Dog Aggression and Drive....

The pit bull thread had me thinking.....

When there is talk about breeding the DA out of pits, one complaint that is always raised is that the resulting dogs would have no drive. I have to wonder why this is the case. Why does breeding for a less canine combative dog automatically make a dog lacking in drive? It's not like there is a "guardiness" factor in regards to strange animals that needs to be preserved (like with LGDs). There are PLENTY of field/hunting bred sporting breeds and hounds with TONS of drive, but are OK with most dogs.

I know that many point out that amstaffs seem to lack drive and many amstaff breeders breed for less dog aggression, BUT amstaff breeders are also mostly breeding for the confo ring, so who is to say it was breeding for that rather than less DA that led to a lack of drive?

I've only had one pittie, so there copuld be something about the genetics I'm not understanding.....

It's not just a matter of drive. It's everything that makes a terrier a terrier also can lead to DA issues. It's the tenacity and the willingness to engage.

Drive doesn't = DA, but to select for no DA without losing that gameness and fight drive is nearly impossible.

And it's not just a terrier issue. I've seen it in corgis. Everything that makes them stand their ground when a bull tries to slam them into a tree also can lead to issues of DA.

^^^^

great answer

I just think that if you want a pittie, you want the whole package. drive and all, thats what the breed is all about.

you want a dog with no drive? there are plenty of breeds like that.

I pick a breed that suits me, not change breeds to suit me.

the problem is, so much of what makes pit bulls pit bulls is politically incorrect right now.

But to play devil's advocate, breeds exist to suit a human need. We always talk about good breeders being ones who want to improve breeds, and the very nature of improvement necessitates change of some sort.

I do agree--that is how a chose breeds. I love, love, LOVE Akitas and think they are some of the most beautiful and loyal dogs on the planet. However, I know that there are aspects of the breed that I prefer not live with, so no Akita for Christina....

Breeds do exist to suit a human need.

But to change a breed just so someone can own it on a whim? Uh, no. Like you said, you'll never own akitas. There are people who should never own a pit.

I don't know pitties well. I do know that in corgis, improvement would involve building up some leg on them again, breeding out DM, improving their hips and maintaining a stable temperament -- even with the potential for DA in that temperament. Because in order to eliminate the DA, you're going to lose their ability to work cattle.

sure- to breed the best example, the truest example, of the breed. all dogs fall short of the ideal. to improve is to try to breed closer to that ideal, not to change the breed into something that is just a shell of what it was created to be.

ETA: afaik, nobody responsible is breeding *for* dog aggression. it just hitches along as part of the package. they are breeding for outstanding temperament with people, for health, for nerve, for tenacity, for enthusiasm to engage and to work. most breeders that i'm familiar with regard dog aggression in the pit bull as an annoyance more than anything. yeah, it's kind of a pain in the neck, but it's certainly manageable if you know what you're doing and you respect the animals you're working with.

:hail::hail::hail:

OK, the total package argument makes a lot of sense. I adore the breed, just not so much the dog issues.

With Sally it's hard to say if it's a genetic thing or a socialization thing (although at the end of the day I suppose it doesn't really matter, I just want her to behave, not be best friends), since we got her at a year and she seemed poorly socialized. There are some "doggy language" things that she doesn't seem to always get, like taking things away from other dogs, putting a paw on the shoulder of some dogs right when she greets them, etc. The pittie/lab pack combo seems to work well though--I'm not sure if it's individual personality or breed traits or both but they seem to mesh well....

most of the DA in bull & terrier breeds comes from the terrier side. even now real working terriermen in britain will tell you "kennel 3 bury 1." that is just an indication of what kind of personaility it takes for a dog to be able to go down & hole and kill a wild animal it's own size or larger.

Without reading this whole thread....

Drive for pitties and a lot of other breeds is more than what is in border collies or field bred labs. With sporting dogs, the "drive" is to fetch, retrieve, etc. With a pittie, the drive is to kill a wild animal much larger than it.

Some breeds were bred to kill other animals.

I think there are all kinds of drives, lots of variations... and tenacity in terriers is one kind of drive that not all dogs possess. In particular Pit bulls, as it was said were bred for killing other animals. To breed out the DA would be a trick. While I don't think behavior in itself is genetic, the thing that makes the propensity toward the behavior in the dog's personality or temperament is genetic. I think certain genes are linked to other genes. So you can't always remove or select against one without the other. In other words, you can't throw the baby out with the bath water sometimes.

It's the drive to engage and not back down that most people can't seem to wrap their minds around. Even the old dog men say that many of their dogs, when not in the ring, were fine to just chill around the house, in some cases with other dogs. The dogs knew when to fight and when to relax.

These were never solely fighting dogs, though the above tenacity and drive was used for that purpose as well. But as Breeze stated, these dogs have also been used for hog dogs/catch dogs, drovers, etc just as long.

One can never breed in a vacuum. To diminish a drive in one area will be to change something else in another area. Those who love the breed as it is will never sit back and let this happen.

Some great posts in here.

What is true about DA is that it was not purposefully bred for. "Gameness" is what APBT owner/breeders cared about and some did care for the wins in the pit (although to make it short, the "game" dog in a match was sometimes the dog that lost and it was that dog that mattered much much more than the winning dog).

Dog aggression just occurred as a tag-along with all the other traits.

I'm just still amazed that so many people consider it to be solely a "pit bull" trait or issue. Just about every terrier breed and bulldog breed I've encountered as had DA dogs. And I've met at least one example of a DA dog in almost every breed I've ever dealt with.

And the problem with singling out DA and just breeding is out is that you just cannot do it. There is no science that is capable of doing that for you.

This is just out of curiosity, because I do believe what you're all saying about the drives building off each other.

What about breeds that were bred to kill large wild animals as part of a pack? A few of the hounds were made for killing large animals, but don't have problems with DA as a breed. Same thing with other breeds, like filas.

Are the curs and other dogs made for hog hunting prone to DA to the extent pits are? Or was the DA tendencies in pits just exaggerated by people breeding them for fighting on top of everything else?

I do think that DA is exaggerated by the fools that think that that is what its all about. Just like idiots love to breed HA guard dogs thinking that HA is what makes a guard dog a guard dog.

And my Fila was DA. (of course, she had other issues,too, so I'm sure that's definitely not the standard)

I agree Mia. We could have our dogs out in a "pack" of 3-4 dogs easily, most hog hunters hunt in packs. We had some that couldnt be put with x dog or y dog but most of the time they were ble to hunt as a pack.

Those were my thoughts exactly. There are MANY breeds that have DA issues (for instance, Malamutes). Be it gender related or just scrappiness, many breeds are dog aggressive and many individual dogs of a "safe" breed are indeed dog aggressive.

We have two Dalmations in at work right now that are more dog combative than any of the Pitties that are currently boarding. The Dals are probably the worst DA dogs I've handled, besides a Saint Bernard and a German Shepherd that board on occasion.

I had a Cairn Terrier growing up, and I promise you that on the day I took her for her final vet visit at just 4 months shy of 20, she was just as DA or moreso than she was as a young dog. She HATED other dogs and in believed her mission in life was to destroy anything that ran on the ground and that especially included other dogs. It's like she had a great disdain for them.

In fact, my favorite APBT, Miakoda, had a scar on her nose from where she was attacked by my Cairn. I'm just glad she was still young and hadn't turned on (aka that point where the DA and drive and all that kicks in).

And at the end of the day, I just cannot understand why DA matters. I understand to some degree why outsiders don't like it, but I think it's because they misunderstand what it is and they aren't educated on how to manage it. But if you want a dog from a breed that carries a trait you don't like, then you don't want that breed at all. I'm a firm believe that you have to love something in its entirety to truly love it. Now, I'm not saying you have to love and glorify DA, but you do have to accept it and embrace your dog for what it is. DA is easily managed. (and I've owned many, many DA dogs and still do....and that ranges from "screamers" to the still-and-silent type that just wait for another dog to get within tooth's reach)