# how to pick a truly dominant dog



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

i know, i know according to the forums every other 11 week old puppy is a "dominant" dog and you must enforce yr leadership from birth, no getting on furniture, take food out of it's mouth, first thru the door yada, yada.

here is a tale of two truly dominant dogs and why they are the dogs to avoid for working dogs;

long story short - dog 1. completes his schuts 3 (had a history of handler agression with competent trainers). handler on a casual walk crosses the street and a car approaches so handler commands a sit postition, dog goes to sniff something and handler repeats command - dog makes full blown attack on handler, handler on his side trying protect his face and feed anything into dogs mouth to bite rather than him, nobody is brave enough to intervene, people are trying to run dog over and kill it with vehicles to get it off handler, dog eventually ceases attack and while handler is getting emergency treatment dog is found sometime later at handlers vehicle being played with by kids, dog is being friendly to kids and was like nothing ever happened. handler has been receiving surgery for years since the event.

dog 2. staff member has been feeding, cleaning kennel and walking owners dog for weeks. owner is mowing lawn and took a while to notice that the dog had the staff member pinned against the wall of the kennel with paws in a bear hug on him, guy feeds dog an arm to protect face, major surgery. same dog while on duty the handler gets into a brutal fist fight that goes to ground, dog who has destroyed many decoys just sits there watching handler get a kicking and dog does not engage or run just kind of watches curiosly and unaffected.

one dog was destroyed and the other dog is kept for selected stud duties and is deemed unworkable.

i have seen one dog, he is a beautiful dog who you would never think it. the other one was several years ago - dominant dogs are very rare.


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

You are describing "dominant aggressive" against this particular individual.
Just as with people, dogs can only be dominant in certain social settings. You can be dominant over your employee but not towards your boss. Same with dogs.
Dominance is not a trait but a behavior. A trait could be "assertive".


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

not sure i follow?


----------



## Shaolin (Jun 16, 2012)

I was going to say, neither of those sound like dominant dogs. #1 sounds like a dog who redirected on his handler (didn't want to sit/stop sniffing so got angsty) and #2 sounds like something happened in the kennel and/or the dog snapped. Not sure why the dog would just sit by and watch the handler get pounded.

Dominance would be a dog that even hardcore NILIF can't help; the dog is willing to starve/dehydrate before accepting food from your hand, is willing to soil in their kennel no matter how little space they have, completely unwilling to obey your commands/directions...

A friend talked about one of the first dogs she ever had as an adult. It refused to do anything she asked of it. It claimed furniture and pushed her off of it by growling/snarling at her. On leash, if she walked forward, it went backwards. If she went the dog's direction, it went the other way or tried to come up the leash at her. She tried every trainer and training tactic and nothing worked. She ended up giving up the dog to an MP who worked the dog and the dog turned out just fine.

That to me is dominance.


----------



## wolfy dog (Aug 1, 2012)

Shaolin said:


> A friend talked about one of the first dogs she ever had as an adult. It refused to do anything she asked of it. It claimed furniture and pushed her off of it by growling/snarling at her. On leash, if she walked forward, it went backwards. If she went the dog's direction, it went the other way or tried to come up the leash at her. She tried every trainer and training tactic and nothing worked. She ended up giving up the dog to an MP who worked the dog and the dog turned out just fine.
> 
> That to me is dominance.


to x11; this dog was dominant to his first owner but not dominant to this MP, thus a behavior.


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

i hate these convo's i always end up confused. everything a dog does is a behaviour right, but it's the dog's traits which are inherited that provide the potential for what behaviours that might occur?

yr friends dog does not sound dominant per se, it just dominated it's particular owner. the dogs i am talking about are gentically programed to be the boss or die, they have no option altho they may well be sporadically livable with. they are very rare and the two dogs i mention span a time of about 20 years, they occurr infrequently and are characteristically unreliable in the training. choking, prongs, e-collars etc have no impact as first chance they get could be two years later they are just as likely it appears to turn on you. how they are trained is irrelevant. the first dog i mentioned scored well in obed and all phases as it was explained to me by a guy in the same club where the dog was trained.

unlike the every other dominant pup that newbs post about.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Sounds like you have the answer to your question, in your correction of others, by your definition of dominance.
I will say that I don't know of any lines that are genetically programmed to be boss or die......but having said that I must admit I have learned from this forum that the traits of this breed has essentially changed.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

Cliff I think its less "......but having said that I must admit I have learned from this forum that the traits of this breed has essentially changed. " and more that the people, have changed. Had this very conversation with someone this weekend.


----------



## Ken Clean-Air System (Feb 27, 2012)

cliffson1 said:


> Sounds like you have the answer to your question, in your correction of others, by your definition of dominance.
> I will say that I don't know of any lines that are genetically programmed to be boss or die......but having said that I must admit I have learned from this forum that the traits of this breed has essentially changed.


I don't really have anything to add about dominance, but I'm curious as to why you think the traits of the breed have changed? I hope that's not the case, as it is why I have always loved the breed. My current dog doesn't really seem a whole lot different the GSD's I knew from my childhood.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

x11's examples do not sound stable .

when I think of a dominant dog it would be a Bernd and Bodo Lierberg . Boris Trogenbach . Right Cliff?


----------



## Whiteshepherds (Aug 21, 2010)

If a dog is so dominant (lack of a better word) that it can't be controlled by it's handler, or it exhibits unpredictable behavior wouldn't that be a bad candidate for any kind of protection work?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Not sure how someone who doesn't know the dog or all circumstances make a judgement call on the core temperament of the dogs....observed breifly or told about in conversation years later?

The worst dog I've had to deal with was a 130 pound (lean pounds I might add) Kuvasz nailed me in the midsection without warning right after I fed him and he had finished his food.. and he was between the door and me. I don't if that was dominance or just an untrained jerk of a dog. He could have done a lot more damage to me if he had decided too. 

Still, I do agree with your comment in blue below. I do think humans have a tendancy to latch onto an idea or system and get way too black and white with it. 




x11 said:


> i hate these convo's i always end up confused. everything a dog does is a behaviour right, but it's the dog's traits which are inherited that provide the potential for what behaviours that might occur?
> 
> yr friends dog does not sound dominant per se, it just dominated it's particular owner. the dogs i am talking about are gentically programed to be the boss or die, they have no option altho they may well be sporadically livable with. they are very rare and the two dogs i mention span a time of about 20 years, they occurr infrequently and are characteristically unreliable in the training. choking, prongs, e-collars etc have no impact as first chance they get could be two years later they are just as likely it appears to turn on you. how they are trained is irrelevant. the first dog i mentioned scored well in obed and all phases as it was explained to me by a guy in the same club where the dog was trained.
> 
> unlike the every other dominant pup that newbs post about.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

Carmen, the majority of dominant dogs I have seen were not overly shy or overly aggressive. Hey, but who knows....there are many many opinions on what dominance is based on as different things as, training experience, Internet experience, what somebody told me that rescued 4dogs, or whatever.....so I figure when you can determine what isn't something....then you certainly must know what is something. I just have never seen a genetic line of GS based on that definition of dominance. Actually, in my limited experience, I have really very seldom seen a whole litter with more than one(two being exception) dominant dog in it....much less lines. Again, I dunno!


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

I agree with Carmen. Both of these dogs, by description, were unstable.


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

I have seen many dogs both dominant and not dominant that were too much for their handler(inexperienced) that went on to become successful police dogs, or even rehomed successfully with a more experienced owner/handler. Now an unpredictable dog, is often different, if the unpredictability is result of nurture....then I have seen them flourish in new places, if it is result genetics, then it will pretty much always be a liability. Again, it's only my experiences, others can be much different.


----------



## martemchik (Nov 23, 2010)

I don't get either story.

In the first one people are trying to run over a dog that has a guy pinned to the ground? How do you expect to kill a dog with a car and avoid the guy lying on the ground under said dog? I've never thought that a dog that attacks someone because they are ASKED to do something are dominant...those types of dogs are just unstable. IF the guy had went over, and physically forced the dog into a submissive position, and the dog than decided to attack, I'd consider that dominance.

In the second story...what do you mean the dog has "destroyed many decoys?" So this was a Schutzhund trained dog that just didn't have the training necessary to bite something that wasn't a sleeve? Maybe depending on training, the dog just didn't respect the handler, or think of him as needing protection. It has nothing to do with dominance, I think its more to do with not caring or not being trained to do what was necessary. It's the discussion we've had plenty of times on this forum...would an untrained dog protect you? Some would...some wouldn't...and even though this dog was trained in Schutzhund, it clearly didn't take the sport and use it in real life.

It's hard for me to imagine any Schutzhund trained/titled dog as being "dominant" to the point of attacking the handler. They clearly listen to the handler enough to get their title...which involves a lot of obedience and teamwork. Just the fact that the dog will "down" for the handler means they aren't "that" dominant. Can they have a more dominant personality than another dog? Sure...but not to the point of attacking the handler. Both situations were just poor training IMO. Dominance has nothing to do with the dog's decision to attack or not attack in order to protect its handler...that has more to do with training and how the dog feels about the handler in the first place. Even the so called dominant "alpha" in a wolf pack will protect their pack from outside attacks...that just shows they're stronger than those outsiders as well and that they do care about a strong/healthy/large pack.


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

lhczth said:


> I agree with Carmen. Both of these dogs, by description, were unstable.


I third the motion.


----------



## Shaolin (Jun 16, 2012)

x11 said:


> i hate these convo's i always end up confused. everything a dog does is a behaviour right, but it's the dog's traits which are inherited that provide the potential for what behaviours that might occur?
> 
> yr friends dog does not sound dominant per se, it just dominated it's particular owner. the dogs i am talking about are gentically programed to be the boss or die, they have no option altho they may well be sporadically livable with. they are very rare and the two dogs i mention span a time of about 20 years, they occurr infrequently and are characteristically unreliable in the training. choking, prongs, e-collars etc have no impact as first chance they get could be two years later they are just as likely it appears to turn on you. how they are trained is irrelevant. the first dog i mentioned scored well in obed and all phases as it was explained to me by a guy in the same club where the dog was trained.
> 
> unlike the every other dominant pup that newbs post about.


IMHO. Dominant dogs can be effectively trained by someone, it just has to be that special someone. Dominant dogs will run over you at the first sign of weakness and you can never regain the top spot, no matteer what you do. IMHO, truly dominant dogs are hard to train from the word go. It's always a "make me" scenario, no matter the age of the dog and it just gets worse the older they get.

I don't think you would be able to train the dog effectively to do anything, unless the trainer was the 'special someone', then the trainer handed off the dog to another person and the dog took the first sign of weakness as its chance to move up on the totem pole. 

I could be wrong, so the breeders who are on here don't crucify me, but isn't that why you don't put the hardest, most drivey dogs together constantly? If you have five generations of the most intense, drive filled, and hardest dogs out there, couldn't that next generation have dogs who are susceptible to just losing their s**t because of how maxed out all the drives are?


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

part of the characteristic "active aggression" calls for a very sure , controlling , dog that wants to dominate the situation and come out the winner , nothing less . This is a desirable trait in a working dog , whether herding where a "will to power and a power to will" are necessary to keep things in order , and in the protection of home and master .
This does not mean crazy or hyper active , or reactive . Sound sure self confident temperament a must -- but that is written right into the breed characteristics -- .
Seems from recent threads that people don't want it.

I think it is when you start tampering with and eliminating critical parts of a breed trait that you run into trouble .


----------



## mycobraracr (Dec 4, 2011)

carmspack said:


> part of the characteristic "active aggression" calls for a very sure , controlling , dog that wants to dominate the situation and come out the winner , nothing less . This is a desirable trait in a working dog , whether herding where a "will to power and a power to will" are necessary to keep things in order , and in the protection of home and master .
> This does not mean crazy or hyper active , or reactive . Sound sure self confident temperament a must -- but that is written right into the breed characteristics -- .
> Seems from recent threads that people don't want it.
> 
> I think it is when you start tampering with and eliminating critical parts of a breed trait that you run into trouble .


 
:thumbup:


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

"IMHO, truly dominant dogs are hard to train from the word go. It's always a "make me" scenario, no matter the age of the dog and it just gets worse the older they get'

no - with this I do not agree -- because you can even have "genetic obedience" and have a hard assertive dog . Mine were police dogs and top sport dogs , and ring dogs and they all did public relations and lived with families and retired to families , even with young children. 

you can have stubborn dogs and they won't be hard against an adversary and they may not have mental or emotional hardness - in other words they will break down and be non operational , shut down from further work --- .

The police dogs that I am thinking of , whose genetics continue to flow through the veins of my todays dogs , were knifed in the apprehension and still saw their way to succeed (this one died from blood loss on the operating table) , another hit by a vehicle and still continued to make the arrest (Purina Hall of Fame ) . This last one was Keno who continued his police career to retire at over 10 years , lived to mid 13 with his former handler and the family with young kids that he adored.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I think what x11 is getting at is people often mistake 'dominance' for unrelated behaviours or problems way too often or quickly. Cesar Milan has popularized this perception to a certain extent (not that Cesar is bad guy...but people do tend get stuck in one gear with training methodologies). 

There is truth to that and there are lot of questions/comments regarding 'dominance' that pop up here.


----------



## Ken Clean-Air System (Feb 27, 2012)

I'm not sure I agree with that. Not to say that I agree with a lot of Cesar Millan's methods or theories about canine psychology (or whatever you want to call it), but he does make a very clear distinction between dominance and agression. I would call both cases mentioned in the original post here agression, not necessarily dominance.


----------



## Shaolin (Jun 16, 2012)

carmspack said:


> "IMHO, truly dominant dogs are hard to train from the word go. It's always a "make me" scenario, no matter the age of the dog and it just gets worse the older they get'
> 
> no - with this I do not agree -- because you can even have "genetic obedience" and have a hard assertive dog . Mine were police dogs and top sport dogs , and ring dogs and they all did public relations and lived with families and retired to families , even with young children.
> 
> you can have stubborn dogs and they won't be hard against an adversary and they may not have mental or emotional hardness - in other words they will break down and be non operational , shut down from further work --- .


I understand a bit about genetic obedience, but what I'm saying is, if the dog is a true, dominant dog and feels that it is over you, it could have all the genetic obedience in the world, but it will not listen to you.

I'm not saying a very hard, assertive dog cannot be obedient at all. I know a K9 who got kicked in the face, breaking two back teeth, but he saw the apprehension to the end. That dog, when in K9 mode, is a force to be reckoned with. I wouldn't wish a bite from that dog on even my worst enemy. That was the same dog who would happily curl up with the handlers' kid and play a quiet game of fetch in the back yard or do school trips and kids would pile on him for a picture and he'd happily accept it all.

But, would you agree that a dog that is truly dominant, would be extrordinarily hard to train or near impossible if the handler/trainer/owner could not or did not constantly show that they were 'Alpha'? At the very first inkling of weakness, it would be all over, right?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

I'm with you on Cesar in general too, but...yeah due to time/editing/what people selectively latch onto, he popuralized the 'alpha rolling' dominance thing. We humans tend to look more for dominance in our dogs then our dogs tend to look for in us or other dogs...IMHO. 

I do notice he's backed off on that the last few years though.

Still I think what X11 is saying is dogs are not always trying to be as dominant as people often seem to percieve. In that I think he has a point.




Ken Clean-Air System said:


> I'm not sure I agree with that. Not to say that I agree with a lot of Cesar Millan's methods or theories about canine psychology (or whatever you want to call it), but he does make a very clear distinction between dominance and agression. I would call both cases mentioned in the original post here agression, not necessarily dominance.


----------



## lsatov (Mar 29, 2011)

I have been told that I have a dominant bitch. I work her on a flat collar.
I provide her with clear leadership black and white no gray.
She turns on and off. She does have civil aggression and a very clear head
She will take some helpers by surprise, she weighs 60 lbs but hits like she is 100lbs and she is fast and agile. If the situation is real she does not back down and is focused on her work. Yesterday we were working protection with distractions. The bad guy ran through a crowd ( club members with dogs) maybe 20 people, she never lost her focus or drive. went right for him not disturbing anyone in the crowd

I have never had issues with obedience, when not working she is in my house with my family. Very easy to train. Very easy to live with

Laurel


----------



## cliffson1 (Sep 2, 2006)

A dog's dominance can be the result nurture or it can be genetics, or a combination of both. Many dogs that show dominance are not dominant but have been handed the keys to the top of the pack by owner/handler.


----------



## Ocean (May 3, 2004)

carmspack said:


> I think it is when you start tampering with and eliminating critical parts of a breed trait that you run into trouble .


Couldn't agree more.
I hope for the day when the word "balance" is considered the most desirable word in GSDs again instead of adolescent adjectives like extreme, over-the-top, etc. It's as if the GSD world has suddenly turned adolescent in its 110 years or gone to Fort Lauderdale for Spring Break when the phrase, "you can't have too much of a good thing" is gospel.
The GSD is a system and as in most systems if you try to have too much of one thing, the whole system becomes unbalanced and wobbly and less stable.


----------



## lhczth (Apr 5, 2000)

Agree Cliff. Most of these dogs have just never been given any clear direction in their lives and make their own decisions because of this. 

I do agree with X11 that genetically dominant dogs are rare and not as common as portrayed. I trained years ago with a guy that imported a dog that they claimed was very dominant. He chewed up this handler, had to live in the back yard because he was not sound about the guy's wife. I watched this dog work on many occasions and I could see this was not a truly dominant dog but a dog that lacked clarity and nerve.


----------



## GSDElsa (Jul 22, 2009)

I think there are a lot of words being misused in this thread. I do not think dominance is the same thing as being assertive, and it's certainly not the same thing as being hard. A dog pushing through the pain of having 2 teeth knocked out to do what it's trained to do IMO has nothing to do with dominance. 

I also agree that at least from the portrayed stories in the first post the dogs just sound unstable to me, not dominant.

But I do agree that a truly dominant dog is hard to find and I think it depends on the handler how that type of trait comes through. I know a very experienced SchH person who ended up with a dog who was notoriously "dominant" and had experienced a good deal of handler aggression. He went from big burly guy to big burly guy who fought with him til he finally ended up with a female who demanded a lot but treated him fairly. They had a very successful relationship and career and while she was always cautious about the type of dog he was, she never had the type of incident with the dog that he had a reputation for.


----------



## Castlemaid (Jun 29, 2006)

I think there are two issues that x11 is trying to address in his example (that I can see). One is that there are a lot of new puppy owners who _think_ they have a dominant pup because of X, Y, and Z. In reality, pup is normal and playful, under-exercised and under-stimulated, with owner not understanding the behaviours they are seeing. NOT a dominant pup, that would be extremely rare. 

The other is that some people say they want a dominant pup, when in reality, they are looking for a _confident_ dog. A dog does not have to be dominant in order to be confident. They can be completely full of confidence, and still be more than happy to let someone else take the reins.

Edited to add: Also, a confident pup would not react as the dogs in the example. Agree that there is more going on in behaviour wise than simple dominance vs. non-dominance.


----------



## Shaolin (Jun 16, 2012)

GSDElsa said:


> I think there are a lot of words being misused in this thread. I do not think dominance is the same thing as being assertive, and it's certainly not the same thing as being hard. A dog pushing through the pain of having 2 teeth knocked out to do what it's trained to do IMO has nothing to do with dominance.


I was saying that the K9 was a hard, assertive dog, not a dominant one. That K9 didn't have a dominant bone in his body; he lived to do what his handler/owner asked him to do. I was agreeing with her statement about the hard, aggressive K9 she knew/bred (?)


----------



## Zeeva (Aug 10, 2010)

I don't really understand this thread...Why would you want a dominant dog? Doesn't dominant dog mean it's not very well socialized and bullies other dogs and tests the owners ability to train it?


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

Not really. I like the way Micheal Ellis breaks it down and explains it here (he also mentions the trend to over diagnose even friendly gestures as acts of dominance). 





 



Zeeva said:


> I don't really understand this thread...Why would you want a dominant dog? Doesn't dominant dog mean it's not very well socialized and bullies other dogs and tests the owners ability to train it?


----------



## Lilie (Feb 3, 2010)

Castlemaid said:


> I think there are two issues that x11 is trying to address in his example (that I can see). One is that there are a lot of new puppy owners who _think_ they have a dominant pup because of X, Y, and Z. In reality, pup is normal and playful, under-exercised and under-stimulated, with owner not understanding the behaviours they are seeing. NOT a dominant pup, that would be extremely rare.
> 
> The other is that some people say they want a dominant pup, when in reality, they are looking for a _confident_ dog. A dog does not have to be dominant in order to be confident. They can be completely full of confidence, and still be more than happy to let someone else take the reins.
> 
> Edited to add: Also, a confident pup would not react as the dogs in the example. Agree that there is more going on in behaviour wise than simple dominance vs. non-dominance.


A great post. Sadly, I think because people are so afraid that their pups are going to turn into a dominant monster that they over react when the pup shows any confidence at all. When in fact, dominant (or true Alpha) dogs are rare.


----------



## Gwenhwyfair (Jul 27, 2010)

This..... and I've wondered about the things I've read/seen - how this over reaching worry about dominance has taken away what were otherwise moments of trust or bonding. Imagine the confusion/conflict it can create within the dog too. 

It is sad




Lilie said:


> A great post. Sadly, I think because people are so afraid that their pups are going to turn into a dominant monster that they over react when the pup shows any confidence at all. When in fact, dominant (or true Alpha) dogs are rare.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

understand a bit about genetic obedience, but what I'm saying is, if the dog is a true, dominant dog and feels that it is over you, it could have all the genetic obedience in the world, but it will not listen to you.


no-- because then it would not be genetic obedience --- the desire to be a willing and eager work partner.

I can name one young pup out there right now -- Gus.


----------



## Shaolin (Jun 16, 2012)

carmspack said:


> understand a bit about genetic obedience, but what I'm saying is, if the dog is a true, dominant dog and feels that it is over you, it could have all the genetic obedience in the world, but it will not listen to you.
> 
> 
> no-- because then it would not be genetic obedience --- the desire to be a willing and eager work partner.
> ...


I ment that as in, Dam/Sire have genetic obedience; they want to do whatever you want them to do and will happily do it. That particular trait has been present for multiple generations without fail and only the ones that are the most obedient are bred to create Dog X. 

To me, what you are saying is, Dog X can't have genetic obedience (genetic predisposition to be obedient, correct?) and be dominant at the same time. Then why do you have situations where two handlers can do the exact same things, yet the dog shows true dominance to one handler, yet does just fine and can be worked with no obedience problems with the other one?

I'm sorry, but I'm trying to learn and my understanding of genetic obedience very limited. This is a very interesting topic and I'm learning a lot. Thanks for being patient.


----------



## carmspack (Feb 2, 2011)

wew -- I am totally confused . hope this clarifies things --- a dog with genetic obedience CAN be dominant . They do not conflict . A dominant dog can still be very clear and forgiving and work with resolve and intensity , easily and happily , with the master/handler but when challenged with threat or difficulty will rise and escalate and drive-up and come out the winner .


----------



## Shaolin (Jun 16, 2012)

carmspack said:


> wew -- I am totally confused . hope this clarifies things --- a dog with genetic obedience CAN be dominant . They do not conflict . A dominant dog can still be very clear and forgiving and work with resolve and intensity , easily and happily , with the master/handler but when challenged with threat or difficulty will rise and escalate and drive-up and come out the winner .


Now I get it! Whew! I was confusing myself. Thank you for the clarification.


----------



## x11 (Jan 1, 2012)

carmspack said:


> "....when I think of a dominant dog it would be a Bernd and Bodo Lierberg . Boris Trogenbach..."


 
i provided *examples of behaviours* that i considered stemming from dominance and have enjoyed the discussion/analysis.

here you have *dropped names* maybe assuming that everyone here knows these dogs?? 

can you please expand and* describe the behaviours* that led you to post these dogs as examples of dominance re canine behaviour.


----------

