Explaining Dog:Dog Aggression Vs. Dog:Human Aggression

[German Vanegas]

Originally Posted by FredAl

Good natured, placid in basic disposition and fond of children, very devoted, obedient, biddable and eager to work. His appearance is natural and rustic, his behavior self assured, steady and fearless. He reacts to his surroundings with great alertness.

The FCI/ADRK got it right. That's what a true rottweiler is all about. I specially like that part about fearless quite a bit

[Judi W]

Yup, give me a really excellent trainer every day. A good trainer MUST know behavior to be successful and they put their money where their mouth is instead of spouting platitudes whilst sitting on the couch.

[TrishB]

So what is it that you find so distasteful about evaluating the situation and all of the attributors to the situation BEFORE jumping to a conclusion?

A dog with dog:dog aggression, may or may not have dog:human aggression. Evaluate it and go from there - there are no blanket solutions with any dog. But to assume that a dog would attack a child due to dog:dog aggression without evaluating the dog and the situation? What is the harm in reviewing the facts?

I am fully aware of the responsibilities of owning this breed. I carefully weighed them before I got my dog. I have no delusions about our dogs being big teddy bears or little people in fur coats. I am aware of my dogs working capabilities and his inherant drive to work. So don't you dare tell me that I'm misguided about my dog. There are people that shouldn't own this breed - I am not one of them.

I guess we'll have to agree that we disagree and leave it at that. This discussion seems to be complete. Thank you for your posts.

[German Vanegas]

Originally Posted by TrishB

...I guess we'll have to agree that we disagree and leave it at that. This discussion seems to be complete. Thank you for your posts.

The problem is not to accept when you are wrong or when you don't fully understand a subject or a specific issue. Whenever you feel like you are incorrect, you just end the thread by stating something to the sort: "I have nothing else to say" Instead you could recognize you were in the wrong to begin with

[German Vanegas]

Originally Posted by Judi W

Yup, give me a really excellent trainer every day. A good trainer MUST know behavior to be successful and they put their money where their mouth is instead of spouting platitudes whilst sitting on the couch.

I am with you all the way

[FredAl]

Originally Posted by German Vanegas

You know Fred, those "dog behavioral experts" are sprouting everywhere with dubious credentials from "dog" universities (pun intended). They appear to claim to be "canine psychologists" and even "dog's mind readers", short of "Tarot readers for dogs"

These "new age behaviorists" are also contributing to the increase of aggression problems in Rottweilers. Similar to diseases, canine aggression that is incorrectly diagnosed and treated, may aggravate the problem.

[German Vanegas]

Originally Posted by FredAl

These "new age behaviorists" are also contributing to the increase of aggression problems in Rottweilers. Similar to diseases, canine aggression that is incorrectly diagnosed and treated, may aggravate the problem.

I concur with you 110%. I have said it all along in different threads and replies. The "new age dog psycos" or so-called "canine behaviorists" are doing more harms than goods. To begin with, those guys do not understand (don't have a clue!) about the subject of canine aggression and what is all about. They know nothing, or have the wrong notions, about schuzthund, French ring, KNPV, ect, let alone protection and guarding Therefore, they misguide lots of people into believing that working guarding breeds are "things of the past" and dogs owe to have a general disposition, as in all of them were Golden Labrador Retrievers

[FredAl]

Originally Posted by Judi W

Fred is absolutely correct and having that stupid phrase in the AKC standard seems to mislead many a novice owner into excusing dog on dog aggression. (partially because they do not seem to read carefully). It should be removed.

Any dog that is hostile to the point of aggression to other dogs cannot be used in work as it means they do not keep their minds on their business and are easily distracted.

Exactly, Judi. And novice dog breeders misinterpret the AKC breed standard, and won't hesitate to breed inherently dog aggressive dogs because it's not faulted anyway, thus propagating genetically-dominant aggressive dogs that sometimes manifest unthinking rage.

Dogs that are inherently dog aggressive are difficult to BH-title, and they cannot go on to pass breed suitability tests or attain SchH titles.

I'm surprised that the Canadian breed standard still kept the same phrase about not faulting dog aggression while they changed the standard for accepting tails.

[Judi W]

Just like other behaviors, dogs can learn to control their inclinations for same species aggression especially if it is gotten on the very minute it appears (usually young adulthood). Extinguishing it before even the thought fully developes takes care of the issue. If the dog is allowed to indulge in it at all, then it can become extremely difficult because it is so very rewarding for the dog.

It only takes a single encounter for people to form an opinion that the breed itself is vicious and should be banned. If their dog has been injured or terrrorized, who can blame them. No one wants to be in a training group with such a dog and if the owner of a dog that attacks other dogs excuses the behavior by blaming the standard, instead of controlling the dog, they do great harm to the image of the breed.

I was once told that each individual dog represents its breed to those that meet it and that is quite true. They are not meeting two hundred and saying well, only five percent is vicious. They are meeting that one dog and for them it is one hundred percent.

[lblax]

Originally Posted by Judi W

if the owner of a dog that attacks other dogs excuses the behavior by blaming the standard, instead of controlling the dog,

the problem really is with the owners not the standard, many rottweilers do not care for other dogs there are many ways to tell if your dog is aggressive to other animals before an attack happens...this is where knowing your animal and knowing animals in general comes in to play.. it is perfectly alright for your dog not to like other dogs but the properly bred/trained/and handledrottweiler even though he may not like the dog ,works through this without incedant.. so wheather the standard is outdated or incorrect really doesnt matter, when i read it i looked at it as ,thats something to look for and train for and i have pointed it out to many people, that have said

i cant believe my dog got into a fight at the dog park

the statemant in the standard should not be an excuse for not training your dog to work through its problems

[Judi W]

I think most of us have repeated the mantra that the Rottweiler is not a "dog park" breed until our throats are sore. Their mere presence (and they do have a lot of presence) can too often stimulate panic defense in other dogs even without any overt action of their own. Social mates should be selected carefully and not left to happenstance. And, no, they won't die if they aren't allowed to run at large even where legal nor will they die if they don't have doggy play dates at all.

[German Vanegas]

And those who believe the rottweiler should be a “Lassie” type of dog, thus disregarding the time honored working tradition of the breed and its unique temperament and disposition, will also perpetuate the problem based on ignorance. The rottweiler has a very distinctive character and traits, but the breed is over-generalized by "dog behaviorists" who pretend to know everything about all breeds in general, as in all of them were the same... But we know better than that

[TrishB]

Originally Posted by German Vanegas

The problem is not to accept when you are wrong or when you don't fully understand a subject or a specific issue. Whenever you feel like you are incorrect, you just end the thread by stating something to the sort: "I have nothing else to say" Instead you could recognize you were in the wrong to begin with

That's because I'm not wrong. You have NO intentions of even considering anything I say - which is apparent when every thread that I post in, regardless of the topic, you insist on slamming it. Even if it's a what do you do question, you get up on your podium and slam some comment that wasn't even said! You’ve been trolling for arguments.

I do not believe that dog:dog aggression equals dog:human aggression. You seem to think it does. I agree more with Mick Trainer than you on this issue. Period.

Just because we disagree doesn't mean that one of us is right and one of us is wrong - it just means that we disagree. You would chose to make a blanket statement, I would chose to evaluate the situation and then come to a conclusion. You still haven't acknowledged why you would chose to condemn a dog for dog:dog aggression rather than evaluating that dog first. The dog may very well also present a danger to people - I'd rather review the dog and the situation first and arrive at that conclusion than assuming it like you.

(And let's be real here people. No one has said that a dog with dog:dog aggression is a breeding candidate or a wonderful example of the breed or something to strive for or to encourage.)

The fact that you're still harping on it and trying to force the issue just makes me and others roll their eyes and ignore you. Which is quite sad because most times, you have some very interesting views. When you force it and become overbearing and condescending - no one listens. So how about also recognizing that others may have something to say as well and that we all have something to contribute? Or even better, if you can't say something constructive rather than argumentative, don't say anything at all.

I know you're going to reply to this - I won't simply because I'm tired of being slammed by you. I'll see you in my next thread.

[Burnsway]

Originally Posted by TrishB

Even if it's a what do you do question, you get up on your podium and slam some comment that wasn't even said! You’ve been trolling for arguments.

.

Trish that is not true. You can surf many threads where German and I went head to head and if you take what he says and apply it to what you are learning you can get a value of knowledge.

The same thing could be said about you and some of the threads you open such as Why have an intact dog? You know darn well that could be a heated thread but you started it along with others like it. Why? Because "YOU" want arguments or because you want to learn?

I don't think you or him are looking to troll for arguments. You have a different way of seeing things and good debates always help one get knowledgeable. But he is correct that when you feel you may be out weighed in the information you just plain say I had enough and shut down.

How can anyone see your view or angle if you shut down and pretty much say I'm not going to play anymore............

[German Vanegas]

Originally Posted by TrishB

That's because I'm not wrong. You have NO intentions of even considering anything I say - which is apparent when every thread that I post in, regardless of the topic, you insist on slamming it. Even if it's a what do you do question, you get up on your podium and slam some comment that wasn't even said! You’ve been trolling for arguments.

You clearly showed that you do not know much about inter-dog aggression, nevertheless you don't want to accept it. In fact, you learned a lot from this thread. Yes indeed.

Originally Posted by TrishB

I do not believe that dog:dog aggression equals dog:human aggression. You seem to think it does. I agree more with Mick Trainer than you on this issue. Period.

No, that's incorrect. Everybody else, including Mick Trainer, know that I did not say that dog aggression equals to human aggression. What I did say, and was clearly understood by others except you, is that a dog with strong dog-aggressive behavior, in combination with high prey drive, can be triggered to attack a child, due to the normal actions of children. Even Mick Trainer agreed with me that I could happen.

Originally Posted by TrishB

Just because we disagree doesn't mean that one of us is right and one of us is wrong - it just means that we disagree. You would chose to make a blanket statement, I would chose to evaluate the situation and then come to a conclusion. You still haven't acknowledged why you would chose to condemn a dog for dog:dog aggression rather than evaluating that dog first.

This is not the case of disagreeing. It is about you pretending to know about this specific issue, when the line of questioning posted by you clearly indicates that you don't really know much about it.

Originally Posted by TrishB

The fact that you're still harping on it and trying to force the issue just makes me and others roll their eyes and ignore you.

Is that why you keep replying? To ignore me?! Anyway, find me one respectable credible member of these forums that will say that I don't know what I am talking about Go ahead