Chris,

I have no doubt that there are Dobe's out there that are as good as dogs from other breeds. I have no doubt that they can be as good as dogs in many other breeds. One of the best things that was always available in the protection breeds is the differences in the breeds in terms of work style and temperament. I have long been involved in the working of "different" breeds for protection. The context of the entire discussion here is that Dobes are as good as any other breed, so any example put forward of the dogs I would assume is meant as a demonstration of good dogs to support the argument that they can function as well as any other breed.

As for your other comments and questions, THe idea that breeding any dog to be that nasty and dominant is not responsible in any breed or by any breeder. There is (in my mind) a huge difference in a dominant, civil dog and a nasty out of control dog. Perhaps the dogs you described could have been acceptable working dogs in the proper hands. So why were they sold to these owners? I believe that a breeder has a responsibility to the dogs they breed to make sure they are in proper homes, with owners that can handle them. There are breeds that have rank issues, I have owned one of them for 15 years in the Giant. Even with what I would call a consistant tendancy towards civility and dominance and rank issues, I would not consider the level of rank issue described with these dogs as acceptable. And yes I have been nailed by my own dogs, I know others that have been nailed at this same level by their Giants, the response to dogs that are so rank that they put their own owners in the hospital was to put the dogs down as poor examples of the breed. In those particular cases I firmly believe it was a genetic defect in the line based on the number of dogs with the same problem in the same line.

The idea that in order for a dog to function well as a protection dog it must have high level rank issues is crazy. Dominance and hardness are a seperate issue from rank problems. One of the hugh problems that came up in the protection breeds is the idea that this level of rank problem is acceptable, or even desireable in a working dog. It was a prime motivation by many to attempt to breed the protection instincts out of many breeds. It also created some big problems with training done in protection where it became acceptable to think that the way to train an acceptable protection dog is to "kick it's ass" on a regular basis. This is has also contributed to the idea that a protection dog is by it's very nature a dangerous animal. Historicly these dogs were members of the family as well as perfoming their functions as guardians. Dogs with this type of rank issue could not then, or now, serve that purpose.

Sometimes our testostorone may get the best of us and we wear some of the scars we get from our dogs as badges of honor. Some breeds have always had some rank issues, but it wasn't a constant thing. It was an issue that had to be dealt with and then it was over. The idea that it takes a super tough dog in all areas to function as a good protection dog is a fallicy. As an example from a GSD I had here are a couple of stories about this dog. At one point the dog caught someone in a garage area. The guy grabbed a chain that was being used to pull engins out of cars. He hit the dog in the face with the chain. Broke the dogs jaw in 2 places. The dog held him there and the guy will never use his right arm again because of the damage the dog did after having his jaw broken. That same dog sat on our kitchen floor sharing breakfast with my 2 year old neice. We were having ebelskievers ( a round Danish pancke type of thing). One for the neice, one for the dog, one for the neice, one for the dog.... no wait I want that one. At the time she changed her mind she had her arm all the way to the shoulder down the dog's mouth. That is a protection dog in any breed.

Trying to put it on the _______________,even though your questions are stupid.

First:
Yes, but what do you mean. Would I respect these traits as something desirable? Or would I respect an animal with these traits so I wouldn't get bit?

Second:
Yes

Third:
??
"Ok lets see if you guys will put it on the lines here, we know that some Mink offspring are dominent dogs that if not handled by experienced owners then they can be handler aggressive, these Mink sons would then be fit in the same comments you made about these dobes (y/n)"

?? Re-word your question in a way that makes some sense and I'll be glad to answer it.

I think Richard said most of the stuff I was gonna say. Jerk. . .

How about some more questions? I like this. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

My dad can beat up your dad...oops sorry wrong thread
<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Chris,

The answers to your questions are yes, yes, and yes. What is your point?

My point is you went on to say that we haven't seen any "good ones". you then went on to talk about these "good ones" as if to say these are great dogs. Now if that meant "good" soley as in high civil drive then it was more of you not making that clear then us taking you out of context. I'll say that perhaps we mis-understood what you were trying to say and leave it at that. I don't think the phrase "taken out of context really applies though. Any way, you now say that you agree that these types of traits are not good working dog qualities. We are then on the same page about that. Certainly no hard feelings on this end. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

Originally posted by Richard Cannon:
Chris,

As an example from a GSD I had here are a couple of stories about this dog. At one point the dog caught someone in a garage area. The guy grabbed a chain that was being used to pull engins out of cars. He hit the dog in the face with the chain. Broke the dogs jaw in 2 places. The dog held him there and the guy will never use his right arm again because of the damage the dog did after having his jaw broken. That same dog sat on our kitchen floor sharing breakfast with my 2 year old neice. We were having ebelskievers ( a round Danish pancke type of thing). One for the neice, one for the dog, one for the neice, one for the dog.... no wait I want that one. At the time she changed her mind she had her arm all the way to the shoulder down the dog's mouth. That is a protection dog in any breed. Richard, Who,what,when,where,why, elaborate on the story this is the second time you told it. Was there any liability involved?

I just re-read the original post by chris and the more I read it the more I think I soft-peddled my last response a bit. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> Not only would I not call them "good working dogs", but I wouldn't call them "good ones" or "good dogs" Period. The word "good" would not be used in the same sentence. I call them out of control, dangerous dogs....no upside here at all. Now Richard has brought up a good point when he said that in the right hands MAYBE they could have been respectable working dogs.

Originally posted by VanCamp:

First:
Yes, but what do you mean. Would I respect these traits as something desirable? Or would I respect an animal with these traits so I wouldn't get bit?
For me, definately the later of the two.

Milt,

We are talking about the "proper" temperament for a protection dog. The story demonstrates the proper temperament in my mind. The idea that has some how been fostered seems to be that "If I have a nasty dog that bites everything it comes in contact with, including me, I have a great protection dog. In addition I must be the baddest ass thing on 2 legs." I think that they have the second part of that almost right. They must be an ass. A dangerous dog is a dangerous dog. It isn't a protection dog, it isn't a good representative of the breed, it is just a liability.

Besides, I have limited stories to illustrate a point. I have done a lot with dogs, but the fountain isn't unlimited.

This thread isn't going anywhere. I really can't be bothered taking it any further.

I think there are a lot of people that have a dumb idea as to what is a tough dog. I always hear crap like that. "I have an EXTREME rank, aggressive, and civil dog. He is a hard core animal that requires a lot of experience to handle." First, I don't believe it that often because there are not really that many of these dogs out there. Second, I wonder why these weirdos think this is good. Maybe because they have read stories about these dogs and they think that it is cool or that all police service dogs are that way. They want everyone to believe that they have that type of "quality" dog. It makes them think they are tough. :rolleyes: The reality is that these dogs are an abnormality. A good working dog should have an element of the following; dominance, hardness, civil drive, sharpness, and well developed aggressions. BUT, any one of these traits in the real extreme is a severe liability in a working dog (i.e.- those dobies mentioned). If you can't admit that, you are an idiot. The only time that one of these traits can be overlooked is when the other good qualities of the dog make up for the liability of the extreme trait. A dog does not have to be a rank monster to be a police service dog, or a tough dog, or a civil dog, or a hard dog.

I am not afraid to say that.

At one point in time I owned seven Czech and Hungarian shepherds. I had to sell four of these dogs because they were not what I wanted in a working dog. They were overly rank, sharp, and lacked stability. They were poor examples of what a great civil, hard, rank, Czech dog can be. These traits in a dog must be balanced with responsiveness and total stability. The one male that I kept was dominate, civil, and also responsive and stable. He was the best dog that I have ever handled. After a short bonding period this dog did not once in his life challenge me, or my family, in a physical way. But, anyone would have said he was extremely hard, dominate, and civil if they had seen him do muzzle attacks or suit work. He was dominate to all other people, but he was not so rank driven that he would need to assert himself in inapropriate ways with them. That is the difference between a good dominate dog and a shit extreme one. I also admit that in the wrong hands this dog would have been more than a handful, but I don't think he would have been vicious, unless abused.

Which brings me to my next point. I have also found that people who are interested in an "extreme rank, civil, and aggressive" dog are also people that don't have good experience in training and use methods that are questionable. (i.e.-tie and beat methods in pure defense) These extreme dogs are the only ones that can survive these training methods with ANY spirit left. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/mad.gif" alt="" /> These people need to be punished. Skinned alive really. . .

I'm not saying you are one of these types Chris, but with your obvious adoration for the qualities of the dogs in your Dobie stories, I wonder if you really know what you are doing. You may say, after the fact, that you don't think these are good examples of working dogs, but you have already put them out there as such. That is what you intention was, right? Go ahead and rate me a * star, I don't care, this is my take on it. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

So there you go, that is what I call putting it on the line, why don't you reply with what you think about it. . .