From: liza@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Liza Miller)
Subject: Re: Dog & Protection
Organization: Stanford Univ. Earth Sciences
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 17:08:53 GMT

In article <1687A7FBE.CBARNES@tamvm1.tamu.edu> CBARNES@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes) writes:
>In article <1992Oct7.220014.9900@morrow.stanford.edu>
>   liza@pangea.Stanford.EDU (Liza Miller) writes:
> 
> 
>Before I start, let me point out that this isn't a flame.  Nowhere
>did I write "*flame on*", or am I SHOUTING.  I respect Liza, and
>feel that she is a tremendous assest to this group.
 	Thank you.  I'm honored! :)

>>In article <168798537.CBARNES@tamvm1.tamu.edu> CBARNES@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes) writes:
>>>She never has, but when someone approaches the yard that she doesn't
>>>know, she appears to be just as protective as my GSD.
>>>
>>>I don't want people to get the wrong impression about my dogs.  They
>>>are very well socialized, and never even the least bit aggressive
>>>(my kids, ages 5, 3.5, and 2 play in the backyard with them all
>>>them time - without us back there with them).
>>
>>I have a problem with labs biting or being expected to bite.  Labs
>>are, or should be IMO, friendly dogs.  They shouldn't bite or attack.  They
>>may be protective and by that I mean bark at strangers or strange noises
>>but it should never go further than that.
> 
>Huh?  Labs are first and foremost, dogs.  Dogs, all dogs, will have
>a tendancy at some level to be protective (at least of themselves).
>Dogs don't see a big differance between barking & growling
>& biting; to them they are all a means to accomplish the same goal.
	Sorry, but I expect my dogs to have a VERY clear distinction
between barking, growling, and biting.  I allow my dogs to bark if they are
disturbed by something, but *only* until I come to check it out and take
over, then they are expected to be quiet.  Growling is reserved for serious
situations--like defending the food bowl.  I will allow my older dogs to
growl at a puppy that tries to stick it's nose in their food dish, but that
is IT.  Even when they are playing if the growling gets too serious, I call
a stop to it.  And biting is FORBIDDEN!  EVER!  They don't bite me, they
don't bite each other (I've had to clean up cuts from rough play too often
- I don't allow it now!), and they don't bite other people.  EVER!  Heck, I
only allow them to hold birds -- they get in big trouble if they bite them
too!

>The difference between barking and biting is, IMHO, an arbitrary
>one that humans thought up.  The dog couldn't care less (unless,
>of course, we imposed a difference on the dog, but that still isn't
>what the dog would have done).  In other words, I think it's silly
>to have the expectation that a certain breed of dog (Labs in this
>case) to inherantly know the difference between barking and biting.
>Now if you want to say that Labs, as a breed, are less likely to
>be protective (by any means - barking, growling, & biting), than
>other breeds, then I will agree with you.
	I disagree wholeheartedly.  I don't think it is a silly
distinction.  I think it goes against the temperament of a real lab to bite
people. (period).

>>Labs have been bred to be companions to hunters.  This entails a
>>calm, patient attitude, an instinct to retrieve, and a love for the company
>>of man.
>All very true.  But that doesn't deny the fact that they can, and
>often are also protective of what is "theirs" (Home, family, etc).
>The two are not mutually exclusive.
 	I set the limits for what that 'protection' entails.  A perfect
example is last night.  My 8 month old puppy was barking her fool head off
at 3 am.  She is the most protective of my dogs and takes her job quiet
seriously.  Anyway, I get up and thank her for waking me and tell her to be
quiet now.  I always take the dogs seriously when they bark--I expect them
to alert me to potential problems, but I *don't* expect them to make a
decision about what is to be done about it.

>>Labs tend to be, and should be, happy-go-lucky, loveable, friendly
>>buddies.  Their instincts are not such that attacking is a part of their
>>nature.
>I think you are still merging protection and aggression.  IMHO, a dog
>should be happy-go-lucky, loveable, friendly, buddies AND protective
>(protective to the full extent of the word).
 	Dogs, various breeds, have extremely different temperaments that is
a feature of the breed.  One doesn't, or shouldn't, expect a pomeranian and
an Am-Staff Terrier and a Labrador and a Doberman and a Great Dane to
respond the same way to a perceived threat.  These traits have been
carefully bred for and should be protected exactly the same way that
physical traits should be preserved.  Temperament is the MAIN reason I got
into Labs.  They are a very trustworthy, gentle breed.  I have one with a
rotten temperament and I would *never* breed him.  Fortunately, he isn't
aggressive, but he is hyper.

>>	A lab that attacked and/or bit would be forever suspect in my mind.
>>I wouldn't trust it again. I don't have my dogs for protection animals and
>>therefore don't expect them to protect me.  If I wanted a protection dog, I
>>would get a german shepherd or a doberman.
>I still fail to see the difference between your expectations of
>a Lab and a GSD/Dobe.  Why is protective behavior ok for one, but
>not the other?
 	GSD/Dobes are dogs that have, at least recently, been bred for
their protectiveness.  This is in their nature.  I guess my bottom line is
that the dogs should be expected to behave in accordance with their basic
nature.  Sure a Lab could be trained to be a protection dog, but a
GSD/Dobe/Rott is a more natural protector and would be easier to train and
more effective when the training is complete.

>> None of this is meant to condemn the remarks of *anyone* on the
>>list.  I can appreciate Chris's desire to feel protected in his home but
>>would suggest that he count on the GSD rather than the Lab for that.
> 
>Actually, I count on them both.  But since my GSD is 11 years old (and
>not in the best of health), I really wouldn't expect him to do a very
>good job.
 	Maybe it's time for you to get a new GSD!  I sincerely doubt your
Lab would attack an intruder should push come to shove.

>>These
>>are my OPINIONS, folks, and are not meant to be the Scripture according to
>>Liza.  Take them or leave them, but please respect them for what they
>>are--educated opinions.
> 
>I do.  Really!    ;-)  Of course, I should probably say the same for
>what I write.....
	It wouldn't hurt! :)

>      ---------------------------------------------------------
>Chris Barnes            |     Sonny's Yellar Dawg Dixie SH
>cbarnes@tamvm1.tamu.edu |              x
>(409) 846-3273 (home)   |  HR Millercreek's Cash Payoff MH
>(409) 845-4437 (work)   |       (finished MH title at 1992 Nat'l Master)
>                        |
>Bryan-College Station   |  7 Hunting Test Titles (1 is a national title)
>    Retriever Club      | 32 Field Trial Titles  (8 are national titles)
>                        |  6 Confirmation Titles
			      ^^^^^^^^^^^^
Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris, Chris.  Those dogs have confOrmation
titles, not confIrmation titles.  It proves that they CONFORM to the
standard for the breed -- unless perhaps they have all been through
CONFIRMATION in the Catholic Church?????

>                        |  These guys should be born today !

	I hope it is a nice litter!  


--
Liza Lee Miller         My dogs are labradorable!     liza@pangea.stanford.edu
Cibola Labradors            Field * Show * Fun                    415/326-5309
Cibola's Misty Mountain Hop--Hopper                   Mistypoint Kashmir--Kash
	            Campbellcroft Cibola Rosette -- Rosie