# Dogs that show aggression-



## Lisa Radcliffe (Jun 9, 2011)

In the thread "Question" it was said that "the dogs that show high aggression have shown when the fight gets real and tough those dogs are not going to hang around" While I get the perfect total dog that anyone can handle and bring it all on when needed where does that leave the dog with an edge? I would think some of that is needed in a breeding program some place? I find it hard to believe that because a dog is not totally social or they show aggression at a stranger they lack the "heart" to stay in a fight and I do not mean a dog with thin nerves. I get that for MD or LE a social dog is best considering the handlers and the jobs they do. But in a lot of discussions the dog that shows aggression and is not social with strangers has lost face just what I have noticed in recent threads. It is a lot more work to train a dog like this, maybe I am the only one who appreciates a dog like this?


----------



## Ang Cangiano (Mar 2, 2007)

Part of the issue is people that lump 'aggression' and 'defense' in the same category. Many times people use the word 'aggressive' or 'aggression' when in actuality the dog is reacting defensively. So, in that context (lumping aggression and defensive into the same category), yes 'aggressive' dogs are showing a 'weaker nerve' as they are seeing something as a threat that they react to. True aggression is actually an offensive action though, not a defensive reaction. 

Ang


----------



## jamie lind (Feb 19, 2009)

I think its because its a lot rarer than people think. Most people confuse fear with true aggression because they have never seen it.


----------



## Lisa Radcliffe (Jun 9, 2011)

jamie lind said:


> I think its because its a lot rarer than people think. Most people confuse fear with true aggression because they have never seen it.


Good point! I am not thinking of fear Aggression and I agree it is more complicated when terms are thrown out! I assume all will understand the type of dog I am talking about here?


----------



## Ang Cangiano (Mar 2, 2007)

Lisa Radcliffe said:


> Good point! I am not thinking of fear Aggression and I agree it is more complicated when terms are thrown out! I assume all will understand the type of dog I am talking about here?


Again, fear aggression is not actually 'aggression' is a defensive reaction to a perceived threat. It's not an offensive reaction of an aggressor. Exactly what I was talking about.

Ang


----------



## Alice Bezemer (Aug 4, 2010)

Lisa Radcliffe said:


> Good point! I am not thinking of fear Aggression and I agree it is more complicated when terms are thrown out! I assume all will understand the type of dog I am talking about here?


I think I know what you are talking about. These are the kind of dogs that I prefer. The bring more to the table character wise and are quicker to show anger/agression/attitude then the dogs that people seem to prefer nowadays. Today a dog has to be easy to manage and not to much work or people get lost as to how to deal with it and mostly end up blaming the dog for their own incompotence. 

When I started out in KNPV the way was for the handler to suit the dog. The handler had to actually learn about a.dog and how to handle it... a real effort had to be made and not just anyone could become a doghandler in LE or MIL or a guarddog company. Now the world has changed and handlers with no qualifications to speak of can get a dog and work it. Now dogs are being bred and trained to suit the inadequate handler holding the leash. I miss the old days when a handler still knew how to deal with a dog as opossed to todays handler who's knowledge stretches to shoving food in the front and knowing it will come out the back the next.day....


----------



## Tim Lynam (Jun 12, 2009)

jamie lind said:


> I think its because its a lot rarer than people think. Most people confuse fear with true aggression because they have never seen it.


I couldn't agree with you more Jamie. =D>

As a decoy I worked 100's of different canines, in many different disciplines. I can count on 1 hand the ones that were truly aggressive. You know them when you see them and when you do you have no doubt they are the real deal. Rare indeed and only 2 of the 5 passed the trait on to their progeny with regularity. All were dogs.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I think the OP's quote is inaccurate.


----------



## Ben Thompson (May 2, 2009)

Lisa Radcliffe said:


> In the thread "Question" it was said that "the dogs that show high aggression have shown when the fight gets real and tough those dogs are not going to hang around" While I get the perfect total dog that anyone can handle and bring it all on when needed where does that leave the dog with an edge? I would think some of that is needed in a breeding program some place? I find it hard to believe that because a dog is not totally social or they show aggression at a stranger they lack the "heart" to stay in a fight and I do not mean a dog with thin nerves. I get that for MD or LE a social dog is best considering the handlers and the jobs they do. But in a lot of discussions the dog that shows aggression and is not social with strangers has lost face just what I have noticed in recent threads. It is a lot more work to train a dog like this, maybe I am the only one who appreciates a dog like this?


 I like a mean dog but I am not keeping special forces dogs. What works for me might not work for the guy down the road. I don't think one is right the other wrong...its up to the trainer and breeder what they keep or cull.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Lisa Radcliffe said:


> In the thread "Question" it was said that *"the dogs that show high aggression have shown when the fight gets real and tough those dogs are not going to hang around"*


where was this said? I re-read that entire thread and could not find it...
If you are attempting to quote what Mike S. said, this is not an accurate quote at all in my opinion.


----------



## Tim Lynam (Jun 12, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> where was this said? I re-read that entire thread and could not find it...
> If you are attempting to quote what Mike S. said, this is not an accurate quote at all in my opinion.


Got to agree with ya Joby. I re-read the whole thread too. Her statement of what was "said" seems to be a hybrid/compilation of things/ideas a few people brought up in the thread. The OP should be more careful. As it stands, nobody actually said "*the dogs that show high aggression have shown when the fight gets real and tough those dogs are not going to hang around"*


----------



## Zakia Days (Mar 13, 2009)

Alice Bezemer said:


> I think I know what you are talking about. These are the kind of dogs that I prefer. The bring more to the table character wise and are quicker to show anger/agression/attitude then the dogs that people seem to prefer nowadays. Today a dog has to be easy to manage and not to much work or people get lost as to how to deal with it and mostly end up blaming the dog for their own incompotence.
> 
> When I started out in KNPV the way was for the handler to suit the dog. The handler had to actually learn about a.dog and how to handle it... a real effort had to be made and not just anyone could become a doghandler in LE or MIL or a guarddog company. Now the world has changed and handlers with no qualifications to speak of can get a dog and work it. Now dogs are being bred and trained to suit the inadequate handler holding the leash. I miss the old days when a handler still knew how to deal with a dog as opossed to todays handler who's knowledge stretches to shoving food in the front and knowing it will come out the back the next.day....



Here, here Alice! I am in favor of the old way and the old dogs.


----------



## Lisa Radcliffe (Jun 9, 2011)

Yes the quote was from Mike I did not use the whole post because I thought most would have read it and knew what I was talking about. This thread was not directed at him. As I said it seems like the Extreme dogs have become a thing of the past? and while they may not be for everyone they still must be needed I would think in breeding programs to get that social dog that stays in the fight when the fight gets real and tough! I think Alice said it better in her post. I have heard it often that the dogs out there these days have lost that edge because people need more social working dogs and sport dogs.


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

I think many people are not understanding what I am trying to say about the type of dog I like / need.
Believe me, when talking about "extreme", I'd be willing to bet that I have a couple dogs here in my breeding program now who are as "extreme" as anything out there, way more than most I've ever seen.
But they are still social dogs unless they have a reason to be angry. Every dog in my kennel could easily be made aggressive with strangers if I wanted them to be, but some of them are simply so extreme that if I rolled them over to that place in their minds they would be very dangerous, one in particular I really believe would killl a man if he were taken to that place in his mind. There is simply no place or need for a dog in my kennel to behave that way unless it is justified.
I have owned over 1000 dogs through my kennel since the year 2001, you can believe that I have had some very aggressive ones during that time. But of all the ones I've had, 9 of the best 10 I have in terms of power and committment to stay in a fight with a man have been social dogs when not stimulated to fight. 
I agree 100% than msot dogs who show "aggression" are not forwardly aggressive dogs. In fact of the 1000s of dogs I've had through my kennel only one was truely and honestly forwardly aggressive......my old Arko Kikkert. But even though he was a great biter he was still no stronger in the bitework than Endor (very social), Arco Roosen (very social), Ducas (very social) etc. In fact as much as I loved Arko, there really wasnt anything about him that was better than the equally powerful yet social dogs I mentioned. 
Actually, that type of unsafe aggression made it impossible to do off leash narcotics searches with him, or anything like the work we do with our clients now where the dog is used in a stack / entry, or on route clearance patrols, etc. All of those other dogs would bite with the same intent when necessary, but were much more usable otherwise. 
When I got Arko 10 years ago I thought it was cool having a dog like that, just as many people who dont truely understand how useful a more social dog really is. But during the last 10 years I have seen time after time, after time that a dog like him is no better in biting, but much less usable in everything else in the world that I want to be able to do with my dogs. 
Dont get me wrong, I would buy another dog like Arko today if I could find it, because he was a great dog and I never pass up a great dog, however I have seen a LOT of dogs that people call "aggressive" but none of them were like him in the work, not even close. But even if I had him again as a 2 year old, I would still not be able to do with him as much real work as I could do with a dog like Endor, Arco, or Ducas for example.
My current stud dog Rudy has more drive to hunt and retrieve, more intensity, more speed and desire, and more agility and athleticism than Arko had, and he is much more social which means I can do anything with him. Although he has an injury that makes working him impossible, (crushed trachea from the abuse given to him in holland due to his possesiveness) as a producer he is even better than my old Arko.
I hear people talking about how the old dogs were better, to be honest, I think the quality of dogs that I have today is better than it was 10 years ago. Mostly because of the way I have evolved during selection testing and we have continously raised our standards each year. The type of dogs we wash out today are the types of dogs we would have sold 10 years ago.
But in any event......I will agree that we all look for different things in a dog, for me as I have said many times, I want a stable, confident, high drive, social dog who will fight to the death with any man I tell him to fight with.


----------



## Erik Berg (Apr 11, 2006)

Why do you have to choose one over the other, dogs with an aggresive edge doesn´t need to be unsocial, suspicious and low treshold for aggresion for no reason. There is a difference between such a dog and a confident reasonable social dog who act aggresive when appropiate but then do so with great power and confidence, such dogs may not be so common either and perhaps also not ideal if the priority is a very social dog with great drives for nosework but on the same time not to "difficult" to be handled by green handlers in the military and if they also should able to switch handlers often. 

I also think people mix upp defence,defencive and aggresion in this discussion. How can a dog defend himself, terriotory and so on without showing any form of aggresion and seriousness? Defencedrive and aggresion is hence related, maybe this is semantics but a dog who has a good defencedrive doesn´t need to be "defencive" if this mean a dog who is scared and are on the verge to run as soon as the treath comes close, if so such dogs can´t be said to have a strong defencedrive, or?


----------



## Chip Blasiole (Jun 7, 2006)

Adding to what some others have said, I think a dinstinction can be made that there are some dogs, which are becoming increasingly rare based on selection, that possess the trait of social aggression. Social aggression is simply the desire to be aggressive to people or animals outside of the dog's pack. Social aggrssion does not in any way involve defensive aggression, so there is no concern or worry experienced by the socially aggressive dog, which would increase the odds for flight. There is also a tendency (based on selection) for socially aggressive dogs to have a stronger degree of dominance than the average dog, which also adds power to its aggression. Again, this type of dog is rare, and when most people see a dog with an edge or protecting its territory, they are seeing defensive aggression. The defensive dog can still be strong, but due to its lower threshold for defense, and the increased probability the dog has less than ideal nerves, the odds of flight are increased. Training can help, but genetically, the dog showing mainly defensive aggression is still at greater risk for flight.


----------



## jamie lind (Feb 19, 2009)

mike suttle said:


> I think many people are not understanding what I am trying to say about the type of dog I like / need.
> Believe me, when talking about "extreme", I'd be willing to bet that I have a couple dogs here in my breeding program now who are as "extreme" as anything out there, way more than most I've ever seen.
> But they are still social dogs unless they have a reason to be angry. Every dog in my kennel could easily be made aggressive with strangers if I wanted them to be, but some of them are simply so extreme that if I rolled them over to that place in their minds they would be very dangerous, one in particular I really believe would killl a man if he were taken to that place in his mind. There is simply no place or need for a dog in my kennel to behave that way unless it is justified.
> I have owned over 1000 dogs through my kennel since the year 2001, you can believe that I have had some very aggressive ones during that time. But of all the ones I've had, 9 of the best 10 I have in terms of power and committment to stay in a fight with a man have been social dogs when not stimulated to fight.
> ...


You have said before arko was made to be like that, because his dad and brother were social, interesting way to come to a conclusion. Based on your conclusion, I don't think this is an example of what people are talking about. Then again maybe you were wrong, and it is.


----------



## Michael Murphy (Nov 27, 2010)

mike suttle said:


> I think many people are not understanding what I am trying to say about the type of dog I like / need.
> Believe me, when talking about "extreme", I'd be willing to bet that I have a couple dogs here in my breeding program now who are as "extreme" as anything out there, way more than most I've ever seen.
> But they are still social dogs unless they have a reason to be angry. Every dog in my kennel could easily be made aggressive with strangers if I wanted them to be, but some of them are simply so extreme that if I rolled them over to that place in their minds they would be very dangerous, one in particular I really believe would killl a man if he were taken to that place in his mind. There is simply no place or need for a dog in my kennel to behave that way unless it is justified.
> I have owned over 1000 dogs through my kennel since the year 2001, you can believe that I have had some very aggressive ones during that time. But of all the ones I've had, 9 of the best 10 I have in terms of power and committment to stay in a fight with a man have been social dogs when not stimulated to fight.
> ...


i was talking to this guy from holland, he has trained a lot of dogs from knpv lines and nvbk lines but mainly knpv. his on this forum, very experienced guy. anyways he told me the training method ( he called it the kamphius style etc) with these high prey drive dogs was to pretty much build there drive and condition them slowly to believe that when in the bite that it was all a game and they are completely safe. so the scenarios are escalated untill the point where you can smack the dog , scream at him, roll on top of him etc and the dog still perceives it as a game and at no point perceives threat. 
now i see nothing wrong with the type of training and think most people in the knpv , nvbk etc use it, it makes sense to use this method
the point he was making though, is that without this training these overly social dogs when raised in a family environment would probably not handle a person in a suit for the first time coming at them very well.
does this mean there nerves are not that good, or they dont have true aggression? 

now there is a dog currently where im from, tight line breeding on taylo dobbelaar (something like farther daughter) apparently at the age of three with no training the dog locked on to the suit with a very hard bite, however did redirect to the face afterwards but it didnt have training. now from what i understand this is a old school bloodline.

now what im really asking, your current stud *Rudy* if he had been raised no training to the age of three, how would he react first time to a person in a suit?

ps im very sleepy so i hope that all made sense


----------



## Michael Murphy (Nov 27, 2010)

Alice Bezemer said:


> I think I know what you are talking about. These are the kind of dogs that I prefer. The bring more to the table character wise and are quicker to show anger/agression/attitude then the dogs that people seem to prefer nowadays. Today a dog has to be easy to manage and not to much work or people get lost as to how to deal with it and mostly end up blaming the dog for their own incompotence.
> 
> When I started out in KNPV the way was for the handler to suit the dog. The handler had to actually learn about a.dog and how to handle it... a real effort had to be made and not just anyone could become a doghandler in LE or MIL or a guarddog company. Now the world has changed and handlers with no qualifications to speak of can get a dog and work it. Now dogs are being bred and trained to suit the inadequate handler holding the leash. I miss the old days when a handler still knew how to deal with a dog as opossed to todays handler who's knowledge stretches to shoving food in the front and knowing it will come out the back the next.day....


give me an example of a "old days" pedigree/dog

your currently using a lot of berry 2 , how would you classify him


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

I think dogs bite from two places. Prey and defense. Social aggression as you define it is the dog perceiving a threat from someone outside it's pack. Dog or human. It's a response to the threat, the dog chooses to bite or make displays that lead to biting. That is defense. It can turn into a learned behavior also, or can be learned from other dogs that are more mature, that have been rewarded for the behavior. What is a dog that runs 100 yards to a fence to bark at a human, outside the fence, but that backs away scared when the fence is opened?

What do you base your statement of there being a tendency for socially aggressive dogs to have a stronger degree of dominance than the average dog?

I personally don't think the dominant behavior you see from dogs is typical of what a truly strong dog displays. Strong dogs are the quiet professionals of the dog world. They don't have to be perceived as tough because they are and they know it. They can be more visibly social because they aren't scared of much, certainly not being around people. 

A low threshold for defense does not a weak dog make, in my opinion, if his response is to fight, vs. flee or displace.

The difference here is taking high prey dog with a high avoidance threshold and teaching it to lower it's defense threshold, or taking a dog with a lower defense threshold and raising it's avoidance threshold via desensitization. Both of these dogs can work.





Chip Blasiole said:


> Adding to what some others have said, I think a dinstinction can be made that there are some dogs, which are becoming increasingly rare based on selection, that possess the trait of social aggression. Social aggression is simply the desire to be aggressive to people or animals outside of the dog's pack. Social aggrssion does not in any way involve defensive aggression, so there is no concern or worry experienced by the socially aggressive dog, which would increase the odds for flight. There is also a tendency (based on selection) for socially aggressive dogs to have a stronger degree of dominance than the average dog, which also adds power to its aggression. Again, this type of dog is rare, and when most people see a dog with an edge or protecting its territory, they are seeing defensive aggression. The defensive dog can still be strong, but due to its lower threshold for defense, and the increased probability the dog has less than ideal nerves, the odds of flight are increased. Training can help, but genetically, the dog showing mainly defensive aggression is still at greater risk for flight.


----------



## Chip Blasiole (Jun 7, 2006)

I think dogs bite for more reasons than prey and defense. The definition of social aggression that I'm using is Winkler's and I like it because I think it makes sense. He clearly states that the socially aggressive dog has no element of defensive aggression or any trigger for the aggression, other than the presence of someone outside the dog's pack. The dog is not perceiving a threat. It simply has an inborn desire to be aggressive toward strangers, and will never become a social dog. 
The few dogs that are out there with social aggression and a degree of dominance are selected for by breeders. The traits are not neccessarily naturally co-occurring. For example, I believe van Leeuwen probably selects for these triats in their dogs. That is not to say that social, non dominant dogs can't be very strong. It is just different forms of strength. 
I didn't say low threshold equals weak, but it is not ususal to find weakness in low threshold dogs.


----------



## Michael Murphy (Nov 27, 2010)

Chip Blasiole said:


> I think dogs bite for more reasons than prey and defense. The definition of social aggression that I'm using is Winkler's and I like it because I think it makes sense. He clearly states that the socially aggressive dog has no element of defensive aggression or any trigger for the aggression, other than the presence of someone outside the dog's pack. The dog is not perceiving a threat. It simply has an inborn desire to be aggressive toward strangers, and will never become a social dog.
> The few dogs that are out there with social aggression and a degree of dominance are selected for by breeders. The traits are not neccessarily naturally co-occurring. For example, I believe *van Leeuwen* probably selects for these triats in their dogs. That is not to say that social, non dominant dogs can't be very strong. It is just different forms of strength.
> I didn't say low threshold equals weak, but it is not ususal to find weakness in low threshold dogs.


but didnt you hear Carlos was social. curious how wibo and the new van leeuwen studs produce


----------



## Chip Blasiole (Jun 7, 2006)

In older posts, Dick talked about how dominant Spike was, and how some of his dogs wanted to "dominate the whole world." He also mentioned how Spike was not very receptive to accepting Selena into the pack. This is the type of dog I consider and old style dog, and I don't think there are a lot of people breeding for them. They are difficult to train and control and there are liability issues.


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

Michael Murphy said:


> but didnt you hear Carlos was social. curious how wibo and the new van leeuwen studs produce


Carlos was / is social. Carlos (and Wibo) were not bred by the Van Leeuwens, Wibo was purchased to use for breeding. I dont know if Wibo is social or not, I know his father was, his littermate brother and both sisters are social. So if he isn't it is quite possibly that he has been taught not to be social.
Every Carlos offspring that I owned were social, every Wibo offspring that I have owned has been social. Any dog can be taught to act aggressively with people, that is very easy to teach. MOST strong, confident dogs will be social if left to make their own descisions.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

I read his page with the Winkler aggression model. I agree with most of it, and the parts I don't, I would just slide in under defense. I am sure he doesn't care whether i agree or not. 

How do you or I know what a dog is perceiving as a threat? It could be a threat to his breeding rights, threat to his territory, if a dog wants to bite strangers. It could be a learned behavior through mimicry of the parents. I think that can be explained easily as though the dog is presented with a threat, and meets it with a great desire to fight.

When you talk about thresholds, specify, please. If a dog has a low defense threshold, there is nothing wrong with it. In fact, it's encouraged in police dogs. I dog that can perceive a threat under a tarp, not moving, is what we need. We need him then to go bite that person. So in this case a lower defensive threshold is better. A low avoidance threshold is not ideal. In this case a dog may see a threat and want to run. So, low avoidance is bad. Low defense is not bad.



Chip Blasiole said:


> I think dogs bite for more reasons than prey and defense. The definition of social aggression that I'm using is Winkler's and I like it because I think it makes sense. He clearly states that the socially aggressive dog has no element of defensive aggression or any trigger for the aggression, other than the presence of someone outside the dog's pack. The dog is not perceiving a threat. It simply has an inborn desire to be aggressive toward strangers, and will never become a social dog.
> The few dogs that are out there with social aggression and a degree of dominance are selected for by breeders. The traits are not neccessarily naturally co-occurring. For example, I believe van Leeuwen probably selects for these triats in their dogs. That is not to say that social, non dominant dogs can't be very strong. It is just different forms of strength.
> I didn't say low threshold equals weak, but it is not ususal to find weakness in low threshold dogs.


----------



## jamie lind (Feb 19, 2009)

Dave Colborn said:


> I think dogs bite from two places. Prey and defense. Social aggression as you define it is the dog perceiving a threat from someone outside it's pack. Dog or human. It's a response to the threat, the dog chooses to bite or make displays that lead to biting. That is defense. It can turn into a learned behavior also, or can be learned from other dogs that are more mature, that have been rewarded for the behavior. What is a dog that runs 100 yards to a fence to bark at a human, outside the fence, but that backs away scared when the fence is opened?
> 
> What do you base your statement of there being a tendency for socially aggressive dogs to have a stronger degree of dominance than the average dog?
> 
> ...


I've heard a vet mention that 99% of aggressive dogs turn into labs when put under sedation because the sedation took their fear away. What is your opinion on the 1% that stay aggresive or get more aggressive? Sedation increasing prey?


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

jamie lind said:


> I've heard a vet mention that 99% of aggressive dogs turn into labs when put under sedation because the sedation took their fear away. What is your opinion on the 1% that stay aggresive or get more aggressive? Sedation increasing prey?


 
Sedation reduces inhibitions is what I have always lived by which would agree with what the vet said. I am scared and get sedated and am fine, I have been trained not to bite people, and I lose my inhibitions for that under sedation. 

I don't think you can predict a dog under sedation. Or maybe you just came up with a way to test a dogs genetics after they have been trained. Trial a stoned dog....


----------



## jamie lind (Feb 19, 2009)

Dave Colborn said:


> Sedation reduces inhibitions is what I have always lived by which would agree with what the vet said. I am scared and get sedated and am fine, I have been trained not to bite people, and I lose my inhibitions for that under sedation.
> 
> I don't think you can predict a dog under sedation. Or maybe you just came up with a way to test a dogs genetics after they have been trained. Trial a stoned dog....


Maybe. Interesting though.


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

Michael,

You seem to keep looking for more dogs but what about your current dog? How's he growing up? You should be well along with him now. Getting the OB basics and some of the protection stuff going. Isn't it about time you posted an update along with some pics or a short vid clip?


----------



## Chip Blasiole (Jun 7, 2006)

Dave,
I think you make a good point about how does anyone know what a dog perceives. Even Winkler gets a little blurry around that. He talks about a dog with strong active defense being a dog that is triggered by something that causes concern and worry in the dog, and the strong active defense dog is genetically prone to bite first and not show any defensive posturing. I don't know how that behavior would look any different from a socially aggressive dog that isn't perceiving a threat, but is genetically prone to bite strangers, simply because they are outside the pack. The only way I think you could make a distinction would be to be familar with a dog's bloodline and having a pretty good idea of what his ancestors up close were like, and know various situations they were eager to bite in. Even then, it is still speculation. As you point out, training and learning blurs things further.


----------



## Ang Cangiano (Mar 2, 2007)

Aggression and defense have a different set of physiological and chemical reactions within the brain and body. Aggression is offensive, defense is defensive. Both 'breeding rights' and 'territorial aggression' are actually defensive reactions and not true aggression. Think about it, fighting for 'breeding rights' is actually one male defending his 'breeding rights' to a bitch from another male. If he has a bitch in front of him without another male present he's not going to go out and look for a male to fight with, he's going to breed the bitch, if another male shows up he's going to defend his 'breeding right' from the other male. 'Territorial aggression' is a dog defending his territory from a perceived threat. Most of what is called 'aggression' is actually a defensive reaction. True aggression is an offensive action that carries no fear with it, just a desire to fight and win. 

Also, while 'socially aggressive' dogs are not easy to handle in public and around people, though they can be controllable with training, a dog *can* be social yet still work in aggression during bite work. A dog can be 100% safe to work in a group of people, in a stack, etc. yet still be acting with aggression towards the 'opponent'.

Ang


----------



## Erik Berg (Apr 11, 2006)

The goal of aggression whatever the form is to make someone surrender and give up, the motivation and strenght of this aggresion is obviously depending on many factors like motivation behind it,experiences and genetics. It´s more important to focus on what the dog actually do than trying to figure out what´s really going on in a dogs head or telling facts from fiction regarding different theories about aggresion I think.

Is it not real aggresion if a dog or other animal defends himself or something else he finds important with great determination, he is obviously aggressive and not playing but this is not "true" aggression then? A dog that acts out of confidence when facing a treath is obviously ideal, but why use terms like "social aggresion" or "true aggresion" instead of just conclude that dogs have different ability to stand their ground and face a treath, meaning their defencedrive could be ranging from weak or strong.


----------



## Ang Cangiano (Mar 2, 2007)

Erik, aggression is an offensive action by an aggressor. Someone/something that is acting out of defense is acting as a defender, it is a defensive reaction to an outside stimuli. They are two different things. We commonly say 'defensive aggression' and such, but it is actually a misnomer to do so. 

Ang


----------



## jamie lind (Feb 19, 2009)

Erik Berg said:


> The goal of aggression whatever the form is to make someone surrender and give up, the motivation and strenght of this aggresion is obviously depending on many factors like motivation behind it,experiences and genetics. It´s more important to focus on what the dog actually do than trying to figure out what´s really going on in a dogs head or telling facts from fiction regarding different theories about aggresion I think.
> 
> Is it not real aggresion if a dog or other animal defends himself or something else he finds important with great determination, he is obviously aggressive and not playing but this is not "true" aggression then? A dog that acts out of confidence when facing a treath is obviously ideal, but why use terms like "social aggresion" or "true aggresion" instead of just conclude that dogs have different ability to stand their ground and face a treath, meaning their defencedrive could be ranging from weak or strong.


Why does it matter? You have 3 dogs one wants to bite because he is prey driven to bite. One wants to bite because he doesn't like you. One wants to bite to drive you away. Which dog do you not want? Of course they can be biting for more than one reason too. Then again I'm new to this so I could be completly wrong.


----------



## Chip Blasiole (Jun 7, 2006)

Erik,
I think you contradicted yourself. You stated that the strength of a dog's aggression is dependent on factors like the motivation behind it. Then you said it is more important to focus on what a dog can actually do than what is in the dog's head. What is in a dog's head, so to speak, has a lot to do with the motivation behind its behavior. 
I think using consistent terminology and having a consistent understanding of its meaning is mainly important in trying to read dogs, and select the best partners for breeding.
If you go back to the type of dog Mike is selecting for and breeding, he has really made the process easier by not even considering dogs with social aggression or prominent defensive aggression. He can then focus on selecting for other traits that are less likely to have an increased potential for undesirable traits. By taking prominent defensive aggression as a primary trait out of the equation, a breeder can focus on selecting for other traits such as nerves, prey, possessiveness, stability, confidence, etc.


----------



## Tony Hahn (May 28, 2011)

When discussing dogs there is much confusion or disagreement on how to define the individual components (or 'drives') behind the behaviors a dog displays. To a certain extent the better we are able to understand every drive and component that makes up a dogs total temperament, the better we are able to train.

On the other hand, we can get so caught up in trying to figure out whether a dog is in defense/prey/social aggression/etc that we loose sight of the big picture. 

Some of us typically start with puppies. You try to use due diligence when shopping, but in the end you get what you get. 

Selecting adult dogs is a whole 'nuther game. The guys who have been able to observe and test numerous dogs start to see some patterns and consistencies. 

I know someone personally who has been part of the selection process for LEO dogs. He's said very similar things as Mike Suttle regarding social dogs and bite-work. That is, the dogs who have virtually no concern about people tend to be just as good if not better at fighting a person. Dogs that are stand-offish or concerned about people are generally no better and sometimes worse at bite-work than the social ones. 

That doesn't mean that all social dogs are better fighters than aloof dogs and it doesn't mean that sharp dogs will all run when the pressure is on. It just means is that the odds favor a confident "social" dog.

Depending on the mission there may be no need for a dog to act 'aggressive'. When you need the dog you turn him on. When the job is done you turn him off. Anything else is unnecessary or a liability. Obviously an oversimplification, but I'm sure you get the point.

Different folks have different missions for their dogs. Someone who does sport as a hobby might possibly want a dog that is relaxed and social off the field. A family might want a dog that is a little concerned/sharp/edgy/fearful/whateve-you-want-to-call-it, pretty much 24/7 as an early warning device and deterrent. 

It's noting to be offended about when someone gives their experienced based opinion that being 'social' can be an indicator of how well a dog will stay in the fight. 

I prefer a dog that is a bit concerned/suspicious. Not a fearful nerve bag, just a little edgy. I want a dog that will actually engage, but whether he will keep fighting a man under high pressure or while injured is a secondary consideration. My needs in a dog are different from what a lot of Departments want from their K9's. 

IMO, I don't think the working dog world is in danger of being flooded with the confident, strong fighting, 'social' dogs that LE currently wants. They tend to weed through a lot of dogs before finding the ones they want. A number of dogs that get eliminated by a LE selection test might be just fine for me.


----------



## Lisa Radcliffe (Jun 9, 2011)

Thanks everyone for the posts! I have yet to see the total package of the stable, confident high drive social dog that loves to fight! I am also pretty confident I would be lucky to see one given the dogs in my limited area. I read Mike Ritland's book sometime ago and was not shocked to read if I remember correct that 1% of the dogs make it for what he needs. I have a great respect for working line dogs and their genetics they all have faults just like humans if it's our own dog we just decide what we want from our dogs and except the other. I still think that it must take some of the crazy non social dogs that like to fight to get to the other side. The non social kind that is hard to train (makes us better handlers/trainers) not easy to live with but will always be there for you and imo awesome in their way-


----------



## Erik Berg (Apr 11, 2006)

Ang Cangiano said:


> Erik, aggression is an offensive action by an aggressor. Someone/something that is acting out of defense is acting as a defender, it is a defensive reaction to an outside stimuli. They are two different things. We commonly say 'defensive aggression' and such, but it is actually a misnomer to do so.
> 
> Ang


Ang, I´m not quite following you here, if a dog is tested in a selectiontest for his ability to defend himself and do so confidently with an active forward response, how is this not real aggression involved, unless the dog for some reason sees no treath and responds only with prey and play invitations. It´s the reaction to outside stimulus we want to test anyway for a police/protectiondog. Or how do you mean this "real" aggresion manifest itself in practical work that is different from a dog responding to a treath/stimulus? 

Chip, I only meant we don´t know what motivates the aggresion in all cases and especially not what to name it, if the dog feels worried or not or if it´s even important as long as he reacts the way we think is acceptable for a protectiondog. Defencedrive, ability to stand his ground and defend himself is old terminology used for at least 50-70 years in scandinavia when talking about policedogs and testing them, probably the same in germany so why make something more complicated than it has to be. I think that defintion is clear and easy to understand, if we want to see how a social a dog is we test this also but this has nothing to do with testing defencedrive/aggression. The term social aggresion as you describe it sounds like an unsocial dog with much aggresion and possible nerveissues, hence the tendency to bite for no reason other than someone is not a member of the pack, especially if social aggresion is not necessary linked to dominance either according to your source, why would a confident dog then need to confront people for no reason? Or maybe he just mean a more serious dog with a certain integrity who don´t love to have a complete stranger hugging it and inspecting it to closely, but I wouldn´t call such a dog unsocial.


----------



## Ang Cangiano (Mar 2, 2007)

Erik Berg said:


> Ang, I´m not quite following you here, if a dog is tested in a selectiontest for his ability to defend himself and do so confidently with an active forward response, how is this not real aggression involved, unless the dog for some reason sees no treath and responds only with prey and play invitations. It´s the reaction to outside stimulus we want to test anyway for a police/protectiondog. Or how do you mean this "real" aggresion manifest itself in practical work that is different from a dog responding to a treath/stimulus?


Erik, aggression and defense have two different sets of chemical and physiological responses in the body. One, basically, is out of a defensive survival instinct, the other is out of an offensive 'fight' action. An aggressor is the one who starts things, a defender is one who defends from a threat. 

Can a true aggressive dog react to outside stimuli, of course, just like the prey dog can, and does. But he doesn't need it to 'aggress' on a target. A defensive dog need some sort of stimuli to become actively defensive. For instance, a defensive dogs needs something else to carry him through a building search, prey, a "true/real aggressive" (fight driven) dog does not require that. 

I'm probably being as clear as mud here. 

Ang


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

what hurts more? a defensive bite or an aggressive one?

Drive channeling is all about a dog being threatened and meeting the threat and winning and raising his avoidance threshold and becoming more relaxed. You don't have to have one without the other and rarely do, I think, prey and defense. If you believe that defense = a threat, and the dog has three responses if he sees a threat. Fight, flight or displacement. Then you would see that a threat can bring a bite as easy as a dog biting a bunny, in prey. I don't know what you mean when you say aggression.

I can be a defender behind castle walls, and be very aggressive against attackers. I can even go on the offensive from that position. Dogs are similar.

Dogs are trained (lowered defensive threshold) to be ready to bite with no stimulation, and trained to stay in there longer (raising the avoidance threshold). I want to see the dog that just has that stuff out of the womb. I don't think that dog exists very often if at all.

I hear of untrained dogs passing difficult tests. Maybe untitled....but untrained? I don't think so. Where has the dog been for eighteen months to two years? In a bubble?

If you believe psychology, fight is literally a choice based out of defense. If you are talking about a dog that is confident in himself and will bite and enjoy whatever is thrown at him, he is anomaly that has had good training.



Ang Cangiano said:


> Erik, aggression and defense have two different sets of chemical and physiological responses in the body. One, basically, is out of a defensive survival instinct, the other is out of an offensive 'fight' action. An aggressor is the one who starts things, a defender is one who defends from a threat.
> 
> Can a true aggressive dog react to outside stimuli, of course, just like the prey dog can, and does. But he doesn't need it to 'aggress' on a target. A defensive dog need some sort of stimuli to become actively defensive. For instance, a defensive dogs needs something else to carry him through a building search, prey, a "true/real aggressive" (fight driven) dog does not require that.
> 
> ...


----------



## Ang Cangiano (Mar 2, 2007)

If you're behind a wall you have to wait for an aggressor to come to you, you then defend your property. You are not acting as the aggressor, you are not actively seeking out a fight, you are waiting behind your walls for a fight to come to you and then defending yourself from that threat.

Ang


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Exactly. Thank you.



Ang Cangiano said:


> If you're behind a wall you have to wait for an aggressor to come to you, you then defend your property. You are not acting as the aggressor, you are not actively seeking out a fight, you are waiting behind your walls for a fight to come to you and then defending yourself from that threat.
> 
> Ang


----------



## Ang Cangiano (Mar 2, 2007)

Dave Colborn said:


> Exactly. Thank you.


I'm pretty sure that's what I've been saying for the past four pages. An aggressor acts in an offensive manner and actively seeks out a target (acts aggressively). A defender waits (behind a wall for instance) for a threat, and reacts to that threat with defensive behavior.

Two separate behaviors.

Ang


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Sure.

Prey and defense.

Chase, catch, kill. Fight, flee, or displace. Exactly. Both hurt you when you get bit by them.



Ang Cangiano said:


> I'm pretty sure that's what I've been saying for the past four pages. An aggressor acts in an offensive manner and actively seeks out a target (acts aggressively). A defender waits (behind a wall for instance) for a threat, and reacts to that threat with defensive behavior.
> 
> Two separate behaviors.
> 
> Ang


----------



## Ang Cangiano (Mar 2, 2007)

No, prey is different than aggression.

Ang


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Michael Murphy said:


> i was talking to this guy from holland, he has trained a lot of dogs from knpv lines and nvbk lines but mainly knpv. his on this forum, very experienced guy. anyways he told me the training method ( he called it the kamphius style etc) with these high prey drive dogs was to pretty much build there drive and condition them slowly to believe that when in the bite that it was all a game and they are completely safe. so the scenarios are escalated untill the point where you can smack the dog , scream at him, roll on top of him etc and the dog still perceives it as a game and at no point perceives threat.
> now i see nothing wrong with the type of training and think most people in the knpv , nvbk etc use it, it makes sense to use this method
> the point he was making though, is that without this training these overly social dogs when raised in a family environment would probably not handle a person in a suit for the first time coming at them very well.
> does this mean there nerves are not that good, or they dont have true aggression?
> ...



Michael. no one is talking about "overly" social dogs, there is a big huge gap going from an "overly social" dog to a dog that doesnt want to eat everyone just because he doesnt know them personally. 

FYI, any good fukking protection type working breed dog (in my opinion) worth feeding, will lock onto a person that makes a personal threat to them at 3 years old. They may not do it super calmly or confidently, but they better show the heart and courage to fight at that age, or they never will have it, regardless of the training.

A dogs sociability level is not really an indicator of his heart to fight, it can be for sure, but its not a barometer.

I used to travel around testing adult Presa Canario, a made up molloser guardian type fighting dogt that is no where near the level of working dogs being discussed here. A good percentage of those dogs 15 years ago would react very strongly to a threat made to them, and would bite for sure, suit or no suit (hidden sleeve or suit) with no training, many were social dogs, some werent. But they would bring the fight for sure, Same thing goes for any good dog, especially real working dogs. 

Where most working dogs fail is not in the bitework, it is the overall expression of "nerves".

I am pretty sure most of the dogs Mike passes on will surely **** somebody up that picks a fight with them, social or not...they just arent suitable for the type of work the are being considered for, and also may just be too big a pain in the ass for most people to want to handle or own them, if they are anti social.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Ang Cangiano said:


> Aggression and defense have a different set of physiological and chemical reactions within the brain and body. Aggression is offensive, defense is defensive. Both 'breeding rights' and 'territorial aggression' are actually defensive reactions and not true aggression. Think about it, fighting for 'breeding rights' is actually one male defending his 'breeding rights' to a bitch from another male. If he has a bitch in front of him without another male present he's not going to go out and look for a male to fight with, he's going to breed the bitch, if another male shows up he's going to defend his 'breeding right' from the other male. 'Territorial aggression' is a dog defending his territory from a perceived threat. Most of what is called 'aggression' is actually a defensive reaction. True aggression is an offensive action that carries no fear with it, just a desire to fight and win.
> 
> Also, while 'socially aggressive' dogs are not easy to handle in public and around people, though they can be controllable with training, a dog *can* be social yet still work in aggression during bite work. A dog can be 100% safe to work in a group of people, in a stack, etc. yet still be acting with aggression towards the 'opponent'.
> 
> Ang


I disagree with your perception and definitions of "aggression" and "true aggression" aggression is agression, and it has many sources. And defense is certainly one of those sources for true aggression.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Ang Cangiano said:


> If you're behind a wall you have to wait for an aggressor to come to you, you then defend your property. You are not acting as the aggressor, you are not actively seeking out a fight, you are waiting behind your walls for a fight to come to you and then defending yourself from that threat.
> 
> Ang


eh. I can agree somewhat, but it could also just be a containment issue with a dog that is looking to be the aggressor. That same dog may do the same thing if not behind a fence or a wall.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I dont think the term "aggression" in working dogs (not pet dogs) is looked at synonymously with the term "aggressor" .

I think it is used to describe something like this, at least that is how I view it.. ( from winkler)

*“Aggression is a state of emotional excitement that will lead an individual to perpetrate violence upon another”*

regardless of the reasons or motivations.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I dont think that anyone is saying that there are not truly strong truly socially aggressive dogs.

However I personally have only seen a small handful in my entire life.

These dogs will not have the makeup in most cases to do certain types of work, and for sure are a pain in the ass for most people to own.

I owned a super socially aggressive very dominant type dog, with lots of training, he was trustable enough to have around people and be out and about, his life ended after he was dragged out a window of my house by 2 snare poles, while I was in the hospital, because he would not allow anyone to enter my home to feed and take care of my dogs, including him. 

that dod would not make friends with anyone that did not live with me, and even that took a long time of careful interaction.

I dont care if you came over to my house everyday for a visit, he still hated you, and would be waiting for an invitation or opportunity to attack you on his own turf or in his close proximity out and about.

That dog put several "bad" people in the hospital, and also was tested very harshly in "bitework", and never failed to fight or gave up or ran.

great dog, not a dog for everyone, not a good "working" type dog for most people, I think those bloodlines were eradicated, due to the high incidents of people not being able to properly train or control them.

if you knocked on my door, the dog would slam over there and literally chew on the doorknob, barking was never his first choice of action.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> I disagree with your perception and definitions of "aggression" and "true aggression" aggression is agression, and it has many sources. And defense is certainly one of those sources for true aggression.


Agreed. Having had the territorial dog that didn't stay behind the fence or the glass [went through both head on], I don't really think you can compartmentalize this all so neat and tidy. I think you have to be very careful with the concept of dogs seeking fights. There also seems to always be this implication that dogs biting for a reason [i.e territoriality, defense of person, pack, etc.] is somehow a weaker dog or that its fear based. Once triggered, I find certain types of dogs highly offensive. As Dave indicates, they could always choose non-engagement. They have a choice--fight vs. flight.

T


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

*Correction *


> Originally Posted by Michael Murphy View Post
> i was talking to this guy from holland, he has trained a lot of dogs from knpv lines and nvbk lines but mainly knpv. his on this forum, very experienced guy. anyways he told me the training method ( he called it the kamphius style etc) with these high prey drive dogs was to pretty much build there drive and condition them slowly to believe that when in the bite that it was all a game and they are completely safe. so the scenarios are escalated untill the point where you can smack the dog , scream at him, roll on top of him etc and the dog still perceives it as a game and at no point perceives threat.
> now i see nothing wrong with the type of training and think most people in the knpv , nvbk etc use it, it makes sense to use this method
> the point he was making though, is that without this training these overly social dogs when raised in a family environment would probably not handle a person in a suit for the first time coming at them very well.
> ...


michael. No one is talking about "overly" social dogs, there is a big huge gap going from an "overly social" dog to a dog that *wants to* eat everyone just because he doesnt know them personally. 

Fyi, any good fukking protection type working breed dog (in my opinion) worth feeding, will lock onto a person that makes a personal threat to them at 3 years old. They may not do it super calmly or confidently, but they better show the heart and courage to fight at that age, or they never will have it, regardless of the training.

A dogs sociability level is not really an indicator of his heart to fight, it can be for sure, but its not a barometer.

I used to travel around testing adult presa canario, a made up molloser guardian type fighting dogt that is no where near the level of working dogs being discussed here. A good percentage of those dogs 15 years ago would react very strongly to a threat made to them, and would bite for sure, suit or no suit (hidden sleeve or suit) with no training, many were social dogs, some werent. But they would bring the fight for sure, same thing goes for any good dog, especially real working dogs. 

Where most working dogs fail is not in the bitework, it is the overall expression of "nerves".

I am pretty sure most of the dogs mike passes on will surely **** somebody up that picks a fight with them, social or not...they just arent suitable for the type of work the are being considered for, and also may just be too big a pain in the ass for most people to want to handle or own them, if they are anti social.


----------



## Erik Berg (Apr 11, 2006)

Ang Cangiano said:


> I'm pretty sure that's what I've been saying for the past four pages. An aggressor acts in an offensive manner and actively seeks out a target (acts aggressively). A defender waits (behind a wall for instance) for a threat, and reacts to that threat with defensive behavior.
> 
> Two separate behaviors.
> 
> Ang


But a dog who aggresively seeks out a target in a building search do so because we have trained him to do so, this is not the same as a dog who defends himself in face of a treath to himself,his pack or his resources in general. Regardless if a dog is behind a wall or on a leash in front of his owner he will act as the aggressor if he has that ability when the person is in his range so to speak. It seems to me you are more talking about a dog that is trained to search a building for example, yes then he must go out and actively seeks out a target, but this is not more real aggresion, most dogs do this with their preydrive and fightingdrive I would belive, how much aggression they use is depending on the dog,situation and training I guess. 

I don´t know if it´s proven by science but some say all aggresion is based on worry/fear, but there is a big difference between a dog who is worried and feel pressured of a percevied incomming treath compared to a dog that in the same situation is very determined in defending his pack or whatever it is he is willing to defend with active offensive aggression. I doubt it matters if a bear is worried about a person who stumble upon her and her cubs, the result will likely be serious injuries if this trigger the defenceaggresion.

How social a dog needs to be I guess is depending on the job, I know a few dogs how have been neglected as policedogs because they show some social "insecurities" when inspected by a stranger becaus they are not 100% comfortable with it, sold to other conunties as policedog instead. In some cases this may be correct and is in fact a weakness because it´s based on insecurity around strange peoples. On the other hand there are a few very strong dogs that also are not fond of strangers toutching them, but they are not antisocial difficult dogs who bites without warning, it´s also hard to say it´s genetic only because the cases I know of these dogs comes from a background of many handler who can´t handle them, so they may have negative experiencs with people that have influenced how social they are to a stranger. So a dog can by one handler be described as highly aggresive and dangerous and maybe should even be put to sleep while by another handler the dog do just fine and are not an aggresive monster in daily life.

For breeding I guess the reasonable social confident dog but who has a serious edge when challanged is ideal, not the antisocail dogs who easily shows aggresion towards people, for one such dogs are a difficult for most to handle and live with, and it´s also limited use for dogs of that type even if they can be effective at certain jobs.


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

And if a woodchuck could chuck it how much would it chuck? And what drive would it be in OR could it be possible that it is just chucking wood?


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Ang, How is prey different than aggression? Can you define Prey, defense and agression and make them mutually exclusive? Or does one lead to another, typically, or running away. And what I don't think you are getting is that situations are fluid. Fights go to one side and then another. You can be threatened and attack within a split second. Defense leads to a bite as much as prey drive. That same defense can lead a dog to run away, if it isn't taught to win. Sure there are some puppies that can take a lot more defense early, very early. But if they don't win, what happens to them? 

The problem with most of this is that dogs do things and we put words to what they do, so we can have a better chance of picking the same kind of dog again, or just to talk about it with another person. to do either a common language helps. I don't think we are speaking the same language, yet. Doesn't make either one right or wrong, just hard to talk.

*Joby pulled this from Armin Winkler's page.*

*“Aggression is a state of emotional excitement that will lead an individual to perpetrate violence upon another”*

Do you agree with this? If so, it sure sounds like prey or defense or a mix to me. A dog is threatened and he responds with a bite, sees a prey item and goes for it with a bite... Cause no matter how much we dress it up with angry, hard, social, nutter, crazy, wicked, etc, the bite is how a dog fights. He can use his body all he wants, and if he isn't on a bite, it doesn't matter much for most dogs. It's when the teeth meet the meat. The bite. Strip everything away, and we are talking about a bite. That is the end of aggression for a dog, even if it starts with stares, or posture, barking, etc..



Ang Cangiano said:


> No, prey is different than aggression.
> 
> Ang


----------



## Marcel Winter (Mar 29, 2013)

Ang Cangiano said:


> No, prey is different than aggression.
> 
> Ang


Agree !


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Agreed. Having had the territorial dog that didn't stay behind the fence or the glass [went through both head on], I don't really think you can compartmentalize this all so neat and tidy. I think you have to be very careful with the concept of dogs seeking fights. There also seems to always be this implication that dogs biting for a reason [i.e territoriality, defense of person, pack, etc.] is somehow a weaker dog or that its fear based. Once triggered, I find certain types of dogs highly offensive. As Dave indicates, they could always choose non-engagement. They have a choice--fight vs. flight.
> 
> T


 I aggree, good post


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Erik Berg said:


> But a dog who aggresively seeks out a target in a building search do so because we have trained him to do so, this is not the same as a dog who defends himself in face of a treath to himself,his pack or his resources in general. Regardless if a dog is behind a wall or on a leash in front of his owner he will act as the aggressor if he has that ability when the person is in his range so to speak. It seems to me you are more talking about a dog that is trained to search a building for example, yes then he must go out and actively seeks out a target, but this is not more real aggresion, most dogs do this with their preydrive and fightingdrive I would belive, how much aggression they use is depending on the dog,situation and training I guess.
> 
> I don´t know if it´s proven by science but some say all aggresion is based on worry/fear, but there is a big difference between a dog who is worried and feel pressured of a percevied incomming treath compared to a dog that in the same situation is very determined in defending his pack or whatever it is he is willing to defend with active offensive aggression. I doubt it matters if a bear is worried about a person who stumble upon her and her cubs, the result will likely be serious injuries if this trigger the defenceaggresion.
> 
> ...


Erik 

I found that very interesting.

When I saw my pup at the breeders, some of the pups were caged in the back whilst mine and one or two others were free.

At the ltime, I didn't pay much Attention to this. I "chose2 my pup which actually wasn't for sale but sfterward was.

We took Buster home. He was attacked by our cat during an early morning peeing round. He screamed and raced to the door to get in. He seemed wary of cats for a while.

He didn't like women and small children. It only dawned on me later that he had probably never seen such creatures!

He was very good in IPO Training, protection with the breeder as helper - a hard helper - was great. Everyone was out to see him racing in to attack.

He's not happy about people entering the house but recently a large man (a friend of ours) went down to the lower floor without our knowledge and as I realised it, I went to the door and let him up. He was accompanied by Buster and both were happy with each other.

As I see it, Buster is a dog that is cautious by nature, i.e. not happy with what he has not encountered as a small pup.

I have no trouble with him, he walks to heel and just stares a little too slowly at some strangers but, I usually greet them with a friendly "hellow" and all is well.

I very often find that Show dogs (bless their ittle cotton socks) have less Aggression towards strangers.

I wonder if "would be" or "ill-informed" handlers have asked for their pups to be kept away from "would be purchasers"? This could explain a certain reticence in dogs to strangers.

Whatever happens at the breeders, even with gentically sound and proven litters, there will always be this Situation.

BTW, our younger GSD, from the same breeder, but brought up with the bitch's Family, inclusive of kids, was a totally social Butterfly, with nerves of steel around any human, small or tall.

But still, scolded by our neighbours, who should have known better, (they had our older GSDs' sister) barked at them aggressively.

*THERE ARE SO MANY FACETS TO A DOG, STARTING WITH ITS BREEDING, FOLLOWED BY ITS UPBRINGING AND ENDING WITH ITS TRAINING.*

Whereby the training reverts back to the breeding and the upbringing at the breeders - so, if you don't know this completely, how are you to proceed?????


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Dave Colborn said:


> Sedation reduces inhibitions is what I have always lived by which would agree with what the vet said. I am scared and get sedated and am fine, I have been trained not to bite people, and I lose my inhibitions for that under sedation.
> 
> *I don't think you can predict a dog under sedation. Or maybe you just came up with a way to test a dogs genetics after they have been trained. Trial a stoned dog....*


Pure genius


----------



## Alegria Cebreco (Jul 25, 2007)

By offensive or "aggressor" do you mean a dog with this "social aggression" acts with aggression without any outside stimuli? In this sense would a dog like that ever have the capability for being "safe" in the society we live in today. By some of the definitions I've read in this thread (which happens to be a great thread, BTW, very informative for someone *ME* still in the very early stages of learning)~ Offensive, acts with aggression towards those not in "pack", but isn't reacting to any type of threat (and by threat I dont necessarily mean a threat of immediate death or GBH, could be a threat of status, resources, territory, breeding rights ect) , but actively seeking fights~ how would a dog as described above make the distinction (without stimuli causing a REaction) between who to fight and who not too? Or does it just want to engage any person or dog outside of the pack without prejudice?

I'm just trying to picture a situation where an action is simply that and not a reaction to the world around us. Every action is a reaction, IMO. We think first then act on it. Your body and what you do with it (behaviors) is always reacting to your brain. And your brain is always reacting to the world around you. You may decide to stand up and fight before there is an adverse effect but its still reacting in anticipation for what you believe to be true. 

I'm not trying to say these dogs dont exist, or that I have experience with any of this stuff I'm just trying to learn what these characteristics mean in a dog and I'm having a hard time understanding these definitions.


----------



## Hunter Allred (Jan 28, 2010)

Chip Blasiole said:


> I think dogs bite for more reasons than prey and defense. The definition of social aggression that I'm using is Winkler's and I like it because I think it makes sense. He clearly states that the socially aggressive dog has no element of defensive aggression or any trigger for the aggression, other than the presence of someone outside the dog's pack. The dog is not perceiving a threat. It simply has an inborn desire to be aggressive toward strangers, and will never become a social dog.
> The few dogs that are out there with social aggression and a degree of dominance are selected for by breeders. The traits are not neccessarily naturally co-occurring. For example, I believe van Leeuwen probably selects for these triats in their dogs. That is not to say that social, non dominant dogs can't be very strong. It is just different forms of strength.
> I didn't say low threshold equals weak, but it is not ususal to find weakness in low threshold dogs.


I would say the socially aggressive dog does not see a threat, but rather sees competition (for food, mates, other resources).


----------



## Hunter Allred (Jan 28, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> Ang, How is prey different than aggression? Can you define Prey, defense and agression and make them mutually exclusive? Or does one lead to another, typically, or running away. And what I don't think you are getting is that situations are fluid. Fights go to one side and then another. You can be threatened and attack within a split second. Defense leads to a bite as much as prey drive. That same defense can lead a dog to run away, if it isn't taught to win. Sure there are some puppies that can take a lot more defense early, very early. But if they don't win, what happens to them?
> 
> The problem with most of this is that dogs do things and we put words to what they do, so we can have a better chance of picking the same kind of dog again, or just to talk about it with another person. to do either a common language helps. I don't think we are speaking the same language, yet. Doesn't make either one right or wrong, just hard to talk.
> 
> ...


I don't agree the bite is the end. I have an aggressive male, and I can tell you that while the bite is satisfying to him, he is only "done with the helper" once the helper is "dead". It's the defeat of the adversary who is either dead or in flight/avoidance that is the end of aggression (defensive, social, etc). I would agree that the bite/apprehension is the end of a prey dominated interaction


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

How does he defeat the helper. By talking? His feet? If as an adult, he still has to "win" by barking, I don't want him. How does your aggressive male win a fight? Teeth??



Hunter Allred said:


> I don't agree the bite is the end. I have an aggressive male, and I can tell you that while the bite is satisfying to him, he is only "done with the helper" once the helper is "dead". It's the defeat of the adversary who is either dead or in flight/avoidance that is the end of aggression (defensive, social, etc). I would agree that the bite/apprehension is the end of a prey dominated interaction


----------



## Hunter Allred (Jan 28, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> How does he defeat the helper. By talking? His feet? If as an adult, he still has to "win" by barking, I don't want him. How does your aggressive male win a fight? Teeth??


Perhaps I didn't explain it well. Surely you've seen dogs who when the sleeve is slipped are still staring the helper down, biting so hard their jaw muscles are quivering and they seem to not get very much from that slipped sleeve. I believe that dog, when biting the sleeve on the ground while in a down, is still biting the helper in is mind as for the dog, he didn't feel as though he won. Frequently an out battle begins with the handler. The same dog worked immediately after that with a helper the fights hard, but is "beaten", goes to the ground whines and cries in pain before slipping the sleeve, will be visibly far more satisfied and not do the above behavior. Try it for yourself

If teeth were the only goal or end for the dog how would muzzle work be possible? You are far more experienced than I, but I can only call it like I personally see it... If I'm all wrong, please correct me


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Hunter. We have different experiences and opinions, that's all. Who's is valid or are we looking at the same thing differently is the question, I think. Of course I think my opinion is right, until I get it changed through your input or someone elses, but so should you think yours is a better point of view until you change your opinion based on information you may have not had, or a new way of looking at something. When I say I would learn a lot from you, it isn't lip service, I am sure I would learn if I trained with you.

Think of a dog looking "sad" that hasn't been beaten. What happens. The dogs ears go back he looks sad. What does the owner do. He sees this the first time. He praises the dog "Awww snookums. You wook so sad. etc" the dog learns to look "sad" look "beaten" to get a verbal reward. Without ever getting a hand laid on it. We have one like that now. I am teaching her to put her ears up with a clicker. Raising the criteria as I go for attention, downs, sits, because she isn't sad. she's been awwww snookumed. I think what you are seeing in the dogs you mentioned is much the same. 

Stimulus = Response = Reward



Hunter Allred said:


> Perhaps I didn't explain it well. Surely you've seen dogs who when the sleeve is slipped are still staring the helper down, biting so hard their jaw muscles are quivering and they seem to not get very much from that slipped sleeve. I believe that dog, when biting the sleeve on the ground while in a down, is still biting the helper in is mind as for the dog, he didn't feel as though he won. Frequently an out battle begins with the handler.


 The dog is conflicted and frustrated maybe? He takes a lesser reward, the sleeve over the one he wants but repeatedly cant get. The helper. He has learned to let stare, and the game continues on the man. What would happen in that situation if you simply ignored the dog, and brought a helper in close with a sleeve or suit? The dog may be conditioned to thrash a sleeve now, but if you wait it out, or induce an out and a rebite on the man a few times, I would bet the dog would learn quickly to release the dead sleeve and bite the man. It's why I like seeing a young dog carry a sleeve back to the helper. The dog already values that reward, sleeve + man, not on the ground with a dead sleeve. Simple conditioning. 



Hunter Allred said:


> The same dog worked immediately after that with a helper the fights hard, but is "beaten", goes to the ground whines and cries in pain before slipping the sleeve, will be visibly far more satisfied and not do the above behavior.


OK. Now you've plugged a new cue in for the dog. THe helper doing something else. How does the out and re-engage of the helper play out?




Hunter Allred said:


> If teeth were the only goal or end for the dog how would muzzle work be possible? You are far more experienced than I, but I can only call it like I personally see it... If I'm all wrong, please correct me





Muzzle work is based on what the dog likes, right? If he likes smashing his muzzled face on a helper the first time, he does it and it's self rewarding. If he doesn't like it, we approximate the behavior, by taking the muzzle off quicker to give him a bite.
Then teaching the dog to smash 2 then 3 times, then more and more, to get the muzzle off. It's like extending a down stay, nothing more. Like taking a dog that has an alert and looks at the handler and teaching him to stare at source. You are just raising a criteria. Good timing that I would bet a clicker would help on, a lot, as there is a pause getting the muzzle off. I think teaching that on a fully bite suited guy with a dog that is biting well, works better. You get intensity in muzzle smashing first, then you take the suit cue away. It's also easier to pull a muzzle off and bite on a suit than a sleeve.

Stimulus = Response = Reward


Muzzle on initally = Ignore muzzle = Muzzle comes off 
command to bite with muzzle on = punch repeatedly hard on a civil agitator with your muzzled face = what reward? muzzle comes off? A bite?


----------



## Hunter Allred (Jan 28, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> Hunter. We have different experiences and opinions, that's all. Who's is valid or are we looking at the same thing differently is the question, I think. Of course I think my opinion is right, until I get it changed through your input or someone elses, but so should you think yours is a better point of view until you change your opinion based on information you may have not had, or a new way of looking at something.


lol Thats why I invite folks to change my opinion... but until someone can convince me of an error in my point of view, or of their point, I have no choice but to continue with my own learned experience lol.. so I understand you well there



Dave Colborn said:


> When I say I would learn a lot from you, it isn't lip service, I am sure I would learn if I trained with you.
> 
> 
> > lol perhaps. I'm still pretty new to this whole dog world, and largly training in a vacuum (one of the reasons I'm around the forum... we *did* just get an awesome new helper Saturday move here from overseas though, so improvements will come more quickly now).
> ...


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Hunter Allred said:


> Its really hard to explain, but in the dogs I've seen this in you get the distinct impression they *are* frustrated and this behavior after the slip is still not satisfying their desire... no more than a slimfast really replaces a good meal, or masturbation replaces sex lol.. Both are just "stop gap" measures. All the dogs I've seen this in would all shove the sleeve back into the helper given the chance. Worth noting that I meant when the dog is downed, or backtied, and returning to the helper or continuing the session is not possible.


*We agree here. It's just that the dog also agrees with me. He wants to put his teeth on the helper. Sounds like a good dog. My point about the teeth being the end of aggression while being oversimplified, is illustrated from the dogs perspective here. A good one would like to stay in the fight. Keep biting. Nothing more, nothing less. We get wound up on so much that we forget that realistically when a dog bites, it can be pretty catastrophic to someone. That it doesn't matter where the dog is in his head, at this point, he is biting and helping US win a fight.*

*Masturbation or a slimfast is better than no sex at all or no food. Dogs and us a lot of the times are opportunistic. Take what you can get until better comes along. Stop gap measures keep you alive and functioning.*




I'm confident with a helper who can really give us a dramatic performance he will hit and then watch the helper in awe that his strike without any bite was able to hurt the helper so badly. What will make him *like* striking, is knowing/believing that the strike decimated the helper. 

*I disagree here. It is about getting the muzzle off, and getting to bite. he doesn't know decimation vs. anything else. If you know he wants to lose a dead sleeve for the man, what would make you believe he wants ANYTHING other than to get the muzzle off and bite. He even shows you by his actions of trying to take it off that that is what he wants. What you have to do is manipulate that reward, that he has identified for you, and use it to get him to punch. He needs to punch, the helper shouldn't have to draw the punch from him too long, or you will need it continuously until you fix it. A suit might bring the punch. Also, starting closer in, without making him hurt himself might be good too. A punch from 6" might make him decide to make the second and 3rd punch vs. one hard hit that hurts him and makes him never want to do it again. Think of biting. We teach it on a back tie, then make it a longer distance exercise when the dog has some skill. Put him on the back tie, muzzled with your guy in a suit. The sooner it becomes an exercise to you with controllable variables vs. the dog decimating the helper, it will be easier for you to teach and for him to learn.*

However, seeing your above described technique, that would also work for my male as we'd be just sidestepping the issue of his not buying the helpers performance and teaching the behavior to get what he wants (which is presently to get the muzzle off and use his teeth). I've also thought I could get one of the muzzles with a small bite bar in it as he'd probably be at least somewhat placated by the biting within the muzzle... still, I think the approach I'd prefer is to convince him that you don't need your teeth, you can really hurt this guy with your muzzle, and then I believe the dog would just not feel so disarmed by the muzzle and would stop with the muzzle-removal attempts as I've lowered the value of removing the muzzle for him significantly. 

*The helpers performance doesn't matter. Biting is biting at this point. If you use it as a reward, you can control the muzzle punching and get the intensity that you want. It doesn't matter if a dog breaks ribs in a muzzle because he wants a bite, or if he decimates the helper because he likes decimating the helper, the ribs are still broken. The way I am looking at it, is that the biting or breaking is what I want, so I reward it with what the dog values. Saying and doing this are two different things and definitely takes some good timing.*


On the bright side, I've got a new decoy who does great work so I believe I can actually test the above in the coming weeks/months. Make sense? Thoughts? Comments?[/QUOTE]

*Good luck with your new guy.*


----------



## Alegria Cebreco (Jul 25, 2007)

Hunter Allred said:


> I would say the socially aggressive dog does not see a threat, but rather sees competition (for food, mates, other resources).


So competition for resources is not a threat to one's survival? I'm not being argumentative, I'm seriously trying to learn here. I personally believe if you can recognize something as competition you've already seen them as a potential threat to your livelihood in some way. Maybe the definition of threat is whats throwing me off. Does threat only mean something that puts you in extreme danger with risk of death or competition that can threaten your survival (not as immediate)?


----------



## Hunter Allred (Jan 28, 2010)

Alegria Cebreco said:


> So competition for resources is not a threat to one's survival? I'm not being argumentative, I'm seriously trying to learn here. I personally believe if you can recognize something as competition you've already seen them as a potential threat to your livelihood in some way. Maybe the definition of threat is whats throwing me off. Does threat only mean something that puts you in extreme danger with risk of death or competition that can threaten your survival (not as immediate)?


Yes, but there is a direct threat, and an indirect threat. Competition is indirect. By threat I mean "direct threat" or to use the USMC definition, "a substantial risk of causing death, serious bodily harm or injury"


----------



## Alegria Cebreco (Jul 25, 2007)

Hunter Allred said:


> Yes, but there is a direct threat, and an indirect threat. Competition is indirect. By threat I mean "direct threat" or to use the USMC definition, "a substantial risk of causing death, serious bodily harm or injury"


Ok, thanks Hunter! So when talking about a threat it usually mean a direct threat to one's life and this is why a defensive dog reacts "fight or flight" whereas a socially aggressive dog sees a challenge (indirect threat) to their "livelihood" (resources, status, mates ect.).

Now can a dog that is socially aggressive be pushed into a defensive state? I know every animal can go into flight or fight but usually (on average) do they have really high thresholds for defense?


----------



## Hunter Allred (Jan 28, 2010)

Alegria Cebreco said:


> Ok, thanks Hunter! So when talking about a threat it usually mean a direct threat to one's life and this is why a defensive dog reacts "fight or flight" whereas a socially aggressive dog sees a challenge (indirect threat) to their "livelihood" (resources, status, mates ect.).
> 
> Now can a dog that is socially aggressive be pushed into a defensive state? I know every animal can go into flight or fight but usually (on average) do they have really high thresholds for defense?


First, I dunno if I'd go any further than calling it competition without getting more specific.

I don't have enough experience with truly socially aggressive dogs to tell you any sort of statistics regarding their defensive thresholds on average


----------



## Alegria Cebreco (Jul 25, 2007)

Hunter Allred said:


> First, I dunno if I'd go any further than calling it competition without getting more specific.
> 
> I don't have enough experience with truly socially aggressive dogs to tell you any sort of statistics regarding their defensive thresholds on average


Yeah after reading my previous post again I can see how challenge was probably the wrong word. This is a dog that sees a potential source of competition and actively seeks to ward it off. Doesn't necessarily mean they wait for a direct challenge from said competition. Kinda of like if a wolf pack comes across a bear or a lion comes across a hyena (vise versa) they run it off or attempt to kill the competition without any resource (other that territory) immediately available. They don't have to have a fresh kill to protect, to want to kill the competition. IDK if I'm making sense. LOL


----------



## Alegria Cebreco (Jul 25, 2007)

I think I finally understand the "active" part of it now. ](*,) :mrgreen:


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

The important thing here is that the dog is threatened with losing a resource. A threat is posed. Defense.



Alegria Cebreco said:


> Yeah after reading my previous post again I can see how challenge was probably the wrong word. This is a dog that sees a potential source of competition and actively seeks to ward it off. Doesn't necessarily mean they wait for a direct challenge from said competition. Kinda of like if a wolf pack comes across a bear or a lion comes across a hyena (vise versa) they run it off or attempt to kill the competition without any resource (other that territory) immediately available. They don't have to have a fresh kill to protect, to want to kill the competition. IDK if I'm making sense. LOL


----------



## Hunter Allred (Jan 28, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> The important thing here is that the dog is threatened with losing a resource. A threat is posed. Defense.


There is also offense. Acquiring a resource. Like Putin in Crimea. That's most definitely not defense


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

OK. So crimea is defensive, they have been threatened. Putin is showing the behavior an animal would taking down prey. thanks for hitting the other side of that. Prey=chase, catch, kill. Defense=fight, flight, displacement.

There is a lot of butt sniffing going on in that part of the world for sure. Everyone wants to see where everyone has been and who's going to be top dog...



Hunter Allred said:


> There is also offense. Acquiring a resource. Like Putin in Crimea. That's most definitely not defense


----------



## Hunter Allred (Jan 28, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> OK. So crimea is defensive, they have been threatened. Putin is showing the behavior an animal would taking down prey. thanks for hitting the other side of that. Prey=chase, catch, kill. Defense=fight, flight, displacement.
> 
> There is a lot of butt sniffing going on in that part of the world for sure. Everyone wants to see where everyone has been and who's going to be top dog...


I wouldn't call Putin a prey man. Ukraine is the social rival Crimea is the resource lol. 

So do you belong to the school of thought that there is only prey and defense? Do you not distinguish the defensive behaviors further than that?


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Ok. So if there are two rivals and a resource, there is threat to both from the other? Defense? But I would suggest that to Putin, it is prey. One more thing to control or own. resources he's going after. Territory loaded with prey to satiate his needs. To those in Crimea that oppose him, they are in defense.

Other than it's insulting to dogs, we are a lot like them.




Hunter Allred said:


> I wouldn't call Putin a prey man. Ukraine is the social rival Crimea is the resource lol.
> 
> So do you belong to the school of thought that there is only prey and defense? Do you not distinguish the defensive behaviors further than that?


----------



## Hunter Allred (Jan 28, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> Ok. So if there are two rivals and a resource, there is threat to both from the other? Defense? But I would suggest that to Putin, it is prey. One more thing to control or own. resources he's going after. Territory loaded with prey to satiate his needs. To those in Crimea that oppose him, they are in defense.
> 
> Other than it's insulting to dogs, we are a lot like them.


But you don't distinguish active/forward/passive/etc defensive correct? So in this analogy you could say both are in defense, where as I would say Putin is aggression, Ukraine is defense.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

No, Putin is confident he will walk in and take what he wants if he can placate the rest of the world. He moves forward taking things because of his perceived strength. He doesn't need aggression. The aggression will come when and if he is presented with someone who stands up to him. Then, he will have been presented with a threat, therefore he will choose to fight, flee, or displace. Then he'll be operating in defense.




Hunter Allred said:


> But you don't distinguish active/forward/passive/etc defensive correct? So in this analogy you could say both are in defense, where as I would say Putin is aggression, Ukraine is defense.


----------



## Alegria Cebreco (Jul 25, 2007)

Dave Colborn said:


> The important thing here is that the dog is threatened with losing a resource. A threat is posed. Defense.


See that is how I originally viewed it. A threat or a possibility for a threat (running off/killing competition that may or may not but more and likely challenge you for resources at some point in the future). Regardless, the dog has to recognize it as a threat in order to react with aggression. I do now understand the direct/indirect (or possibly perceived) threat and how that can be used to determine how the dog reacts or what is going on in terms of motivation.


----------



## Erik Berg (Apr 11, 2006)

It tends to be neverending circular arguments when it comes to aggresion. If you wanna make it simple just say aggression is a serious emotion designed to scare away a treath or terminate it some way. Territory, resources and things that scare the dog is the most common sources for aggresion I guess. A dog taking down in his mind a prey isn´t aggressive, not more than a cow who is eating grass as her prey they could be very intense thou and it could escalate to a more aggresive state if the prey fights back.

What the dog is doing with its teeth/bite is different from what the motivation comes from, a dog can bite a tennisball for fun/prey or a treath because it´s angry. A more serious dog is motivated by the man surrendering and flee, a dog who is in prey or fightingdrive bites beacuse it wants to hold on to the sleeve or likes the struggle with the man. With this in mind it´s not strange a more serious dog isn´t satisfied with just get his sleeve or the man not responding to his aggresion in muzzlework. 

Muzzlework in particular are hard for some dogs who just want to grab something like in sleeve/suitwork with no seriouss attitdue behind it. They should be in the mindset to punch away the man instead. You need a dog with quite high fightingdrive if it should work thru only that drive and little aggresion, just as a dog who lacks both aggresion and enough fightingdrive is even harder to do good. So the goal is to balance the dogs drives so it get´s the correct attitude, not too angry and not to playfull, the ideal would be a dog who punch you hard whatever the decoy is doing, going towards you or fleeing.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Dave Colborn said:


> Ok. So if there are two rivals and a resource, there is threat to both from the other? Defense? But I would suggest that to Putin, it is prey. One more thing to control or own. resources he's going after. Territory loaded with prey to satiate his needs. To those in Crimea that oppose him, they are in defense.
> 
> Other than it's insulting to dogs, we are a lot like them.


~He essentially owned crimea before this, it is a defensive manoeuvre not an offensive one, the resource is at risk from being taken away.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Can you articulate how Putin "essentially owned crimea"?



Matt Vandart said:


> ~He essentially owned crimea before this, it is a defensive manoeuvre not an offensive one, the resource is at risk from being taken away.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

It's not circular. Some dogs bite well. It hurts. Knowing how a dog reacts to threat or prey tells you how to work the dog. It really doesn't matter to talk about it, but it's imperative to do it right according to the dog in front of you, while working.







Erik Berg said:


> It tends to be neverending circular arguments when it comes to aggresion. If you wanna make it simple just say aggression is a serious emotion designed to scare away a treath or terminate it some way. Territory, resources and things that scare the dog is the most common sources for aggresion I guess. A dog taking down in his mind a prey isn´t aggressive, not more than a cow who is eating grass as her prey they could be very intense thou and it could escalate to a more aggresive state if the prey fights back.
> 
> What the dog is doing with its teeth/bite is different from what the motivation comes from, a dog can bite a tennisball for fun/prey or a treath because it´s angry. A more serious dog is motivated by the man surrendering and flee, a dog who is in prey or fightingdrive bites beacuse it wants to hold on to the sleeve or likes the struggle with the man. With this in mind it´s not strange a more serious dog isn´t satisfied with just get his sleeve or the man not responding to his aggresion in muzzlework.
> 
> Muzzlework in particular are hard for some dogs who just want to grab something like in sleeve/suitwork with no seriouss attitdue behind it. They should be in the mindset to punch away the man instead. You need a dog with quite high fightingdrive if it should work thru only that drive and little aggresion, just as a dog who lacks both aggresion and enough fightingdrive is even harder to do good. So the goal is to balance the dogs drives so it get´s the correct attitude, not too angry and not to playfull, the ideal would be a dog who punch you hard whatever the decoy is doing, going towards you or fleeing.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

He had a ****ing big Navy base there? lol


----------



## Hunter Allred (Jan 28, 2010)

Matt Vandart said:


> He had a ****ing big Navy base there? lol


We have bigger navy, Air Force, army, and USMC bases in Okinawa. and Spain. And Germany. And the UK


----------



## Erik Berg (Apr 11, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> It's not circular. Some dogs bite well. It hurts. Knowing how a dog reacts to threat or prey tells you how to work the dog. It really doesn't matter to talk about it, but it's imperative to do it right according to the dog in front of you, while working.


Yes, that was what I said I suppose, aggresion and prey/fightingdrive have different drivesatisfaction/goal. Circular arguments I mean labeling lot´s of names for aggression, if the dog has it in enough amount for the job is all you need to know.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Hunter Allred said:


> We have bigger navy, Air Force, army, and USMC bases in Okinawa. and Spain. And Germany. And the UK


 Ur not at risk of being kicked out of them


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Where?



Matt Vandart said:


> He had a ****ing big Navy base there? lol


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Lets not take this into the dark hole of politics!


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

There are a lot of extra terms, I agree. There are two important terms/drives as far as I am concerned. Prey and defense. 

I haven't been convinced that fighting drive actually exists. I believe fighting is learned by the dog. Some dogs are predisposed to learn it and do it better. Give that same dog to three people, and one will have a decoy getting bit hard, the next will get themselves bit hard, and the third won't even stimulate it to come out, but it's still there.

Aggression is very general and can be applied to both prey drive and defensive drive in my opinion.






Erik Berg said:


> Yes, that was what I said I suppose, aggresion and prey/fightingdrive have different drivesatisfaction/goal. Circular arguments I mean labeling lot´s of names for aggression, if the dog has it in enough amount for the job is all you need to know.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Looking at humans behavior in terms of dog behavior really simplifies politics into what they are. Colorful terms and ways of a human getting what they are driven to get. Dog motivation is just usually more clear, honest and direct towards an end that they want.




Bob Scott said:


> Lets not take this into the dark hole of politics!


----------



## Hunter Allred (Jan 28, 2010)

Matt Vandart said:


> Ur not at risk of being kicked out of them


Oh yeah we are in some of them


----------



## Hunter Allred (Jan 28, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> Looking at humans behavior in terms of dog behavior really simplifies politics into what they are. Colorful terms and ways of a human getting what they are driven to get. Dog motivation is just usually more clear, honest and direct towards an end that they want.


If you ignore what people say and just watch their behavior I've found they are just as clear and honest. People are adept at lying with words but dramatically less able to lie with their actions.


----------



## Hunter Allred (Jan 28, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> There are a lot of extra terms, I agree. There are two important terms/drives as far as I am concerned. Prey and defense.
> 
> I haven't been convinced that fighting drive actually exists. I believe fighting is learned by the dog. Some dogs are predisposed to learn it and do it better. Give that same dog to three people, and one will have a decoy getting bit hard, the next will get themselves bit hard, and the third won't even stimulate it to come out, but it's still there.
> 
> Aggression is very general and can be applied to both prey drive and defensive drive in my opinion.


Extremely difficult to have meaningfully conversation if we don't have a mutually agreed upon and understood lexicon


----------

