# Great article about dog parks



## GSDBESTK9 (Mar 26, 2002)

Dog Expert Witness


----------



## Ellimaybel (Mar 16, 2014)

That was a good read. You see constantly on here about the fighting but I've been an advocate against dog parks for the disease risk LONG before even owning a dog. That scares me more than anything because I can't see that coming.


----------



## Chip18 (Jan 11, 2014)

Thanks it is a good article. I'll add it to my anti Dog Park data base. And yes the "unknown" dog and owner. I had two dogs that would have been great Dog Park candidates "ironically" my OS WL GSD with high Rank Drive "issues" being one of them and of course my goofy Boxer! But they never went (to a Dog Park) because my first dog my American Band Dog made it pretty clear from day one that he would not be a good fit!

I chose not to "inflict" my problem on others! Lot's of dogs like him out there and unfortunately they don't have responsible owners!

Again unfortunately those owners don't wear T-Shirts that say *"My dogs issue's are not my problem, it's your problem!"*

I protect my dogs and knowingly putting them in harms way makes that job more difficult in my view.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

"because the positives are, in my opinion, only theoretical."

I don't get it. Well exercised and dog savvy dogs are theoretical? Dog parks have been in my area for over fifteen years and I have not found this to be the case, especially the part where the positives are not considered positives, but theory? That doesn't even really make sense to me. 


"First, dog parks are rife with disease, especially giardia. Soft stool, diarrhea that comes and goes, horrible gas? Have your vet run a test for giardia. And then, of course, there’s kennel cough, as well other fungi, viruses, fleas and worms."

Am I correct in understanding that all dogs passing outside the dog park are immune to all these purported diseases inside the dog park? Can somebody explain to me just how they manage to corral all these nasty things and isolate them to the internal realm of the dog park and none of these are contagious if they are contacted through a sick dog being walked through its neighborhood or through an on leash non dog park area. I find the concept fascinating. People that tend to go to dog parks are people that obviously tend to spend time with the care of their dogs vs those that just open the gate, (if it ever was closed) and allow their diseased dog to wander the community.


"Second, I have seen way, way too many dog bites that have occurred at dog parks for my personal comfort. Mostly to other dogs, but also to people who reach in to break up a dog fight or a to grab their dog out of harm’s way."

I can't speak for the author, but maybe their dog park experience is very limited. Most of the dog bites / fights I have witnessed have been in neighborhoods or in on leash areas of parks. Most people with dogs that have dog issues tend to not go to dog parks but to walk them on leash in other areas or in their communities. Who brings a dog aggressive or dog reactive dog to a dog park? Who has a dog aggressive / reactive dog and never walks it? If they don't go to dog parks common sense dictates they have to go somewhere.


"Dogs thrive on stable relationships. ...Thus you’ll get what appears to be random fighting, random aggression towards a dog they know, random odd behaviors (“gee, never done that before”), seemingly sudden guarding behaviors (territory, owner, another dog) etc. It’s not random or unpredictable--it’s the stress you, as an owner, causes by going to the dog park!" 

This does not seem to be the prevailing behavior at the many dog parks I frequent, I wonder how many dog parks the author has been to. My experience has demonstrated that most dogs are comfortable in a dog park, and immensely enjoy the playtime with other dogs. Most bad behaviors I have seen were directly related to food, toys, and dog fighting breeds. I wish the author had been clearer on her experience instead of making a broad sweeping statement which can't be supported by most of the dog parks in my area.


"Lastly, I’m very wary of the “unknown” factors. Unknown dogs, unknown owners, unknown relationships and interactions, unknown damages. I don’t like surprises, and dog parks hold way too many unknown factors for dogs’ safety." 

And all the strangers walking their dogs in communities, in on leash dog areas, and even in training classes aren't unknowns full of surprises? I have seen many a leashed dog attack and harm a passing dog.

​"One of my main reasons for not being a dog park advocate is what I can’t control my dog’s experience and/or other people’s dogs (and I think it goes without saying, the dog owners)." 

Can the author control loose dogs on the streets? How about owners walking dogs that have aggressive dogs and choose not to control them? How about a child on the end of a leash of a large problem dog? I think not.

"Because dogs are learning all the time, I must control as much of their experiences as possible..."

Avoiding dog parks in favor of just as many unadmitted unknowns in a different territory does not provide any more control, maybe even less. In a dog park, the owner is usually there to control a problem dog, or if they won't, there ususally are other good samaritans willing to help, can't say the same about an empty city street with the same variables.


"..thus I must make sure my dog has only positive experiences for several years, until they are mature and have a solid foundation before I expose them to a possibly unsure environment." 

As stated earlier, exposing your dogs to all the same diseases and dangers that one asserts are found in a dog park, while denying the very same that occurs outside a dog park is a little bit biased and unbalanced.


"If your dog gets bullied, attacked, frightened or even just overwhelmed at the dog park, he will bring that experience and the subsequent conclusions he made with him everywhere." 

What happens if your dog is attacked while walking in your own community, no impact? How about a dog in a yard or being walked by its owner that lunges and carries on? That won't make a dog feel overwhelmed?


"Also keep in mind that fighting and bullying in dogs is a learned behavior just as much as anything else, and therefore once your dog does it a few times, it’s now learned and bound to be repeated over and over again." 

And this only counts if it occurs in a dog park? 


"Of course I recommend dog-to-dog play! If your dog has a few friends that he or she really enjoys, please go for it!" 

What if your dog has never met a dog it did not consider to be a friend and the other dog(s) feel the same way? Some dogs are social butterflies and these are normally the types found in dog parks. Perhaps if fighting and bullying is just as much a learned behavior as the author states, then perhaps not fighting and bullying is just as much a learned behavior?

"So considering all the above, is this something you actually want for your dog? I doubt it! Take your dog for a walk instead." 

So considering all the author wrote holds true for a walk around the block or an on leash park, why would one demonize dog parks while recommending the other? I think the article misleads people into a false sense of security regardging disease, dog fights, and the ability of other people to control their dogs which are not characteristics attributed to solely dog parks, but anywhere where it is legal to take dogs.


----------



## Chip18 (Jan 11, 2014)

MineAreWorkingline said:


> "because the positives are, in my opinion, only theoretical."
> 
> I don't get it. Well exercised and dog savvy dogs are theoretical? Dog parks have been in my area for over fifteen years and I have not found this to be the case, especially the part where the positives are not considered positives, but theory? That doesn't even really make sense to me.
> 
> ...


 Well it's a good rebuttal! And it would do Cesar Milan proud (that's not a slam) I like a lot of the things he does; not all, but a lot! When I watch his shows I usually cringe when at the end he sends his clients ..."off to the Dog Park!" 

I don't have much faith in JQP's ability to control there dog myself?? And if I can drop names, neither do Jeff Gellman, Peter Crain, Sean O'Shea and Lou Castle! They all are on the record and they advise there clients to "Stay out of the Dog Park!"

I did not need them to tell me that. I figured it out myself from day one! And no dogs harmed in the process. 

In the real world if your dog gets hit by another dog ...you were to freaking close! I step aside or cross the street or if that's not an option I am between a passing dog and mine. Not that difficult to do. 

I know personally of two Boxers that were left blind in dog v dog encounters. One was a Dog Park encounter and that Boxer lost both eyes! The other Boxer lost one eye and needed 15,000 dollar worth of reconstructive surgery! He's on FB now and the owner was rather vague on details other than a dog attack??

My American Band Dawg never interacted with any dog outside his pack for years. He was also never allowed to or got to be "Reactive on Leash" nonetheless he learned by inference how to behave around other dogs.

Off leash and "On the lawn" one day while I was working on my car in the driveway, my neighbors little piece of crap dog got by me and got right in Gunther's face!! Yap Yap Yap!! Four feet away from him and Struddell on Gunther's flank waiting to see what to do???

My eyes were big as saucer, I said Good Boy and calmly but swiftly got the little miscreant away! No problem, granted it was just my one dog but I know had I taken him to a Dog Park out the gate, he would have been looking to do damage! Plenty of others just like him out there and some of those owner's don't care! Those would be the people "not" on dog boards looking for solutions ..."they " don't have a problem as "they" see it. 

But Gunther never got a chance to "practice bad behavior" and he was never a problem. I have worked with more dogs at rescue and I can't really say how they are as regards other dogs I have no problem walking them by dogs, someone else in control, who knows?? 

There are most likely a lot of Dog Parks out there with good dog owners?? I don't know, but telling people to just say "No to Dog Parks" is "sound advice" in my view and I always "advocate" go with the Pro's.

And since I sigh .... yet again brought up Boxer's here, these are my usual "Dog Park warnings." :

Lou Castle:
Boxer Forum : Boxer Breed Dog Forums - View Single Post - Dog Park Ready

And stuff to know:
Boxer Forum : Boxer Breed Dog Forums - View Single Post - Dog Park Ready

Dog Parks are an "unacceptable risk" for me, others are free to do as they see fit long as they know.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Chip18 said:


> Well it's a good rebuttal! And it would do Cesar Milan proud (that's not a slam) I like a lot of the things he does; not all, but a lot! When I watch his shows I usually cringe when at the end he sends his clients ..."off to the Dog Park!"
> 
> I don't have much faith in JQP's ability to control there dog myself?? And if I can drop names, neither do Jeff Gellman, Peter Crain, Sean O'Shea and Lou Castle! They all are on the record and they advise there clients to "Stay out of the Dog Park!"
> 
> ...


Cesar recommends dog parks? On what basis?


If you base your opinion on dog parks on the ability of JQP to control their dogs, then please explain to me the difference between JQP taking their dog to a dog park or JQP allowing their dog to run free or walk their dog on the streets? If JPQ can't control their dog at a dog park, then surely they lack that ability when in home territory, even if it is going out to get the mail and the dog slipping out the door as you walk by. A dog attack is a dog attack regardless of where it occurs. In the past year, I have had three attacks on my dogs, one right in front of my house, one in a dog park, and one in an ON leash area in a park. I know it is deeper than that, but based on those attacks, two out of three did NOT occur in a dog park but in other areas being portrayed in this article as safe. I think not and to say so is not just misleading but potentially dangerous. It gives people a false sense of security.

I have frequented many dog parks, and although some can be quite large, or at least I have heard, all that I have been to are not so, and you are right there with your dog. Heck, my own town has a dog park, which I have never frequented, that I would guesstimate is the same size as my own yard. Besides, what makes you so sure that another dog is determined to bite your dog unless the dog is a) possibly dog aggressive so is not a dog park candidate (among many other possibilities, of course), or b) my biggest concern would be a problem owner. It is no secret among dog park enthusiasts that a leashed dog in an unleashed area is usually attached to a problem owner, not the other way around.

Out of the Boxer encounters you mentioned, I would be very curious about the circumstances. Where there treats involved? How about toys? Seriously, how did a dog come to lose both eyes in a dog fight? Do you think if those same two dogs had fought on the street that the outcome might have been different? Egregious as those injuries are, I know of many dogs that have lost their lives to dog attacks while leashed and walking the streets with their owners. One such attack occurred about fifty feet from my home and another two blocks away. In both incidences, there was no owner to remove the agressing dog. I have never seen a dog without an owner or "responsible" person in a dog park although I am sure it happens.


Does it matter what method, as long as the method is humane, is used to prevent or deter dog reactivity? How to "behave around other dogs" is subjective, some want ignore, others want friendly, and a host of gray shades.

One night as I was sitting on my front porch, an OS solid white intact male Boxer came to my front gate. Thankfully my yard is fenced, but I thought things could get ugly with my dominant male. Who would have thought that these dogs decided to have a huge play fest and ran up and down the fence for about a half hour until the owner came for his Boxer? These "playdates" continued until the owner was able to finally permanently secure his dog. 

Personally, can't tell you how many times through the years little dogs have confronted my big dogs, never an incident. Perhaps good breeding has a hand in this?


My dogs don't get to practice bad behavior, when it occurs it is corrected. I used to work with dogs in rescues at one time too, the problem dogs were usually the nerve bags, many of which were never let off leash or run free. Barrier aggression and leash frustration can be terrible things if allowed to develop.

I do agree with not having to stick your hand in a pot of boiling oil to learn for yourself, but when things are presented as in this article stating that all these potentially evil harms can come to your dog if you take him to a dog park while denying that all the things mentioned as evil were also a real life potential threat by just walking your dog around your own block at home, I have to cry foul and deceitful. 

I have all the respect in the world for Lou Castle, but his statement parallels that of this article and I say prove it. Show me one study done where dog parks are the roots of all those evils. I have a coworker who lives in an apartment, her cat which never goes outside contracted giardia, no dog park necessary. Evidently, it was tracked in. I do agree that you can encounter people looking for bait dogs, but that is not strictly confined to dog parks. That can, and does, occur anywhere. Insofar as somebody not being able to control a pack of dogs they brought in, I have never seen anybody bring in a pack of dogs to a dog park, although it can happen. The same could be said about somebody walking down a street with a pack of dogs.

How do you, or anybody else, know that dogs in training classes are safe dogs? Prove it. Prove they don't have fleas, giardia or a host of other illnesses. It would appear to me that obedience classes could be a hot bed for problem dogs. You read about it on here all the time where somebody has a problem dog and the first thing everybody recommends is training and lots of it.


----------



## Findlay (Jan 8, 2015)

Ellimaybel said:


> That was a good read. You see constantly on here about the fighting *but I've been an advocate against dog parks for the disease risk LONG before even owning a dog.* That scares me more than anything because I can't see that coming.


My pup's trainer hates dog parks and risk of disease is at the very top of his list of the hazards owners will expose their pups to at those yucky places.

Great article!!!
GSDBESTK9. Thx for posting it.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

WorkingLine, I think that your dog park experience is the exception. Here, all of those things are HUGE problems in dog parks. 
I can count on 1 hand the people who have had good experiences with dog parks and those tend to be private parks with paid membership and careful vetting of all potential members.

I've met others who have LOVED dog parks until they had an issue. That seems to be the mantra of public parks - it's all good until an idiot shows up.

Yes, people take aggressive dogs to dog parks. People take rescue/shelter dogs that they've owned for a couple hours and go to the dog park when they have no clue how the dog will react (not to mention the dog barely knows them so is going to be stressed anyway).

Yes, people take sick dogs to dog parks. 

People put their tiny dogs in the big dog side and then freak out when the little one gets stepped on by a larger dog. God forbid one of the big dogs doesn't like small dogs.

In a class setting, it is assumed that 1) the trainer requires proof of vaccines before enrolling dogs and 2) the trainer is expereinced in working with dogs and will be controlling the class setting.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Dainerra said:


> WorkingLine, I think that your dog park experience is the exception. Here, all of those things are HUGE problems in dog parks.
> I can count on 1 hand the people who have had good experiences with dog parks and those tend to be private parks with paid membership and careful vetting of all potential members.
> 
> I've met others who have LOVED dog parks until they had an issue. That seems to be the mantra of public parks - it's all good until an idiot shows up.
> ...


I agree that all those things can happen at a dog park, but they happen walking around the block too, no difference.

There are tons of people around here that go to dog parks, the regulars. I am sure most have had an incident or two in dog parks. I am sure that most have had an incident or two in on leash areas and near their homes as well. Same difference is my point.

Yes, there are trainers that are in control in obedience classes, but that does not detract from the likelihood of problem dogs being brought there in numbers. Dog parks are not the place to go with problem dogs. It happens, owners step in to help bring things under control, same as a trainer will step in to stop problems.

Yes, these are my experiences, but the way these wonderful dog parks are excoriated as h double l holes just isn't necessarily true, and the viable options are not any better.

Being that I go to so many dog parks and meet so many people that regularly go for literally years, I have to question the dog park experience of the naysayers. So somebody has one bad experience at a dog park, that does not make the dog park bad. What do those people do when they have a bad experience walking their dog around the block once they have a bad experience?


----------



## Muskeg (Jun 15, 2012)

Sometimes I wonder if certain dog trainers actually spend much time in the real world? Many dog owners never worry about dog reactivity or dog aggression, because their dogs have never shown this issue. Their dogs are perfectly social, without need for training at all. 

My guess is trainers see a very skewed sample of the dog population, because often only people with problem dogs bother to go to a trainer. Thus, when the trainers imagine all the problem dogs they work with at a dog park it would be a disaster. Truth is, mom and pops lab-mix does just fine at the dog park with no training needed. I've never seen any dog fights at the dog park or any real issues with aggression. I have seen fights and aggression in non dog park areas. 

I worry more about the attack-beavers in the lake at my dog park than about disease or other dogs.


----------



## LuvShepherds (May 27, 2012)

My friends use dog parks and love them. I had one bad experience with a previous German Shepherd and would never go back. It's not a subject we will ever all agree on here. The article reinforced everything I dislike about dog parks. I have taken my dogs to professionally run kennel style socialization programs that babysit dogs while you are working. I don't mind paying for my dogs to be safe.


----------



## Findlay (Jan 8, 2015)

A little off topic but I think GSDs are not the dog park type of dogs. 
I think they play by their own rules.

There are 4 GSDs that I know of in my town and I've never seen any one of them at any of the dog parks in the area.

I do see some groupies at one dog park...same dogs, same owners, same time everyday...all seem to get along famously.
Plus I've seen the pack of them (the dogs not the people) charge the fence when other dogs walk by. Yikes!!

I don't think I'd want to be the new dog and owner team inviting myself into that group. 
I'm pretty sure there'd be some blood shed. Human? K9? I don't know. 
maybe a little of both.


----------



## Stonevintage (Aug 26, 2014)

Dog parks work for many. The biggest consideration IMO, for my dog -besides increased disease potential - it's not a "natural" place for some dogs with marked traits. If a GSD's "natural" genetic tenancies include such traits as the breed standard suggests, than what part of a dog park offers more than it takes away from this breed as far as stressors?

If you have a GSD that is very bonded and protective of his owner, aloof and not really interested in other dogs, intelligent, natural herder/prey drive, larger in size and not afraid to defend themselves - why would a dog park environment be a good choice for him? It seems like every negative button would be pushed in this type of enclosed high density environment. It must take extreme dampening of the GSD's inherent tenancies to suppress enough to fit in to this crazy human designed "big cage" with a bunch of stranger dogs. 

The GSD must essentially become a "poodle" every time they are in tight restrained social environments such as this...... necessary in many situations, but for fun???


----------



## Findlay (Jan 8, 2015)

Stonevintage said:


> Dog parks work for many. The biggest consideration IMO, for my dog -besides increased disease potential - it's not a "natural" place for some dogs with marked traits. If a GSD's "natural" genetic tenancies include such traits as the breed standard suggests, than what part of a dog park offers more than it takes away from this breed as far as stressors?
> 
> If you have a GSD that is very bonded and protective of his owner, aloof and not really interested in other dogs, intelligent, natural herder/prey drive, larger in size and not afraid to defend themselves - why would a dog park environment be a good choice for him? It seems like every negative button would be pushed in this type of enclosed high density environment. It must take extreme dampening of the GSD's inherent tenancies to suppress enough to fit in to this crazy human designed "big cage" with a bunch of stranger dogs.
> 
> The GSD must essentially become a "poodle" every time they are in tight restrained social environments such as this...... necessary in many situations, but for fun???


 Exactly what Stonevintage wrote.
Those example are exactly why GSDs can't or shouldn't be taken to dog parks.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Muskeg said:


> Sometimes I wonder if certain dog trainers actually spend much time in the real world? Many dog owners never worry about dog reactivity or dog aggression, because their dogs have never shown this issue. Their dogs are perfectly social, without need for training at all.
> 
> My guess is trainers see a very skewed sample of the dog population, because often only people with problem dogs bother to go to a trainer. Thus, when the trainers imagine all the problem dogs they work with at a dog park it would be a disaster. Truth is, mom and pops lab-mix does just fine at the dog park with no training needed. I've never seen any dog fights at the dog park or any real issues with aggression. I have seen fights and aggression in non dog park areas.
> 
> I worry more about the attack-beavers in the lake at my dog park than about disease or other dogs.


Another way to look at it, with so many trainers saying dog parks are bad, is to realize that some of them have a horse in the race. Dog parks bad, come to me...


----------



## car2ner (Apr 9, 2014)

I am honored when someone invites me and my dog to join their group at the dog park. I smile, say thank you, and then decline. I have the best excuse. This county does not allow intact dogs in the parks. 

If anything goes wrong, no matter who is at fault, folks would likely blame the "big mean german shepherd"


----------



## Stonevintage (Aug 26, 2014)

car2ner said:


> I am honored when someone invites me and my dog to join their group at the dog park. I smile, say thank you, and then decline. I have the best excuse. This county does not allow intact dogs in the parks.
> 
> If anything goes wrong, no matter who is at fault, folks would likely blame the "big mean german shepherd"


That's an interesting rule "distinction" your area makes. That follows with a dogs genetic behavior as being difficult to contain in an unaltered dog. 

Sometimes, I wonder where a dog is developmentally (mentally) when he is fixed before maturity. I think that they may be "forever adolescents" and therefore, safe to play together, as kids can.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Stonevintage said:


> Dog parks work for many. The biggest consideration IMO, for my dog -besides increased disease potential - it's not a "natural" place for some dogs with marked traits. If a GSD's "natural" genetic tenancies include such traits as the breed standard suggests, than what part of a dog park offers more than it takes away from this breed as far as stressors?
> 
> If you have a GSD that is very bonded and protective of his owner, aloof and not really interested in other dogs, intelligent, natural herder/prey drive, larger in size and not afraid to defend themselves - why would a dog park environment be a good choice for him? It seems like every negative button would be pushed in this type of enclosed high density environment. It must take extreme dampening of the GSD's inherent tenancies to suppress enough to fit in to this crazy human designed "big cage" with a bunch of stranger dogs.
> 
> The GSD must essentially become a "poodle" every time they are in tight restrained social environments such as this...... necessary in many situations, but for fun???


Where does any breed standard call for a GSD to be aloof to dogs? I know that some people prefer their dogs to ignore other dogs contingent of the venue they pursue, but neutrality seems to be taught.


----------



## Stonevintage (Aug 26, 2014)

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Where does any breed standard call for a GSD to be aloof to dogs? I know that some people prefer their dogs to ignore other dogs contingent of the venue they pursue, but neutrality seems to be taught.


The term aloof is used, does not specify animal or human or exclude either. Neutrality is taught but IMO is easier for some breeds than others. The extreme pressure you can put on some breeds such as the well balanced GSD is to me, an attribute. 

How do you tell a GSD to stop "being" a GSD in those respects? Perhaps my thoughts are from the Strat and Wolf/Shepherd I owned - but they were who they were - would put up with dogs to a certain extent, even play with ones they knew well - but never comfortable around stranger dogs.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Stonevintage said:


> The term aloof is used, does not specify animal or human or exclude either. Neutrality is taught but IMO is easier for some breeds than others. The extreme pressure you can put on some breeds such as the well balanced GSD is to me, an attribute.
> 
> How do you tell a GSD to stop "being" a GSD in those respects? Perhaps my thoughts are from the Strat and Wolf/Shepherd I owned - but they were who they were - would put up with dogs to a certain extent, even play with ones they knew well - but never comfortable around stranger dogs.


I don't see why a GSD should view a group of friendly dogs as a stressful event.


----------



## Ellimaybel (Mar 16, 2014)

My personal opinion, it's not the fights that concern me. That can happen anywhere. Contrary to what some may believe, people are more likely (at least where I am) to take their sick dog to the dog park, or unvaccinated dog, than for a walk around the block. Why? Less odds of people seeing their dog poop without them picking it up. Here, the poop doesn't get picked up daily or even other day unless the owners pick it up. A lot of dogs eat grass, stools, anything they come across. People as a whole are more pressured to pick up after their dog when they are walking them on a leash and have to stop with their dog while they do their business. In a dog park they have a much better chance of getting away with pretending they didn't see it. In my town they also have a public doggy shower station. Never would I take my dog to that. Again, people are more likely to pretend not to have seen something there than if they had to check in somewhere and register their dog with the dog and owner name. Again, the city probably doesn't clean and sanitize it near enough, I mean... How could they???? They would have to have someone sitting at it to clean it after each and every dog went through it. Same theory with dog parks. I know, and I don't disagree, that it varies from experience to experience and town/county. But those are my justifications for not using dog parks or dog showers here where I live. I actually even left a vet that I loved because it got to the point where the amount of dog poop outside was ankle deep for dogs. Ick.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Ellimaybel said:


> My personal opinion, it's not the fights that concern me. That can happen anywhere. Contrary to what some may believe, people are more likely (at least where I am) to take their sick dog to the dog park, or unvaccinated dog, than for a walk around the block. Why? Less odds of people seeing their dog poop without them picking it up. Here, the poop doesn't get picked up daily or even other day unless the owners pick it up. A lot of dogs eat grass, stools, anything they come across. People as a whole are more pressured to pick up after their dog when they are walking them on a leash and have to stop with their dog while they do their business. In a dog park they have a much better chance of getting away with pretending they didn't see it. In my town they also have a public doggy shower station. Never would I take my dog to that. Again, people are more likely to pretend not to have seen something there than if they had to check in somewhere and register their dog with the dog and owner name. Again, the city probably doesn't clean and sanitize it near enough, I mean... How could they???? They would have to have someone sitting at it to clean it after each and every dog went through it. Same theory with dog parks. I know, and I don't disagree, that it varies from experience to experience and town/county. But those are my justifications for not using dog parks or dog showers here where I live. I actually even left a vet that I loved because it got to the point where the amount of dog poop outside was ankle deep for dogs. Ick.


LOL! Good point, but I guess it does depend on where you live. People around town just take their dogs down alleys, by empty lots and / or by high bushes if they don't want to clean after them. The on leash areas in parks are another hot spot for dog mess that people don't clean. On the flip side, messing in the parks come under close scrutiny here.


----------



## Stonevintage (Aug 26, 2014)

MineAreWorkingline said:


> I don't see why a GSD should view a group of friendly dogs as a stressful event.


My dogs have never viewed a single dog or group of dogs as friendly or otherwise until they have done all the body posturing and but sniffing that dogs do side by side with an introduction. Until then, it could go either way with a stranger dog and this close up ritual seems to be something they have always required and then -a friend or foe or indifferent decision is made.


----------



## Ellimaybel (Mar 16, 2014)

MineAreWorkingline said:


> LOL! Good point, but I guess it does depend on where you live. People around town just take their dogs down alleys, by empty lots and / or by high bushes if they don't want to clean after them. The on leash areas in parks are another hot spot for dog mess that people don't clean. On the flip side, messing in the parks come under close scrutiny here.


Yay!  That's exactly why I kept stating about it being where I live. I wish the county parks were watched closer. Also, if I were to take my dogs for long walks around the neighborhood I personally would avoid the alley's lmao. But yeah, one time I started to take Gunther down this trail that was used for hiking. I got a super creepy feeling and turned around. I'm not sure if it was the amount of dog poop everywhere or the large clumps of coyote fur I kept seeing but I never went to that place again! There aren't too many empty lots and alleys in my town where people can hide. The ones we do have are closely monitored by police so it's a great deterrent lol. Anyway, that was just my opinion about my area. Everyone has to establish their opinions based on their own experiences. At least the original article gave some different outlook into some of the negatives of a dog park. It doesn't mean people have to follow it as the rule, but now maybe some people will just be a little more cautious and watchful of their pups at dog parks.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

Cesar recommends dog parks? On what basis?
Didn't Cesar call his facility the Dog Park?

Great article . No dog parks for me .


----------



## car2ner (Apr 9, 2014)

I've watched a lot of Ceaser and he doesn't really recommend dog parks. He does realize that people will bring dogs to the park. He then shows people how to behave in the dog park, to set them up for success. 

Speaking of setting them up for success, how many people notice that the dogs in the park are had picked from Ceaser's pack.


----------



## kelliewilson (Jan 1, 2015)

Bandit loves the dog park. Problem is he dont like strangers. He does good at ignoring the people there. But he is getting to rough for the dogs at the park unless theres a big close in age dog that really likes to run and play fight, It did give me the chance to teach him to come when I call and no humping. so i guess its a win/loose situation depending on the day and the dog.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

No dog parks for me. The two dog aggressive dogs I had were attacked as pups by adult dogs who did not know how to be proper adults. I even would not do "play time" at puppy K.

Beau is an intact male who has never had "wresting puppy play" with another dog since he left the litter. He exposures as a puppy were limited to a few adult dogs with good puppy skills (and now HE is a reliable adult dog with puppy skills and totally ignores snarky dogs, even some who have snapped at him)

We are babysitting a female intact dog (nowhere near heat) and she also did not have the whole puppy dog park experience.

These two get along well, I take them outside and both are dancing looking at me to throw the ball not each other to play. Beau has offered a play bow to her but she ignored it and he moved on. 

Ok so we were recently on a search (he is a cadaver dog) and, typical of most searches, he has to work offlead in the vicinity of chained dogs, fenced dogs, even loose dogs sometimes. To him, they are part of the background as it should be. And I am the one who spends my time playing with and bonding with him. Maybe it is not everyone's cup of tea but I sure prefer the final results to what I got when I let my dogs "play" with strange dogs.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

SV makes a valid point.

Generally ('cause every individual dog is different) on the spectrum of herding/guarding breeds vs hunting breeds (for example) the tendencies displayed with respect to strange dogs is inherently different.

Labs were bred to work with different hunters around them and different dogs as retrievers for example. The need was for a dog that is inherently very social with strangers, human and canine.

German Shepherds were bred to not be happy goofy love everyone they meet type dogs, that would go against the purpose for which they were bred, herding, protection, guarding.

Therefore it's safe to say that generally, this is a genetic characteristic, for the same reason I would say labs are rarely (if ever?) used by the police for suspect apprehension due their genetic characteristics.

I've said this here before, a few years ago, rather then wasting tax payer dollars on dog parks I'd rather institute a system where people can pass an OB exam and get a license to visit more public places with their dogs.

This would incentivize training and reduce the inevitable liability of the untrained owners and dogs at dog parks....but then that won't ever happen in the U.S. because too many people would rather complain in a dog park then train...but I digress. 






MineAreWorkingline said:


> Where does any breed standard call for a GSD to be aloof to dogs? I know that some people prefer their dogs to ignore other dogs contingent of the venue they pursue, but neutrality seems to be taught.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

jocoyn said:


> <snipped>.
> 
> Ok so we were recently on a search (he is a cadaver dog) and, typical of most searches, he has to work offlead in the vicinity of chained dogs, fenced dogs, even loose dogs sometimes. To him, they are part of the background as it should be. *And I am the one who spends my time playing with and bonding with him. Maybe it is not everyone's cup of tea but I sure prefer the final results to what I got when I let my dogs "play" with strange dogs.*


 
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:


----------



## Shade (Feb 20, 2012)

I also love the article and I'm a huge advocate for avoiding dog parks at all costs as well both from personal experience and otherwise. There are no 'benefits' to a dog park that I can't get in a safer location with trusted dogs I've met and screened.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

kelliewilson said:


> Bandit loves the dog park. Problem is he dont like strangers. He does good at ignoring the people there. But he is getting to rough for the dogs at the park unless theres a big close in age dog that really likes to run and play fight, It did give me the chance to teach him to come when I call and no humping. so i guess its a win/loose situation depending on the day and the dog.


If he were my dog, I would correct rough play. The dog park dogs I knew all had excellent recalls.



jocoyn said:


> No dog parks for me. The two dog aggressive dogs I had were attacked as pups by adult dogs who did not know how to be proper adults. I even would not do "play time" at puppy K.
> 
> 
> Ok so we were recently on a search (he is a cadaver dog) and, typical of most searches, he has to work offlead in the vicinity of chained dogs, fenced dogs, even loose dogs sometimes. To him, they are part of the background as it should be. And I am the one who spends my time playing with and bonding with him. Maybe it is not everyone's cup of tea but I sure prefer the final results to what I got when I let my dogs "play" with strange dogs.


Where I live, your chances of a dog attack on a puppy are far greater walking around your neighborhood than going to a dog park. I live just outside the city so I would suspect that there are a lot of people in the same situation. Articles like this that do not present a balanced picture of community vs dog parks do nothing but needlessly fearmonger while creating a false image of community security that does not necessarily exist.

Every dog I have owned that had the benefit of a dog park worked easily around other dogs and were not distracted at seeing a strange dog (without training) because it was just another day in paradise to them, nothing to get excited about.




Gwenhwyfair said:


> German Shepherds were bred to not be happy goofy love everyone they meet type dogs, that would go against the purpose for which they were bred, herding, protection, guarding.


Where have you ever seen it written that GSDs should be aloof with other dogs as part of their character? Other people have said that on this thread to, but nobody can produce anything written that states this. The FCI standard actually calls for them to be good natured while the AKC standard states: "willingness to meet overtures without itself making them", dog neutrality does not seem to be called for. Perhaps your definition of good natured or willing to meet overtures does not extend to dogs, but my experience with GSDs have taught me different. There is a big difference between a dog being naturally social with dogs and a taught neutrality. Dogs in real work venues DO have to work around other dogs. What K9, SAR dog or sheepherding GSD does not have to be around other dogs, fenced, leashed, loose, packs of dogs, etc? Who that work their dogs in these venues don't teach and encourage neutrality? If a GSD were naturally aloof with other dogs, then why bother? 

Although all but two of the GSDs I have owned have been aloof with people, none have been aloof with dogs. I would suspect that there may be a genetic proponent for dog neutrality that is not the same as the one which results in a dog being aloof with people and they certainly don't go hand in hand.


----------



## Chip18 (Jan 11, 2014)

carmspack said:


> Cesar recommends dog parks? On what basis?
> Didn't Cesar call his facility the Dog Park?
> 
> Great article . No dog parks for me .


I did give my explanation for my ( Cesar and the Dog Parks) take ...but I posted it in the wrong thread!

http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/7363994-post120.html

I'm not gonna play till my post gets moved here.:


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Chip18 said:


> I did give my explanation for my ( Cesar and the Dog Parks) take ...but I posted it in the wrong thread!
> 
> http://www.germanshepherds.com/forum/7363994-post120.html
> 
> I'm not gonna play till my post gets moved here.:


Maybe admin can't move novellas? :rofl:

I think they have a size limit on posts!


----------



## Chip18 (Jan 11, 2014)

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Maybe admin can't move novellas? :rofl:
> 
> They have a size limit on posts!


Yeah they said 2000 word limit. 

Still ... I did post it once??? Lou had said that happened to him before also?? I'll see what I can do.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Chip18 said:


> Yeah they said 2000 word limit.
> 
> Still ... I did post it once??? Lou had said that happened to him before also?? I'll see what I can do.


I don't think you are the first one!


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

Actually it is 1,000 words. Board rules are at the top of each section.


----------



## Chip18 (Jan 11, 2014)

OK trying again ...Part One:



MineAreWorkingline said:


> Cesar recommends dog parks? On what basis?


Millions of folks watch his show! I don't know that he has actually "endorsed" Dog Parks! At the end of most episodes they conclude with the now friendly rehabbed dog running in the Dog Park and happily playing with other dogs! 

"Kinda like "Monkey see Monkey do," Alpha Rolling anybody??

For the record I did hear he regrets having endorsed that technique, although most likely he not endorse it for his followers to do themselves?? (note the disclaimer.) Still they have to put stickers on hair dryers so people don't use them in bath tubs!

But what happens when the next bad owner comes in with an equally out of controlled dog and get's into with one of Cesar's rehabs?? Does he make a return call to them if the rehabbed dogs has a relapse?? Am I the only one in America (the world??) that ask that question?? To both I have to say ... I don't know???



MineAreWorkingline said:


> If you base your opinion on dog parks on the ability of JQP to control their dogs, then please explain to me the difference between JQP taking their dog to a dog park or JQP allowing their dog to run free or walk their dog on the streets? If JPQ can't control their dog at a dog park, then surely they lack that ability when in home territory, even if it is going out to get the mail and the dog slipping out the door as you walk by. A dog attack is a dog attack regardless of where it occurs.


Yes ... I would luv to see me make that argument also??? Unfortunately I cannot.

JQP is nothing if not consistent, in there "inability" to control "problem dogs!" My utter content for the "ignorant" is well founded! My second puppy Stewie Boxer/APBT 12 weeks at the time, was on leash on the sidewalk to my right. We were walking along and I was doing what I do scan forward and behind, look for open garage doors and people in there front yard and keep my ears open, I am actively looking for loose dogs! Oh yeah and two houses from home!

We were walking by another house, when I "hear" people yelling and a front screen door slam open?? I turn and I see a 90 lb APBT making a beeline for my puppy! In one smooth motion I sung my puppy behind me and faced that dog down! He was not getting to my puppy without a fight!! He paused confused not really seeing me, he was locked on my puppy, and I blocked his target! That gave his "clueless" owners a chance to scoop him up!

I think the guy kicked the dog as he got him back into the house?? Most likely that guy and that dog were regulars at the Dog Park in San Jose??? I have no idea, I did not know where any local Dog Parks were??

I'll grant that perhaps that author is doing a bit of an over reach?? 
But by and large most of the "hard core" no Dog Parks no "unknown dogs" folks are primarily concerned with aggression in unstable dogs being owned by unstable clueless dog owners, who do take those dogs to "Dog Parks." 

Dog Parks are an avoidable situation. A dog out of the blue on a local walk may or may not be?? The price to keep your dog safe is "constant vigilance!" And "not" putting them at risk of the ignorant helps out in that regard. I have no problem with that myself.



MineAreWorkingline said:


> In the past year, I have had three attacks on my dogs, one right in front of my house, one in a dog park, and one in an ON leash area in a park. I know it is deeper than that, but based on those attacks, two out of three did NOT occur in a dog park but in other areas being portrayed in this article as safe. I think not and to say so is not just misleading but potentially dangerous. It gives people a false sense of security.


Think I just covered that??
Anyone that has a false sense of security ...won't now! 



MineAreWorkingline said:


> Besides, what makes you so sure that another dog is determined to bite your dog unless the dog is a) possibly dog aggressive so is not a dog park candidate (among many other possibilities, of course), or b) my biggest concern would be a problem owner.


I have no idea what the other dogs intent is?? Not really my concern, my intent is that they don't reach my dogs without my "assessment" first. The "other" dog is what determines my response.

And of course a Dog Aggressive dog should not be at a dog park! I posted a link to "Three Dogs who should not be at a Dog Park" most likely the people that most need to know it, only discover it, after a problem, if they care at all! The victims will look for solutions the habitual perpetrators won't! My dogs are not going to be stepping stones on someone's path to self awareness!

By default if a dog is out of control and being put in a position where he can practice bad behaviors the "owner is "unaware." My "goal" is to help others avoid them. Staying out of Dog Parks is a pretty good first step.



MineAreWorkingline said:


> It is no secret among dog park enthusiasts that a leashed dog in an unleashed area is usually attached to a problem owner, not the other way around.


No doubt and depending on where you live those would likely be owners with Concealed Carry Permits?? Dogs aren't the only danger in Dog Parks!



MineAreWorkingline said:


> Out of the Boxer encounters you mention"We" shattered that! : ed, I would be very curious about the circumstances. Where there treats involved? How about toys? Seriously, how did a dog come to lose both eyes in a dog fight?


One of the dog's that was blinded was at a Dog Park. I know because she said so. I remember that one because it happened before "I" posted my warning! I hesitated for a day or so because I did not want to be a PIA! I went to post it, and I saw what had happened! I took that one personally! 

The second one I just saw on face book! A go fund me to raise the funds for the surgery. One eye lost and skull damage! No details, other than a dog attacked her puppy. Don't know if it was a Dog Park a Stray or a "I thought my dog was friendly" encounter gone horribly wrong?? 

When people have had there dogs maimed they don't really want to talk about it. 





MineAreWorkingline said:


> Do you think if those same two dogs had fought on the street that the outcome might have been different? Egregious as those injuries are, I know of many dogs that have lost their lives to dog attacks while leashed and walking the streets with their owners. One such attack occurred about fifty feet from my home and another two blocks away. In both incidences, there was no owner to remove the aggressive dog.


The latest victim was a puppy! For injury's to be that bad (skull damage/lost an eye) it had to be a "Dog" if not a "Dog Park" then perhaps a "I thought my dog was friendly encounter??" Could have been a stray but I would think they would have said that much??

And yes Jeff Gellman tells us of "trainers" who have had dogs "killed" on walks! I would imagine those were not client's dog's?? He doesn't give details. For those who want to prepare for such an encounter ... see here:

What to do if another dog attacks your while on leash

We don't go looking for trouble but we like to be prepared. 



MineAreWorkingline said:


> I have never seen a dog without an owner or "responsible" person in a dog park although I am sure it happens.


Well to be practical a "problem dog" would have to drive there, though I suppose they could run. And then unlatch the gate to get in. I suppose a GSD could pull that off, most likely passing a run away Husky on the way there. Or someone could "abandon" a "problem" dog at a Dog Park??


----------



## Chip18 (Jan 11, 2014)

This post was well over 1500 words and that didn't even include all of the quotes. Board rule, as mentioned above, is 1000 words or less. ADMIN Lisa


----------



## Chip18 (Jan 11, 2014)

Holly crap!! OK I think I'am gonna retire from the "rebuttal game!!" :crazy:


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

1000 words per post? Chip, I demand a recount on both of those! :help:


----------



## Chip18 (Jan 11, 2014)

jocoyn said:


> Actually it is 1,000 words. Board rules are at the top of each section.


 Well I like to lay ground work for explanations! But it did get "slightly out of hand!" 

I blame MAWLD, she went first. 

I thought the word count was an "urban myth" I'll be more careful in the future, As I did post before read:










I do better when I follow the advice I offer to others!


----------



## Chip18 (Jan 11, 2014)

MineAreWorkingline said:


> 1000 words per post? Chip, I demand a recount on both of those! :help:


 Uh no I'm still fried! I hope never to do that again in the future!

I have found on the BoxerForum that PM's have a 2000 word limit ...blew through that a couple times to. :blush:


----------



## Chip18 (Jan 11, 2014)

car2ner said:


> I've watched a lot of Ceaser and he doesn't really recommend dog parks.


 No I never heard him "say" they are a good idea either but he shows people going to the Dog Park at the end of a lot of episodes. 




car2ner said:


> He does realize that people will bring dogs to the park. He then shows people how to behave in the dog park, to set them up for success.


 Yes but the "other people and there dog" is the problem. 



car2ner said:


> Speaking of setting them up for success, how many people notice that the dogs in the park are had picked from Ceaser's pack.


 Well .... I for one did not! That would certainly address my concern's!


----------



## Chip18 (Jan 11, 2014)

Muskeg said:


> Sometimes I wonder if certain dog trainers actually spend much time in the real world? Many dog owners never worry about dog reactivity or dog aggression, because their dogs have never shown this issue. Their dogs are perfectly social, without need for training at all.


 Most average "pet people" are as you describe! But that does not change "reality" the average pet owners lack of "awareness" is why a lot of puppies/dogs get maimed and killed. 

The "Dog Park" thing for me is not as much about going or not as it is about informing people! Now folks "know" that "Dog Parks" can be filled with dangers. And if they can wade through a couple of members rather "wordy" post. 

They will also understand that a Dog Attack can happen "anywhere!" All my loose dog encounters "were" close to home. 

Two door-bolters and one charging past his clueless owner! The owners were useless in all three cases! 

I'm not a pro but even from day one I understood that dogs can "bite." Granted "most" average pet owners don't get that! And there wake up call my very well have been a "I thought my dog was friendly" encounter. 

A pro never told me to "protect your dog" but fortunately for my first Boxer/APBT puppy that was always "Daddy's" intent out the gate! 

I don't worry about my dogs, I know what mine will do. It's the other guy's dog that could be a problem?? Pretty much that simple. Not being aware of that could get your dog ... "hurt!"

It's better to know too much than not enough in my view.



Muskeg said:


> My guess is trainers see a very skewed sample of the dog population, because often only people with problem dogs bother to go to a trainer. Thus, when the trainers imagine all the problem dogs they work with at a dog park it would be a disaster. Truth is, mom and pops lab-mix does just fine at the dog park with no training needed. I've never seen any dog fights at the dog park or any real issues with aggression. I have seen fights and aggression in non dog park areas.


 As stated it's not really about "your" dog it's Joe six pack and his uncontrolled cur that "could" be a problem!



Muskeg said:


> I worry more about the attack-beavers in the lake at my dog park than about disease or other dogs.


 Beavers!!! Well ... you should be concerned!:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7onFrBK_hKE


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

In order for your statement to hold true you are then implying that GSDs do and should have the same genetic temperament as say a Golden Retriever? 

If there are not marked genetic difference why even designate different breeds?

As for reference, some registries do happen to use the word 'aloof' specifically (Canadian Kennel Club is one). Others call it 'natural suspicion' or 'loyalty to owner' and so on. It's not a 'gotcha' kind of key word found in every registry.

No matter how you slice it and dice it, the German Shepherd was never intended to behave like a Golden or Lab and have been selectively bred for different conformation and temperament then those breeds not doing the same kind of guarding or protection work.

Again, individuals like your particular dogs, vary (due to breeders who value other traits, plus genetics is never a guarantee) but the general concept stands, German Shepherds aren't going to be (or really supposed to be) happy wiggly love every stranger they meet type dogs.







MineAreWorkingline said:


> <snipped>
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Stonevintage (Aug 26, 2014)

Mention of aloofness to both people, children and other animals. 

Schaferhund.com -Breed standards for their registry, see image 1 - center paragraph. image 2 is from the AKC website.

Looks like it is an expected and desired trait in the GSD.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> In order for your statement to hold true you are then implying that GSDs do and should have the same genetic temperament as say a Golden Retriever?
> 
> If there are not marked genetic difference why even designate different breeds?
> 
> ...


I implied no such thing. I clearly stated that: aloof, natural suspicion, loyalty to owner, etc., does not necessarily apply to a GSD's reactions to dogs, nobody was talking about people. Your statements imply that GSDs should not be sociable with other dogs. I stated that is not the breed standard. I further stated that some people keep saying the standard says GSDs should not be social with other dogs, but nobody can document that statement. I also clearly stated that in my experience, among those who do NOT train for dog neutrality, I have found that many GSDs will be aloof, etc., to people, but not necessarily to dogs. 

Of course dogs are purpose bred. I NEVER implied or stated that German Shepherds should be Golden or Lab like. That would defeat the purpose of owning workingline GSDs wouldn't it? I never implied or stated that GSDs are supposed to be happy wiggly love every stranger they meet types. Perhaps you confused my posts with somebody else's? I certainly did not state that GSDs should be overtly friendly to people in the comment you referenced or anywhere else. 

I also would love to read any documentation you may have access to that states in order for a GSD, or any dog, to function in a guarding or protection venue that they must be aloof to other dogs. Maybe it is preferred that they be dog neutral to perform in these venues, but once again, that is generally taught starting at an early age and not necessarily an expression of genetics.

I clearly stated that I have owned many that were suspicious and aloof with people, but not dogs, possibly suggesting a genetic component that may apply to people, but not dogs. Maybe vice versa, I don't know. I have said nothing to lead anybody to twist my comments into implying something so ludicrous that I would assert that GSDs should be Goldens in a GSD's clothing.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Stonevintage said:


> Mention of aloofness to both people, children and other animals.
> 
> Schaferhund.com -Breed standards for their registry, see image 1 - center paragraph. image 2 is from the AKC website.
> 
> Looks like it is an expected and desired trait in the GSD.


Thanks for providing this information.

Can you tell me the purpose of the website: Schaferhund.com and about the owner of the website? Is the page referenced the site's personal opinion or can that quote be formally documented by some breed registry? Who made this comment? From where does it derive?

In regards to your second document, where does it target a GSD's behavior towards other dogs or are you assuming that the statement is about other dogs? People? Both?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Now don't get mad, this is just a discussion about why I think your reasoning on this particular topic doesn't hold up under scrutiny. It is NOTHING personal, o.k. ?

I also find 'mineareworkinglines' to be a definite implication that you clearly acknowledge the differences between SLs and WLs, yet are splitting hairs on dog to dog behavior. 

A German shepherd is going to be less likely to be as social as a Lab.

When you say it's not genetic but taught then yes, you are implying that GSDs are going to act more lab 'like' around dogs. 

I AM talking about dogs and people. I also explained earlier why they are co-related in the GSD as they not only were guarding flocks against predators (other canids....for example) and protective of their human family as well. I also explained why a lot of the gun dogs, for example, are far more genetically likely to be social with humans *and* dogs. So it's not two different topics.

I've been around some of the other flock guarding breeds such as Kuvasz and they are similarly aloof to people AND other dogs. In fact the worst bite I've had was from a Kuvasz and I am a 'people' not wolf! 

It follows then a lot of the herding/guarding breeds are bred to guard and protect that will have 'natural suspicion' of not only strange dogs but also strange bi-peds. I stand by my point.

Now if we are talking about a breed that had the 'dog' suspicion intentionally bred out of it for a purpose then yeah that's a possibility but it's still genetics....





MineAreWorkingline said:


> I implied no such thing. I clearly stated that: aloof, natural suspicion, loyalty to owner, etc., does not necessarily apply to a GSD's reactions to dogs, nobody was talking about people. Your statements imply that GSDs should not be sociable with other dogs. I stated that is not the breed standard. I further stated that some people keep saying the standard says GSDs should not be social with other dogs, but nobody can document that statement. I also clearly stated that in my experience, among those who do NOT train for dog neutrality, I have found that many GSDs will be aloof, etc., to people, but not necessarily to dogs.
> 
> Of course dogs are purpose bred. I NEVER implied or stated that German Shepherds should be Golden or Lab like. That would defeat the purpose of owning workingline GSDs wouldn't it? I never implied or stated that GSDs are supposed to be happy wiggly love every stranger they meet types. Perhaps you confused my posts with somebody else's? I certainly did not state that GSDs should be overtly friendly to people in the comment you referenced or anywhere else.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

It is. This trait is described all over the place, using different descriptors. 




Stonevintage said:


> Mention of aloofness to both people, children and other animals.
> 
> Schaferhund.com -Breed standards for their registry, see image 1 - center paragraph. image 2 is from the AKC website.
> 
> *Looks like it is an expected and desired trait in the GSD*.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Watch out for windmills and red colored herrings and you'll tighten them arguments up in no time.  




Chip18 said:


> Holly crap!! OK I think I'am gonna retire from the "rebuttal game!!" :crazy:


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Instead of asking SV to defend her sources, how about you provide sources/breed standards which explain that GSDs are supposed to be as social with other dogs, such as Goldens and Labs, but not humans?


You asked for evidence, disputing the content which she provided, which is widely supported, doesn't prove your premise. 





MineAreWorkingline said:


> Thanks for providing this information.
> 
> Can you tell me the purpose of the website: Schaferhund.com and about the owner of the website? Is the page referenced the site's personal opinion or can that quote be formally documented by some breed registry? Who made this comment? From where does it derive?
> 
> In regards to your second document, where does it target a GSD's behavior towards other dogs or are you assuming that the statement is about other dogs? People? Both?


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Now don't get mad, this is just a discussion about why I think your reasoning on this particular topic doesn't hold up under scrutiny. It is NOTHING personal, o.k. ?
> 
> I also find 'mineareworkinglines' to be a definite implication that you clearly acknowledge the differences between SLs and WLs, yet are splitting hairs on dog to dog behavior.
> 
> ...


What kind of discussion looks for somebody to defend premises that were never spoken or implied?

Is it to be assumed because a dog is human aggressive that it is also dog aggressive? 

I already know that a German Shepherd should be less social than a Lab with people, but both do work venues which require them to work with and among other dogs. The point I am making is that the breed standard does not specifically detail how the GSD should act around other dogs. The genetics of behavior that dictate how a dog will act toward people are not necessarily the same as the genetics that govern how they will act towards dogs, and vice versa, and many times they just don't parallel.

When I say NEUTRALITY TOWARD DOGS is frequently taught and not necessarily genetic, what makes you assume that social behavior towards dogs is Lab like when apparently it is a natural trait in many German Shepherds? Does that mean that all the GSDs that like water are Lab like? Are you saying that because a dog shares inherent behaviors with other breeds that they are not bred to the standard? Does that mean a GSD that likes to swim is a faulty GSD?

Behavior towards humans vs behavior towards dogs *are* two different topics. Behavior towards humans is not a good indicator of behavior towards other dogs and vice versa. In a more extreme case, a Pit Bull is a classic example of a dog that has been bred for over a century to behave one way towards dogs while being the complete opposite toward humans. There seems to be a great divide between the two behaviors, not a splitting of hairs.

Just because a dog is suspicious of dogs around its flock and territory does not mean that on neutral grounds that it will not be social with other dogs. Many dogs are territiorial and will defend their home territory against dogs but once removed can be very social with dogs and make excellent dog park candidates.

Natural suspicion does not translate into an inability to discern whether something is a threat or not and relax, nor does suspicion translate into the inabilitiy to defuse when commanded to do so.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> It is. This trait is described all over the place, using different descriptors.


This website begs to differ: "He should be devoted to his familiar surroundings, above all to other animals and children, and composed in his contact with people."

FCI German Shepherd Breed Standard

Dozens of websites and opinions can be quoted, but at the end of the day, the only standards that really matter are those set by the FCI and the AKC as I posted earlier.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Familiar is an antonym for *aloof.* 

Familiar Synonyms, Familiar Antonyms | Thesaurus.com



MineAreWorkingline said:


> This website begs to differ: "He should be *devoted to his familiar surroundings*, above all to other animals and children, and composed in his contact with people."
> 
> FCI German Shepherd Breed Standard
> 
> Dozens of websites and opinions can be quoted, but at the end of the day, the only standards that really matter are those set by the FCI and the AKC as I posted earlier.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

In blue, not when you are talking about a herding/guarding breed bred with genetics to protect livestock *and* humans.




MineAreWorkingline said:


> What kind of discussion looks for somebody to defend premises that were never spoken or implied?
> 
> Is it to be assumed because a dog is human aggressive that it is also dog aggressive?
> 
> ...


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Oh and for the record, even if I had a dog friendly Lab or Golden I still wouldn't take them to a dog park.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

The lines between which you are reading allow a very broad interpretation. "Devoted" is not equal to "plays with", in my mind. Two of my dogs have scooped up baby birds in a very soft mouth (not a soft mouthed breed!) and handed them too me. That, to me is "devoted".....caring........not naturally aggressive.......normally protective. 

The breed is a working breed. 

There is not much value in a working dog that wants to go off and play with strange dogs. He must be confident and aloof to be a working dog. Whether or not that is genetics or training, I do not know.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

According to the FCI, it is breed standard = selectively bred trait.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Instead of asking SV to defend her sources, how about you provide sources/breed standards which explain that GSDs are supposed to be as social with other dogs, such as Goldens and Labs, but not humans?
> 
> 
> You asked for evidence, disputing the content which she provided, which is widely supported, doesn't prove your premise.


I never said that GSDs are supposed to be as social with other dogs such as Goldens and Labs. Such a statement would imply a solid knowledge of the temperament of those two breeds to which I make no claim. Again you are shooting the wrong messenger.

SV quoted one source and I asked for credentials of the site. I also posted a random website that stated GSDs should be good with other animals and children in direct conflict with SV's post. I am sure one could find dozens of random sites supporting that statement while also finding sites that state the opposite. The same questions that I asked of SV could just as easily apply to the site that I quoted. 

I already defended my stance prior to SV's statement by quoting the FCI and the AKC standard previously in this thread, perhaps you should reread *MY* posts. Evidently breed standards by the breed stewards don't mean much.

Where is it widely supported that GSDs should not be dog social? If it is, then it should not be a difficult task to document.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Familiar is an antonym for *aloof.*
> 
> Familiar Synonyms, Familiar Antonyms | Thesaurus.com


And how does familiar surroundings translate to people and animals? Some people would presume that they are three distinct entities.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I've avoided my own anecdotal stories because there is a spectrum, nothing is cut in dried.

Having said that if you take a population of GSDs and test them against a population of Labrador retrievers, observe them interacting with strange dogs, which population will *tend* to have less openly social behavior and why?

Thus far my GSDs, one of which is a rescue BYB dog that had no training until the age of 1 1/2 years is the most social of my dogs. Social in that he knows how to greet other dogs, he is not overtly aggressive to strange dogs when out and about, but even at that after the initial meeting he has no desire to play with strange dogs. He plays with his 'familiar' dogs at home though.

So his is not a trained response, he's just not that into strange dogs. Before I learned about dog parks I took him, all he wanted to do was mark around a bit and sniff. Did not initiate nor engage in play.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> In blue, not when you are talking about a herding/guarding breed bred with genetics to protect livestock *and* humans.


Are you saying that GSDs are undogs and that the science of genetics does not apply as it does to other breeds?


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

jocoyn said:


> The lines between which you are reading allow a very broad interpretation. "Devoted" is not equal to "plays with", in my mind. Two of my dogs have scooped up baby birds in a very soft mouth (not a soft mouthed breed!) and handed them too me. That, to me is "devoted".....caring........not naturally aggressive.......normally protective.
> 
> The breed is a working breed.
> 
> There is not much value in a working dog that wants to go off and play with strange dogs. He must be confident and aloof to be a working dog. Whether or not that is genetics or training, I do not know.


I agree that a working dog should not want to go off and play, but being dog social does not translate to an abandonment of duty. It just means in the right place and time, when given opportunity, it will be social with dogs.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> According to the FCI, it is breed standard = selectively bred trait.


Please post direct quote as it relates to dogs.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

The FCI doesn't support your premise, in fact it's the opposite. 

It's a good source, but it's not validating your premise at all.

I can further point out the word 'composed' is also used. In other words, not overly friendly nor enthusiastic. 

I know you won't admit that the FCI doesn't validate your point of view, but it doesn't. 

:shrug:



MineAreWorkingline said:


> And how does familiar surroundings translate to people and animals? Some people would presume that they are three distinct entities.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Are you kidding?

You said it was the standard.

What do you think a breed standard is for then? Explain how the traits in a dog breed are achieved in accordance with the breed standard.



MineAreWorkingline said:


> Please post direct quote as it relates to dogs.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> I've avoided my own anecdotal stories because there is a spectrum, nothing is cut in dried.
> 
> Having said that if you take a population of GSDs and test them against a population of Labrador retrievers, observe them interacting with strange dogs, which population will *tend* to have less openly social behavior and why?
> 
> ...


Show me studies that have compared the social behavior of Labs /Goldens to GSDs and we can discuss your question.

If you want to get anectdotal, as somebody that frequents dog parks, I have observed no difference in any breed when it comes to dog socialness except for Pit Bulls and occasional specimens of any given breed.

One German Shepherd does not represent all German Shepherds.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

No I'm saying you are wrong and have not proven your point.



MineAreWorkingline said:


> Are you saying that GSDs are undogs and that the science of genetics does not apply as it does to other breeds?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Since neither you nor I have access to these types of studies that's irrelevant because you can't prove your point either.

Having said that, there is much more evidence supporting the premise the GSDs have been selectively bred to be more 'aloof' to *un*familiar surroundings, which includes dogs AND people in said 'surroundings'.




MineAreWorkingline said:


> Show me studies that have compared the social behavior of Labs /Goldens to GSDs and we can discuss your question.
> 
> If you want to get anectdotal, as somebody that frequents dog parks, I have observed no difference in any breed when it comes to dog socialness except for Pit Bulls and occasional specimens of any given breed.
> 
> One German Shepherd does not represent all German Shepherds.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> The FCI doesn't support your premise, in fact it's the opposite.
> 
> It's a good source, but it's not validating your premise at all.
> 
> ...


The FCI supports that stance with people, the genetic behavior towards people does not dictate the genetic behavior towards dogs. 

If what you say is true, then why do so many people teach their dogs "dog neutrality". Are there that many poor breeders out there that can't breed a dog that is naturally aloof to dogs?


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Are you kidding?
> 
> You said it was the standard.
> 
> What do you think a breed standard is for then? Explain how the traits in a dog breed are achieved in accordance with the breed standard.


I am not the one inserting meanings into a breed standard that just aren't there.

Are you kidding? Have you read, and understood, any of my posts?


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> No I'm saying you are wrong and have not proven your point.


I have no point to prove. Neither the AKC nor FCI standard details the behavior of GSDs toward dogs. You are the one saying that it is there. The burden of proof does not lie on me.


----------



## WateryTart (Sep 25, 2013)

MineAreWorkingline said:


> I have no point to prove. Neither the AKC nor FCI standard details the behavior of GSDs toward dogs. You are the one saying that it is there. The burden of proof does not lie on me.


I don't have a dog in this fight (ha! I crack myself up) but I wouldn't have necessarily read dog-to-dog interaction into the standard either.

I see how the interpretation could contain a generalization across species, though, so this has been interesting to read.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Since neither you nor I have access to these types of studies that's irrelevant because you can't prove your point either.
> 
> Having said that, there is much more evidence supporting the premise the GSDs have been selectively bred to be more 'aloof' to *un*familiar surroundings, which includes dogs AND people in said 'surroundings'.


If there is so much evidence stating that GSDs are naturally aloof to DOGS in unfamiliar surroundings, please share some of this evidence.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

WateryTart said:


> I don't have a dog in this fight (ha! I crack myself up) but I wouldn't have necessarily read dog-to-dog interaction into the standard either.
> 
> I see how the interpretation could contain a generalization across species, though, so this has been interesting to read.


The problem with generalization across species is that the interspecies behaviors are not necessarily genetically one and the same and can be quite the opposite.


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

How do you train aloofness? I simply did what is natural and not take my dog to puppy-k playtime classes or dig parks. My dog was exposed to sound adult dogs who did all that work for me demonstrating how adult dogs are supposed to behave. We also had our agressive dog encounters and I put me between the puppy and the strange dog. or several would surround the puppy and protect it.

After a pup was about 6 months the adult dogs did not put up with this wrestling nonsense so many do. Maybe aloofness is the default natural behavior (they are, after all pack animals) and this play with everyone thing is the trained behavior.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Disagreeing with the content of your posts does not constitute a lack of understanding on my part.

You keep moving the goal post and throwing up points that don't support your premise.

You ask for evidence, SV posts it, you dispute the validity of the sources. Which is why I didn't bother posting sources.

The FCI quote that you were relying on heavily actually promotes the opposite of what you contend. 

Familiar, composed, so now that doesn't fit with what you said and you don't like it and you're the one who posted it...

This is how these internet things go, this ain't my first rodeo but I do know when it's time to stop the madness. 

...I hear the mods/admins footsteps coming down the hall....so 




MineAreWorkingline said:


> I am not the one inserting meanings into a breed standard that just aren't there.
> 
> Are you kidding? Have you read, and understood, any of my posts?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Yup. The problem with the trained 'neutrality' discussion is some people train it if (and because) the dog is not strange dog friendly.




jocoyn said:


> How do you train aloofness? I simply did what is natural and not take my dog to puppy-k playtime classes or dig parks. My dog was exposed to sound adult dogs who did all that work for me demonstrating how adult dogs are supposed to behave. We also had our agressive dog encounters and I put me between the puppy and the strange dog. or several would surround the puppy and protect it.
> 
> After a pup was about 6 months the adult dogs did not put up with this wrestling nonsense so many do. *Maybe aloofness is the default natural behavior (they are, after all pack animals) and this play with everyone thing is the trained behavior*.


----------



## WateryTart (Sep 25, 2013)

MineAreWorkingline said:


> The problem with generalization across species is that the interspecies behaviors are not necessarily genetically one and the same and can be quite the opposite.


Okay. I mean...I don't really have an opinion here and don't feel like getting sucked into a debate, so I'm just commenting that this was interesting to read.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

jocoyn said:


> How do you train aloofness? I simply did what is natural and not take my dog to puppy-k playtime classes or dig parks. My dog was exposed to sound adult dogs who did all that work for me demonstrating how adult dogs are supposed to behave. We also had our agressive dog encounters and I put me between the puppy and the strange dog. or several would surround the puppy and protect it.
> 
> After a pup was about 6 months the adult dogs did not put up with this wrestling nonsense so many do. Maybe aloofness is the default natural behavior (they are, after all pack animals) and this play with everyone thing is the trained behavior.


Aloofness with people in German Shepherds is part of the standard, hence denoting a genetic component, not a trained behavior. The standard does not specifically call for aloofness to dogs, or any other behavior, in regards to dogs towards dogs, at least not the way I interpret it.

How adult dogs are supposed to behave is subjective and can include neutrality, socialness, aggression, etc. In nature, a puppy would have been raised with its siblings to at least some point in time, not removed from its family at an early age to be raised by humans, and most likely result in a very different natural behavior.

My puppies are exposed to sound adult dogs as well, but they aren't learning dog neutrality because, once safely vaccinated, I find no need to segregate them from friendly dogs for my purposes.

It is not uncommon for a dog to pull a puppy's pass at some point, but that does not necessarily change its behavior toward other dogs or puppies. If it was social with other dogs prior to the puppy hitting the six month mark, it should still remain social to other dogs, but maybe not to that puppy, especially if that puppy is a pack member in the same household which is a different dynamic than that of a dog park.

I find it very interesting that German Shepherds, Rottweilers, Chows, etc., are all breeds whose standards call for aloofness towards humans. These same breeds mostly come with a genetic propensity towards being civil and / or human aggressive, it is their standards. If German Shepherds were genetically bred to be aloof towards dogs, I wonder if we would see the same genetic propensities of aggression toward dogs? That is well beyond my scope, maybe some breeders can chime in or somebody can post some links. It would be an interesting area to explore.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> Disagreeing with the content of your posts does not constitute a lack of understanding on my part.
> 
> You keep moving the goal post and throwing up points that don't support your premise.
> 
> ...


Does putting words in my mouth for things that I did not say constitute a lack of understanding on your part? Much of your argument has been based on German Shepherds being aloof to people and nobody is arguing or debating that point and I never implied that they should not be.

SV posted a link that conflicts with the breed standards. Does one link from questionable sources trump the AKC and FCI breed standard?


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

WateryTart said:


> Okay. I mean...I don't really have an opinion here and don't feel like getting sucked into a debate, so I'm just commenting that this was interesting to read.


:thumbup:


----------



## NancyJ (Jun 15, 2003)

you say the GSD standard says the GSD should be aloof towards humans. Where does the FCI standard say that?

The AKC standard mentions aloofness but not specifically towards humans.

Temperament: The breed has a distinct personality marked by direct and fearless, but not hostile, expression, self-confidence and a certain aloofness that does not lend itself to immediate and indiscriminate friendships.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

jocoyn said:


> you say the GSD standard says the GSD should be aloof towards humans. Where does the FCI standard say that?
> 
> The AKC standard mentions aloofness but not specifically towards humans.
> 
> Temperament: The breed has a distinct personality marked by direct and fearless, but not hostile, expression, self-confidence and a certain aloofness that does not lend itself to immediate and indiscriminate friendships.


You are absolutely correct! 

The FCI standard does not for the German Shepherd to be aloof to people, children or animals.


----------



## Stonevintage (Aug 26, 2014)

Geesh..... I guess I need to explain my post. Several months ago when I was exploring dog aggression I same across some websites. The information posted was helpful and those that authored them were/are much more knowledgeable than myself. 

The term aloof was used. The term strangers was used. I didn't read anywhere where the term strangers meant only people and not other dogs. I guess I would like to see where it says that. I don't really know if it's genetic or learned but I know that many dogs fight that were not trained to do so by their owners. I also know many dogs that are as friendly as can be to people and not dogs and visa-versa. 

I have not seen the aloofness and stranger references including information specifying as in this "trait" being specific to human/dog or dog/dog interactions. So to guess either way would be an assumption. 

I did find mention that states a dog should not be concerned with other dogs or should be able to "zone out" other dogs when working. My only thought after doing the research is that it is a desirable trait - and for several reasons. Makes sense to me as with everything else - they are bred for a purpose and this would be a favorable trait to serve that purpose. Some GSD's naturally guard and some need to be trained. Who can say if genetics or training is really a factor if what is lacking in one can still be trained. 

Still, it's hard to call it anything else when a breed has "natural tendencies" to guard and yes to be aloof - no species exclusions. That was my point of view. Does a GSD with the aloof trait really want to be a social butterfly in a dog park or is is just something the owners think it's something every dog in the world should love to death????


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Stonevintage said:


> Geesh..... I guess I need to explain my post. Several months ago when I was exploring dog aggression I same across some websites. The information posted was helpful and those that authored them were/are much more knowledgeable than myself.
> 
> The term aloof was used. The term strangers was used. I didn't read anywhere where the term strangers meant only people and not other dogs. I guess I would like to see where it says that. I don't really know if it's genetic or learned but I know that many dogs fight that were not trained to do so by their owners. I also know many dogs that are as friendly as can be to people and not dogs and visa-versa.
> 
> ...


Excellent post! 

Regarding the bolded section, I sure would not want to bet my life on a dog that has been pure training without any natural predisposition to protect. There are Golden Retrievers titled in Schutzhund. 

I still can't agree that the breed has a natural tendency to be aloof with dogs despite being aloof with people. That kind of goes back to your point about dogs that are human friendly while being dog aggressive and vice versa. I am not saying I am correct, but until I see the science, genetics and empirical data that states elsewise, I won't budge based on what has been right before my eyes for decades, especially in dog parks.


----------



## Stonevintage (Aug 26, 2014)

Stonevintage said:


> Mention of aloofness to both people, children and other animals.
> 
> Schaferhund.com -Breed standards for their registry, see image 1 - center paragraph. image 2 is from the AKC website.
> 
> Looks like it is an expected and desired trait in the GSD.


These two posts indicate to me that as I stated is a desirable trait.That's all...


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Stonevintage said:


> These two posts indicate to me that as I stated is a desirable trait.That's all...


I interpret the first source to mean aloofness to humans. I have never in my life seen any source until you posted today that stated GSDs should be aloof to children and dogs. That was a first for me, which is why I questioned it. 

I guess I base most of my opinion on the FCI standard and my experience with breeders and the traits for which they breed. I am a firm believer in genetics and pedigree, although the dog is much more than that. I have never encountered a breeder that is specifically breeding GSDs to be aloof to dogs, especially as a condition of adhering to the breed standard. I am not saying they aren't out there, just saying I have never spoke with a breeder that makes that claim. Alternatively, most that I have spoke with are breeding for a dog that is social with people and dogs.


----------



## Stonevintage (Aug 26, 2014)

MineAreWorkingline said:


> Excellent post!
> 
> Regarding the bolded section, I sure would not want to bet my life on a dog that has been pure training without any natural predisposition to protect. There are Golden Retrievers titled in Schutzhund.
> 
> I still can't agree that the breed has a natural tendency to be aloof with dogs despite being aloof with people. That kind of goes back to your point about dogs that are human friendly while being dog aggressive and vice versa. I am not saying I am correct, but until I see the science, genetics and empirical data that states elsewise, I won't budge based on what has been right before my eyes for decades, especially in dog parks.


Ha! I understand, and that opens a whole other can of worms doesn't it? As far as I know, many pups are bred/selected because of superior performances of their genetic line in an area such as Schutzhund. Since training begins very early for these puppies - how would anyone really know ....... you get the question. Socialization, genetics, training - whatever.


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Stonevintage said:


> Ha! I understand, and that opens a whole other can of worms doesn't it? As far as I know, many pups are bred/selected because of superior performances of their genetic line in an area such as Schutzhund. Since training begins very early for these puppies - how would anyone really know ....... you get the question. Socialization, genetics, training - whatever.


LOL! Maybe you could have posted that several pages ago!


----------



## Stonevintage (Aug 26, 2014)

MineAreWorkingline said:


> I am a firm believer in genetics and pedigree, although the dog is much more than that. I have never encountered a breeder that is specifically breeding GSDs to be aloof to dogs, especially as a condition of adhering to the breed standard. I am not saying they aren't out there, just saying I have never spoke with a breeder that makes that claim. Alternatively, most that I have spoke with are breeding for a dog that is social with people and dogs.


That makes sense also, as most in a pet, show or working arena environment are actually better suited if they lack in that area. For the military, guard, Schutzhund areas. I'm pretty sure it's still a desired trait.


----------



## Stonevintage (Aug 26, 2014)

MineAreWorkingline said:


> LOL! Maybe you could have posted that several pages ago!


What??? and wreck all the fun??? Sorry, but I've been busy trying to make some mulah to keep the pup in bones - it's getting hard!


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Stonevintage said:


> That makes sense also, as most in a pet, show or working arena environment are actually better suited if they lack in that area. For the military, guard, Schutzhund areas. I'm pretty sure it's still a desired trait.


That is where civil comes into play.


----------



## Stonevintage (Aug 26, 2014)

MineAreWorkingline said:


> That is where civil comes into play.


Ha! - I'm still not sure exactly what that term means! Apparently many different things and I was a "civil servant" for 18 years


----------



## Chip18 (Jan 11, 2014)

Well seems we are of on yet another train of thought here?? OK well if I were JQP, I would say use caution with all of these guys:

Not So Dog Friendly - Dogtime

Strangely enough I would rate the GSD a bit higher on the other dog friendly scale! And for the record notice who's favorite "wiggle" butt dog is "not" on this list!

And also notice the last dog that is!


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

The FCI breed standard, the CKC, the links SV posted all contradict your position, depending on which position you choose at the moment. Sometimes you hold it up as evidence to support your ideas and other times you don't.

Speaking of putting words in mouths, I've said consistently they *tend* to be aloof to people AND dogs and I've explained why - herding / guarding.

You are, in a general sense incorrect and even you the FCI states as much.

Familiar and composed. 

Now we are going in circles and will continue to do so because if you won't acknowledge that evidence has been provided. You wil discredit sources or ignore definitions in said evidence. So it's really pointless to continue.




MineAreWorkingline said:


> Does putting words in my mouth for things that I did not say constitute a lack of understanding on your part? Much of your argument has been based on German Shepherds being aloof to people and nobody is arguing or debating that point and I never implied that they should not be.
> 
> SV posted a link that conflicts with the breed standards. Does one link from questionable sources trump the AKC and FCI breed standard?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

In general a breed standard does outline the desirable traits a particular dog breed should have. 

Breeders who care about following the standard will selectively breed dogs that match those traits.

The traits then are part of the dogs genetics.

I think where these types of discussions go off track, beside the Internet having no debate rules (except for mods stepping in when things get heated or too personal) or time limits is the tendency to look at examples that aren't bred to the standard or are outliers. 

Since many examples of breed standards have shown that aloofness, worded differently in different examples, is a desired trait in GSDs. Some define whether that is toward humans and or dogs, some don't, but generally it is a desired trait.

This is true of many of the guarding breeds in the herding group. 

It stands to reason, given that guarding a flock and homestead would include protecting said "familiar surroundings" from both predatory animals and humans that a GSD will tend to not be social towards strangers, two or four legged. Of the breeders I know who compete they have not been selectively breeding GSDs to be overly friendly social dogs with other dogs. There is absolutely no logical reason to breed for aloofness to humans only.

Does that mean we want dogs that are over the top DA, no, but it does mean that the GSDs aren't going to be as easy going and playful with strange dogs as Labs or Goldens.

This really isn't a huge assumption on anyone's part to agree with the general "aloofness" of the breed based on the above. It's also the common perception of the breed just as Labs are commonly viewed as more overtly social dogs. The perception that is based on observations, breeders comments (I don't want my dog to be overly social with dogs or people it interferes with his work) AND the breed standards.

There's a reason we read that description every where, hear about in person, why people who compete with their dogs don't want or encourage overly social GSDs, it defeats the purpose of the dogs heritage and current work be it IPO, SAR or LE.

So why on earth would a serious breeder deviate from the standard if it defeats the purpose of the dog breeds very existence?

The evidence is clear and the logic follows as well given the history of the GSD breed.

I rest my case.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Oh...and LLAP. .


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Terriers too. No surprise there but I wonder if it's because of higher prey drive since they are varmint hunters?




Chip18 said:


> Well seems we are of on yet another train of thought here?? OK well if I were JQP, I would say use caution with all of these guys:
> 
> Not So Dog Friendly - Dogtime
> 
> ...


----------



## MineAreWorkingline (May 2, 2015)

Gwenhwyfair said:


> The FCI breed standard, the CKC, the links SV posted all contradict your position, depending on which position you choose at the moment. Sometimes you hold it up as evidence to support your ideas and other times you don't.
> 
> Speaking of putting words in mouths, I've said consistently they *tend* to be aloof to people AND dogs and I've explained why - herding / guarding.
> 
> ...


There has been no evidence supplied that GSDs are supposed to be aloof to dogs. Even admin has stepped in to correct that no where in the SV standard calls for a GSD to be aloof to people, let alone dogs.

Now we are going in circles and will continue to do so because you can't comprehend what you are reading. I have not discredited the AKC or FCI standard, but have used them accurately to support my stance. 

Sayin' it ain't so three times and clicking your heels together won't change facts or breed standards.

It is comforting to know that reputable GSD breeders are breeding dogs with an off switch in mind so that GSDs can turn off and chill, even if that means relaxing and socializing with dogs at a dog park. A GSD that is always on is not considered a good representative of the breed.


----------

