My older dog is also very protective of the family, and has bitten when defending one of the kids. It is my responsibility as the owner to make sure she is under my control. When the kids were young, she was always crated when friends were over. But this getting away from the original post. I still think the dog was more likely defending his stick from the golden, and not defending the the owner. I am pretty sure the golden was growling to get the stick, not the human.

Why am I getting this when I am loking for the Bernard Flinks seminar info? Is it Me or my Polish computer? No offence to any Polish people out there as I am also and left handed.

 Quote:

Blah blah blah blah blah

Back at cha <img src="http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />
You obviously misinterpreted my post as an "excuse" for the dog. Not an excuse, just 2 possible explanations of the behavior. How much control would you have over a situation if another dog does attack you, and your dog sits by since you've taught it so well to never have a confrontation with another dog, that these confrontations were never allowed under any circumstances....because that is what it sounds like you're saying (unless "I" have misinterpreted "your" post).

I want a dog that will protect me against dog or man, and I do believe dogs know a threat against their loved ones when they encounter it (generally speaking, not necessarily regarding the Golden and the GSD). If they're wrong, and of course they could be and will be, but not always, and I sense there is no threat, I will put an end to any aggression my dog may have at the time. I want him to be my back-up in case I need him to be, and to be watchful and alert at all times. It's the world we live in. Your world sounds perfect, like no dog will ever attack another dog out of the blue, no dog will ever attack you while your dog is present, and no person will ever attack another person. I will always do what's needed to avoid confrontation between my dog and another dog, and have, but to say you would never need your dog to protect you sounds a little naive.

Seems a couple of threads have the wrong url attached, got the same thing this morning.

 Quote:

.... How much control would you have over a situation if another dog does attack you, and your dog sits by since you've taught it so well to never have a confrontation with another dog, that these confrontations were never allowed under any circumstances....because that is what it sounds like you're saying (unless "I" have misinterpreted "your" post)..... I want a dog that will protect me against dog or man, and I do believe dogs know a threat against their loved ones when they encounter it (generally speaking, not necessarily regarding the Golden and the GSD). If they're wrong, and of course they could be and will be, but not always, and I sense there is no threat, I will put an end to any aggression my dog may have at the time.......

My feeling is that I will decide on aggression....... not that I will try to end it after it has started.

I think the chances of your dog who is not a protection-trained dog appropriately "protecting you against dog or man" (and on his own volition) are slim to see-through.

Allowing aggression to be up to the dog and not the handler is (again, JMO) a very bad plan.

 Quote:

.... How much control would you have over a situation if another dog does attack you, and your dog sits by since you've taught it so well to never have a confrontation with another dog, that these confrontations were never allowed under any circumstances....because that is what it sounds like you're saying (unless "I" have misinterpreted "your" post)..... I want a dog that will protect me against dog or man, and I do believe dogs know a threat against their loved ones when they encounter it (generally speaking, not necessarily regarding the Golden and the GSD). If they're wrong, and of course they could be and will be, but not always, and I sense there is no threat, I will put an end to any aggression my dog may have at the time.......

 Quote:

My feeling is that I will decide on aggression....... not that I will try to end it after it has started.

I think the chances of your dog who is not a protection-trained dog appropriately "protecting you against dog or man" (and on his own volition) are slim to see-through.

Allowing aggression to be up to the dog and not the handler is (again, JMO) a very bad plan.

I understand what you mean when you say you will be the one to decide on aggression, but what I meant is that if a dog becomes ready to encounter what he perceives to be a threat, that can happen in an instant and is what I meant by "putting an end to it". I'm not advocating letting a dog be aggressive when he wants to be; protective yes, watchful and alert, and aggressive only if I need him to be.

I've heard several people say what you said about a dog that isn't protection-trained not able to protect the owner against threats, but I've heard the opposite as well through the decades; stories of just that happening, for example: a Golden protecting his owner against 2 guys, a dog (don't remember breed) protecting his owner against a bear, my neighbor whose little chihuahua bit at the legs of an intruder in their backyard and drove him away; many others through the years. It may not be perfectly trained protection but if the owner has a chance to get away or secure a weapon, that's pretty darn good enough. Most people will never need to see if their dog will protect them, thank God, so I believe a statement that a dog that isn't protection trained will not protect you is hard to prove. No offense intended to anyone who thinks differently.

 Quote:

.....Most people will never need to see if their dog will protect them, thank God, so I believe a statement that a dog that isn't protection trained will not protect you is hard to prove. No offense intended to anyone who thinks differently.

But that wasn't the statement. The statement was regarding a untrained dog QUOTE: appropriately "protecting you against dog or man" (and on his own volition) END QUOTE

"Appropriately" was part of that statement.

Of course an untrained dog *may* attack a combatant or intruder. But there are two big problems. One is that to rely on that is foolish (IMO) and the other is that a dog who is allowed to decide on aggression on his whim is (IMO) far more likely to cause a big problem than to solve one.

Saying "when I need him to be" sounds like it's the pet dog's decision when you need him to be aggressive. That doesn't work well.

How it doesn't work well is evidenced in the original post. <img src="http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

 Quote:

I want a dog that will protect me against dog or man,

Me too! I'd like to see any woman on here jump in between a pitbull, a rottweiler or other similar dog, and their dog on a walk. That is one situation where I'm going to look to my dog for protection because I can't take on those dogs and realistically expect to be the victor. I'm scared <img src="http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" /> I'd sooner jump into a crowd of crack heads than attempt to fight one of those dogs.

 Quote:

I've heard several people say what you said about a dog that isn't protection-trained not able to protect the owner against threats, but I've heard the opposite as well through the decades

I've heard and also seen so I'm with you Sandy. Sometimes I wonder if dogs aren't different in different areas and places in the US. Tougher areas, tougher people, tougher dogs. Tougher people will not settle for a weak dog so I think this contributes to the strength of dogs per a given area. JMO.

 Quote:

.... Sometimes I wonder if dogs aren't different in different areas and places in the US. ..... Tougher people will not settle for a weak dog so I think this contributes to the strength of dogs per a given area. JMO.

<img src="http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Oh, that's a given. Everyone knows that dogs from, say, NYC (and apparently Phoenix) are a different species from dogs who live in other places. <img src="http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Now, moving away from geographical effects, "Tougher people will not settle for a weak dog."

This has gone so totally off the course and into the deep dark woods ......... <img src="http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Now it's the toughness or weakness of a dog that determines whether it's wise to allow the dog to decide on aggressive response?

Yikes.

I would say dogs from ghettos with criminals are different than dogs from upper income areas. And yes, I would be hesitant to attempt to drive away a dog in a NYC ghetto <img src="http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />

No, toughness or weakness doens't necessarily determine anything except whether or not the person walking their dog innocently is going to get bit. I was merely stating that I understood Sandy's viewpoint. You're right this is going off into the deepwoods <img src="http://www.leerburg.com/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> Sorry for offending your sensibilities Connie.