Differences - Reactivity/Aggression

houndlove

coonhound crazy
Joined
Aug 22, 2007
Messages
711
Likes
0
Points
0
#21
I think prey drive is separate from gameness, and it's the gameness that can make terriers a bit aggressive, not the prey drive. Lots of other breeds have high prey drives but pretty much zilch of that never say die scrappy terrier gameness. When your dog has to face down a badger, they'd better be game and they'd better be scrappy. Just chasin' rabbits and pointing them out to the hunter? A healthy prey drive is enough to do that job. Look at the temperament of the basset in comparison to that of a JRT. Both are hunting dogs with high prey drives, even with some of the same quarry, but very different levels of gameness, and that shakes out to differing tendencies towards generalized aggression.
 

jess2416

Who woulda thought
Joined
Jan 26, 2006
Messages
22,560
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
45
Location
NC
#22
This is a great thread :)

I have nothing to contribute but I have really enjoyed reading it.. :)
 

Sch3Dana

Workin' Dog
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
391
Likes
0
Points
0
#23
Prey drive is not aggression.
A dog with high prey drive might be more prone to aggression. But a dog attacking prey, is by behavioural definitions not being aggressive.
One of the challenges we have as dog trainers is finding shared words with agreed upon meaning so that our communication is clear and our sentences mean to the reader the same thing that they mean to the writer. It seems that Dekka and I fundamentally disagree on the word "aggression".

In my vocabulary a dog that bites someone is being "aggressive". The proof is in the trip to the emergency room. After I establish that he is aggressive, I then start looking for the root cause of the behavior. Without an understanding of the cause, finding a solution can be almost impossible. But is it really accurate to say that a dog could hurt or even kill a human or animal and be considered "non-aggressive"? Where are these "behavioural definitions"?

I've read a lot of books on dog behavior and animal behavior in general, but I wouldn't say I'm an expert on all things behavior. So, I did go do some digging to see if I missed something along the way with regards to prey-based aggression. I looked at a few pages and definitions; they all seemed to include prey aggression as some form of aggression, or defined aggression in a way that would cause me to include prey aggression into the definition.

Here is a page on Wikipedia (generally a fairly reliable source) about aggression:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggression

And some quotes:

In psychology and other social and behavioral sciences, aggression refers to behavior that is intended to cause harm or pain. Aggression can be either physical or verbal.
Currently, there is a consensus in the scientific community for at least two broad categories of aggression, variously known as hostile, affective, or retaliatory aggression, versus instrumental, predatory, or goal-oriented aggression.[2][3][4][5] Empirical research indicates that this is a critical difference, both psychologically and physiologically.
What do you all think about this? Is there a general consensus that prey aggression is a form of aggression? If not, how do you describe an animal that hunts and kills people? I don't necessarily mean dogs, but say lions and tigers and bears (oh my!).
 

Sch3Dana

Workin' Dog
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
391
Likes
0
Points
0
#24
I think prey drive is separate from gameness, and it's the gameness that can make terriers a bit aggressive, not the prey drive.
Here is another cool dog word- gameness. I think I know what this is. In malinois it's generally called "fight drive". It's not just the desire to chase prey, but the desire to engage in a rough fight once there. People debate all the time what is "fight drive". Some people say it doesn't exist. That it's some combination of defensive aggression and prey. The prey gets them there and the defensive aggression keeps them fighting when the going gets rough. I'm not sure exactly where it is coming from, but there is no question that some dogs prefer the difficult fight over the easy win.

Anyone have ideas about this? Why would any animal want to engage itself in a potentially life-ending confrontation? Especially if it could choose to engage a weaker opponent or prey item? Or just run and wait for the next, easier opportunity?

I see Schutzhund dogs all the time that won't really bite the sleeve on a weak person, they just go through the motions. Then you show them someone with some real presence and threat and the dog just lights up. If someone works my old male hard in the protection, he will make a point of going to them and loving on them when it is over. It really looks like he is grateful for the great fight, never scared or inclined to hold a grudge.
 

Dekka

Just try me..
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
19,779
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Ontario
#25
In part I agree with this:

In psychology and other social and behavioral sciences, aggression refers to behavior that is intended to cause harm or pain. Aggression can be either physical or verbal.
This is a great definition when dealing with humans. When an animal is catching its prey, its not 'intending to cause pain' the animal is intending to get a meal.

But in the dog world if we used your definition of aggression, then we would have big problems. Because then reactive dogs would be aggressive dogs. People would not understand the difference (and there is a big one.. though I agree, without help and or bad experiences a reactive dog can become aggressive). Even in our legal system we acknowledge the difference. The woman in my scenario would be dealt with very differently in the two situations. Defense is not aggression, even when you hurt someone. Aggression is offensive (vs defensive)
 

dagwood

New Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2008
Messages
9
Likes
0
Points
0
#26
Understanding canine aggression. Learned behavior. Aggressive behavior can be learned, intentionally or unintentionally.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

adojrts

New Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2006
Messages
4,089
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Ontario, Canada
#27
As for gameness and prey aggression, I can only speak on my direct experiences and the experiences and opinions of my mentors which are working terrier people.
There are all kinds of jrts that show some gameness and some prey drive but that same dog will not do the complete job that is required of a working terrier. Which also raises the question as to why so many terriers can be so DA or PA, but doesn't have the skills needed to be a working terrier.
Of all the different terrier breeds, the Jrt is the only one that has continued to be bred for earth work, especially here in N.A
As for the Bassett hound, yes they were bred in the 1600's to work badger in France, but that same dog today (at least the ones that I have seen or know) have little or no instinct to hunt let alone engage a badger which is a very formidable quarry. And their conformation these days would appear to be a problem, personally I can't see them have the energy or the sound conformation for a days work. Amazing how selective breeding can change a dog and its instincts huh?
 

Sch3Dana

Workin' Dog
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
391
Likes
0
Points
0
#29
This is a great definition when dealing with humans. When an animal is catching its prey, its not 'intending to cause pain' the animal is intending to get a meal.
Is it really safe to assume that the dog biting you over a bone is intending any more harm than the one that killed your cat? Either dogs are capable of understanding that bites hurt or they are simple stimulus response machines with no awareness of their effects on the things (and beings) around them. I don't think you can have it both ways.

But in the dog world if we used your definition of aggression, then we would have big problems. Because then reactive dogs would be aggressive dogs. People would not understand the difference (and there is a big one.. though I agree, without help and or bad experiences a reactive dog can become aggressive). Even in our legal system we acknowledge the difference. The woman in my scenario would be dealt with very differently in the two situations.
I'm really not sure that the legal system cares if your biting dog felt that someone had invaded his space or if he actively lunged out to bite them. In either case you are going to have a problem, unless you can show that the person "willfully provoked" the animal. I also suspect it is a bad idea to tell people that their dog isn't "aggressive", it's just "reactive". If you have a dog that is attacking people who make it nervous, you have a serious legal liability on your hands. Calling it reactive isn't going to spare you a lawsuit.

Defense is not aggression, even when you hurt someone. Aggression is offensive (vs defensive)
I talk about fear-based aggression all the time. I know many other trainers who do. Is "reactive" a new way of describing these dogs? I have only heard "reactive" used to describe dogs that are sensitive to their environments and people. Nothing to do with aggression whatsoever (although many dogs are both reactive and aggressive). Are lots of people using "reactive" to describe a dog that postures, snarls, barks or bites when threatened? I would call that dog "defensive aggressive" or "fear aggressive". What about a dog that jumps at every noise or quick movement, but doesn't bite? What do we call him?

Also, how much aggression is offensive? The only aggression that is clearly offensive in my mind is prey aggression. All other aggressive dogs that I can think of are "reacting" to some sort of threat in their environment. Some have a larger "bubble" wherein a threat will be met with aggression, but none of them will bite a person or dog that is totally neutral and not bothering them. A dog that gets up and attacks his owner who is asleep in a chair would be labeled "insane" by every trainer I know. Dogs just don't do that. Anyone ever see a dog that would bite a person standing against a wall with their back to the dog and totally still? Even among trained police dogs it is hard to find one that will bite in this situation without any kind of "agitation" (prey stimulation or threat) first.

Anyone out there have Steve Lindsay's Handbook of Applied Dog Behavior Series? I would love to look, as I think this guy really knows what he is writing about, but each book is $100 and I just can't put that kind of dough into any of them right now. I would think he could give us a real breakdown of all the aggression dogs exhibit. Amazon has tempting pages of the table of contents available, but nothing to read. Anyone have an expert opinion to post on this topic.

The earlier link that left out prey aggression wasn't exactly definitive- there wasn't even an author who was willing to put their name to it. Gotta be careful online, as publishing is so easy, anyone can post inaccurate info with the click of a mouse. A published book or article by a respected behaviorist would have a lot more clout in my mind.
 

adojrts

New Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2006
Messages
4,089
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Ontario, Canada
#30
Dana, with my dog he is absolutely fear aggressive and reactive (reactive meaning he use get very over stimulated but I with focus/calming training he is fine now and has been for years. He is also a guardy little s**t lol, he'll watch the neighborhood etc and raise the alarm, but I know he really doesn't want the job to its fullest, which of course is part of the fear aggression.

I have worked with him on the issue, as he gained confidence and maturity that has disappearred where strangers are concerned but it does take him a moment to still pass judgement on a person, but with no barking or hackles up etc. Having said that I am not foolish either, given the right situation, cornered, stranger and no one around that he knew and trusted, he would probably bite if they were not careful and gave him a moment to approach them i.e reached out to grab him.
With strange dogs, especially larger black dogs that are approaching him fast or from behind that is a different story, he has come along ways but if he has a bad incident and then has a close encounter I do have to be careful until I have enough time to get his comfort zone down to a min again. He has nipped two dogs in 8 years on the heels trying to force them out of his zone. It has been my biggest concern that the fear aggression esculates into DA. He has also been around in close quarters literally thousands of dogs over the years and he is not a lunging, barking and snarling dog. He has also had to compete in rings that were not fenced countless times, he has never left me to engage any dog. I have also had him out hunting with countless strange terriers, never had an issue. I honestly believe that his problem is largely situational, considering that every time he has been jumped by another dog has happened at agility trials.

Any thoughts?
 
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
1,341
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Texas
#31
In my vocabulary a dog that bites someone is being "aggressive". The proof is in the trip to the emergency room. After I establish that he is aggressive, I then start looking for the root cause of the behavior. Without an understanding of the cause, finding a solution can be almost impossible. But is it really accurate to say that a dog could hurt or even kill a human or animal and be considered "non-aggressive"? Where are these "behavioural definitions"?
I will disagree with this. IMO, most dogs that bite have been giving VERY clear warning signs. When the dog throws out calming signals left and right and humans don't know what to look for and the dog 'snaps' this is not aggression. That is the humans fault for not recognizing that the dog felt scared and also felt that he had no other opportunity than to bite. Just because a dog bites does NOT mean that the dog is aggressive.

I will agree w/ Dekka and everyone else who said that aggression is more a dog that seeks out other dogs to attack. I won't say animal because every dog has some form of prey drive and it's not fair to consider a dog who can't be around other animals aggressive.
 

Sch3Dana

Workin' Dog
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
391
Likes
0
Points
0
#32
I will disagree with this. IMO, most dogs that bite have been giving VERY clear warning signs. When the dog throws out calming signals left and right and humans don't know what to look for and the dog 'snaps' this is not aggression. That is the humans fault for not recognizing that the dog felt scared and also felt that he had no other opportunity than to bite. Just because a dog bites does NOT mean that the dog is aggressive.

I will agree w/ Dekka and everyone else who said that aggression is more a dog that seeks out other dogs to attack. I won't say animal because every dog has some form of prey drive and it's not fair to consider a dog who can't be around other animals aggressive.
But by this definition no dog is aggressive, people are just missing the calming and stress signals or are just too intolerant of Fido's basic instinct to kill things that move. I happen to have a dog that for my taste is too "aggressive". When he was young he would stress about strangers in the distance and if they came towards him he would run at them full speed and bite. I have a female that for my taste is too "passive". As a puppy she would see people from a distance and pretend they weren't there bc they were making her nervous. Both of the dogs were nervous with strangers. But only one of them ran over to bite people. He never did this with people who were not moving towards him in a "threatening" manner. So, by this kind of definition, he was not aggressive. He was reactive and what we really needed was for people to be more understanding of his "feelings". I just can't agree with this thinking.

It seems that people have decided that aggressive = bad. Meaning my dog can't be aggressive bc I love him. Dogs are aggressive. It is an essential part of what they are. In some dogs these natural prey and defensive behaviors are almost entirely eliminated through selective breeding, but in most of them it still exists to some extent or another. Our job as dog owners is to accept them as the creatures they are and help to raise and train them in a way that will develop them into acceptable members of our society. But I think putting the blame on the people getting bit is pushing things just a little too far. Yes, let's try to understand our dogs and train them. But no, let's not pretend they are Buddhist monks that have reached enlightenment.

FYI, my overly-aggressive dog grew into a civilized member of society. He has flown around the country and in Europe, traveled on public transportation and laid under my seat in restaurants in Europe, and trialed successfully at big, busy, hectic dog shows.. But he is an aggressive dog. If someone threatens him, me or his territory he will feel a need to bite them. Training and management makes him very safe when I am with him. But I never stop thinking of him as aggressive. He's not "seeking to attack" anyone. He sure wishes people would stop approaching his mommy, his car and his house. This is the typical aggressive dog. Has anyone here really met an aggressive dog that was going around trying to find a fight? I do believe they exist. But I also believe they are exceedingly rare.
 

Sch3Dana

Workin' Dog
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
391
Likes
0
Points
0
#33
I honestly believe that his problem is largely situational, considering that every time he has been jumped by another dog has happened at agility trials.

Any thoughts?
It sounds like you are doing everything right. It's pretty much the same story with my Marco. Train them, build their confidence and prevent every bad experience you can. If you get this close to perfect, the dog de-escalates and ends up pretty normal, but it's a long-term management situation. If you let the dog have any bad experiences, things can go south very quickly and sometimes irrevocably. And if there is a bad experience, of course the sensitive (reactive) dog is going to try to pair that bad experience with other things in his environment (agility, black dogs, people in hats, etc.). The more positive experiences he has already had with a certain environment, the less likely he is to pair it with that variable, which is where careful socialization can make such a big difference with sensitive, nervous pups.

One of the reasons I didn't run screaming in horror from evil baby Marco was because I believed in socialization. After raising him, I believe in it less than I did. The problem is preventing every bad experience. With really reactive pups, even one bad experience can completely wipe out weeks of progress. I know Marco had many experiences where people scared him. I think I underestimated how much more important these events were than the positive experiences he was racking up. Raising a reactive dog is a difficult job. It sounds like we both succeeded pretty well.

But, I didn't do 1/10 of the work and training with my female and she just isn't like this. She's a mal, so she is sensitive, but she is not at all reactive. So, her bad experiences with people didn't cause panic, just some minor discomfort which she always got through and learned that the people were nice. Totally different experience and totally different result. With the minimal training she has had, I still trust her way more than Marco. Reactive dogs just aren't as predictable as more passive dogs. It's not the aggression that makes Marco hard to handle, it's the quickness of it. It is the same as a sheltie that spooks and can't recover easily. Except that it is more dangerous to the people or dogs around him if I fail to keep him safe.

I'm guessing you are a JRT person? The ones I have trained have seemed very malinois like, without so much handler sensitivity. But, really very similar temperament to a good working mal. Have you ever seen one doing Schutzhund? It's only funny bc they are so small. If they weighed 60 pounds they'd be really tough. You should check out this little guy, he means business:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTN5kTkdvME
 

DanL

Active Member
Joined
Oct 15, 2005
Messages
3,933
Likes
0
Points
36
Age
61
#34
Prey drive is not aggression.

And are you talking about trained police dogs, who are TRAINED to hunt down and hold a suspect? That is not aggression.

And fear does not always mean fear of pain. Also we are assuming healthy normal dogs. Just like humans can have chemical imbalances, so can dogs. That makes them sick, not aggressive.
Lots of good comments on this topic!

Regarding the trained police dogs, yes, they are trained, but they also have the genetic ability to perform these tasks. Their strong prey and defensive drives bred into them are what gives them the desire to search after, bite, and hold a suspect. Prey drive to chase it down, catch and bite, and defense/fight drive to hold on even when the suspect is fighting back. Without the right balance of those drives you don't have a dog that can do this type of job successfully. There is a certain amount of aggression involved for sure. If the dog doesn't have some degree of aggression towards the bad guy he's not going to engage. A passive dog isn't going to engage. A reactive dog will give a fear bite to make the bad guy go away because he doesn't want to fight. Some dogs are so driven that they simply enjoy it- we have a Bouvier at our dog club who likes to bite because it's fun for him. On training day he does backflips in his kennel because he knows he's going to bite someone.
 

Dekka

Just try me..
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
19,779
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Ontario
#35
But by this definition no dog is aggressive, people are just missing the calming and stress signals or are just too intolerant of Fido's basic instinct to kill things that move. .
Not true. I have worked with dogs that have bitten. All were scared, confused dogs who DID not want to bite. They were reactive. If you didn't corner them, scare them etc, they would not bite. I did have one truely aggressive foster (who was PTS) who would run up and try to find men to attack.

At the obed club I was teaching at there was a lab that was brought in for classes that would lunge suddenly at the end of a leash to snap and someone who wasn't even facing the dog.

And, lol, I live with a pack of JRTs I know what they are capeable of. I know it has nothing to do with me loving them, I know they are dogs. Because of these dogs I have spent a lot of time learning about aggression. Very very very few JRT breeders keep their dogs together, the JRTCA website states same sex JRTs should not be kept together. (I am on JRT lists, and every year, sometimes more often, you here of people who don't listen and keep 2 same sex JRTs together and leave them alone together, coming home to a dead dog) I have been to seminars by the likes of Ian Dunbar, I have read everything I can. I really do think there is a difference, and a significant one.

And even if you do disagree with the common train of thoughts in the dog world :)) which is fine, I live for a good debate) In this world of of BSL and people not being able to get insurance, labeling a dog aggressive is a death sentance. Labeling it reactive is not, but it is a warning sign.
 

Zoom

Twin 2.0
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
40,739
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
41
Location
Denver, CO
#36
Great thread! I don't have really anything new to add to it, but I do have a question. Both my dogs are what I would term "reactive" while on lead and behind a barrier, though they go about it different ways.

Sawyer, my Aussie (around 4 years old and neutered), is quite "reactive" around small-dogs on lead. After a careful thinking over and observation, it is my belief that his reactiveness is borne out of prior experience--he's got a decent dominent streak to him and since stupid people love Flexi-leads around here, he's gotten many small dogs come flying/jumping into his face. That's his biggest pet peeve. So now when we see a small dog on a lead (esp. a Flexi), he will start to growl/bark/posture and attempt to charge. If he does charge, he does not bite but he will back the dog up and make it quite clear what his feelings are, then walk away. I obviously try to not allow this, but he's got a vendetta against a beagle that lives here and occassionally that beagle will be at the bottom of the stairs outside while I'm coming out. Between my two dogs and downward gravity, unless I want to severly face-plant, I just kind of have to go with it until my feet can hit level ground and get them back under control. This beagle also has zero leash manners and can usually be found straining on his back legs at the end of it, which I have found is a trigger to Sawyer's "Mr. Manners' OCD". With the exception of this beagle and a certain JRT that also lives around here, Sawyer is completely calm when off-leash and will approach with proper greeting habits, which usually ends in a sniffing and walking off (unless the dog is very submissive, then he delights in barking and watching them hit the deck. Jerk. :rolleyes: ) However, he is completely calm when walking around Petsmart and generally just gives off "leave me alone, I'm not looking at you" signals to the other dogs we encounter. As an aside, I love watching his calming signals, they're subtle but incredibly effective--he does not want confrontation for the most part.

His barrier issues are traced back to a dachshund we used to share a fenceline with...evil EVIL dog that would come charging full-bore out of his house, trash talking at the top of his lungs. We're making progess in getting Sawyer to quit being such a jerk behind a fence, but it's slow going, mainly because most people dont' want to let their dogs get anywhere near the "vicious" dog. If it's a dog he knows well, there's no issue. It's only strange dogs.

Virgo...is a Lab. A pretty dominent Lab (I hesitate to use this label b/c of it's overuse, but I truely think it applies)...anyway her greeting is to approach a dog head-on until the last second and then present her side or veer for the "half-circle sniff-fest". If we're on lead, she raises Cain with barking and half-howls and attempts to drag me over to the other dog so she can sniff noses and walk off like the other dog doesn't exist. Off-lead, same behavior, only totally silent (and no jumping around like a spaz). I dislike taking her to Petsmart at the moment because she does get very loud and looks out of control, which is not something I like to see and I know it presents the both of us in a bad light (and I"m sure we've been forum fodder somewhere...). Her barrier reactions aren't near as active as Sawyer's, though if he's there, she feeds off of him and will raise a fuss as well. Usually though, she limits herself to barking a couple times in an "Hey, I see you!" way and following the other dog along the fence line, sniffing along the way.

Sorry for the novel and I know that none of you have seen my dogs before, but do these sound like "reactiveness"?
 

Sch3Dana

Workin' Dog
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
391
Likes
0
Points
0
#37
So now when we see a small dog on a lead (esp. a Flexi), he will start to growl/bark/posture and attempt to charge.
To me a reactive dog is a dog going about his business who is startled by something alarming in his environment and reacts, showing his basic way of dealing with stress- fight or flight. It sounds like this dog is well on his way to a more active aggression, in that he is exhibiting aggressive behavior towards passive dogs. He has learned that they do not always stay passive so he is seeking the upper hand by starting the conflict. This is a text book example of learned aggression.

As to whether or not I would call him "reactive" I can't say. To me that is more about how easily and often a dog startles or "reacts" to novelty in his environment. But it is clear that at least part of the time he is "aggressive" in that he attempts to resolve the threat through "agonistic displays". If he was not "aggressive", he would freeze and avoid (the passive option) or attempt to run away. You don't describe him doing any of those things so I would guess his primary reaction (with other dogs at least) is aggressive.

I think the problem here is that no one wants to say "my dog is aggressive". Lots of dogs are aggressive- it's what we bred them for for thousands of years. Aggressive dogs are as normal as fearful dogs and much more normal than passive dogs. And, aggressive dogs are usually much more useful than the other two types. Aggressive dogs herd sheep, hunt all kinds of game, guard houses, and protect owners or livestock. Saying a dog is aggressive does not mean that is their only choice when stressed. Most dogs exhibit all three types of stress reaction, at least some of the time (fight, flight, freeze). Maybe it is more accurate to say that the dog can be aggressive in certain circumstances. So can I. So can you. This is normal.

Muddying the language by redefining aggression only makes it harder to understand and train dogs. Part of understanding dogs is understand their essentially aggressive nature. You can't turn them into little Buddhists in fur coats and then expect to train them well. Aggression is on a continuum and all dogs have some. We need to be honest about this as a group to ensure that "aggressive" isn't a bad word. It's the people who only use it for bad dogs who make the word bad. I finally found a pretty good authoritative article about aggression, as least with regards to dog-on-dog aggression:

http://www.apbc.org.uk/article8.htm

Note this sentence in particular:

No animal is only aggressive and no animal is totally devoid of aggression.
Has anyone here read The Coppinger's book on dogs? This is an amazing read, written by scientists who are serious dog people. They break down the entire prey aggression response and talk about how different breeds evolved to only (or primarily) exhibit portions of the normal prey behavior sequences. Very interesting stuff.
 

Dekka

Just try me..
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
19,779
Likes
3
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Ontario
#38
I have read some of it (that I could get on the net, I wanted to go to his seminar but it conflicted with something)

But we as humans recognize different levels of culpability in our 'aggressive' actions. Shouldn't we with dogs too?

IMO it makes it easier to train and work with them. A reactive dog is coming from a very different mental state than an aggressive dog.

But even if I was to agree with you, and label my dogs aggressive what would that get me? All trial premiums list no aggressive dogs, so no showing. No insurance, and oh my if my dog ever bit someone and it went to court and I said I knowingly had an aggressive dog :yikes:. I get what you are saying, but I think that is a dangerous route to go, lumping a lot of behaviours under such a 'dangerous' label.
 

Sch3Dana

Workin' Dog
Joined
Feb 3, 2008
Messages
391
Likes
0
Points
0
#39
And even if you do disagree with the common train of thoughts in the dog world ( which is fine, I live for a good debate) In this world of of BSL and people not being able to get insurance, labeling a dog aggressive is a death sentance. Labeling it reactive is not, but it is a warning sign.
The funny thing is, in my corner of the dog world, my views are the norm. Most of my dog time is spent with people who breed and train police dogs and protection sport dogs. They are people who spend all day every day working with aggression. And I really don't think you'd get any of them to say that a dog that bites someone isn't at least a bit aggressive. They might say it has "weak temperament" or a "lack of courage" and reject it as a working dog, but they wouldn't say it had no aggression.

This is the problem with language- everyone thinks they are the ones who are using it right :lol-sign:

It sounds like we only disagree on how common aggression is. I say it is very common and most dogs have some, you say it is very rare and you have only met one dog that was aggressive, as evidenced by his "running up and trying to find men to attack". What I have seen is that most dogs without training show some tendency toward aggression. This is what you call reactivity. With training, this "reactivity" can get stronger and stronger in some dogs until they appear to be very happy and comfortable solving problems with the behavior. Training can also diffuse the aggression and create an adult dog with almost no tendency to aggress when threatened. It really is largely about the training, not the dogs.

And I don't necessarily mean formal training. One of the most confident biters I ever worked with was an 8 year old terrier mix that weighed 20 pounds. He had 8 long years of using his aggression to scare off the people who were scaring him. By the time I started working with him, he was biting very hard and thrashing around on the bite, causing plenty of damage. All the sudden his "reactivity" was a really serious aggression problem. Of course, it had been getting worse all those years, bc the owner wanted to apologize for the dog, blaming all the other people in the world for "scaring him". If she had called the earlier behavior aggression and sought help when he was young, he probably never would have ended up such a nasty little biter.

I'm a little amazed to hear you talk of JRTs killing one another and not calling it aggression. Do you really believe that a dog can kill another dog without a significant aggressive streak? Am I really the one using the word "aggression" outside the
the common train of thoughts in the dog world
????
 

adojrts

New Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2006
Messages
4,089
Likes
0
Points
0
Location
Ontario, Canada
#40
I'm guessing you are a JRT person? The ones I have trained have seemed very malinois like, without so much handler sensitivity. But, really very similar temperament to a good working mal. Have you ever seen one doing Schutzhund? It's only funny bc they are so small. If they weighed 60 pounds they'd be really tough. You should check out this little guy, he means business:

Oh yeah, very much a Jrt person and have been for years now. I have had a house full of them for almost 10 yrs now. I absolutely love the working jrt, they are amazing dogs. I know they can mean business and I agree that if they were bigger a lot of people would be in some serious trouble. But then if they were bigger than maybe people would stop trying to make them into **** lap dogs.
I know a few people that have done Sch. with them and with excellent results. I've known of Mr. Murphy for a few years and I would have like the pleasure of seeing him do Sch. in person. He was an amazing dog, regardless of size and I am sure his people miss him terribly.
Within the working terrier world, we have two different types of jrts in their style of working, soft and hard. The two different styles depend on the terrian and the purpose of the hunt. Since jrts were primarily bred to bolt fox for the fox hunt (riding to hounds), they didn't want a terrier that would engage the quarry to much or harm it seriously, they wanted the dog to bolt the quarry out of the earth or bottle it up in earth until dug too, then the quarry was released so the hunt could continue. So a softer worker was desired, but soft doesn't mean shy, tender etc. And the soft terrier will engage if they need to, to keep the quarry bottled up or if the quarry tries to go over them, they also don't back down a pipe as the quarry advances. A hard terrier is a dog that also enters the earth, locates the quarry (same as the soft terrier), but it engages as fast as it can, grabs a hold and doesn't let go. Often they are injured more, have more vet bills and can't be hunted as much since they are recovering from the last time hunting. In my experiences the harder terrier has little or no regard for themselves, they just about kill themselve to get to quarry in the earth, they can be very hard to live with as well.

Oh gezz I got rambling again........sorry folks lol.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Top