"Natural handler aggression" - Page 1

I hear this phrase connected with what certain dogs will bring to breedings. I also hear it used to justify dogs that go after their handlers. Does handler aggression exist naturally - ie., a pup is hard wired to go after anyone, regardless?

I don't quite understand what the person meant who coined this phrase. I've never heard it before. "Handler aggression", yes. Of course I have heard of that, but what do they mean by "natural", unless perhaps it is within the nature of, or normal for, that particular dog. I think this is what they mean, and there are some dogs like this but it is a generally undesireable trait which should be avoided when selecting breeding prospects, for sure. We all know that dogs are "pack" animals, and thus possess a set of social behaviors as a part of their instincts. Within the range of social behaviors, there is the tendency to seek a place in the social heirarchy, and in our domestic dogs this follows the example of a wolf pack, wherein the most socially assertive and competitive wolf would be the "alpha" and the most subordinate the "omega". Pack position in the heirarchy is reinforced by rituals such as licking the mouth of and lying prostrate to a dominant wolf, and for the dominant "alpha" wolf, assuming a rigid stance or dominant posture when encountering another pack member. Rituals such as this assert and reaffirm pack position while avoiding actual fights. To some extent wolves (and dogs) are born with a tendency to take either social position, although this is also relative and flexible to a degree. For example, a younger wolf may not engage an older alpha male in a contest for supremacy until the young wolf is sufficiently mature and strong, and the older alpha is aging, sick and infirm. If a reigning alpha wolf is killed somehow and leaves the position open, a #2 ranking wolf would fill that position and begin to act as the pack alpha. So the degree to which a wolf (or dog) might display "alpha" behaviors could vary, yet experience has shown us that our dogs are born with a tendency to display variable degrees of social (alpha vs omega) behavior, and more importantly, our dogs are born with a variable tendency to demonstrate the extremes (or full range) of social behavior. Generally, the social behaviors (as other primal instincts), are generally somewhat subdued in their expression (modified via thousands of years of selective breeding) in domestic dogs, so that domestic dogs do not tend to challenge the owner. Thus a good GSD should show what I have heard one German working dog judge call "correct subordination". This is highly desireable in the working dog, and it is important to know that social behaviors (i.e. the range of behaviors demonstrated to pack members and familiars) is not directly related to a dog's defense and hunting behaviors. Thus, a correctly subordinate dog is not a lesser prospect as a working dog, however, because defense functions within the pack do involve rank, it is possible to "push down" our dogs' initiative to perform defense functions autonomously and fully if we are too hard on them as handlers. Because many working dog trainers do use a lot of force, the "hard core" trainers now tend to prefer a relatively handler-insensitive dog which will not be so easily oppressed by a strong handler. But are we then not actually selecting for relatively handler-hard and perhaps dominant dogs? (more)

Another problem that I have seen with some working dog lines of certain origins (especially certain old Czech working lines) is that some of the state breeding programs did, in some cases, try to introduce Carpathian wolf blood into the program to regain some of the full range of instincts and faculties, thought by some to be lost by dogs in the domestication process. What this interbreeding did was to make the descendants more "feral" in nature, that is more resembling and reverting to a wild or pre-domesticated state. Thus, the social behaviors in their extreme may be enhanced and exaggerated in their expression, in some animals. Within some of these bloodlines we will see sometimes either dogs which are so subordinate that they display excessive subordination when corrected or they may be at the other end of the range: dogs which are very prone to pick a fight with the handler / owner, or an unfortuneate child. Children are particularly vulnerable to injury from extremely alpha-behavior dogs, not only because of their general vulnerability, but because their faces are so close to the shoulders of the dog. In the process of posturing and signaling a challenge to one another, two dogs will place their heads and paws over the back and shoulder of one another, which often results in a fight or squabble. A child, barely taller than the shoulders of a dog, could be perceived as a challenge when standing next to an extremely alpha dog, especially if the child places his hand on that dog's back or shoulders and / or places his face close to that dog's face or looks directly into his eyes at close range. Also, I have seen hunting / stalking behaviors and sneak-bites and nipping directed towards small children in bloodlines where inappropriate social behaviors have been noted frequently. This would suggest that the overall range of behaviors in that bloodline has been reverted back to the more feral state, vs the domesticated state. (more)

It is true that domestication tends to dull the survival instincts in dogs which can be very useful to us. On the other hand, we must be able to live with these dogs, and integrate them into our families and society. There is really no need or justification for handler-aggression, even in working dogs. They pose a difficulty and a danger to all but the most experienced dog handlers. The criticism has been made by many trainers that many of the East German (DDR) GSDs are "too sensitive" for their style of training, and this is true. But the good ones do not lack for courage, drive and initiative in their man-work, and they are predictably tractable, devoted, and safe for the handler. I had a dog long ago who was himself and did produce some monstrousities with very strange behaviors, such as unwarranted attacks on people (including owners and familiars), stalking and nipping of small children, and frenzied, really insane attacks on hair-dryers, lawn-mowers, edgers, and anything else that make high-pitched noises. They could be "balls out" in defense work, but it was not a controllable, balanced defense. It was more like "coyote syndrome"! One of the daughters of this SchH3 dog met her fate on a highway in Arizona when she got out and succeeded in catching a car. She actually launched herself one of the tires and was dashed against the pavement! The amazing thing to me (and what really taught me something about the importance of genetics in behavior) was that there were so many really WIERD dogs in that one bloodline, and it was all headed up by the one dog who was known to have attacked handlers, owners and familiars, even putting some of them into the hospital for reconstructive surgery. There were rumors of incorrigible dogs in the background of that one dog which were very well-founded and widely known. A good dog will not and should not subordinate himself to you in less than approximately a two week period, so it is reckless to assume that you should be able to take a dog who doesn't know you and start to manhandle and jerk him around. No good dog should tolerate that. But after a familiarization process and an appropriate time period, a good dog will give himself to you and subordinate himself to you. A treacherous dog, on the other hand, will wait until you are least expecting it, and then attack, vying for social dominance. We don't need dogs like this and should not breed to them.

I would like to add one more thing: Anyone really wishing to understand dogs should make a good study of wolf behavior. There is so much more than what I can really put down here and of course we are still learning more as we study and observe the behaviors of wolves. I did see one picture of a pack of Canadian wolves strung out in a line, crossing a meadow in deep snow. The dominant alpha male was actually bringing up the rear (in an observant position relative to the rest of the pack and guarding the rear), and the "number two" male was in the front, breaking the trail for the others! THIS is what we want in our dogs.. We want a strong dog which has a job to do, subordinate to the leader but cooperative with him within the framework of his expected duties. In the presence of the owner, many dogs will welcome or tolerate visitors, and yet in the absence of the owner, this same dog will keep the same familiars out! This is another example of the correct role of our dogs. They have "the right stuff", but they will only show initiative such as they are permitted to do. When the owner is absent, or down / incapacitated, their role changes and they then become the de-facto "president" or "CEO of the company"! But these transitions and permissions should be almost intuitively perceived by a good dog. We do not have to beat them or choke them into submission! Nor do we have to be on guard lest they "blow up" on us.

Hmmm.. Well, I always think of one more thing to add, after I thought I was done, but this is worth mentioning, or actually important. Some degree of social behavior trending towards the "alpha" side of the range IS desireable in a top working dog, because if the dog is well socialized and habituated to a variety of humans, then he will of course recognize humans as a "quasi-dog" or a social peer, in a sense the same species as his own. Thus, direct conflict with another human, especially a very strong and willfull one such as a large man, will tend to prompt or trigger some social instincts in the dog. It is very important that a really good dog have a strong fighting drive, i.e. a willingness and compulsion not only to engage the man, but to actually triumph in a fight. Again.. It is that "number two" to the alpha dog that we want to select and to bring out in our training. Since social behavior and function IS definitely impacted by environmental factors, such as the relative dominance and subordination of other pack members, we (being the de-facto alpha peer to the young dogs) do not want to drive our dogs down by brutal and insensitive tactics, or by pushing them too far too fast, beyond their maturity. Too many people are impatient with their young dogs and want to test them and show them off as prodigies. This is foolish! The dog should be allowed to mature naturally and brought out to train in protection when he / she is ready. So, yes, we DO want some initiative in the dog to dominate a human being but NOT to the extreme of challenging the handler and neutral bystanders. A good dog will affection and responsive to a degree, although many good dogs do have a certain reserve. But you can see that they react positively to encouragement, praise and affection.

Well said. I have only seen one dog like you described and he is now back in Europe. If people ever see this type of dog they will think themselves lucky indeed that it was someone elses dog and they did not have to cover the scars before going out. That said I still believe far too many soft all around bark happy dogs get bred and people find they have to go somewhat near the nutbars to get some hardness back. I suppose an expirienced breeder could handle that breeding and find homes after culling the litter. More often than not though, those breeders will not have painted themselves into that corner.

Well said. I have only seen one dog like you described and he is now back in Europe. If people ever see this type of dog they will think themselves lucky indeed that it was someone elses dog and they did not have to cover the scars before going out. That said I still believe far too many soft all around bark happy dogs get bred and people find they have to go somewhat near the nutbars to get some hardness back. I suppose an expirienced breeder could handle that breeding and find homes after culling the litter. More often than not though, those breeders will not have painted themselves into that corner.

very nice post, DDR-DSH. i enjoyed that very much - though it was rather long :) assuming that schh sport is an indication of suitability for service work.....why on earth would any handler want to do battle with their own dog before training, competition or going out on the streets??? the last thing a k9 handler should be worried about is a challenge from his own partner. there seems to be more than a few with dumb@$$ notions about what a dog should or shouldn't be. as laporte suggested, that sort of thinking is hatched up by individuals who would justify faulty temperament in their dogs and possibly faulty training on their part. :( pjp

I supose that the BH is there to prevent these dogs from breeding. The dog I previosly mentioned is now titled in Europe. There is no way this dog drugged and on his luckiest day of his life could even report in. He was owned by a great handler btw and still could not over come his problems.