# "Aggression" Breed



## LoboFloppyEars (Oct 15, 2016)

Hey y'all, I'm back and I want to know how y'all feel about this term and its other similar names (restricted breeds, dangerous breeds).

I think this term is not only extremely outdated, but also insulting and uninformed and ignorant. All it has done for me is make life harder by not letting me find a place to live and making me have to pay too much in rent in order to have a place for my dog to stay at.

I hate it so much, and y'all, GSD owners who are affected should to. Because even if there are breeds that are labeled as Aggressive that y'all don't like, y'all should despise this term as much as I do since the breed we love is often times a victim of these rules.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

LoboFloppyEars said:


> Hey y'all, I'm back and I want to know how y'all feel about this term and its other similar names (restricted breeds, dangerous breeds).
> 
> I think this term is not only extremely outdated, but also insulting and uninformed and ignorant. All it has done for me is make life harder by not letting me find a place to live and making me have to pay too much in rent in order to have a place for my dog to stay at.
> 
> I hate it so much, and y'all, GSD owners who are affected should to. Because even if there are breeds that are labeled as Aggressive that y'all don't like, y'all should despise this term as much as I do since the breed we love is often times a victim of these rules.


Why do you equate aggression with dangerous or restricted breeds?


----------



## LoboFloppyEars (Oct 15, 2016)

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Why do you equate aggression with dangerous or restricted breeds?


I think you missed a part that the same dogs that are often labeled as aggression breeds also have other labels, dangerous breeds or restricted breeds. Whatever stupid name they use it basically transaltes to the same thing.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

LoboFloppyEars said:


> I think you missed a part that the same dogs that are often labeled as aggression breeds also have other labels, dangerous breeds or restricted breeds. Whatever stupid name they use it basically transaltes to the same thing.


I did miss that part, I was looking at your first sentence which seemed to equate the terms.

German Shepherds are supposed to have the genetic ability to protect and guard, and they do that with aggression. It is not a label. It is a part of the breed standard. I don't see why any German Shepherd owner would or should be upset that their breed is bred to possess a modicum of aggression. It is part of the purpose for which they were initially bred, to herd sheep and to protect the shepherd, then later to be a jack of all trades able to perform in many venues including police and personal / family protection. If anything, they should be upset with GSDs that lack a degree of aggression and are not representative of the expected breed temperament or breed standard.


----------



## thegooseman90 (Feb 24, 2017)

My thoughts are in line with MAWL. Aggression isn't a label it's a trait. A desired trait at that. If you have to pay some excess rent because of that you should've known that because you researched the breed and decided that's what you wanted. 

Lots of people want a gsd, then they want to change it into something else. Maybe they just like the looks. Who's to say. But at the end of the day we want aggression. However not just any owner should have such a dog and these increases in rent/insurance or whatever may be a good deterrent to someone who really wants a golden in gsd skin.


----------



## CometDog (Aug 22, 2017)

I'm waiting for the press to call them Assault Dogs. Those which possess more than one Evil Feature.
-signed, trapped behind the lines in NJ


----------



## LoboFloppyEars (Oct 15, 2016)

MineAreWorkingline said:


> I did miss that part, I was looking at your first sentence which seemed to equate the terms.
> 
> German Shepherds are supposed to have the genetic ability to protect and guard, and they do that with aggression. It is not a label. It is a part of the breed standard. I don't see why any German Shepherd owner would or should be upset that their breed is bred to possess a modicum of aggression. It is part of the purpose for which they were initially bred, to herd sheep and to protect the shepherd, then later to be a jack of all trades able to perform in many venues including police and personal / family protection. If anything, they should be upset with GSDs that lack a degree of aggression and are not representative of the expected breed temperament or breed standard.


*sigh*

You are completely missing the point. I'm not talking about the protective instincts of GSD. I am talking about stuff like BSL and places restrict GSDs or deny insurance to GSD owners.

This has zero to do with civilized aggression.


----------



## LoboFloppyEars (Oct 15, 2016)

thegooseman90 said:


> My thoughts are in line with MAWL. Aggression isn't a label it's a trait. A desired trait at that. If you have to pay some excess rent because of that you should've known that because you researched the breed and decided that's what you wanted.
> 
> Lots of people want a gsd, then they want to change it into something else. Maybe they just like the looks. Who's to say. But at the end of the day we want aggression. However not just any owner should have such a dog and these increases in rent/insurance or whatever may be a good deterrent to someone who really wants a golden in gsd skin.


The problem with that last statement is what if someone really wants a GSD and has done their research on the breed but can't find a place that will allow GSDs.

The housing market is an absolute disaster as housing is extremely expensive, and usually the apartments or rent owned property that doesn't has breed restrictions tend to be very expensive.


----------



## CometDog (Aug 22, 2017)

Well, as it is on topic- State Farm is specifically AGAINST excluding breeds for HOI. In case anyone is shopping it.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

LoboFloppyEars said:


> *sigh*
> 
> You are completely missing the point. I'm not talking about the protective instincts of GSD. I am talking about stuff like BSL and places restrict GSDs or deny insurance to GSD owners.
> 
> This has zero to do with civilized aggression.


BSL very rarely impacts GSDs to the point of being a non issue. Don't let anybody tell you any different.

I never had trouble with insurance due to breed and I know of reputable insurance companies that will write you up regardless of breed.

I can't speak as to renting with a GSD, I have always owned my own home when I had dogs.


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

We don't always get what we want in life.


----------



## LoboFloppyEars (Oct 15, 2016)

MineAreWorkingline said:


> BSL very rarely impacts GSDs to the point of being a non issue. Don't let anybody tell you any different.
> 
> I never had trouble with insurance due to breed and I know of reputable insurance companies that will write you up regardless of breed.
> 
> I can't speak as to renting with a GSD, I have always owned my own home when I had dogs.


Well to let you know, renting is very difficult with GSDs.

Apparently the reasoning behind it has to do with the fact that the insurance companies covering their buildings refuse to cover certain breeds. At least a good portion of the apartment complexes I've spoken to hate the fact that they have breed restrictions.

And BSL does affect GSDs. There are cities, counties and countries thet ban or restrict GSDs (see Ireland). They may not be the poster child for BSL but to say they aren't affected by it is a lie.


----------



## Kazel (Nov 29, 2016)

MineAreWorkingline said:


> BSL very rarely impacts GSDs to the point of being a non issue. Don't let anybody tell you any different.
> 
> I never had trouble with insurance due to breed and I know of reputable insurance companies that will write you up regardless of breed.
> 
> I can't speak as to renting with a GSD, I have always owned my own home when I had dogs.


I do believe I just read something about GSDs being added to the banned breed list for some insurance companies along with it being one of the 'scarier' breeds that is on many lists of dogs that aren't allowed in rental areas. So actual BSL maybe not but there is certainly bias against them that restricts to a degree where you can live with them. A friend of mine couldn't get a GSD with their house insurance plan as GSDs are on the no go list.


----------



## CometDog (Aug 22, 2017)

Pits, Huskies, GSDs, Dobies, Chows..all on the commonly not covered list by insurance companies. That is why it is important to shop your insurance for ethical not just financial aspects.


----------



## CometDog (Aug 22, 2017)

https://finance.zacks.com/dog-breeds-restricted-homeowners-insurance-3036.html


----------



## thegooseman90 (Feb 24, 2017)

LoboFloppyEars said:


> The problem with that last statement is what if someone really wants a GSD and has done their research on the breed but can't find a place that will allow GSDs.
> 
> The housing market is an absolute disaster as housing is extremely expensive, and usually the apartments or rent owned property that doesn't has breed restrictions tend to be very expensive.


Part of that research should include whether you can provide housing or if you'll have an increased rent/insurance issue and whether or not you're willing to take on that burden. If they can't find a place to allow gsd then the obvious answer is they shouldn't have one. My thought is if I was renting my house out I'd charge more for a big dog too. They can be very destructive and there's many many poorly managed large dogs out there. I'm taking more of a risk of damage to my property so I'll charge more rent. This has nothing to do with it being an aggressive breed just business. 

If the housing market is such that a person is between a rock and hard place about getting a dog or finding a place to live then it's obviously the wrong time to go looking for a dog. Those who can't see that are the ones who scratch together just enough to get the dog and then struggle to afford having the dog. It's undue stress on that person and unfair to the dog. 

I'm not seeing any labeling issue here but more of a financial responsibility issue.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

LoboFloppyEars said:


> Well to let you know, renting is very difficult with GSDs.
> 
> Apparently the reasoning behind it has to do with the fact that the insurance companies covering their buildings refuse to cover certain breeds. At least a good portion of the apartment complexes I've spoken to hate the fact that they have breed restrictions.
> 
> And BSL does affect GSDs. There are cities, counties and countries thet ban or restrict GSDs (see Ireland). They may not be the poster child for BSL but to say they aren't affected by it is a lie.


I assumed we were talking about the United States where BSL is essentially a non issue for GSDs. I was not aware you were talking about Ireland.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Kazel said:


> I do believe I just read something about GSDs being added to the banned breed list for some insurance companies along with it being one of the 'scarier' breeds that is on many lists of dogs that aren't allowed in rental areas. So actual BSL maybe not but there is certainly bias against them that restricts to a degree where you can live with them. A friend of mine couldn't get a GSD with their house insurance plan as GSDs are on the no go list.



Your friend not getting a GSD due to their home owners insurance is nothing but an excuse. As somebody else already shared that State Farm will write up any breed and I know that there are other insurance companies that will too. If your friend wanted a GSD, all they had to do was shop around for a reputable GSD breeder and a new insurance company and they would have been good to go.


----------



## CometDog (Aug 22, 2017)

Pfffft Ireland. The county I use to go to all the time..Louth. They had dog problems alright. Needed a bat to take a walk in the countryside. There were Alsatians" and Bull Mastiffs, Rotties..all on the controlled list from 1986 or whatever. Good luck getting animal control out for an unruly dog. One GSD was nuts..he use to ram the sides of passing cars with his HEAD. He bit a few people. Finally he knocked a 5 year old off his bike and ripped up the boys arm before the owner came running out. Court for this sort of thing was like an hour away and the officer who took the complaint just didn't even show half the time. A complainant would drive an hour to court and not have the officer who took the complaint show..so nothing would be done time and time again. 

One day, on a Tuesday (Forrest Gump voice) someone gave that dog a terminal meat patty. Can't I would not have done the same.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

CometDog said:


> Pfffft Ireland. The county I use to go to all the time..Louth. They had dog problems alright. Needed a bat to take a walk in the countryside. There were Alsatians" and Bull Mastiffs, Rotties..*all on the controlled list from 1986 *or whatever. Good luck getting animal control out for an unruly dog. One GSD was nuts..he use to ram the sides of passing cars with his HEAD. He bit a few people. Finally he knocked a 5 year old off his bike and ripped up the boys arm before the owner came running out. Court for this sort of thing was like an hour away and the officer who took the complaint just didn't even show half the time. A complainant would drive an hour to court and not have the officer who took the complaint show..so nothing would be done time and time again.
> 
> One day, on a Tuesday (Forrest Gump voice) someone gave that dog a terminal meat patty. Can't I would not have done the same.


What is a controlled list?


----------



## CometDog (Aug 22, 2017)

Basically breed restrictions Must be muzzled off your property, properly chained if no fence. To say it is loosely adhered to in the countryside is asevere understatement. Cities like Dublin, Limerick, I imagine are more enforced.


----------



## CometDog (Aug 22, 2017)

There are not any banned breeds in Ireland. There are in Northern Ireland..cuz it's the UK and they ban knitting needles if they are used in the commission of self defense.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

CometDog said:


> Basically breed restrictions Must be muzzled off your property, properly chained if no fence. To say it is loosely adhered to in the countryside is asevere understatement. Cities like Dublin, Limerick, I imagine are more enforced.


Okay, back in Ireland again. Gotcha!


----------



## CometDog (Aug 22, 2017)

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Okay, back in Ireland again. Gotcha!


HE brought it up!! I didn't !! lol BSL is actually not permitted in NJ. Ironic considering we are nanny state. The HOI thing is a no brainer. Shop it out and spend your dollar with ones who do not breed discriminate. There are plenty. And even if your dog is not adopted, you can call most mainstream shelters and they keep a list of companies who allow certain often banned breeds (and by default all other breeds) because that is what they are inundated with.


----------



## Armistice (Oct 12, 2017)

CometDog said:


> I'm waiting for the press to call them Assault Dogs. Those which possess more than one Evil Feature.
> -signed, trapped behind the lines in NJ


I feel you. I'm in California, haha! Some days I think she has high capacity bowels

But to contribute, Mercury Insurance doesn't list GSDs. Happy accident that AAA didn't cover my area due to fire hazard and Mercury did


----------



## CometDog (Aug 22, 2017)

Armistice said:


> I feel you. I'm in California, haha! Some days I think she has high capacity bowels
> 
> But to contribute, Mercury Insurance doesn't list GSDs. Happy accident that AAA didn't cover my area due to fire hazard and Mercury did


 High Capacity bowels. I just spit out my drink.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

CometDog said:


> HE brought it up!! I didn't !! lol BSL is actually not permitted in NJ. Ironic considering we are nanny state. The HOI thing is a no brainer. Shop it out and spend your dollar with ones who do not breed discriminate. There are plenty. And even if your dog is not adopted, you can call most mainstream shelters and they keep a list of companies who allow ************* (and by default all other breeds) because that is what they are inundated with.


Don't want to derail the topic but I don't believe any insurance company breed discriminates. They make actuarial decisions based on statistics like charging higher rates to young drivers who are statistically more apt to get into an accident or dropping home owner insurance on homes with an abandoned house next door citing fire and liability hazard. They don't base their decisions on emotions but costs on what has happened with similar incidents in the past and the likelihood of future similar incidents occurring given the same set of circumstances.


----------



## dogma13 (Mar 8, 2014)

A couple of posts were edited for political content.Please read over the rules about what is not allowed to be mentioned or discussed on this board.


----------



## CometDog (Aug 22, 2017)

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Don't want to derail the topic but I don't believe any insurance company breed discriminates. They make actuarial decisions based on statistics like charging higher rates to young drivers who are statistically more apt to get into an accident or dropping home owner insurance on homes with an abandoned house next door citing fire and liability hazard. They don't base their decisions on emotions but costs on what has happened with similar incidents in the past and the likelihood of future similar incidents occurring given the same set of circumstances.


 Agreed. Like aggression, discriminate is misused to describe something here. It is based on data they have collected through whatever means, and they are trying to cover themselves.

I have AAA. They cover my GSD, but not my little pit. Will be switching to State Farm soon and telling AAA why.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

LoboFloppyEars said:


> Hey y'all, I'm back and I want to know how y'all feel about this term and its other similar names (restricted breeds, dangerous breeds).
> 
> I think this term is not only extremely outdated, but also insulting and uninformed and ignorant. All it has done for me is make life harder by not letting me find a place to live and making me have to pay too much in rent in order to have a place for my dog to stay at.
> 
> I hate it so much, and y'all, GSD owners who are affected should to. Because even if there are breeds that are labeled as Aggressive that y'all don't like, y'all should despise this term as much as I do since the breed we love is often times a victim of these rules.


I understand where you are coming from, but it is not good enough. It is not good enough to fight breed specific legislation and the like. In fact, I think it is really a problem that people are whining and complaining about how their dogs are singled out because of their breed, but are not willing to DO anything about it. 

There are formidable dog breeds. These are the dog breeds with reputations, like our GSDs, *******, Rottweilers, and the like. Dogs that have the size and the temperament to cause the general public significant money when they aggress toward humans or other dogs.* Owners of Brittiny Spaniels, and English Setters, and Beagles and many other dog breeds, should not be penalized because a few breeds tend to cost people a lot more than others. 

The problem is attitude. See, we cannot whine like a toddler, "that's not fair!" And then be all understanding when folks let their dog bite someone, let their dog's rush out their front door at a delivery man or an old lady dragging her marketing behind her in a cart. Accidents happen. NO! They do not just happen. We LET accidents happen. We allow a stream of events build up until an accident is inevitable. And when that accident which is no true accident at all happens, we sympathize with the owner of the dog. Because we are dog owners. 

We need to get angry with our own. We need to get angry with GSD owners, not when their dog takes a chunk out of someone. Well, of course, then too. But we need to get angry with GSD owners who let their dog get loose, GSD owners who do not bother to train their dogs. GSD owners who fail in so many ways. And bite histories. Yes, there may be extenuating circumstances, and we have to sometimes make decisions on an individual basis. But a dog that bites the owner's kid??? That was raised by them from a puppy? Not a dog that should be re-homed to a family with no children. The dog needs to be euthanized. It's not the dog's fault if it bites another kid. It is the fault of whoever did not do the right thing after it bit the first kid. 

There are a LOT of German Shepherds out there. And it stands to figure that there will be more bites attributed to them than less popular breeds. But it doesn't take a mensa to comprehend that our dogs have the size and the temperament to cause serious damage and if we want to own one of these magnificent creatures, we HAVE to be 10 x more safety conscious than the dude with a peekapoo. So, our dogs should NOT have more bites than the rest of dogdom. Insuring agencies, rental agencies look at numbers. As long as irresponsible people continue to be irresponsible with their dogs, our breed will have restrictions put on them. The answer is not to fight the restrictions. It is to fight the cause of the restrictions. If that is too big an endeavor, then you have to pay more. You have to buy insurance that covers the dog you have. You have to rent where they allow the dogs, but have requirements in their lease agreement. You have to buy a trailer out in the country somewhere if necessary, if you can't find a place to rent with your dog.

But we really have to start holding GSD owners accountable, as well as the other breeds that are the most frequent culprits. This is why I get so mad when people let dogs roam, get loose, whatever. We do not have to wait for a dog to bite someone to tell their owners that they need to be more careful with their dog, or not own a dog of this breed. We don't need to wait until a dog bites a kid or charges the mail man, or kills a neighbor's dog to look into a trainer.


----------



## tim_s_adams (Aug 9, 2017)

Yeah @selzer, you are 200% correct on that point!


----------



## Sunsilver (Apr 8, 2014)

My insurance agency lists my dogs under 'home protection system'. 

They do make a great burglar alarm! :grin2:

Whether they'd back that up by biting an intruder, I don't know. But not many burglars are willing to find that out!


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

selzer said:


> I understand where you are coming from, but it is not good enough. It is not good enough to fight breed specific legislation and the like. In fact, I think it is really a problem that people are whining and complaining about how their dogs are singled out because of their breed, but are not willing to DO anything about it.
> 
> There are formidable dog breeds. These are the dog breeds with reputations, like our GSDs, *******, Rottweilers, and the like. Dogs that have the size and the temperament to cause the general public significant money when they aggress toward humans or other dogs.* Owners of Brittiny Spaniels, and English Setters, and Beagles and many other dog breeds, should not be penalized because a few breeds tend to cost people a lot more than others.
> 
> ...


So in essence, what you are saying is that everyone should NOT own a German Shepherd. Now when I have said that in the past, folks get their knickers bunched up and feelings hurt.....but the reality is that this breed requires responsible owners for WHAT the breed is. Plain and simple.


----------



## car2ner (Apr 9, 2014)

Some people should not own a fish, never mind a dog, never mind a GSD or other "powerful breed". I was amazed when people would ask, "Is that a German Shepherd Puppy? Are you going to train him?" Of course I was going to train him! He's a German Shepherd. (to be fair, they might have really been asking...are you going to train him to do special work like search and rescue or police work, etc) 

at any rate, one thing to take into consideration when ever choosing a pet...local laws. How many animals can you have? How long are they allowed to bark? What happens if your animals get loose and are found "at large", etc. House insurance, leash agreements, all of these things restrict what we can do as GSD owners.


----------



## NerdicEclipse (Feb 20, 2017)

There are very, very few truly aggressive dogs. When someone uses the term aggression, that should specifically mean "I'm going to kill you" behaviors. Not resource guarding or other such things. What most people label as aggression is either insecurity, obnoxious behavior because it's owner has never truly corrected it (or pulls that "pure positive" BS), or misdirected drive/the dog isn't allowed a proper outlet. It looks scary, it sounds scary and it can get people/animals hurt but it's not proper aggression.

Honestly there are no breeds more or less prone to "aggression" (true aggression) and not even any breeds that are more or less prone to the behaviors often mistaken as aggression. Some people just shouldn't own dogs, period. If you're not willing to issue corrections, if you want to anthropomorphize your dog, if you feel like it's on the level of a human or anything like that - you don't need to own one. All of the above behaviors (including true aggression) can be corrected. Relatively easily, really. Sadly, too few people are either not interested or believe the nonsense that floats around on the internet and are scared to death of saying no (correcting at a high level) to their dog and simply write them off as crazy or a monster.

It really irritates me though when a person gets a special needs dog like a GSD, Mal, etc. These are not pets. They are working dogs. If you don't have a job for them to do or don't intend on participating in highly structured sport, obedience training or even regular, constant structured walks and play - don't get one. They're prone to the same issues as any other dog, they just happen to be a lot more dangerous and destructive when it happens. They have to be controlled, they have to have proper outlets and they require a dedicated owner/family. Irresponsible dog owners give all dog owners a bad name, but irresponsible working line/high drive dogs get dogs killed and cost people a lot of money.


----------



## cloudpump (Oct 20, 2015)

NerdicEclipse said:


> *Honestly there are no breeds more or less prone to "aggression" (true aggression) and not even any breeds that are more or less prone to the behaviors often mistaken as aggression.* Some people just shouldn't own dogs, period. If you're not willing to issue corrections, if you want to anthropomorphize your dog, if you feel like it's on the level of a human or anything like that - you don't need to own one. All of the above behaviors (including true aggression) can be corrected. Relatively easily, really. Sadly, too few people are either not interested or believe the nonsense that floats around on the internet and are scared to death of saying no (correcting at a high level) to their dog and simply write them off as crazy or a monster.


Thats not true. There are breeds that are more prone to true aggression. Terriers are, gsds are, cane corsos, Caucasian shepherds, etc. These breeds were specifically bred to have true aggression in some form. Genetics. 
And it's not necessarily a strong correction to stop it. A game terrier is not going snap out of drive from a two handed leash correction. A driven gsd is not going to come off a sleeve for the same correction. Same with cane corsos.


----------



## NerdicEclipse (Feb 20, 2017)

cloudpump said:


> Thats not true. There are breeds that are more prone to true aggression. Terriers are, gsds are, cane corsos, Caucasian shepherds, etc. These breeds were specifically bred to have true aggression in some form. Genetics.
> And it's not necessarily a strong correction to stop it. A game terrier is not going snap out of drive from a two handed leash correction. A driven gsd is not going to come off a sleeve for the same correction. Same with cane corsos.


That's absolutely incorrect. Prey drive or pure working drive are ***not*** aggression. Territorial behavior is ***not*** aggression. So on and so forth. Every dog you've named there can indeed be dangerous with improperly channeled drive, lack of structure and ignorant handling but they do not default to aggression.

And it is easily corrected if a person with experience in rehabilitating aggressive or reactive dogs is doing it. Leash correction isn't even remotely how aggression or reactivity issues are dealt with. It's a very specific process. Reactivity will take weeks to resolve while true aggression can take a year to even two, but it can be done and is simply a matter of consistency, MASSIVE STRUCTURE, knowing the behaviors and being able to proactively work on them rather than chasing them after the fact. If the dog has these issues and even goes into drive you did it ALL wrong and had no business handling the dog. Going from this post, please don't ever try dealing with one.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

cloudpump said:


> Thats not true. There are breeds that are more prone to true aggression. Terriers are, gsds are, cane corsos, Caucasian shepherds, etc. These breeds were specifically bred to have true aggression in some form. Genetics.
> And it's not necessarily a strong correction to stop it. A game terrier is not going snap out of drive from a two handed leash correction. A driven gsd is not going to come off a sleeve for the same correction. Same with cane corsos.


I agree. Most breeds are purpose bred to exhibit specific behavioral traits. It is these very traits that give us breeds. Form follows function. There is a reason that one often sees GSDs, Mals, and Dutchies used for patrol work and it has little to do with the damage they can do as other breeds can easily cause more harm. 

All aggression is true aggression, be it territorial, predatory, defensive, fear based, pain aggression, dog or animal directed.. all of it is real and true aggression and much of it is often rooted in genetics. 

GSDs are NOT special needs dogs, not any more than other breeds. However, like other breeds, they need owners that did their homework and selected a breed that suits their life style. Breed very much matters.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

NerdicEclipse said:


> That's absolutely incorrect. Prey drive or pure working drive are ***not*** aggression. Territorial behavior is ***not*** aggression. So on and so forth. Every dog you've named there can indeed be dangerous with improperly channeled drive, lack of structure and ignorant handling but they do not default to aggression.
> 
> And it is easily corrected* if a person with experience in rehabilitating aggressive *or reactive dogs is doing it. Leash correction isn't even remotely how aggression or reactivity issues are dealt with. It's a very specific process. Reactivity will take weeks to resolve while true aggression can take a year to even two, but it can be done and is simply a matter of consistency, MASSIVE STRUCTURE, knowing the behaviors and being able to proactively work on them rather than chasing them after the fact. If the dog has these issues and even goes into drive you did it ALL wrong and had no business handling the dog. Going from this post, please don't ever try dealing with one.


Many are of the belief that you can manage and control aggression or you can shut the behavior down. Either way, the behavior remains. There have been documented cases of rehabilitated shelter dogs that have gone on to kill humans and other pets. One high profile case is in litigation right now where the family of the deceased is suing the shelter and those that did the rehabilitation.


----------



## voodoolamb (Jun 21, 2015)

ag·gres·sion
əˈɡreSHən/Submit
noun
noun: aggression
hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; *readiness to attack or confront*.
(Thanks Google!)

Yes. Some breeds, by the characteristics we have selected for for generations, certainly DO have more "readiness to attack or confront". 

I grew up in farm country, our sheep and goat farming neighbors had livestock guardian dogs. (Pyr / Anatolian crosses). They certainly did not hesitate to confront coyotes that worried the flock. I have owned fighting breeds - they were definitely ready to pile onto other dogs when they got all drivey. I now own a GSD and I am certainly glad he didn't stop and think about it when he bit the guy who assaulted me.

There is GOOD aggression - the aggression we need for guard dogs to do their job. And there is BAD aggression - when the family pet bites the child over a dropped cookie.

Aggression simply describes the behavior. A confrontational show of force that may include barking, growling, snapping, or biting. 

There are many many route causes for aggression though.


----------



## voodoolamb (Jun 21, 2015)

NerdicEclipse said:


> And it is easily corrected if a person with experience in rehabilitating aggressive or reactive dogs is doing it. Leash correction isn't even remotely how aggression or reactivity issues are dealt with. It's a very specific process. Reactivity will take weeks to resolve while true aggression can take a year to even two, but it can be done and is simply a matter of consistency, MASSIVE STRUCTURE, knowing the behaviors and being able to proactively work on them rather than chasing them after the fact. If the dog has these issues and even goes into drive you did it ALL wrong and had no business handling the dog. Going from this post, please don't ever try dealing with one.


Many genetically aggressive animals can NEVER be "rehabilitated". They can be MANAGED and controlled but the underlying potential for aggression will ALWAYS be there. I've owned _several_ true, honest to god, genetically dog-aggressive dogs. Never had them cause any trouble in my care, because I understood their potential for aggression, kept them out of drive, and physically managed them around other dogs. 

Personally, I would feel more comfortable around someone like @cloudpump handling an aggressive breed than most other people. He doesn't underestimate genetics and is less likely to make stupid mistakes then someone who thinks they have trained the aggression out. 

I HATE the word "rehabilitate" for aggression cases anyways. By the very definition "rehabilitate" means to help return to it's normal state. Well... the "normal state" some of the aggressive dogs I owned was to bathe in the blood of their foes with a manic gleam in their eye. That's what their genetics drove them to desire.


----------



## cloudpump (Oct 20, 2015)

NerdicEclipse said:


> That's absolutely incorrect. Prey drive or pure working drive are ***not*** aggression. Territorial behavior is ***not*** aggression. So on and so forth. Every dog you've named there can indeed be dangerous with improperly channeled drive, lack of structure and ignorant handling but they do not default to aggression.
> 
> And it is easily corrected if a person with experience in rehabilitating aggressive or reactive dogs is doing it. Leash correction isn't even remotely how aggression or reactivity issues are dealt with. It's a very specific process. Reactivity will take weeks to resolve while true aggression can take a year to even two, but it can be done and is simply a matter of consistency, MASSIVE STRUCTURE, knowing the behaviors and being able to proactively work on them rather than chasing them after the fact. If the dog has these issues and even goes into drive you did it ALL wrong and had no business handling the dog. Going from this post, please don't ever try dealing with one.


So by your logic, a person can change genetics? Astounding.
If aggression is not aggression what is it? 

Second part of Google definition. Sounds like aggression is another way of saying drive:
forceful and sometimes overly assertive pursuit of one's aims and interests.
synonyms:	confidence, self-confidence, boldness, determination, forcefulness, vigor, energy, zeal
"he played the game with unceasing aggression"


----------



## Kyrielle (Jun 28, 2016)

I'm going to chime in and agree that GSDs are bred to possess a tendency towards aggression. There's nothing wrong with that at all, and if they didn't, they wouldn't be willing to die to protect their families/handlers/homes/flocks from threats.

The problem arrives when owners fail to train their dog when aggression is acceptable and what specific threats need to be dealt with. GSDs don't know that the mailman isn't a threat. They don't automatically know that your kid running around crazy and stealing his bone is actually play and not a threat. Owners have to teach them what is and is not a threat. They have to teach them when it's time to take matters into their own hands v.s. trusting their owners to handle the situation.


----------



## CometDog (Aug 22, 2017)

A lot of palava over the definition and usage of a word and it's definition here.

I do martial arts. I train aggressively. I have a "willingness" to take the aggression further if need be. Does not mean I want to hurt my training partner. I'm aggressive about my job- sales. But I don't harass people who aren't interested. I am very aggressive with teaching and using firearms for self defense and sport. I am willing to kill with one to preserve my family and myself. Does not mean I am a danger to society. I have appropriate aggression, absolutely. It is a good thing. 

Not sure what one word would describe it..but I think we are talking about breeds susceptible to unprovoked, unwarranted, inappropriate to the threat level out of control BITING.

And yes, if you are not going to train yourself and your dog, you should not have a powerful drivey breed/line that can inflict high level damage. 

I cringe at the FB and YouTube videos of people thinking it is hysterical when a GSD or Dobie owner posts video of their dog growling at boyfriends/husbands hugging them. Always with "does your dog do this lolol?" Uhmm, no, and I would not tolerate it right from the first time it happened. Or the ones when a protection breed is proudly filmed "protecting" the new baby by not letting the parents near it without growling. No, they are resource guarding your infant. They are owning it, you idiot. THOSE are the people we do not need owning our breed. Hurts us all.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

cloudpump said:


> Thats not true. There are breeds that are more prone to true aggression. Terriers are, gsds are, cane corsos, Caucasian shepherds, etc. These breeds were specifically bred to have true aggression in some form. Genetics.
> And it's not necessarily a strong correction to stop it. A game terrier is not going snap out of drive from a two handed leash correction. A driven gsd is not going to come off a sleeve for the same correction. Same with cane corsos.





NerdicEclipse said:


> That's absolutely incorrect. Prey drive or pure working drive are ***not*** aggression. Territorial behavior is ***not*** aggression. So on and so forth. Every dog you've named there can indeed be dangerous with improperly channeled drive, lack of structure and ignorant handling but they do not default to aggression.
> 
> And it is easily corrected if a person with experience in rehabilitating aggressive or reactive dogs is doing it. Leash correction isn't even remotely how aggression or reactivity issues are dealt with. It's a very specific process. Reactivity will take weeks to resolve while true aggression can take a year to even two, but it can be done and is simply a matter of consistency, MASSIVE STRUCTURE, knowing the behaviors and being able to proactively work on them rather than chasing them after the fact. If the dog has these issues and even goes into drive you did it ALL wrong and had no business handling the dog. *Going from this post, please don't ever try dealing with one.*


----------



## Nurse Bishop (Nov 20, 2016)

The OPs dog look like a black lab cross. Couldn't they just say they have a Lab?


----------



## Jax08 (Feb 13, 2009)

Nurse Bishop said:


> The OPs dog look like a black lab cross. Couldn't they just say they have a Lab?


That's not as cool


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Nurse Bishop said:


> The OPs dog look like a black lab cross. Couldn't they just say they have a Lab?


Are your suggesting someone lie? Because that's never the answer.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

cliffson1 said:


> So in essence, what you are saying is that everyone should NOT own a German Shepherd. Now when I have said that in the past, folks get their knickers bunched up and feelings hurt.....but the reality is that this breed requires responsible owners for WHAT the breed is. Plain and simple.


God, it is not rocket science to own a GSD. I don't believe irresponsible is incurable. I don't think it is genetic. I think we can hold people to a higher standard and a great many of them CAN achieve that higher standard. Yes, I did say that we should tell people that they need to be more careful with their dogs, or not own one of these dogs. That is like telling a teenager that he needs to leave his phone in his pocket or not drive a car. We are not suggesting the kid stop driving. We are suggesting he stop fmessing with his phone when he should be focused on driving. 

There are a LOT of people walking through life these days with a bad case of irresponsibility. Common sense may be genetic. Intelligence potential -- you may be born with that, but you still need to work to reach your potential. But Irresponsibility is more like laziness. The good news is that NO ONE likes to hear that they are being irresponsible. If a co-worker comes in and says that their dog ran up to a lady riding a bicycle and the lady got so scared she crashed. I think it is our duty to point out, "That is really irresponsible to let your dog chase someone, she could have gotten hurt, you could have been sued." Immediate anger and excuses will be forth-coming. And maybe the owner won't tell you stories like that again. But probably she will think about it when the initial emotion goes down, and get a better handle on the dog. 

Instead we (in general) tend to commiserate and excuse apparent accidents. I think we need to change that. I need we need to let people know, bluntly, that our dogs should not be running loose. If the dog got hit in the road, what was the dog doing in the road? 

You could expect a certain amount of irresponsibility from first time owners, young owners, people who move to the country and then think it is ok to let their dogs run. Sometimes we need to teach these folks, nicely if possible, bluntly if necessary, that they need to protect themselves, by protecting their dogs, by protecting others from their dogs. The problem is, there seems to be a lot of people, not just young people or new folks to dog ownership, who seem to feel it is perfectly ok to be irresponsible with their dogs. Maybe they do not see it as irresponsibility. Maybe in the current climate it is so taboo to tell someone something they do not want to hear, that people are just smiling and nodding and saying "How nice." Instead of telling them, "What are you crazy, the dog is YOUR responsibility, you need to train it not to charge the door. You need to contain it before opening the door if you cannot stop the bad habit. You need to get the dog under control because it is IRRESPONSIBLE to let it frighten people or run in front of cars or chase other dogs. 

It is cruel to let a dog get into a bad habit and remain there for months, when a solid, well-timed correction when it first happens, will eliminate it. The same is true for humans. It is doing no one any favors to excuse or ignore irresponsible behavior with regards to dogs. Unsolicited advice is generally not well-received. But, if someone's irresponsible behavior is likely to effect the breed as a whole and how the public views the breed, I think we should do more than excuse or ignore. Accidents don't just happen. These aren't pygmy puffs. Control your dog!


----------



## JakodaCD OA (May 14, 2000)

allstate here in ct anyway, will not cover you if you have gsd's...I know, they all of a sudden popped up with it, wanted me to get rid of my dogs,,uh no, got rid of them


----------



## car2ner (Apr 9, 2014)

selzer said:


> God, it is not rocket science to own a GSD. I don't believe irresponsible is incurable. I don't think it is genetic. I think we can hold people to a higher standard and a great many of them CAN achieve that higher standard. Yes, I did say that we should tell people that they need to be more careful with their dogs, or not own one of these dogs.
> But Irresponsibility is more like laziness.


Reminds me of the times (yes, more than once or twice) when we had our dogs out and about and someone would say, "I wish I could teach my dogs to behave like that" and I'd answer them, "but you CAN". Usually they would start mumbling excuses.


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

car2ner said:


> Reminds me of the times (yes, more than once or twice) when we had our dogs out and about and someone would say, "I wish I could teach my dogs to behave like that" and I'd answer them, "but you CAN". Usually they would start mumbling excuses.


Kind of like all the excuses about housetraining? "It isn't as easy for some of us" "You've done this before so you are better at it"
Like all the "my dog accidentally got loose" a whole bunch of times. 

If people would stop over analyzing, stop treating them like kids, stop making excuses and start getting on board the you have a 60lb critter with teeth and a brain train we would see fewer incidents and fewer problems. My standard response to "does your dog bite?" is well it has teeth so...
Usually they walk away,


----------



## car2ner (Apr 9, 2014)

Sabis mom said:


> If people would stop over analyzing, stop treating them like kids, stop making excuses and start getting on board the you have a 60lb critter with teeth and a brain train we would see fewer incidents and fewer problems. My standard response to "does your dog bite?" is well it has teeth so...
> Usually they walk away,



I usually say, "all dogs bite if they feel threatened. Are you going to dos something to scare them?"


----------



## Muskeg (Jun 15, 2012)

I used to try to avoid using the word aggression to describe certain behaviors. But then I realized, why not. It is aggression, and that's OK, it is part of the being breed appropriate and need to be managed where needed. Some dogs may need more management than others and that's where threshold and nerves and stuff like that play in. All very complex, but still boils down to aggression in layman's terms. 

Just had a conversation with someone who was going to breed "malomars"... yes... and she's bred vizlas in the past. Got a pup for a lot of money from some breeder I've never heard of- and then the pup was "too aggressive". Probably just being a normal malomar pup, but she can't deal with it and is trying to give pup away. 

I was trying to hold myself back on the malomar thing, I told her aggression is part of the breed, and if you can't handle it, why did you even get a malinois pup? And if you were planning to breed and knew nothing about the breed, why did you get a pup and not a green or proven bitch? But, yeah... 

Now, who knows if it was even aggression, play biting, or prey? I don't. But regardless, JQP usually understands the word aggression better than "high prey drive" and when talking with someone interested in my breed, I no longer hesitate to just say "they carry aggression." I used to avoid that word because it is so nuanced and certainly doesn't mean the dog is "mean" or biting kids, but I don't even care anymore if I am talking with someone interested in malomars.


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

So I woke up this morning to tree sauce, skatey-punching and noble antlered cows here in the red white and leaf, then progressed to chicken ears and now I am talking about malomars! If I can get through today without peeing my pants or spitting coffee it will be a miracle! 

Weren't malomars some chocolate marshmallow thing? I would breed those!


----------



## dogma13 (Mar 8, 2014)

Sabis mom said:


> So I woke up this morning to tree sauce, skatey-punching and noble antlered cows here in the red white and leaf, then progressed to chicken ears and now I am talking about malomars! If I can get through today without peeing my pants or spitting coffee it will be a miracle!
> 
> Weren't malomars some chocolate marshmallow thing? I would breed those!


:rofl:


----------



## Muskeg (Jun 15, 2012)

Yeah- I think they are some sort of marshmallow candy thing? And she just kept saying it with a straight face. Even when I would respond and say the breed name correctly. Mal-in-wah. 

One good thing? I have a feeling, that for the most part, the breed is somewhat self-limiting because the goods ones ares such "aggressive" (bitey) pups and few people have a clue how to handle it. Thus, a potential breeder often ends up never moving forward. Of course not always by a long shot but it can help weed out the malomar breeders!


----------



## IllinoisNative (Feb 2, 2010)

Muskeg said:


> Yeah- I think they are some sort of marshmallow candy thing? And she just kept saying it with a straight face. Even when I would respond and say the breed name correctly. Mal-in-wah.


Oh, thank God. I was about to google Malomar's - going, "I've never heard of that breed." I was thinking Livestock Guardian breeds, possibly? LMAO 

The quotes should have given it away. Gullible, thy name is me.


----------



## Nigel (Jul 10, 2012)

Muskeg said:


> I used to try to avoid using the word aggression to describe certain behaviors. But then I realized, why not. It is aggression, and that's OK, it is part of the being breed appropriate and need to be managed where needed. Some dogs may need more management than others and that's where threshold and nerves and stuff like that play in. All very complex, but still boils down to aggression in layman's terms.
> 
> Just had a conversation with someone who was going to breed "malomars"... yes... and she's bred vizlas in the past. Got a pup for a lot of money from some breeder I've never heard of- and then the pup was "too aggressive". Probably just being a normal malomar pup, but she can't deal with it and is trying to give pup away.
> 
> ...


It's remarkable how people get themselves in over their heads without thinking it through. I've seen people import WL gsds from eastern Europe and soon find out they can't handle them. Nothing wrong with the dogs, just too much for the owner, they "simply" thought it would be bad "expletive" to own one. Their situation grows into a liability and they rehome them.

I've seen this play out a few times now including an instance with one of those "malomars". In that case the guy thought SEALs use them, he wanted one too. Zero knowledge of the breed and next to no training and the dog through no fault of it own became a liability.


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

IllinoisNative said:


> Oh, thank God. I was about to google Malomar's - going, "I've never heard of that breed." I was thinking Livestock Guardian breeds, possibly? LMAO
> 
> The quotes should have given it away. Gullible, thy name is me.


Me too. I thought it was a cross between *Mal*amute and *Mar*emma?


----------



## Nurse Bishop (Nov 20, 2016)

Thats what I thought. Oh great, the AKC has let in yet another ahszemala breed from some third world country.


----------



## voodoolamb (Jun 21, 2015)

Nurse Bishop said:


> Thats what I thought. Oh great, the AKC has let in yet another ahszemala breed from some third world country.


I don't get the contempt for the AKC admitting new breeds

I mean that is the very purpose of the AKC and completely in line with their mission statement.


----------



## Sabis mom (Mar 20, 2014)

IllinoisNative said:


> Oh, thank God. I was about to google Malomar's - going, "I've never heard of that breed." I was thinking Livestock Guardian breeds, possibly? LMAO
> 
> The quotes should have given it away. Gullible, thy name is me.


The horrible part is when I google Malomars I get ... pics of Malinois


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

Check out the registries in Europe. It is crazy the amount of dogs they have approved. The following link is from the equivalent of the AKC in The Netherlands: https://www.houdenvanhonden.nl/hondenrassen/alle-rassen/
Translations: rassen = breeds, groepen = groups


----------



## dogma13 (Mar 8, 2014)

wolfy dog said:


> Check out the registries in Europe. It is crazy the amount of dogs they have approved. The following link is from the equivalent of the AKC in The Netherlands: https://www.houdenvanhonden.nl/hondenrassen/alle-rassen/
> Translations: rassen = breeds, groepen = groups


Interesting breeds!Thanks for the link!


----------



## Nurse Bishop (Nov 20, 2016)

voodoolamb said:


> I don't get the contempt for the AKC admitting new breeds
> 
> I mean that is the very purpose of the AKC and completely in line with their mission statement.


Because they look like curs.


----------



## Shepdad (Oct 24, 2017)

Nigel said:


> It's remarkable how people get themselves in over their heads without thinking it through. I've seen people import WL gsds from eastern Europe and soon find out they can't handle them. Nothing wrong with the dogs, just too much for the owner, they "simply" thought it would be bad "expletive" to own one. Their situation grows into a liability and they rehome them.
> 
> I've seen this play out a few times now including an instance with one of those "malomars". In that case the guy thought SEALs use them, he wanted one too. Zero knowledge of the breed and next to no training and the dog through no fault of it own became a liability.


That's the problem with the Internet. You now have people with zero or little experience of owning GSDs ordering dogs sight unseen like ordering garden ornaments from Amazon. They see nice pics perhaps some nice videos. I know of a teenager from an affluent family using his parents' credit card who managed to import a GSD from Slovakia because all those youtube videos looked cool. Not surprisingly, the dog had to be rehomed. That's a bit better than another family whose young people again using parents' card paid for a French bull dog from a nice web site and it was supposed to be shipped from South Africa. Of course, no dog ever arrived.

I do have my mali-noise story. Years, ago I was driving home from training with my two working line GSDs in crates in the passenger and rear section of my station wagon. I noticed a truck that seemed to be following us. I pulled over at a park to see if they were really following us. The truck parked beside us. Two scruffy looking guys got out and showed me these pictures of a dog in what's supposed to be their back yard and said they had this wonderful Mali-noise with excellent puppies and would I like to buy one for a really good price.


----------



## voodoolamb (Jun 21, 2015)

Nurse Bishop said:


> Because they look like curs.


I'm not sure if you are using cur in reference to the family of north american hunting breeds such as black mouth curs, mountain curs, blue laceys and catahoulas or if you are using it in the derogatory fashion referring to a mixed breed dog... 

Either way I don't understand why the looks of certain dog breeds and their country of origin should exclude them from AKC recognition? 

I mean lots of pure bred dogs look like they could be mutts, but that doesn't change the fact they have compelling histories, separate gene pools, selected temperaments and devoted fanciers. All purebred dogs deserve the same chance at preservation.

If I ever get my dream home up north - I'd love to breed these guys










They may look like some random mixed breed shepherd, but Chinooks are truly a piece of living history. Chinooks and their breed founder paid a big part in Byrd's 1929 Antartic expedition. It would be a shame to lose such a magnificent animal because they don't "look" purebred. Same goes for other indigenous breeds the world over.


----------



## cloudpump (Oct 20, 2015)

voodoolamb said:


> I'm not sure if you are using cur in reference to the family of north american hunting breeds such as black mouth curs, mountain curs, blue laceys and catahoulas or if you are using it in the derogatory fashion referring to a mixed breed dog...
> 
> Either way I don't understand why the looks of certain dog breeds and their country of origin should exclude them from AKC recognition?
> 
> ...


I agree. Don't need to like the way a breed looks to appreciate the effort that went into creating them for a purpose


----------



## Jenny720 (Nov 21, 2014)

Nurse Bishop said:


> voodoolamb said:
> 
> 
> > I don't get the contempt for the AKC admitting new breeds
> ...


That’s only your opinion lol!


----------

