddock it leaves the sheep un garded for another predator to go in the back way. So attacking the threat is a last resort and unless it is an instant occurance they will always warn first.

Maremmas as pets do much better living inside than outside. In fact if they dont live inside they can be a problem with barking.

However, in my home on their own turf I know mine would give their lives to save me but I wouldnt bet the house on it in a situation like you describe.

Its a catch 22 - You dont want to be walking and the dog not socialised and seeing everything as a threat so you want it to be accustomed to other people and have good manners and the more it becomes used to you being approached by other people it sees that as a lesser threat. .

[Kavik]

That is a good point since I know even my dogs act differently if I am nervous or excited (like at a trial compared to training).

[poodlefan]

No, they're stepping up because the sense or realise that at THAT MOMENT the alpha is unable to fulfill their duties.

Are you comfortable that your dog will always make the right split second decision?

It's not just my dog, poodlefan, it's potentially many, many dogs who are currently co-existing in suitable dynamic with their owners who have not yet had the question asked of them.

I'm MORE than comfortable, poodlefan, I'm ALIVE.

And what are you suggesting I should do with my dog because he did this?

One of the most tragic stories I ever heard was told to me by the owner themselves. One day they were carjacked at knifepoint by a known criminal with serious prior offences. The usually friendly and stable family dog reacted by jumping from the back seat and taking the criminal down, then holding it until the police arrived. On the strength of the kind of crap you're dispensing the owner chose to put the dog down for fear it would attack the family. Is that what I should do with my dog?

Whoa there Nelly... quantum leap of logic there!!

How on earth did we get from me asking if you were confident a dog would always (emphasis there) make the right decision about threats to you deciding I advocated that any dog that did protect its owner should be put down???

What I'm saying is this. People who confidently assert that their untested dog will instinctively know when a person means harm (and as importantly when they don't) and will take the leadership role to engage are asking more of their pets than a the handler of a trained security/protection dog does. I hope people think about that.

I said that whether a pet would protect you was a matter of luck not certainty. How you conclude from that I think a dog that protects its owner should be PTS escapes me.

Edited September 14, 2009 by poodlefan

[Shakti]

Steve - what you describe a Maremma as doing would be the extent to which I personally would be comfortable with my dog behaving! For me in my normal day-to-day life I would want a dog that is comfortable being around other people and dogs when in a public area but that is happy to put itself between me and a threat and bark a warning!

Having seen several Maremmas do their *Warning bark* I believe that would deter most people.

I am not posting much now as my original question has been answered by several PMS and now by Steve but the thread is proving fascinating nd I am learning a lot. Will be curious to see the results of the test Jeff.

I am assuming (possibly incorrectly) that your hypothesis is that most dogs who have not done protection trainig will NOT protect their owners in the presence of a threat?

[Guest rhapsodical78]

Hi Rhapsodical, unfortunately my post must have been very poorly written because you have managed to miss or twist every point that I tried to make.

If that's the way you want to see it.

I was referring to risk management as in personal safety, like "don't walk through city parks alone at night".

Oh right. Because I'm sure that's exactly what the OP was going to do. It's already been established that she won't be 'RELYING' on the dog. Go back and read the thread.

The point I was trying to make was that the kid who quarter-squats 180kg would not pass in competition (not that people who don't compete can't be strong, that would not be a logical conclusion to make even for an arrogant person).

I don't think it's really an accurate analogy to be honest because you're talking about rare feats of strength here - hardly analoguous to psychological states. Are protection trained dogs more likely to defend? No question. Does that mean that other dogs will never step up to the plate? No.

The dog who gets agitated and growls when you are approached by suspicious looking strangers may not be able to confront someone with a cricket bat, you won't know if it hasn't been tested properly but plenty of people seem to want to make that claim regardless.

I don't see many of those claims here. Maybe I've missed them? Most people are saying 'more dogs than one might think could be capable' - not 'my dog will definitely take down a man'. And me? Well, it already happened. I'm not speculating.

I'm glad you admit though, that you won't know unless a dog is tested. Probably time for you to stop making contrary claims considering neither side has any idea of an untested dog's potential.

No I'm definitely not making that assumption. You're making the assumption that an obedience trained dog won't bark if threatened by someone with a gun.

You've obviously never heard of the 'quiet' command. Regardless, unlikely scenario in a country not exactly brimming with guns.

People choose dogs for all sorts of reasons. The OP asked a specific question which I was addressing. But tell me, a "better chance" at what specifically?

A better chance at stepping up to the plate. She wasn't chooosing a dog for the sole purpose of protection.

I'm sure there are very well trained Anatolians and even Anatolians with very civil temperaments out there and those are obviously not the ones I am talking about. Consider that you are only seeing the ones that suit life in Australia, and for that matter, the ones that people are willing to take out into public.

In any case, my point was not run down a breed as being a liability in public, but that certain breeds do well in protection work for many good reasons. That in itself is a generalisation that does not take into account lines or individual temperaments, but statistically speaking it is a fact.

Exactly. Why? Because they have the right temperament for the work - they've been bred for it. So too certain breeds were bred to protect natually and those offer not a certainty, but a chance that they will do what they were bred for.

[Jeff Jones]

Hi cosmolo, here is a brief explanation.

It does have a small bearing on the situation as the dog will be responding to a threat based on Auditory – Olfactory – Tactile – and Visual stimulants, I asked for people to nominate their dogs who they believe will act in protection of the handler when the handler is threatened to complete the assessment. The type of aggression that would force a dog to react in that situation alone would not be a safe type to work the dog in. I would be concerned for any dogs mental stability if it were to only show aggression due to the scent picture it is receiving from the handler when its other senses are being stimulated by a trained and experienced decoy.

I have to head off to work and will clarify any info later on.

[Guest rhapsodical78]

No, they're stepping up because the sense or realise that at THAT MOMENT the alpha is unable to fulfill their duties.

Are you comfortable that your dog will always make the right split second decision?

It's not just my dog, poodlefan, it's potentially many, many dogs who are currently co-existing in suitable dynamic with their owners who have not yet had the question asked of them.

I'm MORE than comfortable, poodlefan, I'm ALIVE.

And what are you suggesting I should do with my dog because he did this?

One of the most tragic stories I ever heard was told to me by the owner themselves. One day they were carjacked at knifepoint by a known criminal with serious prior offences. The usually friendly and stable family dog reacted by jumping from the back seat and taking the criminal down, then holding it until the police arrived. On the strength of the kind of crap you're dispensing the owner chose to put the dog down for fear it would attack the family. Is that what I should do with my dog?

Whoa there Nelly... quantum leap of logic there!!

How on earth did we get from me asking if you were confident a dog would always (emphasis there) make the right decision about threats to you deciding I advocated that any dog that did protect its owner should be put down???

What I'm saying is this. People who confidently assert that their untested dog will instinctively know when a person means harm (and as importantly when they don't) and will take the leadership role to engage are asking more of their pets than a the handler of a trained security/protection dog does. I hope people think about that.

I said that whether a pet would protect you was a matter of luck not certainty. How you conclude from that I think a dog that protects its owner should be PTS escapes me.

What you HAVE suggested is that any dog who does this is a problem - leadership or otherwise. I disagree. There's not much you can do with an obedient and well balanced dog who makes a one-off call other than destroy it if you never want it doing so again.

Who has confidently asserted anything? Saying that a dog MAY (and I don't know how many times I have to reiterate that there is no certainty) protect and as a higher chance of doing so if they come from dogs bred for the task is not the same as saying 'my dog will always protect me in any situation'.

I have never said that an untrained dog has an equal chance of protecting that a trained dog does. But the OP doesn't want to protection train - so what I'm suggesting is the next best bet.

And to answer your earlier question, I don't put my dog in a situation where he needs to make that call so I have no idea if he would do it again. I am very comfortable with the temperament of my dog.

Edited September 14, 2009 by rhapsodical78

[Aphra]

That is why GSDs, Rotts, Malinois etc are used over, say, a LGD breed. Taking an Anatolian Shepherd out in public is more of a liability than an asset.

Well, my Anatolian is a nice boy and is perfectly civil in public.

However, I think the discussion here is about two, slightly different things.

The first one is about the potential of any dog to be willing to protect its owner, whether that's due to some understanding of threat, or simply pack or resource guarding. I think anecdotally its true that for whatever reason, there are many dogs of many different breeds who will offer some kind of protective behaviour, with or without training.

But the second issue is more about how individual dogs or breeds will deal with a threat issue. I believe that one of the reasons why the working breeds, such as Rotties or GSDs are better suited for training in personal protection work is because they will rely on the judgement of their handler. My experience with the guardian breeds, which is, I admit, limited to my own dogs, is that they are pretty independent about making a decision as to whether protection is required, and will rely on their own judgement and not their owner's as to when to escalate or back down.

So, anecdotally, my ACD sees something worth making a fuss about he'll desist if I ask him too. If my Neo thinks that there is a threat, he's not really interested in my opinion. I can call him back but he'll be unhappy about it, and left to his own devices will patrol until he believes there is no longer a threat.

And from the history of the guardian breeds that makes sense, since the LGDs and guarding breeds were expected to do their thing independently. It makes them unsuitable, on the whole, for PP training because once they respond to a threat they'll want to make their own decisions about what to do about it.

I have no idea how far any of my dogs would take this behaviour since they've never been in the situation, and if something did happen, I'd think it was my job to protect them and not vice versa. So for me their role is purely symbolic.

[Guest rhapsodical78]

That is why GSDs, Rotts, Malinois etc are used over, say, a LGD breed. Taking an Anatolian Shepherd out in public is more of a liability than an asset.

Well, my Anatolian is a nice boy and is perfectly civil in public.

However, I think the discussion here is about two, slightly different things.

The first one is about the potential of any dog to be willing to protect its owner, whether that's due to some understanding of threat, or simply pack or resource guarding. I think anecdotally its true that for whatever reason, there are many dogs of many different breeds who will offer some kind of protective behaviour, with or without training.

But the second issue is more about how individual dogs or breeds will deal with a threat issue. I believe that one of the reasons why the working breeds, such as Rotties or GSDs are better suited for training in personal protection work is because they will rely on the judgement of their handler. My experience with the guardian breeds, which is, I admit, limited to my own dogs, is that they are pretty independent about making a decision as to whether protection is required, and will rely on their own judgement and not their owner's as to when to escalate or back down.

So, anecdotally, my ACD sees something worth making a fuss about he'll desist if I ask him too. If my Neo thinks that there is a threat, he's not really interested in my opinion. I can call him back but he'll be unhappy about it, and left to his own devices will patrol until he believes there is no longer a threat.

And from the history of the guardian breeds that makes sense, since the LGDs and guarding breeds were expected to do their thing independently. It makes them unsuitable, on the whole, for PP training because once they respond to a threat they'll want to make their own decisions about what to do about it.

I have no idea how far any of my dogs would take this behaviour since they've never been in the situation, and if something did happen, I'd think it was my job to protect them and not vice versa. So for me their role is purely symbolic.

Well put!

[poodlefan]

What you HAVE suggested is that any dog who does this is a problem - leadership or otherwise. I disagree. There's not much you can do with an obedient and well balanced dog who makes a one-off call other than destroy it if you never want it doing so again.

I think some human behaviours have the very real potential to create confusion for dogs. A dog that responds inappropriately to a perceived threat that isn't may be a problem if its owner can't control it.

The problem doesn't lie with the dog, but with our expectations of it and our training and control. If my friends's dog bit me hard and repeatedly when I tried to throw her in the swimming pool and she screamed like a banshee, I'd say there was a problem.

Nothing a closed gate couldn't prevent though.

[Guest rhapsodical78]

What you HAVE suggested is that any dog who does this is a problem - leadership or otherwise. I disagree. There's not much you can do with an obedient and well balanced dog who makes a one-off call other than destroy it if you never want it doing so again.

I think some human behaviours have the very real potential to create confusion for dogs. A dog that responds inappropriately to a perceived threat that isn't may be a problem if its owner can't control it.

The problem doesn't lie with the dog, but with our expectations of it and our training and control. If my friends's dog bit me hard and repeatedly when I tried to throw her in the swimming pool and she screamed like a banshee, I'd say there was a problem.

Nothing a closed gate couldn't prevent though.

Sure, I can see what you're saying, but I don't believe that a protective dog is always that reactive. Mine certainly isn't and he appears to know the difference between play and threat.

[Aphra]

If my friends's dog bit me hard and repeatedly when I tried to throw her in the swimming pool and she screamed like a banshee, I'd say there was a problem.

Well, I dunno poodlefan. If you tried to throw me in the swimming pool I might well bite you hard and scream like a banshee.

[poodlefan]

What you HAVE suggested is that any dog who does this is a problem - leadership or otherwise. I disagree. There's not much you can do with an obedient and well balanced dog who makes a one-off call other than destroy it if you never want it doing so again.

I think some human behaviours have the very real potential to create confusion for dogs. A dog that responds inappropriately to a perceived threat that isn't may be a problem if its owner can't control it.

The problem doesn't lie with the dog, but with our expectations of it and our training and control. If my friends's dog bit me hard and repeatedly when I tried to throw her in the swimming pool and she screamed like a banshee, I'd say there was a problem.

Nothing a closed gate couldn't prevent though.

Sure, I can see what you're saying, but I don't believe that a protective dog is always that reactive. Mine certainly isn't and he appears to know the difference between play and threat.

Then you've got a good 'un. You also know he'll act. I think a hell of a lot of people believe their dogs will act and that they are wrong. It worries me that they might make personal safety decisions based on that.

A dog that, in the words of a poster in this thread, "will tear the arm off" someone who yells at you is a timebomb. People yell, grab, tickle, wrestle and do all kinds of crazy things... without being a threat. It's a good dog who can sift through all of that and make the right calls.

[Aidan]

I was referring to risk management as in personal safety, like "don't walk through city parks alone at night".

Oh right. Because I'm sure that's exactly what the OP was going to do. It's already been established that she won't be 'RELYING' on the dog. Go back and read the thread.

She has had three (now) "very bad incidences". I think the evidence speaks for itself.

I'm glad you admit though, that you won't know unless a dog is tested. Probably time for you to stop making contrary claims considering neither side has any idea of an untested dog's potential.

We don't have any idea of an individual dog's untested potential, but we do have a reasonable idea of the probability across a population of dogs. Police handlers, for e.g, choose dogs from certain lines of tested breeding pairs then train them for many very good reasons.

No I'm definitely not making that assumption. You're making the assumption that an obedience trained dog won't bark if threatened by someone with a gun.

You've obviously never heard of the 'quiet' command. Regardless, unlikely scenario in a country not exactly brimming with guns.

I'm not sure which part of that is the most naive, but I'll go with the remark about the "quiet" command. How many pet owners teaching "quiet" proof their dog with people attacking or threatening them with weapons?

Exactly. Why? Because they have the right temperament for the work - they've been bred for it. So too certain breeds were bred to protect natually and those offer not a certainty, but a chance that they will do what they were bred for.

I have some experience with dogs who are bred for this line of work. They need training, lots of it. All of them need to be trained to be completely sociable and civil (if that is possible), and then to either never bite (proofed) or to bite when cued (also proofed). Anything less is a liability.

It would be a terrible mistake to purchase a dog from working lines then just hope that one day it will do it's job, for it probably will - whether you want it to or not.

If we are talking about dogs not from working lines, then I'm wasting my time. The probabilities are reduced further, as the OP has already found out the hard way.

[Aidan]

That is why GSDs, Rotts, Malinois etc are used over, say, a LGD breed. Taking an Anatolian Shepherd out in public is more of a liability than an asset.

Well, my Anatolian is a nice boy and is perfectly civil in public.

I don't doubt that at all :D You can imagine an Anatolian, who wasn't civil and who was maybe working as a LGD, taken out into public and allowed to make his own decisions about what is a threat or what is not? That might be quite a liability!

[Guest rhapsodical78]

She has had three (now) "very bad incidences". I think the evidence speaks for itself.

I didn't see the bit where she said she was going to be taking unnecessary risks. Maybe you can point that out.

We don't have any idea of an individual dog's untested potential, but we do have a reasonable idea of the probability across a population of dogs. Police handlers, for e.g, choose dogs from certain lines of tested breeding pairs then train them for many very good reasons.

Using tests that I don't agree produce accurate results.

Police work is also a very controlled area which requires commanding and demands obedience - that's why they choose the dogs they do - responseive, high drive, high aggression, strong nerved dogs. I don't think the average dog needs all of those things in order to make a once-off call - I do think the police force does because of the very different nature of the work.

I'm not sure which part of that is the most naive, but I'll go with the remark about the "quiet" command. How many pet owners teaching "quiet" proof their dog with people attacking or threatening them with weapons?

I'm not saying there are no guns, I'm saying there's a decreased likelihood of this being the weapon of choice in Australia.

A guy pointing an object at you isn't really as threatening as physical contact, if your dog is obedience trained correctly it should respond.

If someone is attacking with a weapon it's pretty much time for them to act.

I have some experience with dogs who are bred for this line of work. They need training, lots of it. All of them need to be trained to be completely sociable and civil (if that is possible), and then to either never bite (proofed) or to bite when cued (also proofed). Anything less is a liability.

Are you suggesting any breed bred for guarding or having a natural protective instinct (there are a ton of these breeds) is a liability if not protection trained?

It would be a terrible mistake to purchase a dog from working lines then just hope that one day it will do it's job, for it probably will - whether you want it to or not.

Not really, no. If you're aware that your dog has a strong guarding quality you don't put it in the position where it has to make a call. Also, are you saying that the probability is that any dog from working lines will protect? Make up your mind, Aidan. One minute it's all 'no dog will protect when you want it to' the next it's 'your dog will protect regardless of whether you want it to'.

If we are talking about dogs not from working lines, then I'm wasting my time. The probabilities are reduced further, as the OP has already found out the hard way.

Because a show quality Neo would never protect. Get out of your little Schutzhund world. There are more breeds out there than Dobes, Mals, GSD's and Rotties.

Edited September 14, 2009 by rhapsodical78

[Cath]

Very interesting reading. I am keen to find out the results of the evaluations.

We had an interesting situation with our old Belgian Groen boy the other day. He is massively soft and cuddly, but very bonded to us all. When visiting the park with the kids he moved between a man and the kids and continued to move to be between them until I had spoken to the fellow and then moved toward him for a pat. There was no aggression, just a physical barrier.

I believe some dogs will naturally protect and some will not. I also believe some will step up to the plate due to pack leadership. I wouldn't like to rely on instincts for protection, but have generally found my dogs naturally protect. Is this due to the style of dogs I choose and own or pack leadership? Who knows.

Correct personal protection training can be very beneficial for some dogs and also some owners.

Going back to the original question of which breeds - I have no idea. You cannot make a recommendation when you don't know the situation. For me a crossbred and a GSD protected me. I don't know if my current old Belgian would bail anyone up, but I wouldn't expect him too so wouldn't put myself in the situation. My new 8 week old Belgian Groen pup - probably, but he is a feisty little fellow and very bonded to me. I don't know if he has the instincts, but he has the bonding.

I am looking forward to evaluating my pup and seeing in which areas he excels.

Ultimately there is no blanket answer. All dogs have their own personalities and all owners do too.

Hopefully the OP can find something that works for her. Evaluation and training is great, then move forward from there.

[Aidan]

She has had three (now) "very bad incidences". I think the evidence speaks for itself.

I didn't see the bit where she said she was going to be taking unnecessary risks. Maybe you can point that out.

She may not realise it, but she is already taking those risks. She has had three of these incidences. My original post was suggesting that people would be better served learning how to identify and manage these risks appropriately.

I'm not sure which part of that is the most naive, but I'll go with the remark about the "quiet" command. How many pet owners teaching "quiet" proof their dog with people attacking or threatening them with weapons?

I'm not saying there are no guns, I'm saying there's a decreased likelihood of this being the weapon of choice in Australia.

A guy pointing an object at you isn't really as threatening as physical contact, if your dog is obedience trained correctly it should respond.

So you would remain completely calm if someone was pointing a gun at you? If "ring nerves" are still a performance problem in the UD ring (arguably "correctly trained obedience dogs"), then I would suspect there is a reasonable probability that a dog, particularly one with a naturally protective instinct, might falter in this particular scenario if it had not been proofed.

I have some experience with dogs who are bred for this line of work. They need training, lots of it. All of them need to be trained to be completely sociable and civil (if that is possible), and then to either never bite (proofed) or to bite when cued (also proofed). Anything less is a liability.

Are you suggesting any breed bred for guarding or having a natural protective instinct (there are a ton of these breeds) is a liability if not protection trained?

No. I'm suggesting that a dog from working lines specifically has a high probability of being a liability (whether the owner recognises it or not) if not trained specifically for either protection, or specifically trained not to "protect".

Also, are you saying that the probability is that any dog from working lines will protect? Make up your mind, Aidan. One minute it's all 'no dog will protect when you want it to' the next it's 'your dog will protect regardless of whether you want it to'.

I have never said "no dog will protect when you want it to".

I would like you to be more accurate when you reply to me. Not only is it unfair to me, it reflects poorly on you and I wouldn't be having this discussion with you if I didn't think you were capable of fairness and accuracy.

If we are talking about dogs not from working lines, then I'm wasting my time. The probabilities are reduced further, as the OP has already found out the hard way.

Because a show quality Neo would never protect. Get out of your little Schutzhund world. There are more breeds out there than Dobes, Mals, GSD's and Rotties.

I don't compete or train in Schutzhund.

I'm not sure what argument you think I am trying to make, but I think my original post expresses it clearly enough. You seem to think that because I disagree with you on point X, I must also disagree with you on points A, B and C also.

For your benefit:

"I think people need to spend less time speculating about their dog's willingness or ability to protect them and more time learning how to manage risk (for which a dog and training may or may not play some part)." -- I don't think a dog is a good personal protection strategy ON IT'S OWN, and most of what a dog may or may not contribute is speculation anyway.

"I know my dogs would make a lot of noise and I know that one of them has no qualms about fronting up, but I'm not sure what would happen if someone was swinging a cricket bat at me." -- my dogs might protect me in one situation, but maybe not another, I don't train for it so I don't know what the probabilities are. I am not willing to risk my life to find out so I can either train for it, or take other measures to avoid a situation where I might have to find out.

For the record, I do own a working line GSD who is trained to be sociable. I also own a Golden Retriever who legitimately helped me avoid a home invasion when he was a puppy, he is the most gentlemanly dog you could imagine. I also perform "rare feats of strength" in front of referrees and avoid city parks at night.

Edited September 14, 2009 by Aidan