# Sharpness



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Another term definition by Armin Winkler...

Opinons?

*Sharpness*
_Sharpness is probably the most incorrectly used term in English dog terminology. I may be wrong here, but I thought the word sharpness was a translation of the German term "Schärfe." But the use of the term sharpness is very much a contradiction of the German term. In every conversation I have, people use sharpness synonymous with spooky or jumpy or nervy. But the word "Schärfe" in German texts is actually defined as being synonymous with aggression. So there certainly is a great discrepancy between the uses of the word.

The type of aggression that is talked about when the term sharpness is used seems to vary depending on the designed use of the dog. For example, in big game hunting dogs and terriers it refers particularly to the intensity and attitude with which these hunting dogs kill their respective prey. It is not prey drive as such; it is the actual killing response that is assessed. I have heard the term "gameness" used in the US in a similar context. For the large game hunting dogs the word used is "Wildschärfe," which translates as game sharpness. This assessment is made best when observing how the dog deals with wild boars. Because of the "bringing down" requirement in this type of hunting many of the dogs of these breeds use physical dominance techniques.

For terriers the term is "Raubzeugschärfe," which translates as small predator sharpness. Terriers are used to hunt and kill small predators such as martens, foxes, badgers, etc. It is no easy feat to kill these predators without suffering injury. So a particularly fast and furious shaking technique is very common, as is a chomping bite behavior. These types of sharpness categorize the dog's prey drive.

Now to the term that we should be most interested in for our service dogs. The term used here is "Mannschärfe," which translates into man sharpness. The definition of this quality states the following. The quality in the dog that leads him to actively confront any apparent, feigned, or actual threat from a person in a hostile manner. If I were to use terminology I have already discussed in this article I would say that sharpness could be equated to showing an active defense reaction to a real or perceived threat.

I did a fair bit of research and could not find anything written that stated that this quality has to come together with a low stimulation threshold for threat. So in fact how easily a dog is triggered does not seem to be a factor by definition. But to be fair, when I was growing up, the dogs we called sharp were the ones that would become very aggressive without much provocation. One thing that I never thought of when I used the term sharp was spooking away. In the old East German Koerung system, sharpness was rated from 0-5 with 5 being the most desirable. So when did sharpness become a bad thing? I don't know. I don't think it is a bad thing._


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Thanks Joby, for posting another interesting and thought provoking article!


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> Another term definition by Armin Winkler...
> 
> Opinons?
> 
> ...


There is a lot of stuff going on here. Armin goes through this whole thing trying to define what sharpness is then negates it with this, "_when I was growing up, the dogs we called sharp were the ones that would become very aggressive without much provocation"_ . I think Armin is redefining the term to suit himself.

The guys where he grew up where correct IMO. I think we like to over think this stuff. Common usage is the definition.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Christopher Smith said:


> The guys where he grew up where correct IMO. I think we like to over think this stuff. Common usage is the definition.


I can agree with that...


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I think most of us pretty much redefine the terms to suit ourselves.
I think a dog is hard and another person doesn't. If I want a hard dog then that dog would fit what I want. If the other person wanted a hard dog, that dog wouldn't fit what he wanted. 
:-k Make sense? I think I'm confused now. :lol:


----------



## Harry Keely (Aug 26, 2009)

Bob Scott said:


> I think most of us pretty much redefine the terms to suit ourselves.
> I think a dog is hard and another person doesn't. If I want a hard dog then that dog would fit what I want. If the other person wanted a hard dog, that dog wouldn't fit what he wanted.
> :-k Make sense? I think I'm confused now. :lol:


I was actuallytalking to a individual earlier about thoughts and terminology, what alot think is great is just excellent, and alot think is excellent is just good, and what consider good is pure crap, hope that makes sense in a nutshell.

Alot has to do with the amount someone has seen and how long they have been seeing it, and then again it all depends on whos talking. going to start a thread off this one on terminology:-$


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Doesn't excellent exceed greatness?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> Another term definition by Armin Winkler...
> 
> Opinons?
> 
> ...


 
I don't think he is trying to redefine it. I think he agrees with the old Koerung system and that it shouldn't be an excuse for the dog that is low threshold for a threat--even if used that way when he was young. Joby's on a roll with great discussion topics running neck and neck w/ Downey.

T


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I don't think he is trying to redefine it. * I think he agrees with the old Koerung system and that it shouldn't be an excuse for the dog that is low threshold for a threat--*even if used that way when he was young. Joby's on a roll with great discussion topics running neck and neck w/ Downey.
> 
> T


T.

I dont interpret it like you have I dont think...Can you elaborate , on this part of the above post? What does that mean, shouldnt be an excuse?


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

_"sharpness could be equated to showing an active defense reaction to a real or perceived threat"_ 

Really? ALL protection trained dogs should ideally be showing an active defense reaction to a real or perceived threat. Regardless of how sharp or dull they may be. The real difference regarding sharpness is, at _what thresholds?_

Sharpness could be equated to showing an active defense reaction *at a low-stimulus threshold* to a real or perceived threat.

However, sharpness in itself says NOTHING of the dog's ability to perceive and discern a threat, but _how it responds to_ a real or perceived threat. A gun with a hair trigger still requires a finger to send off a bullet.

It's only generally "assumed" that with a sharp dog the threat context of a given situation is somehow less convincing than what might be considered the norm. That's pretty subjective, really, and a matter that hinges on genetics, but shaped in training and social-environmental experience.

Experience shapes the ability to differentiate between threat and nonthreat. A clear head is of course influential in this process. _Each of which are independant of the thresholds at which the dog responds to_.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Sharp: On edge! 
Does the dog react to stress with a fear bite (sharp shy) or with serious aggression? I can see both of these in the spectrum of being sharp.
Agreed that it's not as others may see it.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Experience shapes the ability to differentiate between threat and nonthreat.


 
How?


T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> T.
> 
> I dont interpret it like you have I dont think...Can you elaborate , on this part of the above post? What does that mean, shouldnt be an excuse?


 
Sharp--does not mean low stimulus threshold for threat; i.e. easily provoked--based on his current research despite what they thought when he was young. The definition he is putting forth is: _The quality in the dog that leads him to actively confront any apparent, feigned, or actual threat from a person in a hostile manner._

T


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> How?
> 
> 
> T


How does experience shape perception and judgement? Just take my word for it. Besides, it's off the topic of sharpness, which you already disagree with my definition of.

You say: _"The quality in the dog that leads him to actively confront any apparent, feigned, or actual threat from a person in a hostile manner."_

Appears to be the definition for the word AGGRESSION, if you ask me.


----------



## Randy Allen (Apr 18, 2008)

Isn't 'sharpness' really a measure of a number thresholds?

For instance if I were to say I have a sharp dog without saying anything else, it conveys nothing without adding some reference to what low or a lowered threshold I'm talking about.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

To myself, yes, sharpness is about thresholds, meaning _easily stimulated_, and says nothing of the dog's perception or intent. Stimulus, perception, response. Input, process, output.

The VALUES we choose to assign to these definitions are inevitably subjective. How low is low, how high is high, how great is great, etc.

Simar to what you stated, if I were to say I have a _aggressive_ dog without saying anything else, it conveys nothing without adding some reference to what the threat is, what context it is being displayed, and how _the dog perceives it_.

All dogs should be capable of exhibiting some form of aggression. I could be talking about my ten inch toybreed in fearbiting aggression.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Sharp--does not mean low stimulus threshold for threat; i.e. easily provoked--based on his current research despite what they thought when he was young. The definition he is putting forth is: _The quality in the dog that leads him to actively confront any apparent, feigned, or actual threat from a person in a hostile manner._
> 
> T


I got that part, the part I could not understand is the part about making excuses for low threshold dogs...I have not come across any writings of his where he places a negative label on lower thresholds or even outright social aggression....

I always got the impression that he is somewhat disappointed that breeders are breeding out these traits...

"The trend in breeding has been to breed dogs who do not have social aggression. And that may be what many people want. The point I would like to make is that social aggression is nothing that should be made out to be something evil. It is a valuable trait in dogs that are in the right hands...."

yes I know sharp is viewed as edgy, or low threshold to most people, 

I think in this article, it is more defined as the ease and propensity that a dog will show, in regards to bringing real, ACTIVE (strong) aggression to a human.. he is saying that it really doesnt have to do with thresholds, but realizes that it is defined that way by most people.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Without thresholds defining "ease and propensity", what's the difference between "real, ACTIVE (strong) aggression to a human" and civil drive, or social aggression? You're saying sharpness is just synonomous with either of those terms and has NOTHING to do with thresholds?


When I used Armin's quote below, his definition could be synonomous with civil aggression. JUST another word for aggression. No special meaning to the term "sharp", until thresholds describe at what level the aggressive response is initiated.



Daryl Ehret said:


> _"sharpness could be equated to showing an active defense reaction to a real or perceived threat"_
> 
> Really? ALL protection trained dogs should ideally be showing an active defense reaction to a real or perceived threat. Regardless of how sharp or dull they may be. The real difference regarding sharpness is, at _what thresholds?_
> 
> Sharpness could be equated to showing an active defense reaction *at a low-stimulus threshold* to a real or perceived threat.


----------



## Randy Allen (Apr 18, 2008)

For myself, I don't give any wieght to the term sharp until I have some idea what is being refered to and how it relates to behavior.
After all one could well be refering to an over the top prey dog as much as anything else. Or in other terms, the point here a dog loses it's head and ergo any control.

I'm aware that the 'sharp' has a generally negative meaning, but others have said it and I guess it bears repeating, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some people like a bit of sharpness in certain areas. Some find it an issue.
It's where those various lines in the sand of the individual dog falls that make or break how the training goes....doesn't it?


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

If it comes packaged with a clear head and a biddable temperament, I like it.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Without thresholds defining "ease and propensity", what's the difference between "real, ACTIVE (strong) aggression to a human" and civil drive, or social aggression? You're saying sharpness is just synonomous with either of those terms and has NOTHING to do with thresholds?
> 
> 
> When I used Armin's quote below, his definition could be synonomous with civil aggression. JUST another word for aggression. No special meaning to the term "sharp", until thresholds describe at what level the aggressive response is initiated.


I would say, from what I gather, he is defining sharpness as what some call civil drive, or civil aggression. I have not seen him include civil drive in his descriptions at all....

I would say it has to do with the thresholds yes of course, but it is not defined by by them.

I see active defense as he defines it as a re-active response again dependent upon thresholds, but not defined by them.., and social aggression as an active form of aggression, again not defined by the thresholds.

His views may be outdated or unpopular, but they work for me. He kinda breaks down the aggression to define the motivation for the aggression...right or wrong, it makes sense to me, that is all...


----------



## Randy Allen (Apr 18, 2008)

Of course the dog isn't defined by it's natural thresholds except within some narrowly defined areas.
One can teach the dog how to respond to various criteria, give or take, at whatever level you choose (ahem, that is for the most part).


----------



## Randy Allen (Apr 18, 2008)

So.....is sharp always related to aggression? Either civil or other?
Does the term always equal aggression of one sort?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

To me, yes. I would look at it as the potential for reactive aggression! That could be fear based or forward aggression.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

He says the dog will act aggressively to certain exhibited behavior which is "an apparent, feined or actual threat." The term manscharfe was used probably before civil and social aggression. There are certain exhibited behaviors that are considered by anyone as a threat or harm and a dog wouldn't be labeled low threshold if he responded to it. Before the emphasis on protection as a game and prey training, dogs were measured in their ability to discern a threat and how they responded to it. 

T


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

So T, were you saying that excuses should not be made for low threshold to a threat dogs, or saying that sharp should not be used to describe them, according to how you interpret the writings?

If the former, why would excuses need to be made for a low threshold dog..??? If it is low threshold it is low threshold...


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Exactly. Low threshold to stimulus says nothing of the context in which the threat is made. It then becomes subjective as to what constitutes a threat.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

I have always heard the term "sharp" as opposed to "dull" just an overall term of the dogs personality. Not in conjunction with only aggression. I have seen many dogs called sharp who had zero aggression, and dogs called dull that were aggressive as shit.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

He says the dog will act aggressively to certain exhibited behavior which is "an apparent, feined or actual threat." The term manscharfe was used probably before civil and social aggression. There are certain exhibited behaviors that are considered by anyone as a threat or harm and a dog wouldn't be labeled low threshold if he responded to it. Before the emphasis on protection as a game and prey training, dogs were measured in their ability to discern a threat and how they responded to it. 

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> So T, were you saying that excuses should not be made for low threshold to a threat dogs, or saying that sharp should not be used to describe them, according to how you interpret the writings?
> 
> If the former, why would excuses need to be made for a low threshold dog..??? If it is low threshold it is low threshold...


 
I believe he is saying that "Sharp" should not be described to describe a low threshold or undesirable dog. My belief is that in the breeds I've lived with [bouviers, GSDs, corgis], the good ones know a "real" threat. Its not taught and its not learned through experience. Its instinct. This same dog was socially reliable. You didn't have to worry about it seeing grandma with a cane as a threat. It didn't view children and babies as threat or prey. That's the way the dogs used to be. Now you have this prey/play/game thing and everything needs to be trained and you don't want a dog will act out of instinct. Acting out of instinct doesn't mean the dog doesn't have any sense or control. Whether its a cow, sheep or person, my dogs have known if the person intends or is about to do harm or if I'm worried about it. I don't have to train that. Dogs interpret behavior without training. They also read me and know when I don't like someone or they have invaded my space. Even Bob's dog knew and responded when some guy rushed in my space and he stopped him cold. The guy could read him and knew to to stop. You don't train that. Is this dog easily provoked?---NO! Absolutely rock solid reliable and socially correct. In sport, you'll see one type of dog. Instinct triggered, you'll see something else. This is what I believe about him and its the type of dog I want and what I've had. My friend has a dog that will bite just about anyone or everyone and doesn't do kids. We may love her to death but she's not correct. Call this extremely low threshold. No amount of socialization was ever gonna change her. You couldn't teach her through experience that not anybody or everybody is a potential threat. Just about every bitch in the litter was/is like this. Over the years I've worked on being able to be around her through talking to her and feeding her through a crate. Age has been on my side in that regard. 

So I probably would agree to the dogs having a civil/social aggression side. However, it had better be instinctively reliable with kids/babies; have social reliability; and at least enough pack drive that biting the hand that feeds you is not a factor.

T


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I never said it was learned. I stated that the propensity to react to a threat hinges on genetics, and the context of a threatening circumstance is learned through experience, shaping its ability to discriminate a threat. Aggression and perception both being independent of whatever the level of sharpness (low threshold) may be. And sharpness is not undesirable in this context. As James states, it is merely the opposite of dull (to respond).


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> However, it had better be instinctively reliable with kids/babies; have social reliability; and at least enough pack drive that biting the hand that feeds you is not a factor.
> 
> T


Says who? There are plenty of good dogs that I would not put around a baby, or that may bite a kid, or be socially UNRELIABLE, if not trained and handled properly...as well as a dogs that will bite the hand that feeds them, if not handled properly...

Again I am asking about your usage of the following words...



> I think he agrees with the old Koerung system and that it shouldn't be an excuse for the dog that is low threshold for a threat


This statement implies there is something wrong with a low threshold dog, which I do not think is what he is saying...

And I am saying that I do not believe ANY excuses need to be made for low threshold for threat dogs, because there is nothing wrong with those dogs... The low threshold or the social aggression, or dominance, is not a problem with the dogs, the problem is that these dogs often are in the hands of people that cannot properly handle those traits in the animal...

here is a quote about social aggression from Armin...

......The difference between this (mistrust) and social aggression is the following: the socially aggressive dog, as I see it, is not really in defense drive. He treats strangers with aggression, period. 

....._This form of aggression is not very common in our dogs anymore, because many people find it to be socially unacceptable. Dogs today are supposed to be social and to a certain degree friendly. And while I see nothing wrong with a social dog, I personally also see nothing wrong with a socially aggressive dog. These dogs are not unpredictable menaces to society or vicious animals. They simply have inborn motivations that include this form of aggression. Social aggression is a trainable trait, meaning it can be directed and controlled. Naturally that requires the right handler so that accidents are prevented.

Socially aggressive dogs have an urge to be aggressive towards strangers. This can be controlled and the dog can be taught to tolerate strangers. However, the dog will not become a social or friendly dog with strangers, no matter what type of behavior modification is attempted. The only way this urge to confront a stranger aggressively when not under control would go away is if the stranger meets the confrontation and social order is established. This happens either if the person can subdue the dog and subordinate him or if the person unequivocally submits to the dog. (At that point the person is no longer a stranger but an integrated pack member).

The trend in breeding has been to breed dogs who do not have social aggression. And that may be what many people want. The point I would like to make is that social aggression is nothing that should be made out to be something evil. It is a valuable trait in dogs that are in the right hands. Such dogs do demand a high degree of responsibility and vigilance on the part of the handler. Socially aggressive dogs who are also dominant are difficult to handle and to train and should be in the hands of experts._

Do you think that Armin is saying that these socially aggressive dogs should be good with kids and babies, and have social reliability????


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> Says who? There are plenty of good dogs that I would not put around a baby, or that may bite a kid, or be socially UNRELIABLE, if not trained and handled properly...as well as a dogs that will bite the hand that feeds them, if not handled properly...
> 
> Again I am asking about your usage of the following words...
> 
> ...


I didn't say that Armin said it. I said "I don't mind. . ." You may not mind a socially aggressive dog that's unreliable with kids, babies, etc. Okay. I think part of certain breeds' inborn traits is that they should know the difference. You now have a different article. You went from his definition of sharp to now the socially aggressive dog that can be trained and controlled and doesn't have to be an "*unpredictable* menace to society." Its been a couple of years since I went through all this stuff and the book on Helmut Raiser so I decided to go to the source. You tell me what the complete article means after reading the social aggression in its entirety. Winkler explains his definitions of different terms but will tell you that all of these things interact to give you the total dog. If you are going to quote someone, do it completely:

*Social aggression*

_Social aggression is the only type of aggression that can be categorized as active aggression. Even though the term active aggression is used frequently, it really only applies here. The reason social aggression is called active aggression is because it really does not require any specific action as a trigger stimulus. Social aggression serves two purposes of biological significance. One is ensuring the even distribution of a species across a given territory by repelling equally strong individuals. And the other is to establish and maintain order in social units such as a pack. Social aggression is always directed at the individual's own kind. In the breeds that were created for police and military service, selection took place that expanded the direction of social aggression to also included the dog's adopted kind, humans. As an example of contrast, in the dog fighting breeds, selection took place to ensure that the social aggression would not include humans. _

_Let me give you a couple of other reasons why I hold this view. *In virtually all older texts describing the police service dog breeds a few points were always made. They were that the dogs show mistrust and aggression against strangers and that they are very devoted and loyal with the family and very loving with children. To me this combination of qualities stem from a very strong closed pack oriented social behavior.* *That means loyalty and devotion to members in the pack and aggression against all outsiders, even those belonging to the same species.*_

_*This form of aggression is not very common in our dogs anymore, because many people find it to be socially unacceptable.* Dogs today are supposed to be social and to a certain degree friendly. And while I see nothing wrong with a social dog, I personally also see nothing wrong with a socially aggressive dog. These dogs are not unpredictable menaces to society or vicious animals. They simply have inborn motivations that include this form of aggression. Social aggression is a trainable trait, meaning it can be directed and controlled. Naturally that requires the right handler so that accidents are prevented. _

_Socially aggressive dogs have an urge to be aggressive towards strangers. This can be controlled and the dog can be taught to tolerate strangers. However, the dog will not become a social or friendly dog with strangers, no matter what type of behavior modification is attempted. The only way this urge to confront a stranger aggressively when not under control would go away is if the stranger meets the confrontation and social order is established. This happens either if the person can subdue the dog and subordinate him or if the person unequivocally submits to the dog. (At that point the person is no longer a stranger but an integrated pack member). _
_The trend in breeding has been to breed dogs who do not have social aggression. And that may be what many people want. The point I would like to make is that social aggression is nothing that should be made out to be something evil. It is a valuable trait in dogs that are in the right hands. Such dogs do demand a high degree of responsibility and vigilance on the part of the handler. Socially aggressive dogs who are also dominant are difficult to handle and to train and should be in the hands of experts_. 
*Dominance behavior*


T


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I went there because you keep skipping over using the word excuse....

you used the terms " it shouldn't be an excuse for the dog that is low threshold for a threat"

I agree if you are saying he is saying it is not the same thing, I am still trying to get to what you meant about using the word EXCUSE? I did not infer that anywhere....as far as I know low threshold dogs are not a bad thing...



> However, it had better be instinctively reliable with kids/babies; have social reliability; and at least enough pack drive that biting the hand that feeds you is not a factor.


so in your opinion a dog has to be these things INSTINCTIVELY? to be a good dog?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> I went there because you keep skipping over using the word excuse....
> 
> you used the terms " it shouldn't be an excuse for the dog that is low threshold for a threat"
> 
> ...


You're going to have to do the math on the word "excuse." I've said it over and over what I mean by what I said. You want validation of your type of dog. There are degrees of low threshold and you have to look at the total dog. My excuse reference could be for what I think is the lowest of the low. Aside from that, in the sharpness description that you quoted, he said: _I did a fair bit of research and could not find anything written that stated that this quality has to come together with a low stimulation threshold for threat. So in fact how easily a dog is triggered does not seem to be a factor by definition._

He doesn't simplify dogs as low threshold. He looks at the dog accross all category and each category has its thresholds evaluation. 

_Stimulation thresholds have to be assessed individually and for every separate assessment category. They represent sub-categories to every trait a dog may exhibit. Many dogs may have identical stimulation thresholds, but their responses could vary a great deal. It is not uncommon that the thresholds are different levels in each category. I will refer to stimulation thresholds probably in every subject still left to discuss which hopefully will help to further illustrate where and how they fit into reading a dog. The conclusions I would like the reader to draw from the discussion of stimulation thresholds is that they require separate examination, that they are only parts of traits, that they should be designated separately, and that they in themselves tell us nothing about the quality of a dog. _

If you are going to do Winkler, you have to read ALL of it, not just a single section. He makes references and distinctions and this is mostly going to how he reads and evaluates a dog. 

As for my references to what *I *like to see instinctively in a dog and what makes the most desirable dog to *me, *yes, you are correct. I don't legislate for the masses. You're perfectly fine to label a dog good that you wouldn't have around kids or babies or that will bite the hand that feeds it--and so is Winkler for that matter but that is not what's said in any of the articles. The articles are about reading a dog to assess and determine training. Winkler makes reference to the dog's socially aggressive tendencies as it applies to strangers--not the human pack and said dog is loving with children. I agree wholeheartedly that you can train this dog to a certain degree of reliability in public. You know exactly the type of stranger behavior that will trigger him. There is nothing unpredictable about it. At the end of the article he states that the type of dog that will extend that aggression to his handler, needs an expert. He also distinguishes dogs that are desirable for police service and sport and talks about certain things that can render the dog useless for either. If you go to part one, his take on "directability" is interesting as well. 


T


----------



## Gregory Doud (Nov 10, 2008)

This is the term that works for me. A dog that is considered "sharp" has a low threshold. It is not necessarily born of fear, nor is suspicion. It is the propensity to react to a given situation with aggression. This dog is suspicious and prepared to do battle if that what it escalates to.


----------

