Civil Dogs and Civil Work - Page 2

Pedigree Database

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

by Swarnendu on 24 March 2018 - 23:03

A Civil dog is a dog who is genetically inclined to attack a civilian without any provocation. This is NOT a normal behaviour. When it comes to humans, fear biting is the normal behaviour of ALL canines and felines, including the big cats, unless the human is an infant or infarm, and/or they are hunting in packs.

This is more so abnormal for dogs as a species, because when they were domesticated in the beginning, they were chosen for their traits of friendliness towards humans, and all dogs that showed prey drive towards a human must have been culled.

So, why do we still see civil dogs?

Just like show fanatics have bred in certain abnormalities in the structure to earn ribbons, work fanatics have bred in this abnormal behaviour to satisfy their pride and ego.

And, what should we do with these civil dogs?

In any civilized nation, wild animals either stay in the wild, or kept in the zoo, or if dangerous, are shot dead. They are not allowed to be kept as pets, or assigned some WORK.

No wonder why so many dog breeds are still banned in so many nations. Our breed has, thankfully, been generally accepted worldwide.

Let's not change that status due to some fanatics.


susie

by susie on 24 March 2018 - 23:03

Swarn, that's not entirely true.
Although a lot of breeds/single dogs have been selected ( and still are) for "friendliness" a lot of breeds/dogs have been selected for special traits - herding, property defense, the will to defend a herd, or simply to defend people.
Those dogs became our working dog breeds, originally no pet dogs, but working dogs.
No civil dog bites "without provocation".
Personally I'd like to say "reason" instead of provocation.
A stable, social dog will have a good reason ( for humans ) = defending us or our property, catching the bad guy-
unstable, fearful dogs, and/or dogs with a low threshold, or with high possiveness will have reasons we don't like and don't want.
These dogs are absolutely not breedworthy, and they don't belong in society.

by ValK on 25 March 2018 - 01:03

ok. here is question.
if dog has well balanced temperament and is confirmed no hesitant to bite human but during confrontation at some point did abandon fight and choose to flight - is such dog is civil or not?

Hundmutter

by Hundmutter on 25 March 2018 - 07:03

Last time this discussion had a thred of it's own, I think I contributed that the largest difficulty here was in the choice of the word 'civil' to describe what the dog is / was doing. Its a real pity that in English (both English English, and the American kind) 'civil' has a much more common everyday application as a word describing civilised, well-mannered behaviour, so when used to describe a biting dog there was bound to be some confusion.

Somewhere in one or other of the multiple languages used among afficianados of our breed, and working / sports training for it, there surely must be a different word with a different English translation we could have adopted ? Could even maybe change to using, NOW ? To eradicate that confusion.


Sticking for now with 'civil', I tend to come at these questions 'other end up' - the dog is a ('civilised', i.e. domesticated) species. It is no longer the wild creature from which it originally descended. One of the effects of domestication is that the dog has become bite-inhibited, particularly when it comes to humans (the other species involved in the domestication of the dog). So for your average family dog, willingness to engage and bite is no longer a 'natural' state, and if you want to bring out that element you have to consciously & deliberately train for it,
or breed it back in.

But the will and ability to bite have never been entirely eradicated from the dog. Many dogs are perfectly happy to engage in biting other dogs, or biting other animals to kill while hunting, even while they would never bite a human.
C/F Foxhounds.

We spend a lot of energy persuading growing puppies that 'mouthing' our tender flesh is a no-no.

So then we take some kinds of dog onto a training field and rag them and feed them bite pillows, and gradually harness that buried instinct to bite, until we can resurrect it.

Dogs are individuals. Some dogs, like some breeds, are more interested in biting and take to such training with more gusto; others ''wash out" in our eyes because they don't really want to do it.

That does not mean the dog is necessarily instead exhibiting either 'fright' ot 'flight', Val - just that s/he does not wish to sink his/her teeth into a human target (or a padded human), for whatever reason. Perhaps s/he just hasn't been rewarded adequately !

It might be acceptable or even desirable, in German sheep-herding methods, for the dogs from which GSDs descended to bite, or nip, the sheep sometimes. In other herding breeds, there is frequently no such requirement ! Isds Trials have no 'Bitework' element. Whatever Max v. Stephanitz saw in those early dogs to evidence their willingness to tackle a human aggressor, which made him think they would make good Army / Protection dogs, was I suspect very much more to do with overall trainibility and willingness to please a handler, than with a specifically 'civil' bloodline / genetic makeup.

RichCarne

by RichCarne on 25 March 2018 - 10:03

Valk wrote...

"ok. here is question. 
if dog has well balanced temperament and is confirmed no hesitant to bite human but during confrontation at some point did abandon fight and choose to flight - is such dog is civil or not?"

My opinion,

If the dog was engaged in a fight with a human and chose flight... choosing to run would be due to lack of courage / nerves ... the dog would have shown it is civil by engaging the human in the first place.

Rich.


by Centurian on 25 March 2018 - 14:03

Let's go back to the definition , if we all can agree : a civil canine is one that has the predetermined genetic make up that makes it ready , willing and able to bite and encounter a human . That means and entails several unwritten features : First , when we say a canine , Canine implies a sound , normal animal in psychologically and temperament make up.
S I agreed with susie , but Susie I would tweak your last post : A junk yard dog that you describe.. no they are not by definition ' civil ' dogs . They are by definition temperamentally unsound dogs. Same with fear biters , they are not civil dogs , fear biters are unsound dogs. The same can hold with other canines so called ' civil ' because if you look at them , they can be misconstrued as civil when indeed they are temperamentally deficient too.
So Swarn has a point to be addressed : when we breed , we select the traits and genetics , yes ? And how did many a unsound dogs originate , by our breeding practices ,by including bad genes or by not incorporating good genes in the breeding process which results in not a civil dog , by definition ready , willing and able normally t o bite a person , rather we have created a unsound canine with it's own motivation to bite a human .
Look at the dog world this way : you have a man / or woman psychologically and physically put together who is ready , willing and capable to endure confrontation and fighting when the situation calls for it. Some one bumps into him/her ...If he/she is a sound , mentally stable individual does that person look to beat the hell out of that person who did the bumping ? Does that person get stressed out and react ? Does that person have the ability to discern the situation , and behave accordingly ? Does the person have a clear and reasonable understanding what constitutes a threat and whether or not they should be threatened ? As opposed to a situation that same person that got bumped runs to defend his/her brother or sister that is being robbed and punches the lights out of the robber ? A person that beats the hell out of someone for merely being accidentally bumped ', is not civil , as we mean in the dog world , because they are not right in the head . They don't in truth have traits that make up by definition : civil .
A dog having the ability , the readiness and willingness to bite under the appropriate circumstance , for the right reason and does bite with a very clear stable emotional and mindful state is very very different than a dog that bites under the wrong circumstances, for the wrong reasons , in the wrong emotional state and wrong frame of mind. The latter are not civil dogs.. they are unsound dogs...

Valk , that is a grey area .. but I would agree with Rich : The dog encounters assuming for the right reason here, then it was ready , willing and able to encounter a human and did encounter. However , when all the chips are down , in life with a normal sound animal , what should matter most is 'self preservation' . Either a dog stays in battle because it thinks that it could possibly win or that it has no other option to live but to fight. . A dog thinking that it will lose but understands that it has other options to survive but continues to fight.. is one hell of a stupid animal .

by ValK on 25 March 2018 - 16:03

this was happen back in 80's. there was dispute and conflict went violent. my friend's dog got involved. when protecting his handler, was knocked down by hit by shovel to head. next moment dog get up and went back in fight. the guy ended in hospital badly mauled. dog for remaining life with ugly scar from wound on head.
i did know that dog very well before and after incident and there no any changes occurred in his behaviour after that event. still the same dog as before.
another example - on occasion i've been myself attacked by dogs, (on street, off leash parks). nevertheless, such attacks never ended by actual bite, albeit initial part was very colorful and promising. if they note a fear in attack's object they obviously will bite.

according to thesis "if dog have will to bite and will bite human - dog are civil" any of those dogs qualify to be civil, when in fact they just rotten spoiled or ill taught to be bully.

Centurian yes, "self preservation" instinct kicks in and in most situation it's normal natural behavior of living creatures. but we're talking here about dogs, which bred for purpose to be not only pet companion but partner in work and even protector, able to sacrifice own life, if necessity arise. and such behavior been demonstrated even among wild animals during protecting cubs, own pack... albeit self preservation instinct in wilderness more pronounced and important.


by Centurian on 25 March 2018 - 17:03

Hi Valk

I read your post... about your friend's dog.... I can't evaluate this dog on the story alone . Because I read the encounter between your friend and another got violent. So was the dog right to intervene without being told to do so ... Maybe. For example , if your dog was struck and hit , then YES. Ok , the dog was hit and went back to the fight.... so either this is perseverance and courage truly expressed or the dog could very well been an overaggressive canine . There aren't enough facts presented. Did your friend have this dog trained because if he ordered the dog to out ,and the dog would not out , then there is either a training problem and/or [ my suspicion ] a temperament problem here.

The dogs that attacked you ... again there is not enough information . If there was no real threat to them , or they were unprovoked by you , then these dogs have a temperament problems , a problem with the breeding as far as mentality and aggression is concerned. So .. when we discuss whether a dog is civil as opposed to not being civil .. I believe we have to talk about normal mentality and temperament . Because if we throw into the discussion dogs that are not normal in mentality and temperament and compare them to dogs that are , that is comparing apples to oranges. We are comparing two different things. And this is what I often see ... people mixing and confusing because what determines what a dog is, and is not , is : Temperament. As Susie wrote .. the genetics !.

I have seen many dogs thought of as civil , because they were ready , willing and able to bite a person , hence automatically deemed civil . But some of those dogs I refer to were not civil . They simply were plainly not right in the head canines- THAT is what they were , let alone civil or not civil .. They were nut case dogs. . Had nothing to do if they are civil or not - because they didn't have normal temperaments to begin with . They were not normal animals /dogs. I don't dare categorize , compare , contrast abnormal animals with normal animals.

Overaggressiveness ... many people can't recognize this.. THAT is where much confusion arises about dogs being civil and not civil. They try to take an abnormal dog and compare that to those dogs that are normal. An overaggressive canine [ temperament faulty ] ready , willing and able to bite a person is NOT even to be coined as civil / non civil . An overaggressive dog is just that , an overaggressive dog. I don't classify a temperamentally unsound or abnormal , is dog as being civil or not civil as I would classify a normal dog. IF the dog is not NORMAL it is not normal , period , classification stops right there. A dog should be normal . An that normal dog can be said to be civil or not. All civil dogs should be normal , but abnormal dogs can never be civil . They can never be anything but what they are .. temperament faulty /deficient dogs that are unsound with poor genetic make up.

If the dogs that attacked you , did so unprovoked , and I don't mean home territory protection and things of the like , I mean if you were in public minding your own business , non threatening to them and they attacked you .. if you did not try to overtly cause harm to them or their family member , then they were not right in the head dogs , sort to speak. In my definition of civil , I assumed we talked about normal dogs and normal circumstances. BTW ready, willing and able implies that the dog has been given reasonable cause and approproatenss due to the context to aggress.

by ValK on 25 March 2018 - 19:03

Centurian this event isn't about evaluation but rather description of particular character of particular dog.
and no, aggression or even over-aggressiveness doesn't mean absence self-preservation instinct in dog, albeit threshold can be much lower than usual.

the friend was from same club as myself. dog was german shepherd, fully trained with well balanced confident and calm temperament and strong aggression when needed. friend wasn't in position to control his dog due that at moment was in fight with another guy.

dogs, described earlier, in spontaneous attacks (i did notice such behavior prevail among pitbulls and mutts) wasn't provoked by me and that's why i call such behavior as "bullying". but unfortunately mostly this type of dogs does most harm to humans in daily life.
so, expanding perception of "civil dog" tag, the dog, which was taught to attack human, including dogs in law enforcement or legal personal protection, which during testing/training showed such abilities but upon facing real life situation do fail - is these dogs are civil or just professionally trained "bully"?

by Centurian on 26 March 2018 - 16:03

Val ... Yes I wasn't making an evaluation about the dog. I wrote that there was not enough information for an eval . I was making a general point .. and now that you bring up the word character- for readers to understand ; Character and Temperament are not the same ... they are related but they are different. For example , confidence is not a genetic trait. Confidence is a character trait, expression . Stress level for example is a trait. One needs the appropriate stress level to be of courage.

What I was trying to say in an additional , separate commentary is that : it is the TEMPERAMENT , the genetics that is important when we discuss civil and non civil in dogs. Character may play a role .. but it is the temperament that is the main determining factor. I tried to make known the fact that many people describe their dog as being civil when indeed the dog is not truly civil but more so acting out because of it's faulty temperament. The comment was not in reference to your friend's dog.

I don't know how to evaluate that situation and the dog and your friend. I have many ways to view this but not all the facts- I did not see the dog nor did I see your friend. To me the dog is only 50% of the equation and the handler the other 50% of the equation .I could have speculated : , even if your friend was bleeding on the ground with broken bones,if your friend outed the even in that condition ...I would like to think : I would expect that the dog outs and perhaps guard. And if this is what occurred then I look to see why .. the training , the handler , or the dog.. As I wrote , no way near the information that is needed was given to make any comments about the dog or situation .

I know at times there is a difference in ways of expression and enunciating our thoughts.. I don't always make myself clear .. Now , I use my own words that understanding dogs is not that much different than people :

Bullying : A person bullies because that person that bullies has a problem that he can't solve in any way , but to hurt someone else. That is a bully , a troubled person ! That person lacking skills , self esteem , etc etc , has and becomes problem ! Dogs that bully ... they are like people in the sense they are similarly problematic. At times there is a genetic expression to these problem dogs. They solve problems doing inappropriate behaviors too. The question that you asked .. I would say that they are professionally trained bullies. The environmental and the learned , conditioned behavior becomes an overriding factor in the expression od the behavior. And not the true underlying genetics . IMOp if they were truly civil they would have passed that over to real life. I believe that at the beginning of and during the training of these dogs , there was not a complete understanding of these dogs temperament. I want to state : People neglect to see the POWER of Environment on other people and dogs. Environment plays an incredible role , .. it is as much at times and certain contexts important as genetics . But environment cannot make a civil dog. Because we cannot make the dog what it is not.This is an absolute ! Environment contributes to the bringing out or to the inhibiting of what the dog is . BTW .. Val , do you know also , how many police dogs that I see that were temperament deficient ? I wrote before , you can title a temperament deficient dog , even temperament deficient dogs can at times even plough through police programs. That does not make them civil .. as stated in my previous post.. They are what they are : temperament deficient canines that passed with the right input police protocols . That doesn't change their faulty genetics or what they really ,truly are. But do what you will , or don't do .. you can change the spots on a leopard .. [ aside from the genetic splicing / engineering going on in the world now , but that does not apply here ]. I agree with Duke.. you can't make a dog civil it either is or it isn't by genetics.





 


Contact information  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement  Copyright Information  Terms of Service  Cookie policy  ↑ Back to top