# Social-driven aggression vs. prey-driven aggression



## Konnie Hein

Which dog would you rather have for your work/sport and why? 

Dog #1: Fighting/sparring/tugging is driven by social aggression, but dog is clear-headed with some prey drive. Likes to play with a ball/kong, but isn't obsessed with them. Not a natural retriever.

Dog #2: Active aggression driven by prey drive rather than social aggression, clear-headed with high prey drive. Obsessed with ball/kong. A natural retriever.

Assume all other things are equal (both love to fight the decoy - but for different reasons as noted - and have good nerve strength, etc.). 

Which one is your ideal patrol (single or dual purpose) or sport protection dog?


----------



## David Frost

I'm not familiar with the term "social aggression". Just from reading your posts though, and of course I'd conduct a personl eval on them anyway, dog number 2 sounds like what I'd want. 

DFrost


----------



## Konnie Hein

Definition of social aggression for the purposes of this discussion:
_Social aggression is the dog's desire to establish pack hierarchy (alpha/leader). It is not reactive aggression (defense/self-preservation) and, therefore, it does not have the potential disadvantage of flight behavior. Since social aggression has no flight counterpart, the dog does not perform under the same level of stress as in reactive aggression. __This type of dog also generally expresses itself in a very dominant manner. Social aggression is almost exclusively a male characteristic. It can be the determining factor in a protection dog successfully facing a life threatening situation (i.e., police dog, personal protection dog, military dog, etc.). _

Definition adapted from http://www.workingdogs.com/dom1.htm

BTW - I own both of these dogs and can answer in depth questions about their temperaments/traits if anybody needs more info for discussion purposes. Also, this is not a debate on which dog is a "keeper" for me vs. the other one, just want to know what other people think of the different temperaments.

Discuss away! (pretty please)


----------



## Carol Boche

From what I have just read, probably dog #2 would be the choice. Dog #1 sounds like one that will be constantly battling with his/her handler, since it has been describes as a hiearchy/pack structure issue. Been there, and still there with one of mine.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Carol and David - are you thinking in terms of detection or bitework or dual purpose or?


----------



## Anna Kasho

#1 seems to me like it would be more of a liability to own, even if there isn't a rank issue with the handler. 

#2 is what people describe to me as a "sport dog", and this is what my mals are like. Cyko is maybe a bit socially aggressive, but his primary drive is all prey. Havoc is still a goofy puppy. The natural retrieve comes in handy when I excercise the dogs - go out and throw the ball for a while, and they are quiet and content at home.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Carol Boche said:


> From what I have just read, probably dog #2 would be the choice. Dog #1 sounds like one that will be constantly battling with his/her handler, since it has been describes as a hiearchy/pack structure issue. Been there, and still there with one of mine.


I have no issues controlling Dog #1, although his natural "desire to please" is lacking compared to Dog #2 (although we did have a few spats during his adolescence). Dog #1 is very social. He demands that people pet him and runs up to everybody. Dog #2 could care less about petting most of the time and prefers to ignore strangers.


----------



## Carol Boche

Konnie Hein said:


> Carol and David - are you thinking in terms of detection or bitework or dual purpose or?


I am thinking from a SAR point of view. These types (#2) of dogs are better for LE/Sport work IMHO....

I really think it depends on the handler/trainer and where their strengths and weaknesses are. Seen some great dogs in aggression work that would eat an inexperienced handler but are absolutely over the top great with a strong, confident leader.

I would have no issues owning #1, but in my line of work.......would not want the liability issues when on deployment. Not because of me and my handling, but because of all the "oh look it's fluffy the search dog" people. UGH


----------



## Konnie Hein

Anna Kasho said:


> The natural retrieve comes in handy when I excercise the dogs - go out and throw the ball for a while, and they are quiet and content at home.


A pointy-eared dog with a natural retrieve is a beautiful thing! 

Dog #1 will retrieve if I do the 2-ball game with him (comes back with 1st ball in mouth to get 2nd ball). I taught him that as a pup. Definitely a trained behavior because if ball #2 doesn't appear, he goes off with ball #1 to play by himself (regardless of what I do).


----------



## Konnie Hein

Carol Boche said:


> I would have no issues owning #1, but in my line of work.......would not want the liability issues when on deployment. Not because of me and my handling, but because of all the "oh look it's fluffy the search dog" people. UGH


Dog #1 is definitely not a SAR dog, although like I said, he is social and does great meeting people in public. He loves the attention - tail high and in people's laps (with his head on their shoulder or above their head if they crouch down to pet him).


----------



## Geoff Empey

#2 for me as it is much easier to put out drive fire in a dog than to build that drive fire in a dog that doesn't possess it. As you can use that prey drive obession to your advantage in moulding the dog to your particular need. 

#1 to me would the one to challenge the handler throughout training and after training me being lazy would follow the path of least resistance. Meaning that #2 would be the easier dog to train IMO.


----------



## Carol Boche

Konnie Hein said:


> Dog #1 is definitely not a SAR dog, although like I said, he is social and does great meeting people in public. He loves the attention - tail high and in people's laps (with his head on their shoulder or above their head if they crouch down to pet him).


See....this is dominant type behaviors to me and I would not allow this, unless it was with myself. Definitely would not allow the dog any higher than eye level. 

Don't all slaughter me at once....it is just how I am with the dogs that I have......give an inch, they will try for a mile.....[-X [-X :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Konnie Hein

Carol Boche said:


> See....this is dominant type behaviors to me and I would not allow this, unless it was with myself. Definitely would not allow the dog any higher than eye level.
> 
> Don't all slaughter me at once....it is just how I am with the dogs that I have......give an inch, they will try for a mile.....[-X [-X :lol: :lol: :lol:


I never pet this dog personally. Not my style anyways. And no, it's definitely something I wouldn't allow him to do to me, but I like to experiment so I let people be people to see what he does. People usually think he's being sweet and cuddly, but I know that he's demanding they pet him in a dominant way. 

Seriously though, there's no risk of him ever biting anybody in public. He has never demonstrated even a hint of aggression towards other people (aside from a decoy). He is a very stable, clear-headed dog.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Geoff Empey said:


> #2 for me as it is much easier to put out drive fire in a dog than to build that drive fire in a dog that doesn't possess it. As you can use that prey drive obession to your advantage in moulding the dog to your particular need.
> 
> #1 to me would the one to challenge the handler throughout training and after training me being lazy would follow the path of least resistance. Meaning that #2 would be the easier dog to train IMO.


I agree, especially for the work my dogs do (USAR). However, Dog #1 does have a fair bit of prey drive. He will chase a ball (as evidenced by our 2-ball game), and will work in obedience for the ball fairly well, but he's not obsessed with it like Dog #2 is. He will hunt for the ball too if it's thrown into tall grass, but not with the energy you see in a truly ball-obsessed dog.


----------



## David Frost

Konnie Hein said:


> Carol and David - are you thinking in terms of detection or bitework or dual purpose or?


I was thinking dual purpose. I thought I read that was the intention. I don't like the definition I read, well the definition is fine, but I think it would tend to give a dog that may not commit. Maybe I'm misreading. Again, I'd still evaluate, but number 2 is still my candidate.

DFrost


----------



## Michelle Reusser

Konnie Hein said:


> Which dog would you rather have for your work/sport and why?
> 
> Dog #1: Fighting/sparring/tugging is driven by social aggression, but dog is clear-headed with some prey drive. Likes to play with a ball/kong, but isn't obsessed with them. Not a natural retriever.
> 
> Dog #2: Active aggression driven by prey drive rather than social aggression, clear-headed with high prey drive. Obsessed with ball/kong. A natural retriever.
> 
> Assume all other things are equal (both love to fight the decoy - but for different reasons as noted - and have good nerve strength, etc.).
> 
> Which one is your ideal patrol (single or dual purpose) or sport protection dog?


How old are the dogs in question? My dog was the picture of #1 as a pup, we overcame the ball/retrieve thing and he brings everytime now without the second toy and is now obsessed. His pack drive developed past the point that the dominance issues are tollerable. Not an overwhelming amount of prey, wont chase birds, kids, other dogs at the park, just his toys and the decoy, tugs etc. 

I would pick dog 1 because I see enough like #2 and if it doesn't workout with #1 can find plenty like #2 to try again with. Why I picked 1 is I don't like dogs with so much prey you can't trust them near anything that moves. Also I have already beaten the odds once and ended up with a easy to train dog even though he is HIGHLY social aggressive. Being this way means he is so damn cocky he wont even bother fighting with other dogs (nice cause my prey driven bitch is nasty as all hell), he doesn't have to. He doesn't fear any one or any situation. I never gave him an inch as a pup with the dominance crap and he doesn't stand over me anymore, but he will do it to others, they don't realize what the menaing is and I don't much care that he does it. It's our little secret. He never humped my leg but he did it a couple times to my first trainer and my daughter. Haven't had a problem between he and my daughter since his hormones evened out last summer. 

Job for dog #1 is PSA and PP, he travels with me extensively and the higher prey dogs can need to be "watched" a bit more closely around certain crowds or people. Dog #2 would be a sport persons wet dream.


----------



## Geoff Empey

Konnie Hein said:


> I agree, especially for the work my dogs do (USAR). However, Dog #1 does have a fair bit of prey drive. He will chase a ball (as evidenced by our 2-ball game), and will work in obedience for the ball fairly well, but he's not obsessed with it like Dog #2 is. He will hunt for the ball too if it's thrown into tall grass, but not with the energy you see in a truly ball-obsessed dog.


We have a #1 in our Ringsport club. He (Malinois male of course) is a great sport dog he just got his last leg of FRII recently. Problem is he is pretty darned handler hard, he expresses himself in a very dominant manner just like the description you supplied. 

This dog gets worked with a lot of compulsion as he is always challenging his handler. To the point of I've seen him resource guard the decoy from the handler when the handler picks him at the end of the guard and escort. It's a crazy thing to see.

His work is spectacular with awesome grips and athletism. But to much work for me! I'd love to own him just not train him my self, if you know what I mean.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Michelle Kehoe said:


> How old are the dogs in question?


Dog #1 will be 2 years old in September. Dog #2 is 9 years old. I purchased him at 18 mos. of age and he was this way then too. Age has only slowed him down slightly - you wouldn't know he's 9 aside from the greying muzzle and toes.

I was thinking Dog #1 would be an awesome PSA or PP dog, but I'm not an expert on either of those disciplines. His foundation training included some dabbling in FR-style training, which he was quite good at. Dog #2 was only ever a USAR dog and did no formal bitework training.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Geoff Empey said:


> This dog gets worked with a lot of compulsion as he is always challenging his handler.


I haven't used any compulsion in Dog #1s obedience yet - all food and ball reward so far, so he hasn't challenged me in that regard. We used a prong collar to teach him the out on the bite at a young age (which I would have done differently if I could do it over again, but I was working under the supervision of a trainer and that's what he said to do) and it seemed to work fine at the time. Now that he's more mature, I'll bet we get a different result.


----------



## Geoff Empey

Konnie Hein said:


> I haven't used any compulsion in Dog #1s obedience yet - all food and ball reward so far, so he hasn't challenged me in that regard. We used a prong collar to teach him the out on the bite at a young age (which I would have done differently if I could do it over again, but I was working under the supervision of a trainer and that's what he said to do) and it seemed to work fine at the time. Now that he's more mature, I'll bet we get a different result.


The #1 in question I'm talking about was a rescue who the current owner got at 13 mos. The first owner didn't spend a lot of time with him and what the dog got was a lot of e-collar use when it did get any training at all. 

So the current owner dropped the e-collar and started from scratch on a 13 mos old #1. So obviously a dog likes this needs a strong experienced handler to deal with it.


----------



## Howard Knauf

Call me crazy but...I like the sound of dog #1. Only for a seasoned and tough handler though that wanted to work such a dog. For police work I like to see nasty, people fighting dogs because that is what I want. I understand the desire to have a highly prey driven dog and the ease in training such an animal, but when the chips are down I want to take that last bit of doubt out of the equation when the life or death fight starts. JMO.

Not a dog for everyone...just a chosen few.

Howard


----------



## Carol Boche

Howard Knauf said:


> Call me crazy but...I like the sound of dog #1. Only for a seasoned and tough handler though that wanted to work such a dog. For police work I like to see nasty, people fighting dogs because that is what I want. I understand the desire to have a highly prey driven dog and the ease in training such an animal, but when the chips are down I want to take that last bit of doubt out of the equation when the life or death fight starts. JMO.
> 
> Not a dog for everyone...just a chosen few.
> 
> Howard


Totally agree Howard. Absolutely. If I could find the proper help that was not 10 hrs away, I would choose this dog as well and go into sport work or PPD work. 

But with SAR work I would be really leary of someone getting tagged.......


----------



## Konnie Hein

Carol Boche said:


> Totally agree Howard. Absolutely. If I could find the proper help that was not 10 hrs away, I would choose this dog as well and go into sport work or PPD work.
> 
> But with SAR work I would be really leary of someone getting tagged.......


My concern in using Dog #1 for SAR isn't somebody getting bit necessarily. Like I've said, he's very stable and social. My concern would be that his prey drive isn't high enough to sustain his hunting/searching. A person could argue that I could tap into the social aggression (since our USAR dogs are rewarded with tugging) to increase his drive during the search - kind of like the patrol dog who searches for a fleeing suspect because his reward is the fight at the end. I would prefer to not have my SAR dog's searching be motivated by aggression though. I just don't think that will sustain him over the duration I need him to search for. 

Dog #1's sire is all kinds of crazy. His fight with the decoy is definitely motivated by social aggression and not prey drive. He is a little less clear-headed than Dog #1 (which might have been a result of training and not genetic), but other than that Dog #1 is a carbon copy of his sire. 

Videos of Dog #1's sire (I posted these once before - maybe a year ago?):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c02gIHWUau4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LC67TxjY-Q
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu9W-QdyNJ8


----------



## Michelle Reusser

Konnie Hein said:


> My concern in using Dog #1 for SAR isn't somebody getting bit necessarily. Like I've said, he's very stable and social. My concern would be that his prey drive isn't high enough to sustain his hunting/searching. A person could argue that I could tap into the social aggression (since our USAR dogs are rewarded with tugging) to increase his drive during the search - kind of like the patrol dog who searches for a fleeing suspect because his reward is the fight at the end. I would prefer to not have my SAR dog's searching be motivated by aggression though. I just don't think that will sustain him over the duration I need him to search for.
> 
> Dog #1's sire is all kinds of crazy. His fight with the decoy is definitely motivated by social aggression and not prey drive. He is a little less clear-headed than Dog #1 (which might have been a result of training and not genetic), but other than that Dog #1 is a carbon copy of his sire.
> 
> Videos of Dog #1's sire (I posted these once before - maybe a year ago?):
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c02gIHWUau4
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LC67TxjY-Q
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vu9W-QdyNJ8


 
Jesus! Lemme go check my kennel Konnie, cause it sounds like you took my dog. I must watch these video's real quick.


----------



## Michelle Reusser

Nope not my dog but very nice. I also would not be worried about #1 or my dog biting the wrong person. Waaaay to calm and cool for that. My dogs thresholds are very high, it takes some fight to make him react, no flying off the handle or sharpness, def no handler aggression, though we did expect some, watching him as a pup and knowing his father, who ignores the E and doesn't out. My trainer kept saying..."too much dog for you."


----------



## Konnie Hein

Michelle Kehoe said:


> Nope not my dog but very nice.


He's a Malinois, so definitely not your dog! 

I don't own the sire - he's owned by a friend of mine who competes in FR.


----------



## Mike charatin

Konnie Hein said:


> Which dog would you rather have for your work/sport and why?
> 
> Dog #1: Fighting/sparring/tugging is driven by social aggression, but dog is clear-headed with some prey drive. Likes to play with a ball/kong, but isn't obsessed with them. Not a natural retriever.
> 
> Dog #2: Active aggression driven by prey drive rather than social aggression, clear-headed with high prey drive. Obsessed with ball/kong. A natural retriever.
> 
> Assume all other things are equal (both love to fight the decoy - but for different reasons as noted - and have good nerve strength, etc.).
> 
> Which one is your ideal patrol (single or dual purpose) or sport protection dog?


Patrol dog would be #1. Single purpose is a tricky one ,if you are using him for drugs #2 all the way however if he is to be a bomb dog he needs to be passive aggresive on the find.Dogs that are over the top with prey would not be suited for this type of work,it is to much a liability, they might blow you up.Would have to evaluate. Dual purpose dog again not so easy however I would rather have a dog save an officers life than miss a find on a drug search. Sport dog again all the way #2.


----------



## Bob Scott

I like #2. I think #1 would always have control issues. Can it be controlled? Of course, but it's not a good prospect for a high scoring sport dog and as a street dog (JM uneducated O) I don't see the need to be constantly in an argument over who's the boss. That's to much strss on the dog and handler both. 
A socially aggressive dog with no desire to retrieve tells me it's a dog that will fight pressure from the handler. Perfect example of how "handler aggression" is often created by the handler.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Bob Scott said:


> I like #2. I think #1 would always have control issues. Can it be controlled? Of course, but it's not a good prospect for a high scoring sport dog and as a street dog (JM uneducated O) I don't see the need to be constantly in an argument over who's the boss. That's to much strss on the dog and handler both.
> A socially aggressive dog with no desire to retrieve tells me it's a dog that will fight pressure from the handler. Perfect example of how "handler aggression" is often created by the handler.


Hey, I must be doing pretty good then! I don't have huge issues handling dog #1. His recall isn't perfect though - there's always a hesitation, but I honestly haven't worked on it as much as I probably should. Like I said, so far, all of his obedience training has been positive reinforcement. I haven't done any corrections yet.

Dg #2s recall and obedience is phenomenal and I didn't spend much time on training in that regard at all. He has very high natural "biddability."


----------



## Michelle Reusser

Very interesting hearig the hesitations towards and opinions of dog #1. I find non of them aplly's to my dog, how about you Konnie? Once adjusted, found my dog just as easy if not easier to handle than a prey monster. He is slower, he thinks on it a sec but I attributed that to being a GSD thing and he is still young. My #2 dog gets on my nerves barking at everything and pinging off the walls. I have to watch her 24/7 because she can't control herself. Kind of a little give, for some take.


----------



## Howard Knauf

Hi Bob,

I can definately see your point ref handler aggression issues with dog #1. Like you stated before, handlers create that aggression most of the time. With a dog like #1 you would have to adapt to what motivates him the most and back off the yank and crank. It can be done most times, but not always. I would rather take my chances that I could work the dog without constant fights with him knowing how good he would be on the street. If it doesn't work out (and I'm sure it can/will happen with some dogs)..you can always fall back on the multitudes of prey monsters out there. I see #1 as sort of special.

Howard


----------



## Konnie Hein

Michelle Kehoe said:


> Very interesting hearig the hesitations towards and opinions of dog #1. I find non of them aplly's to my dog, how about you Konnie?


-Handler aggression - No (only saw this when he went through a phase during adolescence and this was only during certain situations when he was already stoked from bitework/drive work). He doesn't outright challenge me, but then again, I've never had cause to challenge _him_ either.

-Instability around strangers - Never, and I never would expect that to happen. He's way too social. I've had him in loads of social situations with tons of people and he is great. His desire to bite is based on social aggression (dominance) and not defense or fear. People in non-bitework training situations present no challenge to him. He's ultra-confident.

-Difficult to control - Not at this point, but he's still young. I haven't put a lot of control/obedience on him (other than the basics) because I don't know what I'm going to do with him since he's not a SAR-dog type and I don't have time to train for protection sports these days. He knows sit, down, heel, stay, come (we're getting there) and down-on-recall. All of this was done using positive reinforcement. So far no corrections, although I think he's going to need them for protection work if he is trained that way. The fight is way more important to him than any ball/tug/food.

Overall, Dog #2 is easier for me to train. Dog #2 is definitely the better dog for my work. I'm not a green handler, so Dog #1 is easy for me to deal with. IM(uneducated)O, Dog #1 needs to be doing sport protection or patrol (based on his size - 50 lbs., not sure this is a good idea although he definitely can drop a person).


----------



## Konnie Hein

Howard Knauf said:


> I see #1 as sort of special.


I see him as sort of special too, especially since I don't have issues with him. It took me a while to find out what makes him tick. He's very different from any other dog I've raised.


----------



## Howard Knauf

This is why I believe he is a viable candidate. Social aggression without all the ugly side affects.

Howard


----------



## Michelle Reusser

Konnie Hein said:


> I see him as sort of special too, especially since I don't have issues with him. It took me a while to find out what makes him tick. He's very different from any other dog I've raised.


Ha, this thread is great! Makes me feel better about my dog, he isn't some freak of nature. My X and first trainer never figured this dog out either because he was used to prey Mals. He was constantly telling me this dog will come up the line at you one day, he will be too much, you can't do this, you can't do that with him, he can never be trusted out and about and he will be hard as all hell to train once compulsion comes in the picture. I always felt I knew the dog, trusted him and he had a good sense of himself and who I was and where I was suppossed to rank. The X still instilled some fear in me and as soon as I got sick of hearing it and gave him the boot, I have had nothing but good times and progress with my dog. He's deffinatly a dfferent style or type of dog but for me and what I am doing with him, I couldn't ask for a better fit. He is exactly what I asked for from the breeder. Very cool dog...even if I had to make him bring the ball back as a puppy. He would have much rather took off and chewed it up in the corner until I taught him the fun of the game. If his pack Instinct wasn't so high I may have had more issues but the breeder also told me this litter would have tons of it and my dog does. It's nice to have a dog that does for you, instead of the ball.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Howard Knauf said:


> This is why I believe he is a viable candidate. Social aggression without all the ugly side affects.
> 
> Howard


What about size? At 50 lbs, most people wouldn't consider him a man-stopper. That's the only reason why I was thinking he'd be a better candidate for sport vs. patrol.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Michelle Kehoe said:


> It's nice to have a dog that does for you, instead of the ball.


My impression of Dog #1 is that he does for himself, not me or the ball! :grin:


----------



## Michelle Reusser

Size shouldn't matter. I know officers that like their pocket rockets best. Quite a few 40-60 lb Mals out there. Some like bigger dogs, I preffer the looks of bigger dogs myself but once a person works a small dog, they will appretiate the quickness and agility getting to the perp. I think your dog #1 would make a great K-9, mine would also but I'm not selling him for any ammount of $.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

Hmm, it would depend on the job I wanted the dog for. Based strictly on the description, and assuming each dog has the neccessary traits to do strong/solid bitework, if it was something like detection or SAR, I'd go with dog #2 because of the high prey drive and toy obsession. For a sport (and points) dog I'd probably also go with dog #2, sounds like it would have the basics needed for a cleaner, higher point type of performance. For a single purpose (patrol) dog, or a personal protection dog, I might go with dog #1. I am talking about for myself, as the handler, not just in general. I have never had a dominance or handler aggression issue with one of my dogs, so that doesn't worry me. And yes, I've owned dogs people told me I'd have these problems with, it just doesn't happen.


----------



## Michelle Reusser

Konnie Hein said:


> My impression of Dog #1 is that he does for himself, not me or the ball! :grin:


That may very well true for mine as well. I'm delusional and want him to like me is all...lol. Had all sorts of names of the 6 letter variety when he was younger because he gave the me the finger regularly, selfish and self serving dog for sure and not one for cuddling. Prick lays down 10-20 feet away when we take a break from OB. I have to force him to let me pet him (he pretends to enjoy it). On the other hand he wants to be where I am to keep an eye on me so...still got some figuring out to do.


----------



## Geoff Empey

Howard Knauf said:


> Hi Bob,
> 
> I can definately see your point ref handler aggression issues with dog #1. Like you stated before, handlers create that aggression most of the time. With a dog like #1 you would have to adapt to what motivates him the most and back off the yank and crank. It can be done most times, but not always. I would rather take my chances that I could work the dog without constant fights with him knowing how good he would be on the street. If it doesn't work out (and I'm sure it can/will happen with some dogs)..you can always fall back on the multitudes of prey monsters out there. I see #1 as sort of special.


I totally see this point especially


> handlers create that aggression most of the time.


 With the dog in our club it was a rescue and had predisposed underlying issues. He is a lot of dog who needs a lot of handler. I love this dog even with his quirks I'd take him in a heartbeat. Even if I know I'd be in for trouble. He is gorgeous, 72lbs, Fast, big mouth, amazing grips and athletism, plus dare I say awesome obedience even if the dog sometimes wants it on his own terms. 

That being said I don't have enough experience to deal with a dog like this. The current owner/handler doesn't want to use compulsion on this dog. It is almost totally all positive. But sometimes has to resort to compulsion more often as the dog will eat him if not. 

I've never seen a dog hung before, seeing this dog go after his handler at the end of a 1m leash was wild. To a lesser handler this dog could very well have had it his own way, and end up the dog getting the old heave ho. Plus the resource guarding of the decoy on handler pickup was the most amazing yet odd thing I've experienced in my short career as a dog handler. Historically the handler needed to be on top of him all the time with the finger on the compulsion trigger to remind the dog that it is the handler who is boss. Not the other way around. I do see positive reinforcement is part of the equation though in this dogs continued success, the compulsion is/was more of a check. Though now compulsion is not as prominent as it used to be as that dog/handler team grow in trust of each other.

Howard I think you'd like this dog, I know I do. I like him so much that if I ever bred my handler in tune over the top prey drive bitch .. he'd be the stud I'd consider first.


----------



## Tim Martens

Konnie Hein said:


> Which dog would you rather have for your work/sport and why?
> 
> Dog #1: Fighting/sparring/tugging is driven by social aggression, but dog is clear-headed with some prey drive. Likes to play with a ball/kong, but isn't obsessed with them. Not a natural retriever.
> 
> Dog #2: Active aggression driven by prey drive rather than social aggression, clear-headed with high prey drive. Obsessed with ball/kong. A natural retriever.
> 
> Assume all other things are equal (both love to fight the decoy - but for different reasons as noted - and have good nerve strength, etc.).
> 
> Which one is your ideal patrol (single or dual purpose) or sport protection dog?


patrol single purpose: dog 1
patrol dual purpose: dog 2
sport: dog 2


----------



## Tim Martens

for SAR, i agree that the lack of prey drive would be an issue for dog #1. i have seen patrol dogs such as #1 and they will hunt for a long time for a man because they know that when they find him, they get the chance to get the fight they desire. 

interesting that dog 2 is described as hight prey but clear headed. the fight drive people say those two things don't go together and that usually is the case. i have found the most clear headed dogs in bitework are not the prey monsters, but the dogs with more social aggression than prey aggression. again, we can't speak in absolutes though. i have seen very dominant dogs that are not handler aggressive. that comes from having a confident, competent handler. a very dominant dog with the right handler,...ah, that's enough. i'm not sure i'm making sense to me anymore. need sleeep. 2 more weeks of graveyard...


----------



## Greg Williams

I have both types of dogs. My male would be dog 1, my female would be dog 2. I compete in PSA with both dogs. That being said my female (dog 2) is a much better sport dog. She's more about pleasing me so she's easier to work and learns faster. She'll take food, a tug , ball, whatever.
My male on the other hand when I first got him wanted nothing to do with anyone. He wouldn't bite for no reason and could be out around people. If you attempted to pet him he'd let out a growl, a second time and he'd take a shot at you.
My male is a much bigger headache on the trial field, doing stupid stuff like bitting in obedience or blowing the call off on trial day.
I built his prey drive through channeling his drives in bite work. Now you would never know he had no prey drive.
All that being said my male is my favorite dog of the 2. My female is just to easy to work. My male makes me think and stay on my toes which I believe makes me a better trainer. I like the dogs that most people can't handle b/c it's more challenging. S when I place it makes that trophy that much more appreciated. I also like the fact that if push comes to shove, I know my male will get me home at night. I think my female would..... But I don't want to think, I want to know!


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen

majority of our dogs are extreme #1, Coda is a #2 a good sportsdog, but certainly not a dog for the street. I like the 1's better, but working them is difficult.


----------



## David Frost

Now I'm back to; I sure as heck do not understand what social aggression is. No problem though, it took me a couple of years to understand what the heck "civil" meant. Darn sport intrusion. ha ha.

DFrost


----------



## Howard Knauf

Geoff wrote....


> Howard I think you'd like this dog, I know I do. I like him so much that if I ever bred my handler in tune over the top prey drive bitch .. he'd be the stud I'd consider first.


 Sounds like I would. For some reason I'm attracted to dogs that make me work and think. 


Tim Martens wrote...


> i have seen patrol dogs such as #1 and they will hunt for a long time for a man because they know that when they find him, they get the chance to get the fight they desire.


Exactly! The desire to find and fight the man will actually make a formally low prey drive evaluated dog look like an entirely different animal. Like I said before..use what motivates him.

Greg Williams...


> I built his prey drive through channeling his drives in bite work. Now you would never know he had no prey drive.
> All that being said my male is my favorite dog of the 2.


Case in point.....

Howard


----------



## Howard Knauf

Two more important points...

Geoff


> Though now compulsion is not as prominent as it used to be as that dog/handler team grow in trust of each other.


Greg


> I also like the fact that if push comes to shove, I know my male will get me home at night. I think my female would..... But I don't want to think, I want to know!


Noteworthy statements IMO

Howard


----------



## Konnie Hein

Greg Williams said:


> If you attempted to pet him he'd let out a growl, a second time and he'd take
> I built his prey drive through channeling his drives in bite work.
> ...
> Now you would never know he had no prey drive.


Dog #1 is a little different from this, although he's still pretty young - will be 2 y.o. in September. He is very social and loves to be fawned over. He will actually demand it from people and they give it to him because he's damn cute. He does have some prey drive too. Like I said before, he'll chase a ball and hunt for it, but not with the energy and excitement you see in a ball-obsessed dog.

I wish I could get Dog #1 to see USAR training in the same light he sees bitework. If I could do that, I'd have a helluva dog on my hands. Unfortunately, the "fight" we reward him with in USAR doesn't trip his trigger anywhere near as much as bitework does. Perhaps if I had different resources I could accomplish that, but I have what I have and there isn't much gonna happen to change it. 

I have some vids of Dog #1 as a pup (7 mos. old) on the suit. It isn't the prettiest training/location/handling, etc. etc., but it certainly gives you an idea that this little guy means business. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaDy7r1LUY
Feel free to critique it - I know there are some things that suck about it - but that's besides the point. I was utilizing what was available to me at the time with no prior knowledge of bitework training. The purpose of the video is to show the dog - not the sucky training/handling :grin:


----------



## Bob Scott

Nice bite work! The pup is definately there for the duration.
Konnie, In reference to an earlier statement.
"So far no corrections although I think he's going to need them for protection work if he is trained that way. The fight is way more important to him then any ball/tug/food".

Why not use that fight as his reward for being correct? If he's not had corrections to this point for obedience, why not carry it further? 
We take these strong dogs with lots of fight, then what do we do to get them to comply? We correct them! In essence we start a fight with them. Even if the dog doesn't have a great desire to please the handler he still want's that bite really, really bad. He's not stupid. Make him earn it! 
The older I get the more I want to change how I train. I've seen hard ass dogs at club do a complete turn around from waiting for that "fight" with the handler to becomming real team work.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Bob Scott said:


> Why not use that fight as his reward for being correct? If he's not had corrections to this point for obedience, why not carry it further?
> We take these strong dogs with lots of fight, then what do we do to get them to comply? We correct them! In essence we start a fight with them. Even if the dog doesn't have a great desire to please the handler he still want's that bite really, really bad. He's not stupid. Make him earn it!
> The older I get the more I want to change how I train. I've seen hard ass dogs at club do a complete turn around from waiting for that "fight" with the handler to becomming real team work.


I agree with you, Bob. I think this dog would benefit greatly from that type of training. Know anybody at your club who wants the bad-ass little dog? Unfortunately, I don't have the time to do justice to this dog. I train dogs for search, and as much as I want to keep him and work him myself, I have to be realistic about how much energy/time I can devote to him. I'm going to be posting an ad on the forum for him, but I've been waiting on his paperwork from the breeder.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Tim Martens said:


> interesting that dog 2 is described as hight prey but clear headed. the fight drive people say those two things don't go together and that usually is the case. i have found the most clear headed dogs in bitework are not the prey monsters, but the dogs with more social aggression than prey aggression.


Both dogs are generally clear-headed, although bad training could make either of them hectic for sure. I think this is true of any high drive dog regardless? Dog #2's threshold for becoming hectic is much lower than Dog #1's but he is quite capable of working with a clear head through good training.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Thank you Konnie Hein. I have alkways called the #1 dogs the ultimate dogs. I called them that because they are as special as they are rare but I didn't know what else to call them. I have 7 males that fit that socially aggressive to a tee. They are the ultimate dog for sure. They can be high prey also but I have always told people these dogs hunt for the fight and to kill. I breed and want to see the natural strengths in the dog and not the training and these dogs are amazing. There are drawback to having this many at the top level. They cannot be yarded together. They all have their own space separated by a fence with double hot wires 2' from the fence on both sides of any adjoining fences to keep them backed of.
These dogs ignore all lesser dogs and would not ever think of hurting a dog that was not a threat to their status. My males, even dogs I have sold and leave as pups, will not tolerate each other. I have seen them at dog parks and beaches and the first order of business is to single out the top dog and proceed to silently stare them down. It gets dicey when the bull dogs are on the beach because they don't back down normally but the Rotties and other dogs all take water. With the bulldogs, you are going to have a fight because these dogs dog back up.
Training? I have trained them for basic obedience. Sit, stay, heel. They can do it all if they feel like it. Actually, they are very trainable but not with normal methods maybe. The first thing I learned is not to ever try and make them do something. If you discipline them hard, get all you personal possession put away because they will destroy something like a $200 dollar Resistal or Stetson and bring it to you and set it right in front of you and walk off. 
These are 80 and 90 lb Airedales and I realize that not all dogs can force their will on such a broad spectrum of breeds because of size, or power but many breeds are more limited in this respect and may not be able to pull the dominance thing off. Let's face it, the # 2 dogs pale in comparison. It is fascinating to just be able to watch this type of dog. I have always talked about confidence in dogs. That comes from watching these dogs that I decided it was the key factor. The females can all stay in the same yard normally. Totally different dogs.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Don Turnipseed said:


> Let's face it, the # 2 dogs pale in comparison.


I think that depends on the purpose of the dog. Dog #2 is a good SAR trainer's wet dream. He's exactly what I'm looking for in a dog. This type of dog almost trains itself for SAR work if you set the training up right. If I could afford to clone Dog #2 and get exactly the same dog, I would.

Dog #1 has a different purpose indeed! Kudos to his breeder (Bryan Colletti) for creating exactly the dog he set out to create (although in probably a smaller package than he was hoping for). Dog #1 was the runt of the litter and is still the smallest as far as I know.


----------



## Jill Rose

Konnie Hein said:


> I never pet this dog personally. Not my style anyways. And no, it's definitely something I wouldn't allow him to do to me, but I like to experiment so I let people be people to see what he does. People usually think he's being sweet and cuddly, but I know that he's demanding they pet him in a dominant way.
> 
> Seriously though, there's no risk of him ever biting anybody in public. He has never demonstrated even a hint of aggression towards other people (aside from a decoy). He is a very stable, clear-headed dog.


I know I am late on this thread, but wanted to comment on these quotes. It is great that you can trust your social aggressive dog, as I find it hard to trust these types, especially when they're exhibiting this dominant demanding behavior.

I have had both types, and I find that Dog #2 is the ideal for sport, whereas Dog #1 is a liability. That said, I also think that your social-aggressive dog may not be *as* socially-aggressive as others and that is why you can trust him.

Having owned both types, I have had several dogs that were social-aggressive that I would NOT trust around others. These dogs were always "looking for a green light to bite" and any act on the part of someone that "might" be construed as aggression towards the handler or dog could result in a bite. I could tell you some pretty weird stories about my experiences with these dogs.

That said, I will add this... While a social-aggressive dog is a major challenge (and can be a liability in certain situations), when training IS SUCCESSFUL, there is no greater joy. 

And heck, if I needed a serious patrol or PPD, I'd take #2 every time, though I'd be quick to add I have no experience in LE.


----------



## Jill Rose

Jill Rose said:


> And heck, if I needed a serious patrol or PPD, I'd take #2 every time, though I'd be quick to add I have no experience in LE.


Grrrrr, is there no edit function on these posts???? 

What I meant to say, what that if I needed a serious patrol or PPD, I would take #1, the social-aggressive dog, every time.


----------



## Michelle Reusser

Jill Rose said:


> I have had both types, and I find that Dog #2 is the ideal for sport, whereas Dog #1 is a liability. That said, I also think that your social-aggressive dog may not be *as* socially-aggressive as others and that is why you can trust him.
> 
> Having owned both types, I have had several dogs that were social-aggressive that I would NOT trust around others. These dogs were always "looking for a green light to bite" and any act on the part of someone that "might" be construed as aggression towards the handler or dog could result in a bite. I could tell you some pretty weird stories about my experiences with these dogs.
> 
> That said, I will add this... While a social-aggressive dog is a major challenge (and can be a liability in certain situations), when training IS SUCCESSFUL, there is no greater joy.
> 
> And heck, if I needed a serious patrol or PPD, I'd take #2 every time, though I'd be quick to add I have no experience in LE.


Funny I find the opposite true, my SA dog doesn't even look at other dogs when we are out and about but my prey dog is in a frenzy, not looking at me, choking herself out to get to the other dogs and totally blowing me off. Small dogs especially so and she looks at them like rats and I am affraid if they make a sudden move she would be on them like white on rice. SA dog looks at small dogs with a grin even when they bite him, he is not threatened by them and kinda amussed it seems. We have had a few outings walking the neighborhood, when small dogs are loose and stupid enough to run up to my dogs. Seeing as my SA dog has a head like a rottweiler on steroids and could gobble such dogs up like a cupcake, I'm glad he is in control and not yanking me down the street after them. Prey dogs can easily get so wrapped up in movement they aren't looking at the full picture before they bite, therefor being less reliable/stable/trustworthy in my opinion. I know these dogs seem easier to train and look great on the field, fast and crazy but I hate living with them personally. I have kids, a cat and other dogs, take my dogs everywhere with me and don't like dealing with the frenzies they so often get into, when you are out and about, off the field and not in control of your surroundings. Dog # 1 doesn't have issues with any of these things and can be trusted anywhere with anything going on around him. Though dog #1 is not very social with me he does love children and will meet and greet people out in public.

"If you discipline them hard, get all you personal possession put away because they will destroy something like a $200 dollar Resistal or Stetson and bring it to you and set it right in front of you and walk off." Don Turpinseed

I couldn't agree more and think this is why my dogs father was so hard to title, because of the way they trained him old school and hard in Belgium. My dog as a pup would shit in his crate daily while I cleaned his kennel or rotated others dogs out for free time in the yard. Thankfully that stopped but I knew he did it purposly (the littel shit).


----------



## Konnie Hein

Jill Rose said:


> I have had both types, and I find that Dog #2 is the ideal for sport, whereas Dog #1 is a liability. That said, I also think that your social-aggressive dog may not be *as* socially-aggressive as others and that is why you can trust him.
> 
> Having owned both types, I have had several dogs that were social-aggressive that I would NOT trust around others. These dogs were always "looking for a green light to bite" and any act on the part of someone that "might" be construed as aggression towards the handler or dog could result in a bite. I could tell you some pretty weird stories about my experiences with these dogs.


Maybe he's not as socially aggressive as others. I certainly have never owned a SA dog before, so I have no idea how he compares. I have a SAR teammate with a GSD (who was started in patrol) who is very similar, only with more prey/hunt drive. He is absolutely trustworthy in public as well. 

Also, he is _very_ green in bitework. He has never been worked on scenarios, exercises etc. so he has no idea the "game" exists with anybody else but decoys or anywhere else but at the training field/building. I haven't opened the "Pandora's box" yet, so to speak because I had no reason to.

He doesn't seem to give a rip about protecting me (and he's not even a barker). He's all about himself right now.

I often wonder too how many people think they have an SA dog when actually they have a dog who bites out of self-preservation/defense. Seems like those dogs would go off more quickly because they lack confidence.


----------



## Jill Rose

Michelle Kehoe said:


> Funny I find the opposite true, my SA dog doesn't even look at other dogs when we are out and about but my prey dog is in a frenzy, not looking at me, choking herself out to get to the other dogs and totally blowing me off.


The two dogs that came to mind as I was writing that post, were Eros v St. Afra and Urban Eulenspiegel, both Rottweilers. And actually, my current personal companion, Ratzfatz v d Bleichstrasse. 

In the old days, (back in my day), we would call these dogs "sharp". All three of these males basically ignored other dogs. All three of them were pretty much self-serving in that when playing with a tug or ball, they played for their own amusement. 

Eros was extremely SA, to the point that I was always extremely cautious when I had him out. If anyone thought they could walk up casually and pat me on the back, wrong, the dog would have nailed them. Thats what I meant about "looking" for a green light to bite. 

All three males loved bitework, but slip the sleeve on the ground and their eyes never left the decoy. And when it came to OB, oh joy! Not! These dogs "allowed" you to correct them when they knew they had it coming. But there is no way they would have ever allowed anyone to abusively correct them. OB was a head-ache in that as soon as your toy was out of sight, well, it was hard work sustaining any focus. Something else they had in common is that they were all food motivated. Again, another self-serving trait. But hey, they never lacked in tracking... 

My current dog, Ratz, listens only to those in my family who aren't afraid of him. He's one of those dogs that if he doesn't want out of the truck, don't even think about pushing him. Unless of course, you're me, then he listens fine. He has verbally grumbled/growled (but never snapped) at just about everyone in the family, (when he has to do something he doesn't want to do), but readily listens to myself, Caitlin and Emily, as we are the only ones not afraid to get in his face. 

Credit to Emily for even getting a CGC on him, especially since he "talked" throughout his hands-on exam. Happily the Evaluator was a former sport person (had one of Ivan's Mals), who gave Emily a break and allowed Emily to pick up his feet for her.

While Ratz tends to pretty much ignore other dogs and strangers (as did Urban), Eros wanted to focus on them, always looking for an excuse for a bite. All three had no idea what fear meant...

Ah, I'm rambling again... sorry for my trip down memory lane...


----------



## Jill Rose

Konnie Hein said:


> I often wonder too how many people think they have an SA dog when actually they have a dog who bites out of self-preservation/defense. Seems like those dogs would go off more quickly because they lack confidence.


So very true. Always a sad sight to see folks misread their dogs.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Jill Rose said:


> In the old days, (back in my day), we would call these dogs "sharp".


 
I always considered a sharp dog to be more of a reactive type and not necessarily "clear-headed." That's why I consider Dog #1 to be very clear-headed. I don't consider him sharp or reactive at all.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Jill Rose said:


> So very true. Always a sad sight to see folks misread their dogs.


I guess I was sad too then! LOL. I thought Dog #1 just didn't have a lot of drive. However, I was looking at him through my "SAR glasses" and was concerned about lack of prey drive. He always seemed bored at SAR training. I couldn't believe how crazy he was over bitework in comparison. The more fight, the better for him. 

Lucky for me I train with some purty smart folks who let me know exactly what was going on in his little head.


----------



## Jill Rose

Konnie Hein said:


> I always considered a sharp dog to be more of a reactive type and not necessarily "clear-headed." That's why I consider Dog #1 to be very clear-headed. I don't consider him sharp or reactive at all.


I had a feeling that this point might come up when I used the term "sharp".  It used to be that we used this term to describe what today we would call a SA dog... then at some point, it seemed like there were negative cannotations with the term, as a lot folks felt that "hard" dogs were ideal, while "sharp" dogs were a liability. (Granted, they were always a challenge.) Then it seems that "sharp" became a term that some used to describe exactly what you mentioned earlier, perhaps a dog that was overcompensating for insecurities or any other of a multitude of possibilities. Here 25 years later, folks seem to be using the term "civil" to describe what we used to call "sharp". 

This forum would make for a great place to start a thread on current terms. It would be interesting to hear how folks would define social aggression, civil, sharp, hard, clear-minded, etc...

The terms keep changing with time, sometimes even just between clubs, let alone factoring in the difference in decades...

Oh God I'm feeling old.... :???:


----------



## Geoff Empey

Jill Rose said:


> So very true. Always a sad sight to see folks misread their dogs.



Or in my case not enough experience to read my own dog .. Though I've come a long way in the past 1-1/2 years. 

I'm sure there is lot's of gifted animals out there that get bypassed because they are not put in front of the right people from the get go. 

Thankfully I have a supportive breeder and a great training director, that listen watch and help me grow my dog.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jill Rose said:


> the term "sharp"...... It used to be that we used this term to describe what today we would call a SA dog... folks seem to be using the term "civil" to describe what we used to call "sharp".


Are you saying that "sharp" and "civil" used to be synonymous?


----------



## Konnie Hein

Uh oh! Now my thread is going to turn into a debate on terms! Yikes!!!


----------



## Jill Rose

Connie Sutherland said:


> Are you saying that "sharp" and "civil" used to be synonymous?


I am saying that back in the early 80's, (and you can probably find this if you have any of those old Dog Sports Magazines laying around or folks who were working back then), that the term "civil" wasn't even around, and that yes, *generally speaking*, a lot of the dogs that were considered "sharp" back then, would be considered "civil" today.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Konnie Hein said:


> Uh oh! Now my thread is going to turn into a debate on terms! Yikes!!!


Uh-oh. You're right.

"Terms" debate has to open its own thread.


----------



## Jill Rose

Konnie Hein said:


> Uh oh! Now my thread is going to turn into a debate on terms! Yikes!!!


Sorry Konnie, I've yacked way too much anyway... especially for one not being currently active in the sport, but just a Mom with a history... 

I'll leave the terminology to my daughters...


----------



## Konnie Hein

Jill Rose said:


> Sorry Konnie, I've yacked way too much anyway... especially for one not being currently active in the sport, but just a Mom with a history...
> 
> I'll leave the terminology to my daughters...


"Yacking" is perfectly acceptable here! I appreciate your input!


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Konnie, I should have said #2 dog pale by comparison for what I like and want them to do. I should point out that my dogs are not people aggressive, but, are highly suspicious of some people. When they have gone after people, they break it off and guard them once they know they are in control. That is just the way they are naturally. The joy of these dogs is the confidence., One of the other posters was on the mark. You can take these dogs anywhere, anytime. My dogs are seldom around peoplke and strange dogs, yet, they are totally comfortable walking into the nationals with lots of strange dogs and people. Unlike many dogs I have seen, the basic character of these dogs, even if they are on the edge, is total predictability. 
It is fascinating to watch the young male pups which are yarded with the mom and dad. They are full of themselves and there comes a time that dad has lost all tolerance and sounds as though he is about to kill them(I know he isn't because when they are serious about to inflict mayem they are silent. It just happens in the blink of an eye) . He grabs the young dog and throws hims down. Now, the pup may yelp once, maybe twice and the dog lets him go. At 4 or 5 months that pup will just stand back up, shake the dirt off, and sit down and stare at the father. They never run or avoid the older dog. They are like a block of ice. The calmly sit down and stare at the aggressor. I can see the wheels turning in that puos head and know to keep a vigilant eye on them because when that staring starts, they are just awaiting the day to even the score.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

LOL. I was just reading that what these SA dogs would have been called is sharp. Actually, there is nothing sharp about the ones I have been around. They are very "clear headed" and if you get bit, you can bet it was no accidental loss of control. They fully intended to bite you. These dogs don't lose control, they are control.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Don:
My dog #1 is not suspicious at all. Although incidentally, he hated the dishwasher repairman who visited us three times (stupid dishwasher!). Dog #1 growled at him each time. No barking, just low growling from his crate. I later found out this guy was a wife-beater and ended up in jail, according to the local newspaper. The guy was nice enough and didn't give me any creepy feelings though. Not sure if it was a coincidence or ? since he's never growled at anybody before or after. He was around a year old at the time.


----------



## Tim Martens

some terminology the way i use it:

sharp: deals with thresholds and the level of stimulus required to elicit and aggressive response. a dog that doesn't require much stimulus is sharp. the dog that requires a lot of stimulus is dull.

civil: will display aggression toward a person who is not wearing equipment or bite a man with no equipment (second part added for clarification because a lot of sport people will say their dogs are civil and they have never actually bitten a person).

social aggression or dominance (used interchangeably): a dog who shows aggression for the sole purpose of proving that he/she is the shit or to show their dominance not necessarily in the pack, but in the world. a truly dominant or socially aggressive dog has the attitude that it is his world and we are just minor tidbits in it.

again, not saying these definitions are "right" just how i use them.

incidentally, i believe kim is right when she talks about a socially aggressive (dominant) dog being trustworthy in public. if your dog has a high level of social aggression, the dog wouldn't be very trustworthy in public. i also wouldn't read too much into "demanding affection". that isn't a sign of social aggression. there aren't very many dogs that are very high in social aggression. i find it hard to believe that one person owns 7 of them...


----------



## Mike charatin

Don Turnipseed said:


> Thank you Konnie Hein. I have alkways called the #1 dogs the ultimate dogs. I called them that because they are as special as they are rare but I didn't know what else to call them. I have 7 males that fit that socially aggressive to a tee. They are the ultimate dog for sure. They can be high prey also but I have always told people these dogs hunt for the fight and to kill. I breed and want to see the natural strengths in the dog and not the training and these dogs are amazing. There are drawback to having this many at the top level. They cannot be yarded together. They all have their own space separated by a fence with double hot wires 2' from the fence on both sides of any adjoining fences to keep them backed of.
> These dogs ignore all lesser dogs and would not ever think of hurting a dog that was not a threat to their status. My males, even dogs I have sold and leave as pups, will not tolerate each other. I have seen them at dog parks and beaches and the first order of business is to single out the top dog and proceed to silently stare them down. It gets dicey when the bull dogs are on the beach because they don't back down normally but the Rotties and other dogs all take water. With the bulldogs, you are going to have a fight because these dogs dog back up.
> Training? I have trained them for basic obedience. Sit, stay, heel. They can do it all if they feel like it. Actually, they are very trainable but not with normal methods maybe. The first thing I learned is not to ever try and make them do something. If you discipline them hard, get all you personal possession put away because they will destroy something like a $200 dollar Resistal or Stetson and bring it to you and set it right in front of you and walk off.
> These are 80 and 90 lb Airedales and I realize that not all dogs can force their will on such a broad spectrum of breeds because of size, or power but many breeds are more limited in this respect and may not be able to pull the dominance thing off. Let's face it, the # 2 dogs pale in comparison. It is fascinating to just be able to watch this type of dog. I have always talked about confidence in dogs. That comes from watching these dogs that I decided it was the key factor. The females can all stay in the same yard normally. Totally different dogs.


I have owned German shepherds, rottweilers and pitbulls most of the time the rottweilers and shepherds were more up for the fight than the pits. I find it hard to believe that an airedale would back these dogs down.Do you have a web site I would love to learn more about these dogs.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jill Rose said:


> Grrrrr, is there no edit function on these posts????


Click on "edit" on the bottom of your post. Make your changes and hit "save."


----------



## Konnie Hein

Tim - based on my description and video, what is your assessment of my dog #1? He has so far been completely trustworthy in public, but I've attributed that to his clear-headedness. Perhaps his bitework is driven by social aggression, but he's not off the charts in that regard?

I mentioned the "demanding attention" thing because of the way he does it. Definitely dominant dog behavior vs. the attention-seeking behavior of say my Lab, who is practically falling over himself and on the floor to get attention. Both demanding attention, but in different ways.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Mike, my website is
http://www.huntingairedales.com

I forgot to mention another facet of these males, they will hike their leg on anyone, but, at least they sneak up behind me to do it. They do it to dogs that come roaring up sounding like they are going to tear them apart. When the other dog comes to his senses, they always stop about 15' from the Airedale, and start sniffing the ground. I think they realize that my dog is looking foreward to kickin some but. The dale as often as not, will walk over and hike his leg on them.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Tim, as far as trustworthy, here is a link to two that are Cali. State cert. Therapy dogs. They spend 3 days a week in schools with disadvantaged kid. One is a male the other is a female out of different parentage but I can't tell which is which. Not only are they trustworthy but they are trainable as well.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v401/hicntry/High Country Airedales/DinoandJinjar.jpg


----------



## Tim Martens

Konnie Hein said:


> Tim - based on my description and video, what is your assessment of my dog #1? He has so far been completely trustworthy in public, but I've attributed that to his clear-headedness. Perhaps his bitework is driven by social aggression, but he's not off the charts in that regard?
> 
> I mentioned the "demanding attention" thing because of the way he does it. Definitely dominant dog behavior vs. the attention-seeking behavior of say my Lab, who is practically falling over himself and on the floor to get attention. Both demanding attention, but in different ways.


i only saw just the quick video. i can't really say konnie. i'm just going off of dogs that i've personally seen that have a high degree of social aggression or dominance. none of them have been affectionate. they will tolerate it, but if i owned one of these, i would not want people petting him because if they are dog n00bs and did something to trigger the dog's dominance (came over it, tried to make it roll over, too much eye contact, etc), the dog might light them up. 

without reading the original post and descriptions again, it almost sounds like dog #1 is just a confident, stable, medium drive dog...


----------



## Bob Scott

Don Turnipseed said:


> Konnie, I should have said #2 dog pale by comparison for what I like and want them to do. I should point out that my dogs are not people aggressive, but, are highly suspicious of some people. When they have gone after people, they break it off and guard them once they know they are in control. That is just the way they are naturally. The joy of these dogs is the confidence., One of the other posters was on the mark. You can take these dogs anywhere, anytime. My dogs are seldom around peoplke and strange dogs, yet, they are totally comfortable walking into the nationals with lots of strange dogs and people. Unlike many dogs I have seen, the basic character of these dogs, even if they are on the edge, is total predictability.
> It is fascinating to watch the young male pups which are yarded with the mom and dad. They are full of themselves and there comes a time that dad has lost all tolerance and sounds as though he is about to kill them(I know he isn't because when they are serious about to inflict mayem they are silent. It just happens in the blink of an eye) . He grabs the young dog and throws hims down. Now, the pup may yelp once, maybe twice and the dog lets him go. At 4 or 5 months that pup will just stand back up, shake the dirt off, and sit down and stare at the father. They never run or avoid the older dog. They are like a block of ice. The calmly sit down and stare at the aggressor. I can see the wheels turning in that puos head and know to keep a vigilant eye on them because when that staring starts, they are just awaiting the day to even the score.


Don, you just described the perfect terrier! 
I said it in another post and I'll say it again. A good Airedale is an awesome dog. Wish there were more "real ones" in sport and the real world. 
What we see in the Airedales in competition now are nowhere near the level of what they should be. 
I'll also repete that training a terrier is a whole nuther ball game. If they think their having a good time, the world is yours. If they don't, you'll think your trying to train a mule that doesn't want to work and has no problem telling you so! :wink:


----------



## Mike charatin

Tim Martens said:


> some terminology the way i use it:
> 
> sharp: deals with thresholds and the level of stimulus required to elicit and aggressive response. a dog that doesn't require much stimulus is sharp. the dog that requires a lot of stimulus is dull.
> 
> civil: will display aggression toward a person who is not wearing equipment or bite a man with no equipment (second part added for clarification because a lot of sport people will say their dogs are civil and they have never actually bitten a person).
> 
> social aggression or dominance (used interchangeably): a dog who shows aggression for the sole purpose of proving that he/she is the shit or to show their dominance not necessarily in the pack, but in the world. a truly dominant or socially aggressive dog has the attitude that it is his world and we are just minor tidbits in it.
> 
> again, not saying these definitions are "right" just how i use them.
> 
> incidentally, i believe kim is right when she talks about a socially aggressive (dominant) dog being trustworthy in public. if your dog has a high level of social aggression, the dog wouldn't be very trustworthy in public. i also wouldn't read too much into "demanding affection". that isn't a sign of social aggression. there aren't very many dogs that are very high in social aggression. i find it hard to believe that one person owns 7 of them...


The sharp dog would be less trustworthy than the socially aggresive dog. They both need a resposible owner that can say things like no you can't pet my dog . The owner also needs to be aware that the socially aggresive dog will be a problem when his leadership role is threatened or in question. For example tall imposing gentleman standing over dog or any other situation were the dog feels his dominance is being threatened will be a problem were the sharp dog may just bite someone becouse he could not handle the fact that the person walked up to you in the first place.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Tim Martens said:


> without reading the original post and descriptions again, it almost sounds like dog #1 is just a confident, stable, medium drive dog...


Which is exactly what I would have thought had I never seen him do bitework.

His sire (who I also posted video of in this thread) is the same way. Totally trustworthy in public, unless you're a decoy or he's at the training field. He can be a very difficult dog to control in those situations.


----------



## Mike charatin

Don Turnipseed said:


> Mike, my website is
> http://www.huntingairedales.com
> 
> I forgot to mention another facet of these males, they will hike their leg on anyone, but, at least they sneak up behind me to do it. They do it to dogs that come roaring up sounding like they are going to tear them apart. When the other dog comes to his senses, they always stop about 15' from the Airedale, and start sniffing the ground. I think they realize that my dog is looking foreward to kickin some but. The dale as often as not, will walk over and hike his leg on them.


Sounds like some really confident dogs. I will now check the web site out. Thanks.


----------



## Tim Martens

Mike charatin said:


> The sharp dog would be less trustworthy than the socially aggresive dog. They both need a resposible owner that can say things like no you can't pet my dog . The owner also needs to be aware that the socially aggresive dog will be a problem when his leadership role is threatened or in question. For example tall imposing gentleman standing over dog or any other situation were the dog feels his dominance is being threatened will be a problem were the sharp dog may just bite someone becouse he could not handle the fact that the person walked up to you in the first place.


we are in agreement. 

the socially aggressive or dominant dog doesn't always look to prove it, but is more than eager if there is an adversary. they naturally have at least a moderately high degree of suspicion. that is where training comes in. you train the dog how to react to the suspicion. the dogs reaction should be nothing. he can stare, watch, follow the person's movement, but nothing more unless they receive a command from the handler. if the training is lacking here, you can see where the dog could be a problem out in the "public" or in a PSD environment would be biting more cops than badguys. (sidenote: i cannot picture this dog being trained purely by motivational methods. i picture dick holding a tug or ball trying to control wibo and it just cracks me up. the one dog i have seen in the US that was off the charts in social aggression cared nothing for balls and tugs.)

then you have the overly, irrationally sharp dog who really is just a POS fraidy cat that should just be put down. to me that dog is outside the realm of the sharpness continuum and it just becomes a genetically flawed dog.

i love talking terminology. all gray. no black and white. no winners, no losers. just opinions and experiences. spurs a lot of good debate...


----------



## Konnie Hein

Tim Martens said:


> the socially aggressive or dominant dog doesn't always look to prove it, but is more than eager if there is an adversary. they naturally have at least a moderately high degree of suspicion.


2 things - what if the dog just doesn't know there is an option of an adversary in certain situations (like out in public)? Wouldn't it be non-reactive in those situations?
And, doesn't suspicion come from fear? If I have nothing to fear, then why would I be suspicious?



> i love talking terminology. all gray. no black and white. no winners, no losers. just opinions and experiences. spurs a lot of good debate...


Me too!


----------



## Bob Scott

Tim Martens said:


> we are in agreement.
> 
> the socially aggressive or dominant dog doesn't always look to prove it, but is more than eager if there is an adversary. they naturally have at least a moderately high degree of suspicion. that is where training comes in. you train the dog how to react to the suspicion. the dogs reaction should be nothing. he can stare, watch, follow the person's movement, but nothing more unless they receive a command from the handler. if the training is lacking here, you can see where the dog could be a problem out in the "public" or in a PSD environment would be biting more cops than badguys. (sidenote: i cannot picture this dog being trained purely by motivational methods. i picture dick holding a tug or ball trying to control wibo and it just cracks me up. the one dog i have seen in the US that was off the charts in social aggression cared nothing for balls and tugs.)
> 
> then you have the overly, irrationally sharp dog who really is just a POS fraidy cat that should just be put down. to me that dog is outside the realm of the sharpness continuum and it just becomes a genetically flawed dog.
> 
> i love talking terminology. all gray. no black and white. no winners, no losers. just opinions and experiences. spurs a lot of good debate...


Tim, I agree about traing a dog of this type with a ball or tug. It wont do for bite work. If the tug or ball is more important to the dog then a bite, then it's the wrong dog. I would love to see someone who really believes in motivational training work a dog like this with the bite as a reward but it NEEDS to be started with a pup that hasn't been handled with an iron fist. 
One of the top dog trainer's schools in the country is here in this area. They don't believe in motivational training other then to give it a passing "chapter" during their training. They don't believe it works so it wont!
The dominance issues never come up because the dog isn't "forced" into a fight over control issues. If the dog wants the bite that bad, why not let it work for it instead of fighting to control it between bites! I think that we've all pretty much agreed that a truely dominant dog doesn't need to be in the fight. It controls things with it's body posture and it's brain. 
Dominance is a leadership issue, not a power issue. JMHO! :wink:


----------



## Mike charatin

Mike charatin said:


> Sounds like some really confident dogs. I will now check the web site out. Thanks.


Very nice web site. Looks like you are partial to the pigs though. The dogs look great and I have no doubt believing that they would stand there ground against any on comers. Still I would rather have a good german shepherd,Rottweiler or pitbull but thanks.


----------



## Mike charatin

Konnie Hein said:


> 2 things - what if the dog just doesn't know there is an option of an adversary in certain situations (like out in public)? Wouldn't it be non-reactive in those situations?
> And, doesn't suspicion come from fear? If I have nothing to fear, then why would I be suspicious?
> It would be non-reactive untill you cross paths with someone.Suspicion doesn't always come from fear. Curiosity is what killed the cat ever hear that one.
> 
> 
> Me too!


I agree.


----------



## Tim Martens

Konnie Hein said:


> 2 things - what if the dog just doesn't know there is an option of an adversary in certain situations (like out in public)? Wouldn't it be non-reactive in those situations?
> And, doesn't suspicion come from fear? If I have nothing to fear, then why would I be suspicious?
> 
> 
> 
> Me too!


suspicion probably wasn't the right word. again, i don't have a lot of experience with these dogs. i have only seen 3 in my life that i would say fit this bill. let's not call it suspicion, but maybe just a willingness to engage anyone at any time. the dog watches you and follows your movements. i'm not talking about a dog on a bite field where he's done bitework 456237134652 times. when i saw dick and selena's wibo, the way the dog looked at and watched me was eerie. it was a look of "who the hell are you? why are you here? do you want a piece of me because if you do i'll give you all you want." it almost cannot be put into words. i knew that it would only have taken a single command from dick and much blood would be shed. the majority of dogs require equipment and some really unrealistic spastic prey movements to elicit that type of response and even then it's frantic barking and a lot of wasted energy. these dogs just lock up and stare a hole through you. again, very eerie. another dog here in the states that i saw a couple times had this quality as well, but not quite to the degree of wibo. so i will call that suspicion, but it most certainly does not come from fear, but more of, "I'm Fido. I'm the top dog around here. Who are you?"


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Bob Scott said:


> Don, you just described the perfect terrier!
> I said it in another post and I'll say it again. A good Airedale is an awesome dog. Wish there were more "real ones" in sport and the real world.
> What we see in the Airedales in competition now are nowhere near the level of what they should be.
> I'll also repete that training a terrier is a whole nuther ball game. If they think their having a good time, the world is yours. If they don't, you'll think your trying to train a mule that doesn't want to work and has no problem telling you so! :wink:


Bob, I beleive the simplest way to train some of these dogs is to not train them. Wait until they are unknowingly doing just what you want them to do and tell them "NO!". They will keep doing it just to spite you.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Tim Martens said:


> suspicion probably wasn't the right word. again, i don't have a lot of experience with these dogs. i have only seen 3 in my life that i would say fit this bill. let's not call it suspicion, but maybe just a willingness to engage anyone at any time. the dog watches you and follows your movements. i'm not talking about a dog on a bite field where he's done bitework 456237134652 times. when i saw dick and selena's wibo, the way the dog looked at and watched me was eerie. it was a look of "who the hell are you? why are you here? do you want a piece of me because if you do i'll give you all you want." it almost cannot be put into words. i knew that it would only have taken a single command from dick and much blood would be shed. the majority of dogs require equipment and some really unrealistic spastic prey movements to elicit that type of response and even then it's frantic barking and a lot of wasted energy. these dogs just lock up and stare a hole through you. again, very eerie. another dog here in the states that i saw a couple times had this quality as well, but not quite to the degree of wibo. so i will call that suspicion, but it most certainly does not come from fear, but more of, "I'm Fido. I'm the top dog around here. Who are you?"


I think that type of dog is what would be referred to as an off-the-charts SA dog for sure.


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen

Tim Martens said:


> suspicion probably wasn't the right word. again, i don't have a lot of experience with these dogs. i have only seen 3 in my life that i would say fit this bill. let's not call it suspicion, but maybe just a willingness to engage anyone at any time. the dog watches you and follows your movements. i'm not talking about a dog on a bite field where he's done bitework 456237134652 times. when i saw dick and selena's wibo, the way the dog looked at and watched me was eerie. it was a look of "who the hell are you? why are you here? do you want a piece of me because if you do i'll give you all you want." it almost cannot be put into words. i knew that it would only have taken a single command from dick and much blood would be shed. the majority of dogs require equipment and some really unrealistic spastic prey movements to elicit that type of response and even then it's frantic barking and a lot of wasted energy. these dogs just lock up and stare a hole through you. again, very eerie. another dog here in the states that i saw a couple times had this quality as well, but not quite to the degree of wibo. so i will call that suspicion, but it most certainly does not come from fear, but more of, "I'm Fido. I'm the top dog around here. Who are you?"


I understand very well the way you discribe what you saw, but then again, I know the dog....... For people who don't know this type of dog or never saw one, it is still difficult to understand this dog (and the good way you discribe it), who lookes into your soul and will try to find the one reason to confirm his dominance. One touch of eyecontact is enough to "explode" then.....

You know, Tim, you looked into his eyes...... As everyone who did, will understand you....(including Selena....)

Dick


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

I have given up trying to explain it. I can't stand terminology. While Tim may enjoy the debates, I give myself a headache trying to put my thoughts into words. "I know what I can see"  I do however agree with Tim's definitions. Somebody asked me my definition of "Sharp," and I honestly couldn't phrase it in a concise way that wouldn't leave gaping exceptions.

However, what amuses me more than anything, is the people that have no basis for comparison wrongly label their dog because "it sounds good" to say that you have a dominant dog or socially aggressive dog.

There seems to be a trend where people are very quick to slap a cool sounding label on a dog while having no basis for comparison. One day they may (or may not) come across such a dog that truly fits under that label, and they will say to themselves "oh, well, maybe my dog was just over-sharp and defensive afterall. no matter, nobody else will know the difference so I'll just keep saying he is super duper dominant."


----------



## Don Turnipseed

I think much of the mislabeling simply comes from not really inderstanding that most biting is a fear response. People really think their dog is bad ass. Posturing is seen as a bad ass dog by most people. They simply cannot see it as a sign of a weaker dog. I have used the term "ultimate " dog on this board before because I really had no clue as to what else to call it and "ultimate" seemed to cover it. When I read the definition Konnie posted I just seemed to scream out, "That's it!". I found the SA dogs to be impressive enough that it is those dogs I use for studs. I see no point in using less because it is just to easy to get less anyway. Yes, it caused some problems early on but, it just took the realization that they can't be around each other to solve most of them. This is why I realized that they looked down on all other dogs. I think Tims definitions for the most part are right on and well stated. I used the term suspicious earlier in this thread and did not mean to imply it is part of a SA dogs character. Airedales are known to be distrustful of strangers. It is a breed characteristic in this case....but may well be both.


----------



## Carol Boche

Mike charatin said:


> I find it hard to believe that an airedale would back these dogs down.Do you have a web site I would love to learn more about these dogs.


Aierdales are used here as "kill" dogs in coyote hunting. SCRAPPY dogs they are. I personally do not use them as I like to call my coyotes in with a call, but there are three hunters here that use them. 

They run 4 to 6 greyhounds as chase dogs and the airedale goes in once the coyote is run down.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> However, what amuses me more than anything, is the people that have no basis for comparison wrongly label their dog because "it sounds good" to say that you have a dominant dog or socially aggressive dog.


Which is why I had to rely on other people to tell me what was motivating dog #1. I really had no clue. For sure he's nowhere near the level of SA as a dog like Wibo. I'm glad for that because he'd have probably really chewed me up and spit me out by now. 

I'm not into the whole macho dog ego thing. I just want a dog that works! 

I would much rather prefer he was more like dog #2. The dog #1's of the world are for a different purpose.


----------



## Tim Martens

Konnie Hein said:


> Which is why I had to rely on other people to tell me what was motivating dog #1. I really had no clue. For sure he's nowhere near the level of SA as a dog like Wibo. I'm glad for that because he'd have probably really chewed me up and spit me out by now.
> 
> I'm not into the whole macho dog ego thing. I just want a dog that works!
> 
> I would much rather prefer he was more like dog #2. The dog #1's of the world are for a different purpose.


i don't think mike was referring to you konnie. i think he was speaking in more general terms.

for me...i think you've started a great thread (obviously, based on the number of replies).


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

> i don't think mike was referring to you konnie. i think he was speaking in more general terms.


Correct.


----------



## Jill Rose

Selena van Leeuwen said:


> I understand very well the way you discribe what you saw, but then again, I know the dog....... For people who don't know this type of dog or never saw one, it is still difficult to understand this dog (and the good way you discribe it), who lookes into your soul and will try to find the one reason to confirm his dominance. One touch of eyecontact is enough to "explode" then.....




The dog I mentioned earlier, Eros von St. Afra, came to me while I was still living in Hawaii. Consequently he had to come to me through quarantine. I remember my first day walking into his kennel to say hello. He greeted me with a calm aloofness, just checking out why I was there. I called him to me and he was social enough to let me pat him and tell him good dog. I had brought some treats with me and gave him a couple. When I was done giving him treats, (I was saving some for later before I left), he KNEW that I still had more. The dog backed me up against the fence, jumped up on my chest with his face in front of my face, made eye contact with me and gave me a look that said: "Give me the F#$%# cookie". Now this was back in the mid-80's and I had already had Rotts for 20 years by that time, including another one like this, Urban Eulenspiegel. Anyway, I KNEW that HE KNEW that I KNEW exactly what he was telling me. I had absolutely no doubt that if I had not given him the cookie, that I would have had to deal with something very unpleasant. I gave him the damn cookie and was so pissed that I left and the dog didn't eat dinner that night. Eventually we bonded and the dog would climb in my lap and lick my chin, though it always made me uneasy when he did that as I never really KNEW that he wouldn't nail me in the throat. When we started SchH training (the dog had a II), he "allowed" me to correct him, but always gave me that look that said "dont push it". And he "loved" me as much as he was capable of loving anyone. He never did bite or snap at me, was extremely protective/possessive of me, and he did bite several others for various reasons, all that HE DEEMED to be a "green light" to bite. In some ways, he was a great dog, in other ways, a constant liability waiting to happen and a lot of work.


----------



## Konnie Hein

Awwww...I don't care what anybody says about you two guys - you're all right in my book 

I am really enjoying this thread!


----------



## Mike charatin

Konnie Hein said:


> Awwww...I don't care what anybody says about you two guys - you're all right in my book
> 
> I am really enjoying this thread!


Me too.There are some really good points that have been made here.


----------



## Don Turnipseed

This is a great thread. I did a lot of thinking about this at work today. Although the dogs you folks are dealing with and the dogs I am dealing with, while both are SA, mine limit it to the dog world, yours don't. I say they are trustworthy in public, but, my dogs like people. What makes them easy to handle is that other dogs won't challenge them. The dogs you are dealing with, react totally different to a people environment with people trying to impose their will. My dogs will simply walk of and ignore you if they don't feel what your doing is up to their level. Your dogs take it personally. While both may be a PITA to work with at times, mine have a different perspective of people and they know they are not fair game.


----------



## Howard Knauf

Howard Knauf said:


> Call me crazy but...I like the sound of dog #1.


Well, no one has called me crazy yet which surprised me at first. I did learn that there are others here demented as I:twisted:. Very good thread indeed.

Howard


----------



## Bob Scott

Excellent thread, but it keeps making me wish I knew Don before I got my last GSD. Love em to pieces but the thought of working with a "real" Airedale will always be in the back of my mind. 
I now live with three dogs in a town that has a two dog limit. :evil: 
I totally get, and agree with Don's descriptions of his terriers. That whole attitude is what makes even the little ones think the world belongs to them.


----------

