Sue & Rotts Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Why don't Dogs NSW just go through the breed standards looking for phrases such as 'aloof' or 'not given to indiscriminate friendships' and replacing them with something more socially acceptable in today's world? Like 'NOT aggressive to well meaning strangers, however may be uninterested in casual contact". :D They're the dog writers, not me - but it all starts with the breed standards and some support for the breeders who want to adapt their breed to modern Australian society would be really welcome? I don't want to alter the essential nature of my breed, just weed out the ones who are not receptive to strangers who mean no harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Ummm because " aloof" does not mean aggressive. The word "aloof" is found in the breed standard of dogs such as the Afghan, Basenji and the RR, none of which are currently "restricted" or look like being added to the list, as they are ANKC recognised breeds. and the point of your post was ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rysup Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 A standard is not what causes a breed to be restricted, so I also do not understand the point. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chriswiddler Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Why don't Dogs NSW just go through the breed standards looking for phrases such as 'aloof' or 'not given to indiscriminate friendships' and replacing them with something more socially acceptable in today's world?Like 'NOT aggressive to well meaning strangers, however may be uninterested in casual contact". They're the dog writers, not me - but it all starts with the breed standards and some support for the breeders who want to adapt their breed to modern Australian society would be really welcome? I don't want to alter the essential nature of my breed, just weed out the ones who are not receptive to strangers who mean no harm. You are quite correct. An aloof dog is more likely to bite and as you say socially unacceptable to people today. ANKC are simply digging their own grave as they did with BSL. Dog owners are facing massive attacks at the moment without having the usually suspects white-anting them from within. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KAMS Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 I am also confused as to the use of the word 'aloof' as warley said it is in many breed standards not on the 'bsl' radar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 it makes no sense, considering that when breeds are mentioned as "dangerous" and that they warrant inclusion on the list, some of the words in the standards used for them include high spirited, faithfull, placid, devoted, fond of children, affectionate and totally reliable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janba Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 The National Breed Councils have the power to recommend changes to their breeds standards at the national conferences in cases where it is not the FCI or country of origin standard that is adopted. I can't remember the full proceedure but know I have voted on proposed changes to the BC standard. If you want changes get involved in your breed club and do something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue & Rotts Posted August 10, 2010 Author Share Posted August 10, 2010 A standard is not what causes a breed to be restricted, so I also do not understand the point.. Did you miss the bit about "not given to indiscriminate friendships?" The point is, that if I DARE to suggest that it is unnecessary for our dogs to be stand-offish, I get shouted down by those quoting the breed standard! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue & Rotts Posted August 10, 2010 Author Share Posted August 10, 2010 Ummm because " aloof" does not mean aggressive. The word "aloof" is found in the breed standard of dogs such as the Afghan, Basenji and the RR, none of which are currently "restricted" or look like being added to the list, as they are ANKC recognised breeds.and the point of your post was ? It doesn't mean friendly either. Do we have some objection to friendly dogs in some breeds? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lhok Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 I don't think aloof dogs are more likely to bite then others. and from what I found when I asked google to define the word aloof this is what came up, on dictionary.com Aloof: –adverb 1. at a distance, esp. in feeling or interest; apart: They always stood aloof from their classmates. –adjective 2. reserved or reticent; indifferent; disinterested: Because of his shyness, he had the reputation of being aloof. It all depends on what you look for in a breed. I prefer dogs who are aloof but that alone is my preference. In Rottweilers since they were bred to be originally guard dogs it would be a strange to have a over friendly one, but I suppose it all comes down to personal preference and what you want the dog to do. --Lhok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Ummm because " aloof" does not mean aggressive. The word "aloof" is found in the breed standard of dogs such as the Afghan, Basenji and the RR, none of which are currently "restricted" or look like being added to the list, as they are ANKC recognised breeds.and the point of your post was ? It doesn't mean friendly either. Do we have some objection to friendly dogs in some breeds? Do you seriously expect that every breed of dog greets people they do not know , slobbering and with their tail wagging ? I've spent plenty of time with dogs that according to their breed standard should be "aloof". They certainly haven't taken the arm off or threatened someone that's approached them. Aloof means that they simply don't give a toss, it does not mean they are timid , aggressive or otherwise unbalanced. The arguement of changing the breed standard just doesn't wash with me, given the calls to add such breeds as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier to the list. It makes no sense when the SBT has written into it's standard and requires a dog that is highly intelligent and affectionate. You are focusing on the word "aloof" as if it was written to mean killer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chriswiddler Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Ummm because " aloof" does not mean aggressive. The word "aloof" is found in the breed standard of dogs such as the Afghan, Basenji and the RR, none of which are currently "restricted" or look like being added to the list, as they are ANKC recognised breeds.and the point of your post was ? It doesn't mean friendly either. Do we have some objection to friendly dogs in some breeds? Do you seriously expect that every breed of dog greets people they do not know , slobbering and with their tail wagging ? I've spent plenty of time with dogs that according to their breed standard should be "aloof". They certainly haven't taken the arm off or threatened someone that's approached them. Aloof means that they simply don't give a toss, it does not mean they are timid , aggressive or otherwise unbalanced. The arguement of changing the breed standard just doesn't wash with me, given the calls to add such breeds as the Staffordshire Bull Terrier to the list. It makes no sense when the SBT has written into it's standard and requires a dog that is highly intelligent and affectionate. You are focusing on the word "aloof" as if it was written to mean killer To many people an aloof dog means just that - killer. An aloof dog is also harder to "read" when approaching. It's OK it's aloof not getting ready to strike by eyeing you down. Given people can't read dogs in general better to be seen to be doing something rather than nothing. Just as silly to call the English Bull Terrier the gladiator of the canine race. If we don't act others will as is happening now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WreckitWhippet Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Since when have Afghans and the like been a major problem and contributors to the bite stats in this country ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJean Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Why don't Dogs NSW just go through the breed standards looking for phrases such as 'aloof' or 'not given to indiscriminate friendships' and replacing them with something more socially acceptable in today's world?Like 'NOT aggressive to well meaning strangers, however may be uninterested in casual contact". ;) They're the dog writers, not me - but it all starts with the breed standards and some support for the breeders who want to adapt their breed to modern Australian society would be really welcome? I don't want to alter the essential nature of my breed, just weed out the ones who are not receptive to strangers who mean no harm. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkySoaringMagpie Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 It doesn't mean friendly either. Do we have some objection to friendly dogs in some breeds? What do you mean by "friendly"? Friendly does not equal harmless. You can have a dog that is friendly to humans who at the same time wants to kill another dog. You can have a dog that is actually pretty rude that an uninformed person might see as friendly but which is actually unfriendly. Aloof does not equal aggressive either. I would like you to meet my Saluki bitch. Aloof definitely, aggressive, definitely not. And her temperament is the Saluki standard to a tee. She is not a danger to anyone, but she is also not a waggy tailed labradoodle type who will monster anyone she meets for treats and pats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diva Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 To many people an aloof dog means just that - killer. Only if 'many people' don't understand English or are illiterate in it. There is no aggression implied in the term at all. An aloof dog is more likely to ignore a stranger than react to them, the only thing likely to be harmed is the stranger's sense of self-importance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkySoaringMagpie Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Only if 'many people' don't understand English or are illiterate in it.There is no aggression implied in the term at all. An aloof dog is more likely to ignore a stranger than react to them, the only thing likely to be harmed is the stranger's sense of self-importance. Um, as usual Diva says it better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kinsella Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 As the owner of a very aloof dog, I find this ludicrous bordering on very offensive. Rather than change breed standards, I think basic vocabulary should be a requirement. And before anyone sees something "sinister" in being aloof, would you like to see a 72 kilo puppy bound up to people and demand attention? Other dogs have no trouble in understanding aloof, pity about those with opposable thumbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharpShep Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 (edited) A standard is not what causes a breed to be restricted, so I also do not understand the point.. Did you miss the bit about "not given to indiscriminate friendships?" The point is, that if I DARE to suggest that it is unnecessary for our dogs to be stand-offish, I get shouted down by those quoting the breed standard! Hi Sue, If you are referring to Rottwieller's, they are a working dog of a guardian breed and the stand offish one's are probably the one's with the most authenticity and alliance with the breed standards. Without sounding patronising, why have a guardian breed then complain because it has the genetics to do it's job???. A dog of a guardian breed that hasn't the genetics for that job, isn't a correct example of the breed although it may be more socially preferred, the dog is actually a dud. Aloofness isn't aggression and hostility, it's the dog not trusting the stranger at that point with the sharpness to react if the meeting turned pear shape. A seemingly friendly stranger may be someone who intends to grab your handbag and an aloof dog will be ready for any misadventure. Aloofness and sharpness is a great basic trait for a dog to successfully be trained in protection where your Rotties, GSD's, Belgian Malinios, Dobie's excel in that working role. People who buy guardian breeds should be prepared for the likelyhood of protective genetics surfacing and learn how to handle and train them for acceptable social behaviour. I don't think that people should try and breed out protective genetics from these breeds without impeccable knowledge of what they need to achieve when playing with nerve strength and hardness which can backfire to create unpredictable fear aggression being the make up of some truly dangerous dogs. Plenty of other breeds who are licky monsters and everyone's friend to chose from Edited August 10, 2010 by SharpShep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RallyValley Posted August 10, 2010 Share Posted August 10, 2010 Sounds like the OP should get a lab for a pet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now