Security or insecurity? You pick one!

[German Vanegas]

(NOTE: I got too passionate about the issue and came across too harsh for some people. Maybe this revised version will do better)

The rottweiler breed has a proven history as a working dog. This should go unchallenged. One of the working traits of the rottweiler is the honorable distinction of being capable to be a security dog, home guardian, police dog, military dog, and so forth; you know: to protect and serve. This is documented.

However, for a dog to be actually capable of protection, a dog has to have that particular genetic trait bred in it. In other words, the dog has to have a lineage of ancestors with a proven record in the protection and guarding field. But if the dog does not have it, or such trait has been dilluted in the breeding, then that dog, in all likelyhood, will not protect or guard. Why? Because you cannot teach a dog to be protective if the dog have not has inherited the desired drives for the task. There is no way around this. Simply put: NOT ALL ROTTWEILERS ARE BRED EQUALLY.

Sadly enough, due to improper or wanton breeding many rottweilers do not have the desired genetic traits for what the rottweiler was originally bred for. Those two reasons are the cause for many rottweilers to be fearful-biters, shy-timid, and in many cases: viciously aggressive. In the other hand, we found that some rottweilers are labeled as "bigger black labradors" If the latter kind of dog is what you like, I assure you there are many breeds that fit the "teddy bear" disposition sought by some people. There is nothing wrong with wanting that type a dog either, if that's your personal choice but a breed should not be transformed into something else to satisfy the taste of a group of people that do not understand the tradition of the breed, because changes in the desired standards of the rottweiler are creating water-down "look-alikes"... not the "real deal" ;) The true character, temperament, disposition and drives of the rotteweiler, are very precise and specific. You find them in the description of the breed standards.

Ideally speaking, rottweilers should be bred to work. Nevertheless, some breeders breed with the show ring in main, more concerned for the conformation-beauty than the breed's working abilities, while others just breed at random creating mostly undesirable dogs.

Another issue that is effecting the breed is the people that seem to think that rottweilers are bred to be pampered like human children, and while I strongly advocate tender loving care for our beloved wonderful canine companions, please do not lose sight of the fact that a dog has particular characteristics way different than those of a human being.

I know for a fact that dogs can be loyal and trustworthy and have an almost uncanny ability to detect the unusual and alert their pack BEFORE something goes wrong, but let me reassure you this again: not all rottweilers have the ability to protect and guard. To do so, the dog has to have inherited courage, and trust me when I say this one more time: not all rottweilers have it. It is bred in it, it cannot not be taught ;)

I know from personal experience that a well-bred rottweiler is a superior fighting force than most human beings, consequently, a dog can excel for security purposes. The fact is a security dog can effectively DETER crime, which is the whole idea: PREVENTION, not confrontation. However, let's picture this: a person is attacked by street thugs, you can rest assure that a well-bred rottweiler will do better than pepper spray... and I don't care how tough you think you are, you cannot fight several opponents like a dog can (Van Damme, Seagal, and the like are made-believe ;) ). Let's go a bit further: if a man attempts to rape a woman (or a child) a rottweiler can dissuade a perpetrator better than the potential victim herself. Trust me. Albeit, some peope out there think they can fight anyone while their dogs hide behind them. And of course, we have the gun-toting dog owners bragging about [i]"I don't need my dog to protect me! I have a Glock .45 with laser sights loaded with Hydra Shocks and I pity the fool!" Uhm! Think about it.

The truth is protection dogs have prevented countless home invasions, attempts of rape, attempts of arson, burglaries, abduction of children, mug attempts (with the possibilty of serious bodily harm) etc., etc, in short: crime in general all over the world! And that is not including those police patrol dogs that track and apprehend criminals, or the military dogs that protect expensive combat aircraft, nuclear sites, scout for the troops, and so forth and so on, preventing potential terrorist attacks or the criminal element. Can rottweilers protect? You bet they can! However, do not think for a minute that by virtue of having a rottweiler you have a protection dog because, like I said before, not all rottweilers are bred equally (that is: bred to the standards of the breed, regarding temperament and character).

I have to say this again because it is a constant misundertanding: a protection dog is not a demon. A protection dog is really a WORKING dog (Bear in mind that the rottweiler breed belongs to the working group, and protection-guaerding is considered a working trait). In reality, some humans can be the demons that a good well-bred rottweiler may have to protect his family pack against! The demonization of security dogs come from extreme animal activists who are trying, ilogically, to humanize dogs. I love dogs with passion too, but I mean DOGS. I don't look at a dog and see a human being... Am I crazy?

Are protection dogs needed? Sure they are! They protect families (wives, children, single women, senior citizens, shop owners, etc.) EVERYDAY against the criminal mind-less... That is a true and not a fable.

German Vanegas

[Patty1231]

Very nice, German, thank you. I have one question - if a dog's lineage contains a full background of Sch I, II, and III parentage, does that mean this type of instinct IS bred in (as opposed to OB backgrounds)?

[sophie's-mom]

Originally Posted by German Vanegas

I know from personal experience that a well-bred rottweiler is a superior fighting force than most human beings, consequently, a dog can excel for security purposes. The fact is a security dog can effectively DETER crime, which is the whole idea: PREVENTION, not confrontation. However, let's picture this: a person is attacked by street thugs, you can rest assure that a well-bred rottweiler will do better than pepper spray... and I don't care how tough you think you are, you cannot fight several opponents like a dog can (Van Damme, Seagal, and the like are made-believe ;) ). Let's go a bit further: if a man attempts to rape a woman (or a child) a rottweiler can dissuade a perpetrator better than the potential victim herself. Trust me. Albeit, some peope out there think they can fight anyone while their dogs hide behind them. And of course, we have the gun-toting dog owners bragging about [i]"I don't need my dog to protect me! I have a Glock .45 with laser sights loaded with Hydra Shocks and I pity the fool!" Uhm! Think about it.

I just skimmed this mini-novel :D but this popped out at me. While it is true that a dog can deter better than a person trying to fight off in these two scenarios.........MOST TIMES......where these things take place isn't in the home. It's not at petsmart. Sometimes it's while someone is washing their car at the car wash. Sometimes it's while coming home from the supermarket. Not places easily thought that you would have a dog.

Do you post these strictly for argument purposes? No offense, for I respect your experience.....it just seems that your topics are extremely debatable.

[JoJo]

Do you post these strictly for argument purposes?

I don't believe that at all. In fact, German's posts MAKE people THINK. Healthy, civilized debate is good.

I like Patty1231's question. Do titled Schd dogs have what it takes to be good Security dogs?

JoJo

[sophie's-mom]

Originally Posted by JoJo

I don't believe that at all. In fact, German's posts MAKE people THINK. Healthy, civilized debate is good.

Well, maybe ARGUMENT wasn't the correct term, but there is a LOT of room for heated discussion in these posts and I was just wondering if there is ever a CONCLUSION.

[Vista]

How about we start off on the right foot? Discuss the points made in the post, not the motives of the poster.

[German Vanegas]

Originally Posted by Patty1231

Very nice, German, thank you. I have one question - if a dog's lineage contains a full background of Sch I, II, and III parentage, does that mean this type of instinct IS bred in (as opposed to OB backgrounds)?

You got it. The dog's heritage will tell you a lot about his own potential ;)

[LynnS]

I agree wholeheartedly withg German although I think even Dogs with the correct temperment need to be trained to actually become good protection dogs. Too complicate matters I also think that there are many some dogs who obtain Sch titles that do not really posses the correct temperment but that is a whole different topic

[Judy Chrusch]

German as anyone else, you're entitled to your oppinion and we all know your knowledge with the breed and there capabilities and purpose for being bred and though I don't disagree with the concept, what I get from your post is that no one should have a rottweiler unless you work it and correct me if I'm wrong but we shouldn't show them either, right ;) ?

By the way, SM was correct in saying this has the potential for one heated argument. I for one think you can have it all and I think it's a choice. So those of us who have shown and finished our dogs should not have done that bc it's not in the class of a working dog, pursay? I'm just trying to figure out the real reason all this is being brought up. I'm not offended and you are correct in alot of what you said but it won't stop me from owning a rottweiler for the reasons I chose. I've had many rotties, all of whom gave me great joy, had good personalities and no fears and they weren't all show dogs and certainly not working dogs.

So the only people who should own them are those who work them such as Schutzhund is that what you're saying? I'm by no means being sarcastic, just trying to understand and though you have your feelings on this, the BYB will always be around and your shelter dogs and all we can do is try to put them in the right homes.

It's funny but all the Rottweiler books I own have tons of pictures of show dogs, OB dogs, Therapy, not to mention show you the correct rottweiler. Those who chose Schutzhund are for the people who chose to have the more aggressive side of the breed ;) and that is what's stated in my one book. Does a rottweiler have to be correct when doing Schutzhund, it's a question bc I don't know the answer?

I think seeing a correct rottweiler in the ring is the most beautiful thing to see. So that being said, I will continue to enjoy my show dog and will be proud of his accomplishments and he will continue to live in his happy loving home without all that other. Thankyou for your input.

Judy

[German Vanegas]

Originally Posted by Judy Chrusch

what I get from your post is that no one should have a rottweiler unless you work it and correct me if I'm wrong but we shouldn't show them either, right ;) ?

I define work as the act of performing a task. You should train your dog beyond basic obedience (which is the minimum required to have a dog as family pet and is the equivalent to kindergarten) by teaching your dog to perform relatively simple tasks, thus satisfying the dog's willingness to please you. For instance, you can teach your dog to chase the ball, bring it back to you and drop it assuming certain posture (as a specific drill), and then reward him for it. You can condition your dog to be an alarm-security dog, by positively rewarding him when he alerts you of something out of the ordinary or invasive of his territory. By the same taken, you can condition your dog not to bark unnecessarily, so you develop a reliable watchdog. You can teach your dog to jump on command, retrieve a dumbbell, discriminate scents, and so forth and so on. All those activities are a form of work. It does not necessarily mean obedience or agility trials. You just exploit the dog's drives to do things that please you, the leader of the pack, thus giving the dog an incentive and motivation to feel useful by making him work for you.

The show ring is not my thing. I am not into beauty contests, however, I don't oppose to showing your dog but I don't promote it either. Particularly, under AKC's show rules where dogs are expected to allow a complete stranger to open the dog's mouth, check his teeth, manipulate the dog all over, including the genital area, and the dog is suppose to stay still and accept all that without any display of aggression I can't understand the logic of that. As even-tempered, socialized, and obedient as my dog is, he won't allow a stranger to manipulate him in such manner. He may react to the stranger by displaying aggression... And I don't see anything wrong with that, however, a show-dog judge would find such behavior unnaceptable!

Originally Posted by Judy Chrusch

So the only people who should own them are those who work them such as Schutzhund is that what you're saying? I'm by no means being sarcastic, just trying to understand and though you have your feelings on this, the BYB will always be around and your shelter dogs and all we can do is try to put them in the right homes.

I don't do schutzhund with my dog. So I hope my prior above reply have satisfied your inquiry about the term working. It can be applied from elemental things to advanced tasks and everything else in between. You have choices.

Originally Posted by Judy Chrusch

It's funny but all the Rottweiler books I own have tons of pictures of show dogs, OB dogs, Therapy, not to mention show you the correct rottweiler. Those who chose Schutzhund are for the people who chose to have the more aggressive side of the breed ;) and that is what's stated in my one book. Does a rottweiler have to be correct when doing Schutzhund, it's a question bc I don't know the answer?

The purpose of the sport of schutzhund is to measure the work ability of a dog, and the dog's potential to perform certain tasks. Schutzhund is about obedience-agility, tracking, and protection, under strict handler-control and within strict rules. Schutzhund is not about aggression, albeit some people seem to have that wrong perception. However, in doing schutzhund a dog displays his temperament, drives, courage and willingness to please his master; thus allowing the knowledgeable of the breed to evaluate the dog's capabilities. Schutzhund should not be misconstrued as a biting sport, because it is not. If your dog has a schutzhund background be very proud of it though ;)

Originally Posted by Judy Chrusch

I think seeing a correct rottweiler in the ring is the most beautiful thing to see. So that being said, I will continue to enjoy my show dog and will be proud of his accomplishments...

By correct rottweiler you mean conformation beauty? To me, the correct rottweiler meets the ideal standards of the breed, regarding working abilities and proper conformation. If the dog does not posses the right temperament, high drives, desired nerves, function ability, etc. but only "beauty," then that dog doesn't meet the definition of the total rottweiler. It is the sum of factors what makes the whole, and show ribbons alone are not enough

[LORHEL]

I understand everything you are saying, it is extremely important that people understand what a rottweiler was bred to do. I do believe personally that they are WORKING when they are in the ring, as well or any other activity that requires effort on their part. It might not be as important as security, and I know your entire post is based on that because that is your area of expertise. ;

I also can see where you are coming from about being in the ring, and the characteristics of the rottweiler (being aloof to strangers, etc.) being a downfall, however, I think if a handler and dog are one with each other so to speak, and they have a understanding of what they are there to do, then why not show the dog. The dog can be trained to understand the judge doing an handling/exam is all part of the process and accept it. Rather than assume the person is going to harm them by opening their mouth, etc....

I know they are not working or exerting theirselves, but if they don't have that drive, why not channel it somewhere else.

I obviously have a very low drive rottweiler. She is a rescue so I don't know her heritage. What I do know is she possesses, strength, character, protectiveness (I don't know if she would protect me or not, I just accept it for whatever it is) and has a sound temperament. For me personally, this works. No way could I handle a dog that was high drive, and had to be constantly worked. At least not yet, I am still learning every day.

I don't think you are here to argue, I think you can definitely have some heated conversations, but then if we didn't discuss things, and share viewpoints, it would be pretty boring.

[gingereebs2]

I don't know much about all of this, but I wanted to say this is a very interesting topic!

[lblax]

Originally Posted by LORHEL

I know they are not working or exerting theirselves, but if they don't have that drive, why not channel it somewhere else.

.

but lorrie the problem is the show dogs that dont and cant work but have great show achievments are getting the crap breed out of them and watering down the breed as a whole...show dogs that cant work(i'm not talking about show dogs that can work) and have show titles and no working titles proving they are real rottweilers are actually hurting the breed more than the byb are

[GenHannibal]

Originally Posted by lblax

but lorrie the problem is the show dogs that dont and cant work but have great show achievments are getting the crap breed out of them and watering down the breed as a whole...show dogs that cant work(i'm not talking about show dogs that can work) and have show titles and no working titles proving they are real rottweilers are actually hurting the breed more than the byb are

German, Larry:

Here! Here! Couldn't have said it better than that! And, it's not really the issue of "security" as in policing/protection. It is having a "stable nerves" which equals a very secure dog that equals the ability/drives to do protective work, tracking and other "working tasks".

[Judy Chrusch]

Very well put German and thankyou for addressing all my questions/concerns but isn't it true that if a dog is sound that you should be able to do what is done in the ring, such as checking teeth, touch their genitals, etc. though I always thought a judge was taking a heck of a risk with some but maybe my defination of a correct rottweiler isn't right then bc I thought it was the whole package ;). A sound and correct rottweiler is just that in every way, that's my interpretation of it. As far as liking the beauty of a dog in the ring, I mean that, again the whole package.

O.K you say you're not into showing a dog and the whole AKC, I can relate and I am in agreement to everything else you said about what the needs and wants of a rottweiler are. I do NOT agree with those who buy this breed and do nothing with them and there are some out their, that to me is so unfair to the working dog, we can agree to that as well right? You cleared alot up for me but came across in a different way which is why I wanted you to explain.

The rottweilers love to please and love to perform tasks no matter how simple and yes there are alot of things to do with them as I think the majority do or at least I hope. Heck we taught Czar silly things but he thought they were a big deal and he got rewarded for doing it right. Thankyou for clearing up the term, Working Dog. As for Schutzhund, I know their are people who do it for all the wrong reasons, such as an ego or power thing but that's there choice as showing your dog is. I believe people need to do something with their rottweilers bc they surely deserve working to their ability :). There are lots of options and choices for everyone.

Again, maybe I wrote it wrong or didn't specify but my defination of a correct rottweiler is NOT just in the ring. That being said I agree with your last sentence completely, it's the whole picture.

Judy