what would you fear the most in being confronted by a dog; - Page 3

I should have read it more carefully. In fact I remember seeing they both are certified. So in that case, the question which one would I prefer genetically is not applicable because both dogs are doing as trained. Question should be, which method of indicating would I prefer. If the person is running in my house or into an outbuilding, then bite and hold....take the intruder down. So neither of the above.

VK said they are certified to locate and alert witout engagement

He also said they are not titled and not sport trained, means no sch, no IPO

VK only question was (please analyse the dogs drives and intent and which dog would you prefer genetically)

 

He did not ask which dog you would fear more

 

Engaging and attacking is not a probability neither a possibility as they were trained not to engage

Ibrahim,

There is a question in the title of the thread.  Which dog would you fear more.  We are answering that question.

You can't analyse the dog's drives or genetics because they have been modified through training and standing there watching them watch me isn't any way to test their genetics or their drives.

It's a faulty question with a terminally flawed scenario.  You can't judge genetic behavior on a trained animal absent a way to test them. 

Then I agree it is faulty,

 

If some one like bzcz trained those two dogs I would fear none as they were trained not to engage

And that leads to the question: Are they willing to engage in case the bad guy attacks them although they weren´t trained to do so?
Afterwards we may discuss their breed worthiness because of genetic behavior.

Were hot dogs used at any point in this case study is really what I want to know. 

                                     Did they stop and not engage due to the enticement of pink slime and fake meat???

                                                                             This to me would be an overiding factor in question with regards to breedworthiness. 

imagine the scenario any way you want just explain your reasoning.

 

ok i had a slight episode of creative writing in the descriptions, sue me.

 

i see the funny side of the concept now, not what i originally planned but oh well.

 

For all of the weight being put on the qualifier that the dogs are trained and certified to locate but not engage, I submit that as 'the bad guy', you'd be unlikely to know that. Even if you DID somehow have that information, there's another point being overlooked: dogs are sentient creatures, with emotions and fears and anxieties not found within inanimate objects, and like all sentient beings, if the dog feels the need to defend itself, that instinct will likely override the training to not engage unless the dog is too weak to stand its ground and opts for flight instead of fight. So I don't think it would be wise to put all one's trust in the training...if it can break down under the right [or wrong, depending how you look at it] circumstances in humans, why would one expect a dog to be any less susceptible?

Bad guy with no or limited understanding of dogs would probably be slightly more fearful of the bouncing puncher; one with common sense, though, with just a bit of knowledge of animal behavior, would likely feel their blood run colder from the silent observer whose entire being and every neuron is focused directly on the person, just waiting for them to so little as an eye twitch.

But yeah, neither scene is realistic. Reminds me of the old paintings of horses in motion with their limbs depicted in positions that aren't achievable by an actual living, moving horse.  Fun to picture it, though.

But vk didn't say if you are a bad guy who knows nothing about dogs. So I put myself into the scenario. I would definitely say the fixed, staring dog would instill the most fear in me.