What is meant by "civil aggression"? - Page 1

I see this term used and kind of get an idea of what I think it means.  And then I read a different place and realize it can't mean what I thought. Does that make sense? Maybe not. Can some one give me an example?

Thanks,

Dawg

I have always took it to mean the aggression towards people, similier to being "sharp".

Okay. So, when people say a dog has a high civil aggression does that mean aggressive to all people (outside of owners) all the time? Or that they aren't intimidated by people when it is necessary to stand up to them?

I'm just trying to figure out if it's a positive or a negative.  Maybe depends on the dog's job? A positive for a K-9 and a negative for a therapy dog? Is that accurate?

 

Dawgs, the level, rather that the presence, of civil aggression should perhaps be the most important factor when deciding a dog's suitability for a task. How high is the civil aggression; so high that the dog will take a bite out of his handler? Or just enough where the dog is quite formidable and can easily learn to make what he thinks is an unprotected bite on a K-9 helper, and later on a crime suspect? It has always been my understanding that the term "civil" is used when a dog will bite a decoy who is not wearing a prey item, such as a visible arm or leg sleeve. Basically, sees the total man as a threat or prey item, rather than an article worn on his body. Add the terms "forward aggression" and "rearward aggression" and it complicates things a bit more. DesertRangers, I understand the term "sharp" to be directly related to the level of civil drive and its controllability in all situations that a dog may face. A "sharp" dog is one who is not hesitant to bite anyone that he sees as a threat, whether real or perceived, and will little provocation. That is the extreme end of forward aggression, and these dogs have a very limited usefulness unless employed in military work or guarding duties. Perhaps someone can add more detail, but that is my understanding. Bob-O

I personally don't think so, I wish there were more responses, I can't say this is totally clear to me. When a dog has a choice between the aggressive helper and an easily available sleeve on the ground, it is called civiling away from the sleeve, correct? When a dog will show aggression AND bite a suspicious/aggressive person who is NOT wearing a sleeve, would that be considered Civil aggression? OR is it an "excuse" or term for dogs that are unapproachable by strangers? If civil aggression is meant by a dog who knows the difference between threat or non threat and willing to ACT when necessary regardless of the "bad guy" wearing equipment then I'd say that my dog is "civil" HOWEVER he is totally approachable, outgoing and is an active therapy dog. Am I missing something? please enlighten me.

Thanks BOB-O we must have been writing at the same time, thats what I was looking for.

I would call it that the dog is not equipment trained. He is going after the man. Some dogs are natural at this but many are not. This is where some trainers(K9) use agitation in order to make the dog suspicious of the bad guy. It is a natural taboo for a dog to bite a human. We have been talking on another post on the Kohler method of guard training in which he addresses this. I just re-read his book this weekend. Alot of sport people hate this book but he is not training for sport.

Further to the sharpness explanation. I believe it to be the opposite of dullness. The dog is sharp if he loads to the highest with minimum stimulation. This is good for a dog with great nerve or a disaster with poor or lack of nerve in which case anything can set the dog off. I have seen super solid dogs with great nerve that you had to bring hugh pressure to get appropriate protection responses from. These dogs we called dull.

D.R. if you read this post, let me know if I remembered correctly about the blunt object on the bridge of the nose. Just mostly want to check my memory. thanks

olkoolgsds ( Kohler Method) Yes he does discuss using a stiff rubber hose to hit across the bridge of the nose. He mentioned this for two situations, both for strong willed mature dogs. One if the dog refuses to "Out" and the other for a dog taking un-provocked bite. (I know misspell) His reasoning was that you have to be in control of your dog (remember his book is how to train guard dogs like police or security). If you have this strong willed dog it is best to get his attention the first time and break the habit as he mentioned by not coming on strong enough you are creating a dangerous dog.