Breeding For Aggression

[Katdogs]

I voted before I read the rest of the thread.

This:

I have no problem with dogs that 'may' be HA or DA, my problem is how do we control the idiots that will want to own them?

and I have been thinking about the litter of pups at a pet shop that some DOLers knew were potentially seriously dangerous and tried to do something about.

[sandgrubber]

To those who have flamed me . ..

Yes, as concerns the Fila, this is an academic debate. Australia bans the Fila, and it's unlikely that the ban will be lifted.

But the larger question has practical implications, and raises havoc with the ideal of deed not breed. If people are breeding for aggression, regardless of what breed, how should society handle it?

Perhaps I should have made up a hypothetical where someone was breeding Labradors to be aggressive . . . I'm sure it could be done. I used the CAFIB Fila because there is a clear breed standard that says, no matter what translation you use, that the dog must show extreme aversion to strangers to be registered (they like to see a growl if approached and attack if touched) and breeders within this standard 'cull' the pups that run to strangers at 12 weeks and keep the ones that growl when approached.' A bit like Belyaev's experiments in reverse . . . but with accepting humans as 'family'. I don't know of other breeds where a breed standard explicitly calls for HA or DA

I would like to judge dogs by deed not breed, but I also think that deliberately breeding for aggression makes hash of this ideal. I believe social pressure needs to be put on people who breed for aggression. It is not at all clear how this should be done, given how badly governments fumble on dog questions, and how wimpy the pedigree dog world is about promoting standards other than conformation.

If those of you who have flamed me are deliberately selecting the pups with the greater propensity to attack to keep for breeding, I think you are at least as much of a problem as drongo owners. Some people buy the idea of dog as weapon or as property guardian. Ok, I can see having sheep guardians on a large property with a lot of sheep and high losses to ferral dogs. But it becomes complicated where people start bringing a guardian breed in to the inner suburbs and sticking it in the yard to protect property . . . or a criminal enterprise. Fences get compromised. Unsuspecting strangers come into yards. Kids take the dog out for walkies and it pulls free for a bit of someone or someone's dog. Poor dog needs exercise and goes nuts in confined space. Some yabo starts thinking they have just as much right to use the off-lead park as anyone else, with the result that the park becomes dangerous.

[experiencedfun]

Not enough information for me to vote rationally

[Aidan3]

Breed standards, breed descriptions by enthusiasts, and people's opinions of breeds are often romanticised and are rarely objective or applied in context.

[Greytmate]

To those who have flamed me . ..

Yes, as concerns the Fila, this is an academic debate. Australia bans the Fila, and it's unlikely that the ban will be lifted.

But the larger question has practical implications, and raises havoc with the ideal of deed not breed. If people are breeding for aggression, regardless of what breed, how should society handle it?

Perhaps I should have made up a hypothetical where someone was breeding Labradors to be aggressive . . . I'm sure it could be done. I used the CAFIB Fila because there is a clear breed standard that says, no matter what translation you use, that the dog must show extreme aversion to strangers to be registered (they like to see a growl if approached and attack if touched) and breeders within this standard 'cull' the pups that run to strangers at 12 weeks and keep the ones that growl when approached.' A bit like Belyaev's experiments in reverse . . . but with accepting humans as 'family'. I don't know of other breeds where a breed standard explicitly calls for HA or DA

I would like to judge dogs by deed not breed, but I also think that deliberately breeding for aggression makes hash of this ideal. I believe social pressure needs to be put on people who breed for aggression. It is not at all clear how this should be done, given how badly governments fumble on dog questions, and how wimpy the pedigree dog world is about promoting standards other than conformation.

If those of you who have flamed me are deliberately selecting the pups with the greater propensity to attack to keep for breeding, I think you are at least as much of a problem as drongo owners. Some people buy the idea of dog as weapon or as property guardian. Ok, I can see having sheep guardians on a large property with a lot of sheep and high losses to ferral dogs. But it becomes complicated where people start bringing a guardian breed in to the inner suburbs and sticking it in the yard to protect property . . . or a criminal enterprise. Fences get compromised. Unsuspecting strangers come into yards. Kids take the dog out for walkies and it pulls free for a bit of someone or someone's dog. Poor dog needs exercise and goes nuts in confined space. Some yabo starts thinking they have just as much right to use the off-lead park as anyone else, with the result that the park becomes dangerous.

I agree with this and find some of the arguments people are putting forward (here and in other threads) against you quite alarming.

Aggression breeds aggression and unprovoked aggression isn't protection, it's extremely anti-social and affects others in the community.

It seems as though there is a market of dog buyers wanting a pet that will really intimidate, scare and repel people. That isn't something we need in Australian suburbs.

[megan_]

I agree Greytmate. The people who think that all dogs are equal are the real reason why we'll land up having all dogs banned. What kind of person wants a dog that is HA (not just weary)?

[gwenneth1]

We are going to end up in a dogless society or a society where breeds are so dumbed down they will be unrecognisable.

This is EXACTLY how I feel. It is going to be ineresting times for my extended family to handle half wild cattle with such a dumbed down dog Such dogs will be virtual Lobotomy victims of a select few who perhaps desire dogs to be like their chosen breed (and every breed isn't without some breeders having dogs with physical or temperament concerns) or as a previous poster mentioned, a dog not disimilar to a garden ornament.

Problems with dogs are people who are incapable of recognising that dogs are a different species and have their own set of functioning 'rules'. As the disconnect to nature,land and animals continues, problems are just going to intensify. This translates to humanised, unrelastic expectations and standards passed onto dogs, of which a large majority will fail to meet.

[megan_]

Most people are living in the 'burbs though. My dog doesn't try to randomly attack humans or other dogs. He isn't dumbed down.

this thread is about breeders breeding for aggression in particular. Who thinks this is okay?

If dogs are going to continue to live in the suburbs then they do have to live within certain rules.

It is actually the "oh, dogs do that" attitude that will see dogs being banned IMO. Dogs that live within social norms with responsible owners don't seem to cause too many people angst?? YEs, there are dog haters out there, but they are in the minority. REsponsible owners who walk their dogs on leash, teach their dogs recall, cross the road/move off the pavement to make way for people don't seem to bother most.

[experiencedfun]

This thread seems to be missing many many posts prior to my earlier one and I am sure the one on top of mine with the long explanation wasnt there

[BJean]

Most people are living in the 'burbs though. My dog doesn't try to randomly attack humans or other dogs. He isn't dumbed down.

this thread is about breeders breeding for aggression in particular. Who thinks this is okay?

If dogs are going to continue to live in the suburbs then they do have to live within certain rules.

It is actually the "oh, dogs do that" attitude that will see dogs being banned IMO. Dogs that live within social norms with responsible owners don't seem to cause too many people angst?? YEs, there are dog haters out there, but they are in the minority. REsponsible owners who walk their dogs on leash, teach their dogs recall, cross the road/move off the pavement to make way for people don't seem to bother most.

Maybe you could tell me what you think this means.

"breeding for aggression"

?

[BJean]

I would like to judge dogs by deed not breed, but I also think that deliberately breeding for aggression makes hash of this ideal. I believe social pressure needs to be put on people who breed for aggression. It is not at all clear how this should be done, given how badly governments fumble on dog questions, and how wimpy the pedigree dog world is about promoting standards other than conformation.

If those of you who have flamed me are deliberately selecting the pups with the greater propensity to attack to keep for breeding, I think you are at least as much of a problem as drongo owners. Some people buy the idea of dog as weapon or as property guardian. Ok, I can see having sheep guardians on a large property with a lot of sheep and high losses to ferral dogs. But it becomes complicated where people start bringing a guardian breed in to the inner suburbs and sticking it in the yard to protect property . . . or a criminal enterprise. Fences get compromised. Unsuspecting strangers come into yards. Kids take the dog out for walkies and it pulls free for a bit of someone or someone's dog. Poor dog needs exercise and goes nuts in confined space. Some yabo starts thinking they have just as much right to use the off-lead park as anyone else, with the result that the park becomes dangerous.

what do you think this means?

You're a breeder, give me an example of how you think this works.

Edited June 27, 2011 by lilli

[megan_]

lilli - hte OP stated that she meant breeding for HA and DA agression - not weariness, protection etc, but unprovoked aggression.

[BJean]

lilli - hte OP stated that she meant breeding for HA and DA agression - not weariness, protection etc, but unprovoked aggression.

I am asking what breeding for aggression means

or how you imagine it works, as distinct from wariness.

You wrote that the thread is about breeders breeding for aggression.

I am not interested in what the OP misinterprets.

Edited June 27, 2011 by lilli

[BJean]

To those who have flamed me . ..

Yes, as concerns the Fila, this is an academic debate. Australia bans the Fila, and it's unlikely that the ban will be lifted.

But the larger question has practical implications, and raises havoc with the ideal of deed not breed. If people are breeding for aggression, regardless of what breed, how should society handle it?

Perhaps I should have made up a hypothetical where someone was breeding Labradors to be aggressive . . . I'm sure it could be done. I used the CAFIB Fila because there is a clear breed standard that says, no matter what translation you use, that the dog must show extreme aversion to strangers to be registered (they like to see a growl if approached and attack if touched) and breeders within this standard 'cull' the pups that run to strangers at 12 weeks and keep the ones that growl when approached.' A bit like Belyaev's experiments in reverse . . . but with accepting humans as 'family'. I don't know of other breeds where a breed standard explicitly calls for HA or DA

I would like to judge dogs by deed not breed, but I also think that deliberately breeding for aggression makes hash of this ideal. I believe social pressure needs to be put on people who breed for aggression. It is not at all clear how this should be done, given how badly governments fumble on dog questions, and how wimpy the pedigree dog world is about promoting standards other than conformation.

If those of you who have flamed me are deliberately selecting the pups with the greater propensity to attack to keep for breeding, I think you are at least as much of a problem as drongo owners. Some people buy the idea of dog as weapon or as property guardian. Ok, I can see having sheep guardians on a large property with a lot of sheep and high losses to ferral dogs. But it becomes complicated where people start bringing a guardian breed in to the inner suburbs and sticking it in the yard to protect property . . . or a criminal enterprise. Fences get compromised. Unsuspecting strangers come into yards. Kids take the dog out for walkies and it pulls free for a bit of someone or someone's dog. Poor dog needs exercise and goes nuts in confined space. Some yabo starts thinking they have just as much right to use the off-lead park as anyone else, with the result that the park becomes dangerous.

No sandgrubber perhaps you should attempt to learn about what you are so insistent on writing uninformed essays about.

NB: The fact that you compare the Labrador to the CAFIB fila, shows that you have no knowledge beyond the temperament type of the Labrador.

So yes, perhaps you should make up a hypothetical about aggressive tubby labs.

As that will be a topic where you can meaningfully contribute and apply what you know to the discussion. Not what you imagine.

Edited June 27, 2011 by lilli

[gwenneth1]

The difficultie arises with an individuals definition of what constitutes aggression. What one person considers a 'trait/action' to be completely unacceptable is opposite in another's view when circumstances are considered.

For instance. HA; Is it a dog that bites somebody when protecting its owner from attack? Is it a dog that protects its property from a stranger? Is it a dog that barks and growls at a stranger until its owner says "it's ok"? Is it a dog who growls but settles itself in away from the stranger but keeps an watchful eye? Is it a dog that bails up a stranger, but when its owner makes an appearance goes "its all good, my owner is here"? Is a dog that dogs nothing, but just keeps away from a stranger-appears 'overly' wary? Is it a dog that has been trained for protection work or schutzhund? Or is it that random dog in a public area that seemingly attacks unprovoked? Is it a dog that MAY have traits where it could be trained for manwork? Is HA a dog deemed to be so because of the way it expresses itself with verbal/body posturing only or one that actually bites? The list of examples goes on and then there is the whole saga of whose interpretation is the one chosen to decide the fate of a dog/breed.

Same with DA or Animal Aggression. Is a dog potentially declared dangerous because it would chase and possibley maim or kill a cat/dog that wandered onto it's property? Is a dog that kills/attacks the pet rabbit/guinea pig/chook? Is it a dog with the propensity to chase and 'grab' small furry animals? Is it a dog that ignores other dogs but will snap/bite/attack another for invading its personal space because the other dog failed to 'read' it's non verbal warnings? Is it a dog that bites/heels/chases a horse or cow? Is it a dog that for example, is in an unaturally small space such as a pound environment and external stressors see a normally tractable dog attack another? Is it a dog who won't share its food bowl with another? Is it a dog regarldess of environmental factors that bites or lunges/postures up at another dog deemed dog aggressive regardless. It's very complex and subjective.

So now consider hypothetically I have a dog who is good with people, intelligent & tractable; passes all health checks; good with unfamiliar dogs (in a public domain), but attacked a dog straying onto his territory/my property would this be considered to be dog aggressive or an acceptable reaction and is it appropriate to breed him or not?

The other thing to consider, lets suggest that the breed registry decides to change its wording or its standard to be more politically/publically acceptable and remove words that have potentially upset some members of the public, theoretically you have the exact same dog without the old standard. So if its just the wording of the standard, would this dog then be deemed acceptable?

"If the breed standard for some breed calls for HA or DA temperament, what should be done?"Answer: Change the wording of the breed standard removing 'offending' words :D

[BJean]

The difficultie arises with an individuals definition of what constitutes aggression. What one person considers a 'trait/action' to be completely unacceptable is opposite in another's view when circumstances are considered.

For instance. HA; Is it a dog that bites somebody when protecting its owner from attack? Is it a dog that protects its property from a stranger? Is it a dog that barks and growls at a stranger until its owner says "it's ok"? Is it a dog who growls but settles itself in away from the stranger but keeps an watchful eye? Is it a dog that bails up a stranger, but when its owner makes an appearance goes "its all good, my owner is here"? Is a dog that dogs nothing, but just keeps away from a stranger-appears 'overly' wary? Is it a dog that has been trained for protection work or schutzhund? Or is it that random dog in a public area that seemingly attacks unprovoked? Is it a dog that MAY have traits where it could be trained for manwork? Is HA a dog deemed to be so because of the way it expresses itself with verbal/body posturing only or one that actually bites? The list of examples goes on and then there is the whole saga of whose interpretation is the one chosen to decide the fate of a dog/breed.

Same with DA or Animal Aggression. Is a dog potentially declared dangerous because it would chase and possibley maim or kill a cat/dog that wandered onto it's property? Is a dog that kills/attacks the pet rabbit/guinea pig/chook? Is it a dog with the propensity to chase and 'grab' small furry animals? Is it a dog that ignores other dogs but will snap/bite/attack another for invading its personal space because the other dog failed to 'read' it's non verbal warnings? Is it a dog that bites/heels/chases a horse or cow? Is it a dog that for example, is in an unaturally small space such as a pound environment and external stressors see a normally tractable dog attack another? Is it a dog who won't share its food bowl with another? Is it a dog regarldess of environmental factors that bites or lunges/postures up at another dog deemed dog aggressive regardless. It's very complex and subjective.

So now consider hypothetically I have a dog who is good with people, intelligent & tractable; passes all health checks; good with unfamiliar dogs (in a public domain), but attacked a dog straying onto his territory/my property would this be considered to be dog aggressive or an acceptable reaction and is it appropriate to breed him or not?

The other thing to consider, lets suggest that the breed registry decides to change its wording or its standard to be more politically/publically acceptable and remove words that have potentially upset some members of the public, theoretically you have the exact same dog without the old standard. So if its just the wording of the standard, would this dog then be deemed acceptable?

"If the breed standard for some breed calls for HA or DA temperament, what should be done?"Answer: Change the wording of the breed standard removing 'offending' words :D

It doesn't call for HA temperament. Sandgrubber and her retriever man just think it does.

Sandgrubber's main gripe is this:

In her words:

The registry that got the breed accepted by the FCI called for dogs with distinctly molosser appearance with bloodhond facial features. They also wanted a nicer temperament in the dogs.

However, the other registry, the CAFIB (Club for the Improvement of the Fila Brasileiro), very strongly argues against making the dogs very heavy and coarse. And most controversially, its founders insist on breeding for what they say is a unique trait to the bred. This trait is called ojeriza.

Ojeriza roughly translates as xenophobia, a deep dislike of strangers. The standard for ojeriza states that the dog should not "allow the judge (a stranger) to touch it. And if it attacks the judge, such a reaction must not be considered a fault, but only a confirmation of its temperament.

Sandgrubber is not bothered by the FCI breeder trend to breed another modern mastiff with a short life span and heavy frame.

Sandgrubber is concerned that the Fila breeder expects an adult Fila not to allow a stranger to walk up to the Fila and its owner and to then touch the dog.

Have a think about.

The dog does not allow strangers to touch it.

So a stranger cannot walk up to a Fila with its owned and expect to be able to pat it.

Whoa.

Big controversy in a primitive guardian breed.

Edited June 27, 2011 by lilli

[gwenneth1]

If the breed standard for some breed calls for HA or DA temperament, what should be done?

Ban importation of the breed

Require special licensing for owners of the breed

Nothing.

Other (please clarify)

lilli, the above is what I was responding too. Although I suggested merely changing the wording of a breed standard as tongue in cheek, in all seriousness, this is how silly the poll is because if the words were merely substituted with the stroke of a pen, it would automatically render such debates be null and void. I agree with the points you are making.

Perhaps sandgrubber could clarify whether this is strictly referring to the Fila (which to my knowledge doesn't exist in Australia) or what specific breeds are being referred to?

As far as not being able to be patted by a stranger, there are a lot of dogs who either are uncomfortable or not tolerant of it. For example, I would never go up to a working dog tied in the back of its vehicle to give it a friendly cheerio, because for all intents and purposes, that dog is guarding its property/slice of territory as well as being on a chain. Yet there is sure to be some people that feel it is perfectly acceptable or expected that they should be able to go up and pat that dog and it be completely unreasonable for that dog to not be anything but be a happy recipient of their attention.

I would presume in this situation (and many others) that the most intelligent of the two species would have some insight and alter their potential behaviour accordingly (...and I bet there are some DOL's thinking "the poor dog having to monitor its behaviour ...again... ).

Even if hypothetically all dogs that were super human and dog friendly nothing but seletively bred, that still won't address or reduce a human beings capacity for stupidity and therefore, the most tolerant and nicest of dogs could always be placed in an untenable situation where it may bite. You cannot ever regulate stupidity, that is why some breeds of dogs get an unwarranted bad reputation.

An example of human stupidity, a "family member " has a poodle. Lovely little fellow, but an anxious ball of stressed out energy, so desperate to please ,frustrates "f/m" . To "f/m" this poodle is an ill bred,basket case. He's not, but "f/m" refuses to recognise her intereactions/actions with him trigger his anxiety/behaviour (hell, she triggers my anxiety!). A classic case of a sensitive and highly intelligent dog with the wrong type of person whois the cause, yet "f/m" holds this against the entire breed instead of RECOGNISING the problem LIES WITH HER . Maybe its people that need a breed standard THEN get matched to a dog...

[Souff]

Sandgrubber, for a moment there I thought you were for real and that some kennel council had allowed such wording in a breed standard.

Please tell me that this is hypothetical.

Such wording has no place in a breed standard.

Humans, through action or inaction, can make any dog aggressive, HA, DA or any other kind of "A".

Breed standard or no.

Souff

Consider the breed standard is translated to English.

Translations can provide problems, particularly if taken out of context. It was my understanding that there was a joint meeting of the major dog breeding nations, probably about 10 years ago or so, to try to use standard phraseology across breed standards, in a bid to minimise possible problems with translation.

Souff can't read Japanese but gosh, if you want to own a dog of a breed that has a long history connected with dog fighting, would you not expect a certain amount of aggressive traits to be in that breed?

On the other hand, if you want to own a Labrador or a gun dog, you can expect to have a wet duck dropped at your feet now and then. You wouldn't want a duck aggressive dog, I suppose.

Think I will just go back to turtle watching ....

Souff

[sandgrubber]

The difficultie arises with an individuals definition of what constitutes aggression. What one person considers a 'trait/action' to be completely unacceptable is opposite in another's view when circumstances are considered.

For instance. HA; Is it a dog that bites somebody when protecting its owner from attack? ....

The other thing to consider, lets suggest that the breed registry decides to change its wording or its standard to be more politically/publically acceptable and remove words that have potentially upset some members of the public, theoretically you have the exact same dog without the old standard. So if its just the wording of the standard, would this dog then be deemed acceptable?

"If the breed standard for some breed calls for HA or DA temperament, what should be done?"Answer: Change the wording of the breed standard removing 'offending' words :D

It doesn't call for HA temperament. Sandgrubber and her retriever man just think it does.

Sandgrubber's main gripe is this:

In her words:

The registry that got the breed accepted by the FCI called for dogs with distinctly molosser appearance with bloodhond facial features. They also wanted a nicer temperament in the dogs.

However, the other registry, the CAFIB (Club for the Improvement of the Fila Brasileiro), very strongly argues against making the dogs very heavy and coarse. And most controversially, its founders insist on breeding for what they say is a unique trait to the bred. This trait is called ojeriza.

Big controversy in a primitive guardian breed.

Are you saying that people the dog is not bonded to are not human? I regard a dog who would bite the judge in a dog show as human aggressive. In most any show, a dog who bit the judge would have its registration suspended. The CAFIB standard says that biting the judge is not to be regarded as a fault, but as a manifestation of breed character.

A dog that automatically protects its 'family' and reacts with hostility to strangers is a loaded weapon. Not a big problem in a rural setting where everyone knows everyone else and property sizes are measured in hundreds of hectares. Disaster in the suburbs, especially with an owner whose dog handling skills are pretty average and whose yard isn't secure. The dog reads body language and voice tone, and does not understand much English. It's ability to discriminate between a life and death conflict and a barney is poor. Say the dog is standing by and 5 yr old (human) Jack, a family member, gets into a fist fight with 7 yr old John, an 'outsider', and Jack is getting pommeled. Dog thinks his clan is attacked and decides to even the odds. Oh, sorry, John ends out seriously mutilated or dead. A 60 kg dog can do a lot of damage to a child in a hurry. Note a few well publicized dog attacks in this forum have been family quarrels where the dog jumped in. Say two blokes have a bit of a bluey. One has a guardian standing by. Oops!

If you are breeding a 'primitive guardian breed', you actively selecting pups to react with hostility to people outside the family, and you are willing to place pups in the suburbs, I personally think someone should make sure your dogs get neutered ASAP. Guardians have legitimate work in situations where ferrals are taking a large fraction of the flock. They have no business in the suburbs. I expect you can breed a 'guardian' that guards flocks but is not especially hostile to human strangers.

The sticky part of this all is that governments are often incompetent in recognizing breeds, judging dog temperament, etc. and any law that gets enacted is likely to have unintended and painful consequences. I don't know what the solution is, but sticking up for temperament traits such as not allowing a stranger to touch without biting is the wrong way to go. It would be good if owners of 'guardians' took on the challenge of making their dogs' temperaments more suited to modern dog lifestyles . . . and were extremely careful about how they place dogs with the 'old fashioned' knee jerk reactions to what the dog thinks is confrontation.

Edited June 27, 2011 by sandgrubber

[espinay2]

this thread is about breeders breeding for aggression in particular. Who thinks this is okay?

As I said at the beginning though - define aggression!!! In our society it seems that even if a dog meets a stranger at the gate and barks at them it can be defined as aggression. So what parameters are you putting on it? What behaviours are ok and what are not ok? EXACTLY what behaviours dont you want breeders selecting for here in Australia?