by Prager on 03 October 2018 - 16:10
I am bewildered by a notion that protection trained dogs are somehow more dangerous then dogs not trained protection. The ignorance of this notion is staggering. Personally, I got bitten many times and except in situations where equipment was not adequate or my skill was at fault during protection training, I was 100% of the times bitten by dogs which were not protection trained.
by susie on 03 October 2018 - 17:10
Almost all dogs that were involved in any " bite accidents" have been untrained dogs.
The researchers came to the conclusion that
1. trained dogs do behave/listen way better
2. trained dogs are handled by knowledgeable handlers
Only for clarification: "trained dog" in my country means "trained for any official dogsport".
I am sure dogs "trained" by "someone" for "something" are a totally different story.
by yogidog on 03 October 2018 - 17:10
by susie on 03 October 2018 - 17:10
by Prager on 03 October 2018 - 17:10
Yogi your points make sense in the dog educated dog community. But the perception that protection dog is more dangerous then untrained is widely spread amongst people with 0(zero) knowledge of dogs. I have encountered probably hundreds of husbands who wanted their dog to be trained obedience and protection and their wives (rarely the other way around) said that they do not want a vicious dog in the house or that they do not want their dog to be trained to be "mean". These people have had no education or experience with dogs what so ever and had no clue what entails results of dog training of a sound well-trained dog. To them, protection dog is a vicious or "mean" dog. Believe it or not but THIS IS A GENERAL OPINION OF MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO DO NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT DOG TRAINING, DOGS OR PROTECTION TRAINING. It then took me some explaining to do to communicate to them that the trained dogs are safer than untrained dogs. For example when I am selling a dog and am demonstrating it to the wife I always must first show that the dog is friendly with all family members preferably on the lovey-dovey level before I show protection capabilities of such dog. If I would foolishly do it the other way around then often the deal is dead even though if done otherwise the deal is on. Go figure. :)
by susie on 03 October 2018 - 20:10
When a family ( including children ) thinks about adopting or buying a dog the most important part for that dog is to be "social/stable", not protective.
Wife and children have to deal with this dog day after day, other children will visit, neighbours may say "hello".
The chance for a PP trained dog to meet "family and friends" on a regular basis is 100%, whereas the real need to protect wife or children (not some barking, but physical protection ) statistically is slim to none.
by Swarnendu on 04 October 2018 - 11:10
Then comes the question of what type of dogs we're discussing?
There are dogs, even GSDs, who are completely safe even around neighbours' rabbits, trained or not.
Obviously a dog suitable for protection is safer when it's trained to do the job. But, what about the dogs those are NOT suitable, are they safer after protection training, or they should be trained NOT to do protection?
by Sstillwater on 04 October 2018 - 11:10
by duke1965 on 04 October 2018 - 17:10
an all prey dog grabbing a running skirt or sweatpant is also registered as bitingaccident
by Prager on 05 October 2018 - 15:10
@Susie. FYI . A good family protection dog is sociable. That is what makes him "FAMILY protection dog.
Looks like you are part of the problem to promulgate otherwise. The point of this thread is that well trained PP dog is SAFER then very same dog which is not trained.
You must be logged in to reply to posts