Hi,
I am in the VERT EARLY STAGES of considering haveing my 4 year old dog neutered. I am am still very undecided, so am currently in the process of finding out ALL the pros and cons of having it done. He is a big dog weighing in at 15 stone.
Thanks for any info.

Well, first thing to ask is why do you want to castrate him, what are you hoping to achieve?

He was a show dog, he is now 4 years old and we showed him for the first 2 and a bit years but he started to take a dislike to men, so we retired him. He is laid back with us and very calm, but outside walking if we are approached by strangers he takes an instant dislike [mainly to men], he doesn't bark just strains on his lead to 'say hello' in an aggressive (ish) way. I am considering castration as possibly a way to calm him down and become as laid back outside as he is with us. He is naturally very protective of his home and vehicle. This is a trait of the breed not one we have trained into him.

There are only 2 things castration definitely can change: 1. the ability to sire pups. 2. In SOME cases (reportedly 50 % according to one study) it can improve aggression towards other male dogs. It doesn't do anything else. At 4 years of age the chances of a behaviour change are very slim as they have been learnt and become habit.

Really don't think castration would help with this at all and it may make matters worse, can you remember when this problem started, did a judge hurt or startle him, was it when he hit maturity?

He has just grown with it really. He was good in the ring, qualified for crufts in his first and second year (although we didn't take him the 2nd time) and really has gradually become less tolerant of strangers. He went to ringcraft as soon as he could go on the floor and was never really keen on the male 'judge' there, although he was never aggressive towards him.
He is fine with other dogs (that other owners will allow him to meet). It's just people in general.....he is also fine with the vet.

Castration could well make things worse.  One thing testosterone brings is confidence.  With less confidence, he may well be more afraid - and so more protective/aggressive towards what he is afraid of. 

I think you should be looking more towards behavioural solutions and BAT, not castration.

> Castration could well make things worse. One thing testosterone brings is confidence. With less confidence, he may well be more afraid - and so more protective/aggressive towards what he is afraid of.

Exactly my thoughts as well

Thankyou for all your comments, i appreciate as many opinions as possible, i am not keen on getting him 'done', but if it helped him then i would consider it.

You could always try the suprelorin implant, it mimics castration, but at least it's reversible if you found he didn't improve or got worse.

I agree that castration prob not help. you need some professional help to see if his problem can be overcome.

Can say no more than has already been said. Neutered our eldest boy now nearly 9 (pursuaded by breeder & vet), there hasn't a day since that haven't regretted it, never again unless for medical reasons.

i have had the implant of superlorin for my dog 3 weeks ago and waiting to see now if he changes at all, i didn't want to castrate without trying this and seeing how it changes him, if at all. it lasts for 6 months and just wears off so if you don't like the effects then you know not to castrate.

Also from a health point of view there are more NEGATIVES than positives to ahvign a male castrated.  This report demonstrates the long term effects: http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdf

Using Superlorin is a good idea to see what effect it may have on the dogs temperament but it will not show you other physical effects as they will take over a year to become apparent some several years.

The effects of both Superlorin and actual castration are not instant it will take a minimum of three months for the hormones to be purged from the system and it is this change in the hormonal balance that will change the dog but most of these changes in a mature dog will be physical with the exception of dog on dog aggression that was caused by the desire to mate any female that became available but there are many other types of dog on dog aggression that will not be effected by castration and can be made worse because the dog will feel more vulnerable and more prone to flight or fight when meeting another dog of either sex.

PS - edit to add that Superlorin lasts from between 6 and 12 months.

> He is naturally very protective of his home and vehicle. This is a trait of the breed not one we have trained into him

Is he a Neo by any chance? If so then a dislike for strangers is a breed trait, this will vary between lines in intensity. I can't see how chopping the dangly bits of a protective guarding breed will take the protectiveness out of him. Any dog that is naturally distrustfull of strangers will find men the most distrustfull/threatenening (as would any dog that is fearfull of strangers). Men are generally much more confrontational in thier body language.

I think it's very wise to get a good behaviourist in to help. At only 4 years old, he's not fully matured (from my limited personal experience of the English Mastiff) so it should be easier to have an effect on his attitude now than in 12 months time. Don't let this become a habbit, but it really has to be a GOOD behaviouist. NO aversives, no 'corrections' and somebody who understands how to deal with such an independant & 'stubborn' thinker.

Leave his 'noo-noos' where they are.

Another thought, does he behave like this with every person that walks him? What I'm getting at is it may be more of a case of reacting to the person hes walking with than the actual stranger. I don't like walking Buster (English Mastiff) in the dark, because I am afraid of the dark and get wary meeting strange men in the dark, in turn, Buster must pick up on this and is a bit 'guardy' with men in the dark (unless I know them or am perfectly relaxed when meeting them, eg, little old man walking his little old dog). I also find that in general, Buster greets most strange men different than he does most women. He LOVES women and get a bit excited and happy meeting them, with men he generally gets excited but in a more testy way.

We do not know if this is a guarding breed but if it is I am amazed that someone would buy a breed and then wish to change the nature of the breed why buy in the first place - as I have said we do not know this is the case here but I would never try to change a temperament by castrating what is the point.

> We do not know if this is a guarding breed

No, but I can't think of any dog that weighs 15 stone (ops first post) and has breed traits of being protective (OPs second post) that is not a guarding breed or a breed with strong protective traits.

Except perhaps an overweight Newfi :-)

> Except perhaps an overweight Newfi

LOL :)

But the OP described the dog as "naturally very protective of his home and vehicle. This is a trait of the breed", which doesn't fit in with a Newfi, thier guarding should only be mild.

Yes your are right, of course, Mastifflover, but if the dog is a naturally protective breed why is the OP surprised that as he approaches maturity he is behaving as it says on the tin. I am confused as to why you would require a behaviourist if the dog is behaving as one would expect of the breed.

Does it really matter, as the dog's breed can't be changed.  Whether it's part of the breed disposition or not, the OP is having problems with that aspect of their dog...

Does it really matter, as the dog's breed can't be changed.  Whether it's part of the breed disposition or not, the OP is having problems with that aspect of their dog.

Well yes it does, if the problem is a case of the OP not being able to deal with the breed they have chosen then it is not the dog that needs help and certainly does not need castrating.

Think it is important to see what the problem is - how often are we told by hound owners that they are having recall problems and the reply is well it is a hound you are unlikely to get a reliable recall although training may help. In this case a guarding breed, so should not the reply be well that is part of its breed traits and you may improve it with training but it will never be reliable?

I am not digging at the OP if they made a mistake in not understanding the breed then so be it but I am not sure there is need for castration or a behaviourist perhaps a word with the breeder or the breed club would be of more help in handling this dog.

> Does it really matter, as the dog's breed can't be changed.

Yes it does matter. If the dog is behaving as per how it SHOULD be, then allthough the OP has a problem with the dogs behaviour, it is not a 'problem beahviour' as in a behaviour the dog should NOT exhibit.

If a dog is doing what it is bred to do and the owner finds that problematic, it's a different issue than if the dog is behaving in a way in which it should not be.

If one has a sight hound, it's would be considered far fetched to assume that castration or a bit of obedience training would stop the dog from wanting to chase small furries just as it is far fetched to assume that castrating a guarding breed would stop it wanting to guard - breed characterists are extrememly relevent (in fact - that is the WHOLE point of a pure-bred dog in the first place!).

This may not be a guarding breed or a protective breed, I may have jumped to the wrong conclusion. But if the OPs dog is not a naturally protective breed then it has more problems than just how it is with strangers - it is also very protective of thier home & car.
This is either one extremely potentially dangerous, mentally unstable giant dog, or a guarding breed that is exhibiting behaviours that have been bred in that the OP has not considered - two completeley different scenarios.

ETA, cross posted with Nova.

> but if the dog is a naturally protective breed why is the OP surprised that as he approaches maturity he is behaving as it says on the tin

This is why I assumed the OPs dog was a Neo, they can (from what I have read - I researched them for a while as I was planning on getting one), suddenly show thier distrust of strangers at maturity when previously they have not  shown it, so perhaps, if one was not expecting it, it could come as quite a shock.

> I am confused as to why you would require a behaviourist if the dog is behaving as one would expect of the breed.

To ensure that handling of the dog is not adding to/causing the problems. I am very aware of how Buster will change his behaviour depending on how I am feeling/acting, eg. if I were to take him on a walk and be worried about his behaviour/meeting people (and therefore lack confidence), he would 'take over' and behave in much more 'bullish' manner and behave in a more instinctive/ractive way than if I am calm & confidant. When I am calm & confidant, he'll look to me for instruction, if I'm not, he'll make his own desicions.

Do understand what you are saying Mastifflover it is just that people seem so quick to diagnose a problem when there actually is not one over and above the dogs natural temperament. 

floyd

It is well worth listening to mastifflover's advice.  She has had to rethink training, given the sheer size and strength of her own dog.  I think it's pretty safe to say she learned patience because you really have no choice with these giants.

However, given a huge amount of patience and dedication she has had an awful lot of success and only by using reward based methods.  If you don't feel that you have enough knowledge and experience yourself, please try to turn things around by seeing a reputable behaviourist.  They see things that we're not aware of.  :-)

> If the dog is behaving as per how it SHOULD be, then allthough the OP has a problem with the dogs behaviour, it is not a 'problem beahviour' as in a behaviour the dog should NOT exhibit.

Wait a minute, you are saying that a dog taking an instant dislike to all men is 'normal' and 'how it should be'?!?? 

Although guarding breeds need more careful and thorough socialisation, developing an aggressive response to [any one of] men/women/children/statues/traffic lights/buggies/rubbish lorries etc etc is not 'normal' for any dog - guarding breed or not.  Thorough socialisation would ensure that a dog didn't develop such tendencies.  After all, some of these breeds are extremely successful in working trials, schutzhund etc etc - the latter of which require them to pass a temperament test and to be unphased by anything thrown at them, and the former of which involves manwork.  How successful is a dog which routinely is afraid of men going to be at any of these disciplines, if this is 'normal' behaviour?! 

I would not want anyone to think that it is inevitable that a guarding breed will become aggressive towards any person/animal/thing and that this is 'normal' behaviour for them!  Of course they have more of a predisposition to be under-socialised if not carefully exposed to as much as possible within the socialisation period, but a 'predisposition' to a problem and it being 'normal' are completely different:  GSDs also have a 'predisposition' to hip dysplacia - does that make it 'normal' and therefore not a 'problem'?!

>If one has a sight hound, it's would be considered far fetched to assume that castration or a bit of obedience training would stop the dog from wanting to chase small furries

Sorry again, but as an obedience trainer I can tell you that it is perfectly possible to train a hound to have a reliable recall.  Yes, just as it is harder to socialise a guarding breed, it is harder to train a hound to have a reliable recall but 'harder' and 'impossible' are not the same thing.  Too often people make excuses for their dog's behaviour based on its breed ('oh I'm sorry he is lunging and barking at you - he's a GSD and is just protecting us' or 'oh, sorry my beagle won't stop leaping on you and your dog, he's a hound and can't be trained to recall').  If people spent less time making excuses and more time working on the material they have in front of them and improving what they have, they would achieve far more.

> Wait a minute, you are saying that a dog taking an instant dislike to all men is 'normal' and 'how it should be'

I take an instant dislike to little children - it doesn't make me dangerous. Dogs do not need to LIKE strangers, they only need to behave around them.

The op describes the dog as pulling at the lead to say hello, in an 'agressiveISH' manner. I'd place my bets on her dog being a bit 'bullish', more 'pushy' than he would be than with a woman, rather than 'agression' (again, I could be completely wrong). I'd also place my bets on this being a handler problem, not the dogs own perception of men.

It's a catch-22 situation when you have a huge dog. You are worried about it's potential behaviour, you hold that lead tight and pull it close to you so you can controll it IF you need to - the dog thinks you are worried about the person that's there, and acts as it is bred to do - protecting the handler.
Untill you have been on the end of a lead of a 14/15 stone dog, that can pull you off your feet just by taking a step forward, you really have no idea how much you need to think ahead about physical control if you need it, which can have completely the wrong effect on the dogs beahviour.

Plenty of people cause unwanted behaviour in small dogs that have no instinct to protect, simply by handling them wrong (pulling them back and keeping a tight leash) - so you honestly think the protection behaviour elicited form this type of handling would not be compounded in a guarding breed, or a guarding breed be more sensetive to the way it's handled???

This is why I suggested a good behaviourist, not somebody who can teach a couple of tricks for a pat on the head or a biccy - a person that knows what they are doing and can see the entire picture.
A guarding breed that is reading defensive handling as a sign of fear form it's handler and thus is thinking about protecting it's handler is NOT the same thing or same problem as a dog that just wants to eat men.

>If people spent less time making excuses and more time working on the material they have in front of them and improving what they have, they would achieve far more.

Sorry, you are preaching to the wrong person here. ALso you've just confimed my point  - WORKING ON THE MATERIAL THEY HAVE IN FRONT OF THEM - eg understand what you are dealing with. There is also a big difference between EXCUSING a behaviour and pointing out the REASON for the behaviour - when the REASON is known, the solution is geared towards the reason - solving the problem at it's ROOT, not masking it with a few obedience tricks.

but as an obedience trainer I can tell you that it is perfectly possible to train a hound to have a reliable recall

reminds me of the claims made for genetic engineering.

>This is why I suggested a good behaviourist, not somebody who can teach a couple of tricks for a pat on the head or a biccy...

>not masking it with a few obedience tricks.

Not sure what this aspect of your response is about.  I've said nothing about your recommendation of a behaviourist - in fact, a good behaviourist is always the best person to consult if you have behavioural problems with a dog - and neither have I suggested the person embark on any 'obedience tricks for a pat on the head', so not sure what you're getting at there either.

>I take an instant dislike to little children - it doesn't make me dangerous. Dogs do not need to LIKE strangers, they only need to behave around them.

Sorry, but this is very naive.  The greatest cause of aggression in dogs is fear.  If a dog is showing signs of fear or uneasiness around a certain subsection of society (whether that's men, women or children - or men with beards, or women with umbrellas, or any other subset), they have a statistically MUCH greater chance of showing aggression towards that specific person. 

Your 'instant dislike to little children' might not result in you biting them, but you are not a dog, so that's not much help.

The idea that a dog doesn't need to 'like' strangers, only to behave around them, is misguided at best.  For decades, punishment-based trainers have corrected dogs for lunging and showing signs of aggression, all because they were only aiming at affecting the behaviour itself - not how the dog feels.  To them, they were successful if the dog stopped lunging and inhibited that response.  However, we now know this usually was not enough of a fix, because if the feared trigger came closer than the dog could successfully control himself around it, then the dog would respond suddenly and without warning. 

I'm aware that you are not advocating using punishment, but the concept behind your statement that 'Dogs do not need to like strangers, they only need to behave around them', is exactly the same:  The behaviour comes from the emotional response, so the emotional response is of great concern to us and not only the behaviour.

Separating out the dog's behaviour from the dog's emotional response is not advisable because the two are closely related and the behaviour comes OUT OF the emotional response.

>I'd place my bets on her dog being a bit 'bullish', more 'pushy' than he would be than with a woman, rather than 'agression' (again, I could be completely wrong). I'd also place my bets on this being a handler problem, not the dogs own perception of men.

You can place your bets wherever you like, but we can't see this dog to be able to comment on its behaviour in any detail.  All we do know is that it has negative feelings - of some sort - towards a subsection of human society (men).

>Untill you have been on the end of a lead of a 14/15 stone dog,

I have.

I have not said that the dog's behaviour has nothing to do with the handler:  Of course a handler's responses can cause the dog's behaviour to get much worse, that goes without saying.

>Sorry, you are preaching to the wrong person here. ALso you've just confimed my point  - WORKING ON THE MATERIAL THEY HAVE IN FRONT OF THEM - eg understand what you are dealing with. There is also a big difference between EXCUSING a behaviour and pointing out the REASON for the behaviour - when the REASON is known, the solution is geared towards the reason - solving the problem at it's ROOT, not masking it with a few obedience tricks.

You said: 

>If the dog is behaving as per how it SHOULD be, then allthough the OP has a problem with the dogs behaviour, it is not a 'problem beahviour' as in a behaviour the dog should NOT exhibit.

Nova said:

>if the problem is a case of the OP not being able to deal with the breed they have chosen then it is not the dog that needs help...I am amazed that someone would buy a breed and then wish to change the nature of the breed why buy in the first place... I am confused as to why you would require a behaviourist if the dog is behaving as one would expect of the breed.

All these statements imply that the dog's behaviour is 'normal' for a guarding breed and therefore does not require help.  It is implied that the owner is the one who needs help, to accept the dog they have decided to own.  That is simply not true.  Unsure, fearful, aggressive or under-socialised behaviour is not 'normal' for any breed.  A predisposition to that sort of behaviour does not make it 'normal', anymore than a predisposition to hip dysplasia makes it 'normal'.  If the OP had posted here that they had a dog with hip-dysplasia, would you be advising them that this is 'normal' for that breed of dog and they should have known it before they bought the dog and the adjustment required is actually their own attitude to the dog, not the dog itself?  No, of course not.  We would be giving them help what help we can, for the problem they are experiencing.  The same goes for a predisposition to a behavioural problem.

> but as an obedience trainer I can tell you that it is perfectly possible to train a hound to have a reliable recall
>
>

depends on what you call reliable.

for years I walked up to 5 of mine off lead in appropriate places.

All recalled, and reasonably quickly 95% of the time, never lost one yet, but occasionally the recalls took time, because the dog wanted to do something else, like raiding the food recycling bins in the gardens adjacent to country park (not always safe or appropriate), or not exactly fast, or prefer to follow a scent first, go through a gap in a hedge etc.

> I'm aware that you are not advocating using punishment, but the concept behind your statement that 'Dogs do not need to like strangers, they only need to behave around them', is exactly the same:

No it flipping well isn't!!!!!

My dog does not LIKE strangers, he would not choose to leave my side to go and greet one, but he will behave perfectly well if a stranger wants to greet him - he knows how to behave around strangers and accepts that they exist, he does not fear them approaching him or petting him, why does he have to LIKE them?

> Seperating out the dog's behaviour from the dog's emotional response is not advisable because the two are closely related and the behaviour comes OUT OF the emotional response.

If the dogs emotional response is indifference there is no problem. If a dog fears something it will respond accordingly (fight, flight, freeze faff) if it likes somethiing it will respond accordingly - greet, jump, wag tail, if a dog is INDEIFFERENT to something - it will act accrodingly - ie, no action need be taken as the thing is irrelevent.
If a dog hears a firework and does not like it, but also does not fear it, it is INDIFFERENT to the existence of the sound of the firework - is there a problem? Nope there isn't.

> ll we do know is that it has negative feelings - of some sort - towards a subsection of human society

No we don't the dog could just be reacting to the handler, it may have nothing atall to do with the strange men. Because it appears to be a guarding breed that are (despite the fact you refuse to accept it) naturally distrustfull of strangers and highly protective of thier handlers. (so could easily mistake defensive handling for fear & therfore the need to protect).

Lets use the firework thing again - dog is indiffernt to fireworks, owner is afraid of fireworks. Dog hears firewrok and owner cowers, dog jumps forward barking at the sound = dog is protecting the owner from the firework because of the owners behaviour NOT because of the firework, the dog is not frightened of fireworks, nor does it like them, it is indifferent to fireworks but protective of owner.

The dogs behaviour has nothing to do with it's emotional response to the firework - it is responding to the OWNER - you could spend 2 years on behaviour modification with the dog & fireworks, but untill the owner reacts differently, or the dog is trained to ignore the owners fear response, the dog will continue to protect the owner.

The ROOT of the problem needs finding in order to change the behaviour.

> It is implied that the owner is the one who needs help, to accept the dog they have decided to own.  That is simply not true

To safely own a huge guarding breed you need to know what you are doing, you can not treat it like a happy-go lucky, small biddable dog - they are different a kettle of fish. It is ignorant to think that all dogs require the same level of handling and ownership. I am not so arrogant that I think I could handle any breed of dog I chose, there are plenty I wouldn't dare dream of taking on due to thier breed traits.

> If the OP had posted here that they had a dog with hip-dysplasia, would you be advising them that this is 'normal' for that breed of dog and they should have known it before they bought the dog and the adjustment required is actually their own attitude to the dog, not the dog itself?  No, of course not.  We would be giving them help what help we can, for the problem they are experiencing.  The same goes for a predisposition to a behavioural problem.

Lack of understanding of the breed one owns can result in all manner of problems. Lack of understanding of a guarding breed can cause the dog to GUARD it's owner when it needn't be doing. The dog may be lacking in socialisation, poor/inconsitant/harsh training or reacting to the handling, these things can be helped with a good behaviourist - if the dog is well bred, well raised, well understood, well trained, well socialized and well-handled and acting 'agressiveISH' it should be PTS if a complete health check shows no underlying medicle cause.

I do not think that all guarding breeds should be walking about attacking people, but that is not what the OP has said.
In fact if you can't understand what I am getting at through my several long-winded posts, then there really is little point in this discussion as it's turning into a bun-fight and quite frankly I have better things to do with my time than try to help a fellow giant dog owner if it means having to put up with your attitude.

You obviously have all the answers with your indepth, hands-on, 24-7 experience of giant, independant thinking guarding breeds, so I'll leave it to you.

Dogs do not need to like strangers, not one tiny bit. I'd be quiet worried if I was broken into and my dogs greeted them with a lick.

>My dog does not LIKE strangers, he would not choose to leave my side to go and greet one, but he will behave perfectly well if a stranger wants to greet him - he knows how to behave around strangers and accepts that they exist, he does not fear them approaching him or petting him, why does he have to LIKE them?

Er, I never said that dogs have to 'like' strangers...?  I gave the example of punishment-based trainers separating out a dog's feelings from a dog's behavioural responses and treating only the behavioural responses, and claiming that the feelings didn't matter.  I then said:

>the concept behind your statement that 'Dogs do not need to like strangers, they only need to behave around them', is exactly the same

That is - exactly the same as the punishment based trainer's idea of treating only the behaviour and not the emotional response.  So:  Yes, your saying that the dog's liking/disliking/feelings about the stranger don't matter because they only need to 'behave' around them (whatever that means), is the same reasoning. 

And of course if strangers break into your house, you don't want your dog to 'like' them, but that is also context-specific:  It's not only the person the dog encounters, but the context in which they encounter them too.  We may have different understandings of the word 'like', as research shows that - in humans and dogs - there are few people we/they are 'neutral' to.  Most people we meet, we have a positive or negative response to, even if of a mild nature.

>If the dogs emotional response is indifference there is no problem. If a dog fears something it will respond accordingly (fight, flight, freeze faff) if it likes somethiing it will respond accordingly - greet, jump, wag tail, if a dog is INDEIFFERENT to something

But we're not talking about 'indifference', are we?  We're talking about a dog which the OP has described as being retired from a promising show career because:

>he started to take a dislike to men... if we are approached by strangers he takes an instant dislike [mainly to men],...strains on his lead to 'say hello' in an aggressive (ish) way.

That doesn't sound like indifference to me, so why are you talking about it?  We can argue about all kinds of things but to introduce something which isn't relevant and then argue about semantics is a bit pedantic.

>the dog could just be reacting to the handler, it may have nothing atall to do with the strange men.

So how, in the first place, did the dog develop this fear of strange men?  Are you suggesting that the handler him/herself had deep-seated underlying issues towards men, meaning that s/he put tension on the lead from puppyhood onwards and communicated to the dog that men are to be feared??  Not impossible, but on the basis of absolutely zero evidence for it, it's far more likely that the dog was under-exposed to men as a puppy and so under-socialised to them.  These issues go right back to ringcraft, the OP says, when the dog was a puppy and 'wasn't keen' on men even then.  It's quite possible that the handler's responses have compounded the issue and not helped it, but I fail to see how the handler IN THE FIRST PLACE can have created the problem.  The firework analogy is useless because it assumes the owner is afraid of fireworks.  Are you saying this owner is afraid of men??  Perhaps you should determine that first.

>it appears to be a guarding breed that are (despite the fact you refuse to accept it) naturally distrustfull of strangers and highly protective of thier handlers.

Where am I refusing to accept it?  I actually said:

>guarding breeds need more careful and thorough socialisation...Of course they have more of a predisposition to be under-socialised if not carefully exposed to as much as possible within the socialisation period

> if the dog is well bred, well raised, well understood, well trained, well socialized and well-handled and acting 'agressiveISH' it should be PTS if a complete health check shows no underlying medicle cause.

Well, I know of several 'aggressiveISH' dogs which have very happy lives with owners who understand their triggers and manage their behaviour in a safe way.  I would not want to be calling on them to be PTS.

>I do not think that all guarding breeds should be walking about attacking people, but that is not what the OP has said.

No, they have come here to ask for help because they are having trouble with their dog.  Their request for help degenerated into a debate about whether their dog even needed help or whether it was displaying appropriate and 'normal' behaviour for its breed.  I think, if someone is asking for help, they need help and they need that request to be taken seriously.  As I said, in my first post above:

>Does it really matter, as the dog's breed can't be changed.  Whether it's part of the breed disposition or not, the OP is having problems with that aspect of their dog...

Well getting back to the Original Posters question, it would seem very unlikely that castration would be of any help regarding the dogs behaviour to humans, and if a confidence fear issue is at the root might make it worse.

Also as this is a large heavy breed some of the negative effects of castration are more likely.

A summary of what I have said - owner may not understand their dog = an understanding of a guarding breed will aid in it being safe.

You have just said:

> Well, I know of several 'aggressiveISH' dogs which have very happy lives with owners who understand their triggers and manage their behaviour in a safe way.  I would not want to be calling on them to be PTS.

Ergo, the owners of the 'aggresiveISH' dogs you know are UNDERSTOOD, so therefore are not a problem.

I have offered help by suggesting the OP see a behaviourist and to point out that IF this dog is a guarding breed a better understanding of it's nature may be all that's needed.

Like it or not we are actually saying the same thing, you just don't want to agree with me :)

> The firework analogy is useless because it assumes the owner is afraid of fireworks.  Are you saying this owner is afraid of men??

As I've allready explained in previous posts, handling a powerfull dog in order to stop it developing bad behaviour can in fact CREATE the behaviour one is trying to avoid. Guarding breeds will naturally act instinctively differently towards different types of people - men are the most threatening, children the least. A guarding breed puppy may react to the 'threatening' body language of a strange man in a OTT playfull way in order to 'calm' the man or try to test the man out - see if he is really a threat, or simply to rough-house with the man as men are more 'rough & tumble than women (in general). This behaviour is not what we want from our dogs, so over-restraint of pup can inadvertantly teach the pup that men are a threat/something the handler is afraid of.

mastifflover, I agree with what you've said in this post.

I don't agree with the notion (which wasn't only expressed by you) that negative feelings towards people can ever be said to be 'normal' and part of any breed's characteristic makeup, given adequate socialisation.

>I don't agree with the notion (which wasn't only expressed by you) that negative feelings towards people can ever be said to be 'normal' and part of any breed's characteristic makeup

From the Tibetan Mastiff standard: Temperament: Independently minded, aloof and protective. Calm and patient. May be wary of strangers.

From the Russian Black terrier standard: Temperament: Alert, lively and even-tempered, wary of strangers. Resilient, brave and self-confident.

And from the Kuvasz standard: Temperament: Devoted, gentle and patient but suspicious of strangers.

These all suggest that a distrust of strangers is an intrinsic part of the breed make-up.

JG,

You beat me to it. Quite a few other breeds we can add in there too. In fact the predisposition of some breeds to have watchdog traits is born out of more innate stranger danger awareness. Quite possibly its a residual wolf thing that is much more exaggerated in some breeds than others.

Donaldson takes issue with the whole notion of the so-called one man dog and their fitness to be part of modern society. My point is not to agree with her necessarily but  to underline that she recognises the existence of that type of dog.

I do agree that socialization is crucial to the development of any dog, but the same committed degree of socialization will not produce the same degree of friendliness to and tolerance of novelty in all types of dog. Some are simply hardwired to be more intolerant of novelty/strangers.

Its in the jap spitz standards to be charry with strangers.

I don't hold KC breed descriptions - nor the Kennel Club - to be the be-all and end-all of anything.  They exist because people want to pay them money to, in return, document the pedigree of their dog.  They are a glorified database.  KC breed descriptions are so 'wrong' in one of my own breeds as to be laughable - the breed is not even recognisable from the description of it.  The interpretation of breed standards has changed massively over the last decades, even physically - a quick look at the evolution of some of the breeds will prove that.  And that's for physical characteristics, which are more easily documented than behaviour.  Case in point:  I would not interpret 'wary' or 'suspicious' of strangers to translate to 'aggressive to strangers' or even further 'aggressive to a particular type of stranger' (ie men)!  Or are you suggesting breeders of these breeds should be intentionally breeding aggressive dogs? 

Rabid,
I think you make a fair point, however wary/suspicious breeds may perhaps be more easily be triggered to aggression than more social breeds. Sometimes the trigger event produces little reaction at the time but is stored up and we see the reaction down the line with the same or a similar trigger.

I agree freelancer, but I wouldn't say that is 'normal' and therefore to be accepted as not needing anything to be done about it.  It's a 'predisposition' - but as I said many posts above, a breed having a 'predisposition' to something and that being 'normal' and not needing attention are 2 very different things.  See hip dysplasia example - some breeds have a predisposition to hip dysplasia, but that doesn't mean we don't need to do anything about it.  (Either in terms of breeding practices or in terms of the individual dog suffering from it.)

I suppose my emphasis would be slightly different from yours. I would be inclined to say some predispositions (quite probably genetic in part) might be normal for that breed, type or individual but that such traits are probably undesirable in a modern day pet. I guess we find a bit of common ground with Donaldson.

I also think that others have made the valid point that if the breed we choose is known to have a predisposition to those traits then there is a greater onus on us to work with and around it and even then our efforts may not meet with total success. I don't think this is to say that those traits are desirable within the context but that they are possibly to be expected and prepared for.

It is not clear to me if the OP deliberately acquired a strong guarding breed and trained accordingly, knowing the traits they would have to work with.

>KC breed descriptions are so 'wrong' in one of my own breeds as to be laughable - the breed is not even recognisable from the description of it.

Because the breed standards are written by the breed clubs and then submitted to the KC, I'm surprised that your club has got it so wrong!

>I would not interpret 'wary' or 'suspicious' of strangers to translate to 'aggressive to strangers' or even further 'aggressive to a particular type of stranger' (ie men)!  Or are you suggesting breeders of these breeds should be intentionally breeding aggressive dogs?

The point you said was that you didn't believe that "that negative feelings towards people can ever be said to be 'normal' and part of any breed's characteristic makeup". If you'd said that you didn't believe that aggression was 'normal' and a trait in certain breeds then I'd have agreed with you. But suspicion and wariness are certainly negative emotions (the term you used), and definitely characteristic of certain breeds. In fact breeds wouldn't be 'guarding' breeds if they were totally amiable with everyone! To expect a dog of a guarding breed to want to be everyone's best friend immediately is to expect a dog of a retrieving breed not to want to carry things in its mouth. It's what the breed was designed to do, and those that were no good at it never passed on their genes.

I said earlier that what was being suggested reminded me of genetic engineering and I suppose in a way it is, you take a breed, any breed, and then you attempt to train any breed character or temperament out of it, what is the point if you don't like a breed as it is then why own it in fact with that sort of attitude why own a dog at all.

>I also think that others have made the valid point that if the breed we choose is known to have a predisposition to those traits then there is a greater onus on us to work with and around it and even then our efforts may not meet with total success. I don't think this is to say that those traits are desirable within the context but that they are possibly to be expected and prepared for.

I completely agree with that freelancer.

>Because the breed standards are written by the breed clubs and then submitted to the KC, I'm surprised that your club has got it so wrong!

Often breed descriptions are out of date.  Like any historical document, they are a record of what people at the time saw and experienced (and wanted to see/experience) and are highly subjective.  Perhaps the description was accurate in the 1950s when it was written, but it is not descriptive of the breed as it stands now.

> But suspicion and wariness are certainly negative emotions (the term you used),

To me, the cause of suspicion and wariness can be nothing other than fear.  (Even if slight/mild fear.)  If a dog is wary or suspicious of something, s/he perceives it as a possible threat.  S/he is ready to respond however her makeup makes it likely she will respond to threats - whether by fleeing or by fighting. 

The aim of raising a well balanced dog - of any breed - is for it to be largely happy and as fear-free as possible.  This is partly achieved by socialisation but (as Brainless has often stated!) genetics also plays a huge role in it.  In fact, to deliberately breed dogs to be fearful is unethical - regardless of what breed standards state.  Why intentionally breed an animal which is prone to fear/to experiencing the world as a threat?  It is going to spend more time being afraid, and experience more of the world as a threat, than many others.  It is a very stressful existence for an animal.

I'm also not sure that the instinct to protect and fear are the same thing.  If you look at a dog guarding sheep, that instinct to protect doesn't arise from fear.  If you look at temperament tests where dogs are left with an item of the owner's and someone approaches them, dogs will guard that item from a stranger.  In a similar situation, without the item, that dog doesn't guard or show aggression to the stranger.

You couldn't find a better, more well-socialised dog than those competing in schutzhund - since they must be unfazed by anything to pass the temperament test and for the manwork.  Yet schutzhund dogs are also the dogs trained to guard and protect and are among the most highly qualified dogs of this kind which there are.

So to say that somehow it is inevitable that guarding breeds will be wary/suspicious/fearful/under-socialised because they need these qualities to do the work they were bred for, is IMO unproven - and disproven by the dogs which compete in schutzhund and PD working trials.

>I said earlier that what was being suggested reminded me of genetic engineering and I suppose in a way it is, you take a breed, any breed, and then you attempt to train any breed character or temperament out of it, what is the point if you don't like a breed as it is then why own it in fact with that sort of attitude why own a dog at all.

We are constantly taking breeds and changing them to meet our needs and desires anyway.  That is what dog breeding is, looked at over generations.  This is no different.  It is also a very subtle process, with changes from one generation to the next being very slight and not that noticeable until you look at the changes across decades.  You can't then point the finger at any one person or individual for the deviation, it has been a gradual process of selection.