Dobermans

[Mav]

Professional training and reinforcing the rules are all good.  Just avoid trainers who base their training on dominance theory and seek out one who uses positive reinforcement.

This is the RSPCA's position:

What is the RSPCA's view on dominance dog training?

The ‘dominance’ model for dog behaviour poses serious dog welfare problems. Dominance models may use aversive training techniques such as “alpha rolls”, staring the dog down or other confrontational methods and punishment which can cause fear, pain and distress to dogs. In addition, these methods generally do not address the underlying cause of the unwanted behaviour which is why they are often unsuccessful. In fact, dominance training methods are not scientifically proven to be effective.

Aversive methods may also increase the dog’s underlying fear and anxiety which can actually make the unwanted behaviour much worse. Aversive methods can also reduce the quality of the relationship between the owner and the dog and they can place the owner at serious risk of physical injury.

When trying to change behaviour, try to think about the behaviours you would like your dog to perform and reward only for the responses that lead to those outcomes. This might include sitting rather than jumping on guests or chewing on a toy rather than your favourite pair of shoes. This approach revolves around positive reinforcement- i.e. rewarding behaviour that we like. Rewards can be food, toys or verbal praise. Basically, anything your dog will ‘work’ for.

Conversely, we also need to ensure that rewards for unwanted behaviour are removed. So, keep those shoes out of reach and try wherever possible to avoid any situations or triggers for unwanted behaviours.

The RSPCA’s position is that dogs should be trained using programs that are designed to facilitate the development and maintenance of acceptable behaviours using natural instincts and positive reinforcement. Aversion therapy and physical punishment procedures must not be used in training programs because of the potential for cruelty. Please see AVA Reward-based training for more information.

http://kb.rspca.org.au/What-is-the-RSPCA...g_475.html

Try to avoid being sucked in by myths such as certain breeds needing to be dominated or that positive reinforcement training lets dogs do what they want.  Those and other myths are busted by many expert dog trainers, such as: https://positively.com/dog-training/myth...h-vs-fact/.

Or this:

Far too many times dog owners have been given advice to "show the dog who's boss" and "be the alpha." The unfortunate side effect of this thinking is that it creates an adversarial relationship between the owner and their dog with the belief that the dog is somehow trying to control the home and the owner's life. Such misinformation damages the owner-dog relationship, and may lead to fear, anxiety and /or aggressive behaviors from the dog. Dogs cannot speak our language and they can find themselves thrust into situations in our homes that they find difficult to comprehend, by owners trying to behave as they mistakenly believe "alpha" wolves do.

Rather than dominance, it is most often a lack of clear interspecies communication that leads to behaviors we find troubling. It is the human's responsibility to teach our dogs the behaviors that we find appropriate, and reward them when they do the things we like. Just as importantly, it is our role to show them which behaviors are not appropriate in a constructive and compassionate manner that does not lead to further anxiety on the dog's part.

If Not Dominance, Then What Do We Use?
Fortunately, many trainers and behavior professionals now present concepts that focus on building a caring and happy relationship with your dog, instead of relying on dominance. Some trainers refer to the term "leadership" or other similar terms that are less adversarial than "dominance" or "Alpha." What these trainers have in common is a desire to explain effective, non-confrontational and humane ways of living successfully with dogs. These educated approaches aim to strengthen the bond between the owner and the dog and teach owners more effective ways of communicating with another species. For dogs with behavior problems, trainers employ programs such as "Nothing in Life is Free (NILIF)" which works along the principal that the dog must "do" something to earn what he wants (i.e. sit to get dinner, walk on a loose leash to move forward, etc.) These programs are effective because the dog is issued a structured set of rules that are consistently reinforced and the dog learns what he needs to do in order to get the things that he wants such as food, petting, playtime, etc. Because dogs do not have the power of human speech and language, behavior problems and anxiety can result when they are left to fend for themselves in deciding how to live in our world without guidance that makes sense. Just like with people, we behave better and thrive in a world that "makes sense" to us and has a clear structure.

The myths that resonate in "dominance theory," such as not allowing the dog to sleep on the bed, or eat first, or go through doorways first, have no bearing on whether or not the dog will look to the owner for guidance. The specific rules of the relationship are up to the owner and are based on what they want in their household. Humane, educated trainers should strive to teach owners to positively and gently influence and motivate their dogs to act in a manner that befits their own home and tailor the "rules" to each individual. There is no scientifically validated data to uphold the belief that you must eat before your dog, or keep them from sleeping on your bed, or walking in front of you, and owners should not be led to believe this and live in a state of fear and anxiety over their dog's possible takeover of their home. In fact, the vast majority of dogs and owners have wonderful, mutually-rewarding relationships—even if the dog is allowed to sleep on the bed, eats alongside the owner, and does many other things erroneously labeled "dominance."

https://apdt.com/pet-owners/choosing-a-t...dominance/, The Association of Professional Dog Trainers.

[DJC]

Still reading Mav 

We spoke at length last night about it. That's code for Mrs.W talks and I listen - and we decided to wait for our current Labrador to pass away before we bring a new canine into the family. Why? Because she is twelve years old, her hearing is mostly gone and the old girl has struggles lately with her rear legs, standing up and jumping into the car. We are going to make her as comfortable as possible and spoil the old girl rotten. As everyone knows, Labs have the sweetest nature. How long will she last? As long as we can ensure she has a good life. I don't like the thought of making to call when it is "time". Gonna be a hard, hard day.

So we will wait for her to pass on and do our griving. Then we'll speak to these two breeders in particular, take up the offer to visit them and talk to them and make a decision then. Make no mistake though, the dog will be professionally trained and we will make damn sure that we reinforce the rules and know what to look out for.

That is always a difficult decision Woody but you know your dog better than anyone else does. 

It's two years since the second of our pair of Staffies had to be put down (she was 14) and we're just starting to think about replacements.  Not that you can really replace one dog with another; it's a whole new experience.

While Mav and I seem to have a difference of opinion on the relevance of wild canid and domestic dog behaviour, we're actually on the same page when it comes to dog training; there's no place for pain and/or stressing dogs by acting out a parody of imagined dog behaviour.  The social organisation of dog packs actually serves to minimise aggressive behaviour and physical attacks.

My daughter's Ridgeback wanted to protect the family and acted aggressively to other dogs (she was a rescue dog who came to them at about 12 months of age).  She learnt that wasn't her role in the pack/family through being encouraged to relax when other dogs approached.  My daughter's family (and the dog) is fortunate to have kilometres of off lead dog beach and the Ridgeback now shows no aggression towards other dogs.  If the dog feels threatened (usually by little yappy dogs), she retreats to her adults/pack leaders for protection. 

[ElwoodBlues1]

That is always a difficult decision Woody but you know your dog better than anyone else does. 

It's two years since the second of our pair of Staffies had to be put down (she was 14) and we're just starting to think about replacements.  Not that you can really replace one dog with another; it's a whole new experience.

While Mav and I seem to have a difference of opinion on the relevance of wild canid and domestic dog behaviour, we're actually on the same page when it comes to dog training; there's no place for pain and/or stressing dogs by acting out a parody of imagined dog behaviour.  The social organisation of dog packs actually serves to minimise aggressive behaviour and physical attacks.

My daughter's Ridgeback wanted to protect the family and acted aggressively to other dogs (she was a rescue dog who came to them at about 12 months of age).  She learnt that wasn't her role in the pack/family through being encouraged to relax when other dogs approached.  My daughter's family (and the dog) is fortunate to have kilometres of off lead dog beach and the Ridgeback now shows no aggression towards other dogs.  If the dog feels threatened (usually by little yappy dogs), she retreats to her adults/pack leaders for protection.

We have always had German Shepherds and all have displayed the same behaviour and all have been  trained, if challenged by another dominant breed they will react and they are picky and choosy about who they accept as human friends, under command they withdraw but their first instinct is to react in a defensive manner if they dont like what they see or smell...small yappy dogs just get ignored unless they persist.
There is ignorance in understanding the breed, they are not aggressive they are protective and only react when provoked...when walked they are on guard because that is their nature especially the females, they dont sniff trees, eat rubbish, they concentrate as they are on duty.
Our Dog responds well to command but she also has her own mind as she comes from a clever breed, she has saved my wife twice from attacks initiated by a Malamute and a Pit Bull Staffie cross and this after my wife crossed the road to avoid these other breeds...I'm not about over training her and taking away her ability to think for herself...if you want a clever dog that does tricks then get a poodle, but if you want a clever dog that is smart enough to know when to react at the right time then I recommend a GS....
We had a Ridgeback as a Neighbour and you would think there would be trouble but they got along fine...no barking, no squabbling at the fence, both Dogs minded there own business and led a peaceful existance...was very impressed with the Ridgeback's peaceful manner after initially thinking the worst..

[madbluboy]

There is ignorance in understanding the breed, they are not aggressive they are protective and only react when provoked...

When I was a teenager I witnessed a German Shep attack my brother and he required stitches, totally unprovoked.

[LP]

When I was a teenager I witnessed a German Shep attack my brother and he required stitches, totally unprovoked.

German Shepherds can have a mental condition, I cannot remember what it is called but it is a result of the breeding which causes them to be timid. That generates fear in them. It's the reason so very many of them are rejected by the military and police as service dogs, they come across as aggressive basically because they are scared and react defensively unpredictably in unexpected circumstances.

When the forces get a dog they put it through of series of special tests to determine if they are suitable for training, most are not. I have heard the success rate is as low as 1 in 40!

Subjectively I have been told it is the same condition that causes those little dogs to tremble all the time. So in reality, if that is true, it's the fault of breeders.

[Baggers]

Sad but true, Spotted One.

Whenever a breed becomes popular you can bet a small but influential group of unscrupulous people, who see dollar signs, start in-breeding and subjecting bitches to being almost constantly pregnant for years.

Whenever buying a pure-bred / popular breed the imperative is getting the reputable/right breeder, might cost a little more but will be well worth it.

There is a legitimate argument for getting a mongrel though, as, oddly, they tend to be healthier than purebreds, though there are some purebreds that are naturally hardy (provided they come from a good breeder).

We're about to get new critters and decided on a Ridgey and a mongrel from the pound who deserves a second chance.

Another avenue is 'rescue'. We had a rescue Dobe and she was just fantastic. Had an awful upbringing so she was really timid for a while (hand shy, so she was obviously belted - I never hit my critters, a deep disapproving voice is sufficient when they misbehave) but with loads of love, affection, encouragement and positive reinforcement she blossomed into a beautiful critter.

[ElwoodBlues1]

German Shepherds can have a mental condition, I cannot remember what it is called but it is a result of the breeding which causes them to be timid. That generates fear in them. It's the reason so very many of them are rejected by the military and police as service dogs, they come across as aggressive basically because they are scared and react defensively unpredictably in unexpected circumstances.

When the forces get a dog they put it through of series of special tests to determine if they are suitable for training, most are not. I have heard the success rate is as low as 1 in 40!

Subjectively I have been told it is the same condition that causes those little dogs to tremble all the time. So in reality, if that is true, it's the fault of breeders.

All the Sheps we have had were the opposite, no fear at all, protective  yes but never timid....but they are not a dog you walk up to in the street and try and pat or get friendly with if they dont know or trust you.
We had a older Gentleman hit our dog with an umbrella for no reason other than he had a bad experience with the breed as a younger person, his family who were walking with him apologised saying that German Shepherds scared him..problem is now anyone carrying an umbrella is viewed as a potential assailant and the hair goes up on the back of her neck and she adopts an aggressive posture which makes other walkers etc think she is savage which isnt the case.

I'm not saying you dont get poorly behaved Sheps and in MBB's brothers case I'm sorry that happened and understand he wouldnt view the breed favourably...IMO though they are a maligned breed due to the profile they have as military/ police/guard dog where every film you see them they are portrayed as vicious...the reality is more attacks on humans are committed by Labradors but they dont have the aggressive image profile of Sheps and are seen as the ideal family dog...
Nothing annoys me more than people saying you have a German Shepherd just as a guard dog and thats all they are good for...

[cookie2]

Apparently Labradors have one of the worst records of all dogs in Australia for biting people? However, they tend to bite arms or legs. Other breeds are different, such as bull breeds tend to go more for the face/neck which is potentially a lot more dangerous. Having said that my Staffie is very friendly to people and makes a totally useless guard dog as he would welcome people into the house with great enthusiasm. May be a bit different if a possum tried to call in though! 

[LP]

There is a legitimate argument for getting a mongrel though, as, oddly, they tend to be healthier than purebreds, though there are some purebreds that are naturally hardy (provided they come from a good breeder).

Yes the mongrel/hybrid debate is an interesting one. I think the two healthiest dogs we have had have been cross breeds/hybrids. We have had a few of pedigree as well but they have always had some little issues despite allegedly coming from good stock and at high cost.

Apparently Labradors have one of the worst records of all dogs in Australia for biting people? However, they tend to bite arms or legs. Other breeds are different, such as bull breeds tend to go more for the face/neck which is potentially a lot more dangerous. Having said that my Staffie is very friendly to people and makes a totally useless guard dog as he would welcome people into the house with great enthusiasm. May be a bit different if a possum tried to call in though! 

I think the statistics can be distorted by the popularity of certain breeds, but it just highlights the need for care with children around large dogs.

I think having a pet/dog is vitally important for children, the parents are probably the biggest problem not the pet/dog.

[Mav]

The problem isn't just puppy factories.  Pedigree breeders can be a real problem too.  Many believe in "line breeding" - using related breeding pairs every 2nd generation or so.  You don't have to be a geneticist to see the problem with that. 

In some breeds, breeders have fixated on certain features and exaggerated them to unhealthy proportions.  For instance, Bulldogs' noses have become ever flatter and breathing problems have been exacerbated.  Less attention is given by those Frankenstein breeders to general health and demeanour.

The breeder of my dog imported sires from Norway to expand the genetic base and that was encouraging.