Protective But Not Aggressive Breeds

[Akayla]

No ffence to anyone but I think a couple of people on here need to cool it. I would like to see some good conversation out of this not silly he said she said. Also it doesnt matter who started the derogatory tone, it should end.

Anyone want to answer the question I posted?

[Nekhbet]

what was the question I think it got a bit lost

[Akayla]

Ok here is a random question for those in the know.

Would you consider a dog to have "fronted up" if say someone came at the dog and owner swinging a bat or whatever - but the dog doesnt stand between the owner and the attacker but circles around behind the attacker and moves in from there?

[Nekhbet]

I would say that is a dog with either limited confidence in how to handle the situation, or has been whacked before and knows what comes from a frontal attack. A dog that goes straight in, especially for lower limbs as well, does have quite a bit of confidence to go head on. A dog that will circle is sizing up the risks, not 100% in its ability to make the bite and hence goes to a less confrontational position, side/rear.

Another thing you will see sometimes is when a stare is broken between the person/dog the dog goes in for the bite, usually on the side of the face now facing the dog. Not enough confidence to have a go when being stared at but turn away and the dog is not as ... mmm intimidated is not the right word for what I want to say (sorry have barely spoken english for 2 days and now I'm all over the place )

[Aidan]

Ok here is a random question for those in the know.

Would you consider a dog to have "fronted up" if say someone came at the dog and owner swinging a bat or whatever - but the dog doesnt stand between the owner and the attacker but circles around behind the attacker and moves in from there?

Yes. If I were training a PP dog this is what I would have them do, exactly the same as if I were with a mate and a deranged lunatic with a cricket bat came at us. He can't strike both of us at the same time and he knows it. I would also give the deranged lunatic an escape option.

[Aidan]

Also it doesnt matter who started the derogatory tone, it should end.

Yes mum...

[Nekhbet]

[mita]

what was the question I think it got a bit lost

I'm glad you asked that. Because I lost the question, too. Not that I helped myself by telling how a dachie was the only dog to drive off the dreaded Brissie walking path attacker (who turned out to live in the next suburb to me). When walking my tibbie on the path late yesterday, a bloke was walking behind me & I just had to remark to her....'Can you run into a phone box & turn into a dachie?'

I know that's pretty pathetic, but that's my answer to the OP. If it's spontaneity in taking on an attacker, she's looking for.

ADDED: OK, Akayla, got your ?. Well, with a bat-swinging lunatic, I'd go for a dog who could set the pace in running away. Forget the dachie. In this case, I'll stick with a tibbie who's got hare-feet like the sighthounds & can run like the wind.

Edited September 16, 2009 by mita

[Guest rhapsodical78]

I was very specific, I asked you to be more accurate. I did not say 'your replies suck', this is another example of you inaccuracy and misrepresentation.

It's essentially the same thing because instead of actually addressing the areas you think are inaccurate, lacking or otherwise incorrect you make some vague comment about the standard of my replies. I think that's called 'deflecting'.

I have neither the time or the inclination to repeat myself to someone who has no interest in reading and comprehending what I have to say.

Right back at ya.

Those are all good points, and I have never argued against them. You wouldn't know that because taking the time to comprehend my posts would cut into your time spent trying to argue with me because you didn't comprehend my posts.

Don't assume that just because I don't AGREE with your posts that I don't UNDERSTAND your posts. That's just another red herring. Perhaps you were too focused yourself on the process of debate to realise that you actually agreed with me.

You did argue against them. You said that an untrained dog was a liability. That's how the whole 'gun' scenario came to be discussed.

You also said

The original question is a moot point. You can't choose a breed because it is more likely to protect you, you can only choose a breed that will excel in the training required to protect you. 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.

Why is that? You can only choose a trained dog or nothing at all?

[Akayla]

Well I am on mum mode trying to juggle all the kids at the moment

That makes complete sense then and I fairly sure of what I expect her to do. Funny you also nailed it on the head as to why she would do it.

[Guest rhapsodical78]

No ffence to anyone but I think a couple of people on here need to cool it. I would like to see some good conversation out of this not silly he said she said. Also it doesnt matter who started the derogatory tone, it should end.

Anyone want to answer the question I posted?

LOL. I'm getting a little bored with it anyway. I'll be peaches now.

[Akayla]

Oh good - I just sent a kid to time out, wouldnt want to have to do it to some one else

I told you, you should hire me Troy

[Aidan]

You did argue against them. You said that an untrained dog was a liability.

The probability is that it would be more of a liability than an asset from the perspective of personal safety. Some probable examples of why this might be:

1. the protection might be unwarranted

2. the protection might be excessive, landing both of you in trouble (better than not being protected, but better again if you can call the dog off when the job is done)

3. you might have a false sense of security, leading you to make bad decisions for your personal safety

All of these points have been made in this thread already, perhaps having them listed here together might make it clearer? I didn't say "any untrained dog is a liability", I am talking about probabilities.

Of course, this does not mean that they cannot be an asset in other circumstances from the perspective of personal safety. Some would-be attackers might be turned off by the fact that you have a dog. No-one chooses their attacker, unfortunately. Otherwise I would have chosen Gandhi to attack me instead of the 15 street-kids with weapons who did attack me when I was sixteen years old and making bad personal safety decisions.

Why is that? You can only choose a trained dog or nothing at all?

If you genuinely want a personal protection dog then your probabilities are greatly improved by training, improved further by breed selection, and improved further still by line selection.

The OP has expressed a desire not to train her dog in personal protection, and expressed a desire to own a breed that would be naturally protective. In my opinion, and you may disagree, the odds of her personal safety being improved are not great taking this approach and I think "which breed for protection" is a moot point until other factors are considered.

[BJean]

Taking an Anatolian Shepherd out in public is more of a liability than an asset.

Are you one of those people who caution, "look out there's a Karabash coming"?

Haha, you must be constantly looking over your shoulder then!

No not really, just constantly surprised at the ignorance some people show towards the breed.

I missed the part in the OP and later thread development

when it became about decrying Anatolians as unstable and unsuitable as family dogs to go out in public.

ploise explayne.

You're winding me up, right? You summed up everything I was trying to say about the difference between trained personal protection dogs and LGDs in your last post.

My post summed up a certain type of LGD very well. Not breed, but a certain mindset of dog.

You described Anatolians as a liabilty out in public.

I asked you which Anatolians you were talking about, because if you are going to badmouth a breed I'd like to know the context of your experience which shaped that opinion.

Perhaps I should have said "an unsocialised, working Anatolian" when I made my original remark, but I really didn't think it was necessary.

Actually no that still wouldn't have helped

An unsocialised working Anatolian is not even relevant for the comparison -

as with any unsocialised dog you'd more than likely ellicit a fear response.

lol, just leave the Anatolians, hey.

[BJean]

If CASD's are considered in the same grouping as Anatolians I must be very irresponsible taking my "liability" out in public, however I thought that socialisation was healthy, especially if he is under effective control and all of my past students I believe have benefitted from meeting him.

If you have a LGD with a nice temperament who is socialised and trained, then you are not taking a liability out into the public, are you? Isn't that assumed?

Isn't that assumed to apply to ANY breed?

[BJean]

quote from Nekhbet

And no, I would never purchase a primarily show line dog with the hope it would be a worker. You want a worker you buy from proven workers not just because it is a gsd, rottie, dobe etc. Many members of working breeds cannot step up to the plate anymore and that's a fact. If you want a dog that will DEFINATELY protect you in any situation you buy a trained dog or one of the more primitive/LGD breeds still from proven workers (But as lilli said dont expect to have control like you would the more traditional guarding breeds). The logic is not that hard to grasp.

Exactly!!!!! Tony

Yep

[Aidan]

If you have a LGD with a nice temperament who is socialised and trained, then you are not taking a liability out into the public, are you? Isn't that assumed?

Isn't that assumed to apply to ANY breed?

Yes, but LGDs were being suggested.

Edited September 16, 2009 by Aidan

[Aidan]

Perhaps I should have said "an unsocialised, working Anatolian" when I made my original remark, but I really didn't think it was necessary.

Actually no that still wouldn't have helped

An unsocialised working Anatolian is not even relevant for the comparison -

as with any unsocialised dog you'd more than likely ellicit a fear response.

I can understand your loyalty to the breed and concern for it's reputation, but don't blow this out of proportion or take it out of context.

Livestock guardians were being mentioned as dogs who had a capacity for personal protection, what's more, without training for it. I was discussing the liability aspects and why it is best to choose a dog who is bred for this sort of work and train it specifically for the purpose if you want a personal protection dog to take into public.

There is nothing more to read into it. It could have been any breed, but LGDs were being discussed. In fact I would rather see an untrained, unsocialised Anatolian running around my local park than an untrained, unsocialised working-line GSD (if I had to make the choice).

[BJean]

I can understand your loyalty to the breed and concern for it's reputation, but don't blow this out of proportion or take it out of context.

Livestock guardians were being mentioned as dogs who had a capacity for personal protection, what's more, without training for it. I was discussing the liability aspects and why it is best to choose a dog who is bred for this sort of work and train it specifically for the purpose if you want a personal protection dog to take into public.

There is nothing more to read into it. It could have been any breed, but LGDs were being discussed. In fact I would rather see an untrained, unsocialised Anatolian running around my local park than an untrained, unsocialised working-line GSD (if I had to make the choice).

!

yep I am probably protective and defensive of my breed

CAO were mentioned as quite distinct from the other LGD breeds (like Anatolian, Kangal, Maremma) due to the current CAO bloodlines in Australia.

There have been a few incidents of the dogs protecting their owners, so I think that for the most part it holds.

I suppose what the dogs notch up as experience wrt dealing with humans

also contributes to their response -

I do think a dog gets more confident dispatching/contending with humans, when it has done so successfully (in the dog's mind) before - but this is only my theory from observation.

CAO are used as trained PP dogs in other countries -

They are popular in Russia, Ukraine and Romania, and increasingly in USA -

dont think they are suited to Australia though

and they are also not marketed as being so.

[Aidan]

I suppose what the dogs notch up as experience wrt dealing with humans

also contributes to their response -

I do think a dog gets more confident dispatching/contending with humans, when it has done so successfully (in the dog's mind) before - but this is only my theory from observation.

As someone who uses functional analysis on reactive and aggressive dogs I agree. It forms the basis of some planned protection training as well. It is learning by negative reinforcement, the 'bad guy' is removed contingent upon the response of aggression. It can happen with any breed, but the level of natural confidence and thresholds differ considerably between breeds (as a general rule).