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. 

It's not the KC that come up with breed standards. They finalise/approve them but ultimately it has always been up to the breed clubs or country of origin, i.e. the breeders.

Personally I feel "wary of strangers" (in my breed's standard as well) should be removed from all breed standards, as there is no need for such behaviour in today's society. It could be mentioned as something that is possible, but should not remain the way it is described today; where it sounds as if it was something all dogs of the breed SHOULD be. Far too often it used an an excuse for poor temperament, by breeders, owners and judges alike. You could argue that a breed with "wary of strangers" in the breed standard should be penalised at shows if it wags its tail at the judge and wants to say hello and be friendly, because it is then not wary. Do we really want that? As an owner/breeder of a guarding breed I can also say that the fact a dog likes meeting strangers does NOT mean it won't guard its own house, especially when the owner is not there! I have several dogs that LOVES strangers, absolutely adores them, but you try and enter this house if I'm not here -NO chance. Once they stopped a friend of mine from entering my garden -they had known her for years but I was not outside with them so they were not going to allow her in. When I went outside they were perfectly fine.

>We are constantly taking breeds and changing them to meet our needs and desires anyway.

That doesn't make it right.

Let's face it; there are hundreds of different breeds bred to do different things. If you don't want a dog with a particular trait you don't get that breed, just as if you want a horse to win the Derby you don't buy a Shire; if you want a lapdog then a great dane probably isn't the wisest choice! Only a fool gets a particular breed and then tries to override the traits that have been specifically bred for over many generations. Everyone suffers, both dog and owner.

Rabid, you said this:

> To me, the cause of suspicion and wariness can be nothing other than fear.

Then go on to say this:

> 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.

How can a dog be protective without being fearfull yet not be suspicious without being fearfull? Suspicion is lack of trust, not fear, lack of trust leads to close watchfullness, being ready to guard against any potential danger, not being in fear of danger.

>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.

Re-read what you have said yourself. Dogs in schutzund are WELL SOCIALISED, they are TRAINED in man work, TRAINED to guard, they do what they are TRAINED to do. Dogs that are instinctively too agressive or not so good at listeneing to thier handler or being obedient or poorly socialised do NOT make the grade.
You'd also be hard pushed to find a good, reputable Mastiff breeder that would think training such a dog in bite work is a good idea. A responsible person does not want to bring out any guarding/protective traits, they want to keep those traits down, not get them on command (lets not forget that the Mastiff of today should be a companion with the energy to match, not a dog with the energy, drive or inclination to spend the day tracking & retrieving before chomping on the arm of a bite suit)

> 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.

schutzund requires the dogs to be obedient, developed to find the dogs best suited for breeding to work at the command of man- a natural guarding breeds purpose was to think for itself without being trained in man work or protection and with no need for man to give it instruction or training in how to protect (hence the lack of attainable high obedience in some of them).
And nobody is saying a guarding breed is bred to be fearfull or undersocialised, they are bred to be suspicious/indifferent to strangers.
Undersocialisation is what an owner does to the pup/young dog.

Just think of a new puppy in the house, it bites in play - it's a puppy that's what puppies do. If it is never trained in what it can/can not bite it will continue to bite in play as an adult, not because it is bad or agressive or fearfull, it's instinct.
In just the same way as some dogs are born with the instinct to protect and need to be trianed not to be protective against evry person they meet (the only difference here is that the procteviness may not be apparent unbtill maturity, so should not be waited to appear before being trained against)
All dogs need to be taught how to behave appropriately, all dogs need to learn the same basic things, but other some things will not need to be taught to some dogs. The fact that strangers should be gently accepted is somethiing I've taught my dog since I brought him home, but I've never needed to teach him not to chase things as he has no prey drive. I've nver needed to teach him not to bark at when somebody knocks at the door - as he has no instinct to bark for that etc....
This is why the breed of dog is highly relevent with behaviours, the way they are socialsied and the things they need to taught will vary from breed to breed and then between individuals within that breed.

I do not see any reason for dogs of today to have an instinct to protect or guard, but it's a fact that they do and this needs carefull consdieration, thought and planning before one takes on a dog like this - it's part of the package.
A well bred, well trained, well socialsed guarding breed should not be agressive to strangers (unless provoked) but things can go wrong and not all dogs are born with the same level of instincts, some have much stronger/weaker protective drives than they should do (I see a weaker drive as a plus point,, but it would be foolhardy to expect this from the outset or one risks undertraining/socialising).
There is a much higher chance of a guarding breed being 'iffy' or out-right dangerous with strangers than other breeds and this must be thought long & hard about beforehand and every possible step taken to ensure all that can be done to avoid this, is done.

> Personally I feel "wary of strangers" (in my breed's standard as well) should be removed from all breed standards, as there is no need for such behaviour in today's society.

I completely agree, there is no need for it atall. Dogs that are needed for protection/police work can be trained to do the job, there is no need what so ever for dogs to be born to be wary of strangers.

In our society I agree, but not all countries have a reliable police force and so dogs are vital for security, so a strong guarding instinct is still needed. Import new bloodlines and you import these traits as well. Plus of course you can't undo many generations of selective breeding for a particular trait overnight.

>That doesn't make it right.

>Let's face it; there are hundreds of different breeds bred to do different things. If you don't want a dog with a particular trait you don't get that breed, just as if you want a horse to win the Derby you don't buy a Shire; if you want a lapdog then a great dane probably isn't the wisest choice! Only a fool gets a particular breed and then tries to override the traits that have been specifically bred for over many generations. Everyone suffers, both dog and owner.

It's not about right or wrong, it's about 'that's how it is'!  All domestic dogs originate from wolves.  Yet I think we'd all agree they differ hugely from wolves in most respects.  They differ (and differ so diversely) because they have been selected for, one way or the other.  That process is ongoing and continuing.  We are not living with breeds which are static and unchanging like museum pieces, we are also having our own input into how breeds change and develop.  We may not see much change from one generation to the next, but over decades there is massive change in most breeds.

Of course you should choose a breed which (currently) fits what you're looking for, but I don't see how this is relevant to the OP.  Perhaps they did or did not realise what they were taking on with a guarding breed, but they have encountered the problems they've encountered, with their dog.  It matters not how they selected the dog in the first place, because this isn't a court of law and we're not putting them on trial to see if they are to blame or not for the problems concerned through their choice of breed - but trying to help them, I thought...

Mastifflover.

That was an excellent post.

Golmali,

As a matter of interest is that a view held by other Malinois folk in this country- I mean removing wariness from the standard? I also think that it can be a fig leaf for extremely poor temperament, in other breeds too. It's a very interesting discussion and definitely one worth airing here.

>Of course you should choose a breed which (currently) fits what you're looking for, but I don't see how this is relevant to the OP.  Perhaps they did or did not realise what they were taking on with a guarding breed, but they have encountered the problems they've encountered, with their dog.  It matters not how they selected the dog in the first place, because this isn't a court of law and we're not putting them on trial to see if they are to blame or not for the problems concerned through their choice of breed - but trying to help them, I thought...

Absolutely. :-) But it's also helpful to remind ourselves that all the different breeds were originally designed for a purpose, and that certain traits that made the dog more 'fit for purpose' will come out, whether or not they're now desired. The best we can do is to train around characteristics that are undesirable in an individual so that they become manageable, but we can't remove them.

>Rabid, you said this:
> To me, the cause of suspicion and wariness can be nothing other than fear.
>Then go on to say this:
> 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.

Yes, I was thinking aloud - I revised what I'd been saying because it no longer made sense to me...

>How can a dog be protective without being fearfull yet not be suspicious without being fearfull? Suspicion is lack of trust, not fear, lack of trust leads to close watchfullness, being ready to guard against any potential danger, not being in fear of danger.

To me, it's quite clear that guarding behaviour can come from a protective instinct and I think that is subtly different to guarding out of fear.  As I said in another post some time back to someone who was asking about walking their older dog and young puppy together - the older dog was being aggressive to other dogs approaching *when the puppy was present* and was fine at other times.  For some dogs, that wouldn't be about guarding the puppy (as a resource, like a bone or food would be guarded) but about a protective instinct - protecting the puppy.  To me, as I said on that thread, there is a subtle but important difference.  Yes, any type of resource guarding comes from fear (seeing the other as a threat coming to take away the resource), but I don't think that protective-guarding originates in fear but in attachment.  It is carried out not because the dog wants to keep the thing to itself, but out of concern (some would say love) for whatever it is guarding.  Be that sheep, yourself, or its puppies.  All the socialisation and habituation in the world isn't going to override those protective instincts when they are switched on.  This type of guarding comes from confidence and feeling secure in the role of 'protector', not out of fear.  As with Goldmali's example of her dogs guarding her garden when she's not there, but not guarding it when she is present.  The same trigger is there both times (a stranger), so it is not a fearfulness of the stranger as a result of under-socialisation which is triggering the guarding behaviour.  It is a protective instinct.

>Re-read what you have said yourself. Dogs in schutzund are WELL SOCIALISED, they are TRAINED in man work, TRAINED to guard, they do what they are TRAINED to do. Dogs that are instinctively too agressive or not so good at listeneing to thier handler or being obedient or poorly socialised do NOT make the grade.

Yes, and?  Not sure what your point is.  My point is that it is not necessary to deliberately breed in fearfulness ('suspicion' or 'wariness' as in breed standards) in order to have a dog which excels at protecting you.

>You'd also be hard pushed to find a good, reputable Mastiff breeder that would think training such a dog in bite work is a good idea. A responsible person does not want to bring out any guarding/protective traits, they want to keep those traits down, not get them on command (lets not forget that the Mastiff of today should be a companion with the energy to match, not a dog with the energy, drive or inclination to spend the day tracking & retrieving before chomping on the arm of a bite suit)

I think you're very wrong, on that count.  It is an excellent idea to train a dog in the very area you're worried about, precisely so that it IS under your control.  What you write also shows a lack of understanding about what exactly is involved in schutzhund:  When dogs bite on a sleeve, to them it is just a big tuggy and they are having a fantastic game pulling it around.  That particular exercise has nothing to do with instinctive protective traits.

>(lets not forget that the Mastiff of today should be a companion with the energy to match, not a dog with the energy, drive or inclination to spend the day tracking & retrieving before chomping on the arm of a bite suit)

Well perhaps you might want to talk to JG above, who claims that we should not be breeding dogs away from their original purposes nor buying them if we don't want the instincts their breed comes with conventionally.

>And nobody is saying a guarding breed is bred to be fearfull or undersocialised, they are bred to be suspicious/indifferent to strangers.  Also see above - the stranger as a trigger often does not cause fear/suspicion, if the owner is present.

Just what is the difference?  Please tell me how you can breed a dog to be suspicious but not fearful?  Suspicion is a mild form of fear!

>some dogs are born with the instinct to protect and need to be trianed not to be protective against evry person they meet

This is not about 'training' but socialisation.  Once you are outside the socialisation period of easy habituation to new things, it is still possible to desensitise the dog to things but it takes much longer.  It is not about 'training' as in giving commands or rewarding with treats, but gradually exposing the dog to feared triggers - more behavioural work or BAT.

>I do not see any reason for dogs of today to have an instinct to protect or guard, but it's a fact that they do and this needs carefull consdieration, thought and planning before one takes on a dog like this - it's part of the package.

Yes, I agree - BUT this conversation didn't start out being about guarding breeds in general.  The OP who began this thread already has the dog.  Telling them they should not have chosen a guarding breed without more planning and thought is hardly helpful and is in fact condemnatory and blaming.  It can lead to nothing good for them, now they have the dog.

> it's also helpful to remind ourselves that all the different breeds were originally designed for a purpose, and that certain traits that made the dog more 'fit for purpose' will come out, whether or not they're now desired. The best we can do is to train around characteristics that are undesirable in an individual so that they become manageable, but we can't remove them.

Yes, but this 'right on' 'well balanced' response is not how the person was originally treated (perhaps not by you) earlier in the thread.  The message was that there was almost no help possible to give, because it's just a breed characteristic and how things are/should be with this breed - that the person just needed to adapt to the dog they had and not have unrealistic expectations of that breed.  Here, again:

>>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 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.

Rabid,

I think you make good points too.

I would have to agree that in biological terms wariness and fear are closely related. Wolves as wild animals have a hardwired wariness of all novelty- this makes biological sense in terms of survival. Dogs, are arguably neotonised, proto-wolves. Coppinger argues that the different breeds have variations of genetically encoded wolf behaviour patterns, this includes varying levels of stranger danger. Though as a domestic species any canine breed's tolerance for novelty will be way more than a wild wolf. Still, something like the banned Fila is probably at the extreme end of that behavioural conformation and these dogs are then deliberately undersocialised to enhance that trait.

I think it is Lindsay who suggests somewhere that it is possible that strong guard breeds wander around feeling vaguely angry and wary (low-grade anxiety) much of the time. Of course, we have no real way of knowing but I seem to recall a comparitive study that shows higher cortisol levels in one breed than another (hope I haven't imagined that- if it hasn't been done perhaps it should be).:)

>>(lets not forget that the Mastiff of today should be a companion with the energy to match, not a dog with the energy, drive or inclination to spend the day tracking & retrieving before chomping on the arm of a bite suit)
>Well perhaps you might want to talk to JG above, who claims that we should not be breeding dogs away from their original purposes nor buying them if we don't want the instincts their breed comes with conventionally.

Tracking, retrieving and biting on a sleeve were never a mastiff's original purpose, any more than they are a spaniel's purpose.

I think the point was about the dog's energy levels and drive... and whether that is appropriate in a pet.

> I think the point was about the dog's energy levels and drive... and whether that is appropriate in a pet.

No it wasn't about energy level & drive - it was about the fact that the Mastiff has been bred away from being a warrior, it has been bred for a long time to be a companion and as such anybody wanting the breed should have no inclination to enter it into a sport where it is trained to attack people. If you want a dog to compete in those sports you get one that is more highly trainable in obedience.

??  I think you have a very 'wrong' impression of what's involved in schutzhund training.  As I said above, the dog is playing tuggy with the sleeve.  It is not 'attacking' anybody and is not what we would otherwise define as 'aggression'.  Everybody who wants to have a go at schutzhund should feel free to, I would never discourage anyone from attempting any dog sport, whatever breed of dog they have.  They may not be as successful as other breeds, but success isn't everything, exercising a dog's body and mind is far more important.  My point is that a highly socialised dog, without any fear issues ('suspicion' or 'wariness') is the most successful at a protection sport... ergo, it is not necessary to breed fearful dogs or dogs predisposed to fearfulness with the point being that you're breeding them that way so they are better at guarding you... 

>  My point is that a highly socialised dog, without any fear issues ('suspicion' or 'wariness') is the most successful at a protection sport... ergo, it is not necessary to breed fearful dogs or dogs predisposed to fearfulness with the point being that you're breeding them that way so they are better at guarding you...

A naturally protective dog does NOT mean fearfull dog.

"The Neapolitan Mastiff should not participate in protection training or bite work because it possesses a natural protective temperament that does not need to be expounded upon or brought even further to the surface." This is some info found under 'training' from this[url=][/url] Neo information (you will also note that under 'temperment' it talks of the importance of socialsation to keep a stable temperment)

You can champion trained bite work all you like, I am not against it and know little about it, but I do know a little about mastiffs and the mastiff giants (not talking Cane Corso & the like, I mean the giants like Neo/English) are not energetic and will NOT want to be working all day at physical activities (tracking/agility etc) as they are 'home bodies', they do not comply to commands quick enough to be any much good at high-level obedience and should not have their guarding instinct brought out with bite work. Training should be 100% consistent - it either IS OK to hang off a strangers arm 'playing tuggy', or it ISN'T OK = consistency.

The OPs dog is a 15 stone dog that is highly protective of it's home & car (that the OP says is a breed trait) and is now worrying the OP re. strange men. This dog is obviously NOT a dog doing well in schutzund it is a giant guarding breed. I'd place my bets on it being a Neo as the English Mastiff shouldn't be a problem protecting the car/home and is generally much, much more docile & easy-going than the Neo.

The Neo is a dog that requires an owner that knows what they are doing, they require an owner that will be in charge - a leader, but never in a domineering, bullying way. The OP needs to have a behaviourst assess what's going on as they may not be the right sort of owner for this dog, or more simply, may need some help in handling or help to tone-down the dogs reactions. The fact that 'dogs can do well in bite work' has absolutely nothing to do with it.

I'm sorry, but a quote from terrificpets.com is being given as a reputable source??  There is all kinds of misinformation on the internet about all kinds of subjects. 

You are clearly entirely missing all the points I am making.

>The OPs dog is a 15 stone dog that is highly protective of it's home & car (that the OP says is a breed trait) and is now worrying the OP re. strange men. This dog is obviously NOT a dog doing well in schutzund it is a giant guarding breed.

I was not talking about the OP's dog ever doing schutzhund work.  I have clearly been (going to re-state the same statement I've made at least 3 times now) talking about guarding and fearfulness in breeds which are/were bred for protection work.  The point being that fearfulness and guarding behaviour are not necessarily associated, since the dogs competing in schutzhund are extremely well socialised and fearLESS - and assessed to be so, in the temperament test they must complete before continuing with further training - yet a well qualified schutzhund dog is the creme de la creme of protection work.  Ergo guarding and fearfulness need not be correlated.

You post seems to imply I am suggesting the OP get involved in schutzhund.  I have never suggested that. 

> Training should be 100% consistent - it either IS OK to hang off a strangers arm 'playing tuggy', or it ISN'T OK = consistency.

Er, I don't think well qualified schutzhund dog owners have problems with their dogs hanging off strangers' arms...  Not sure what the point of that statement is.  Perhaps we had better never teach a dog to heel, because it will want to heel all the time if we give it treats for doing that - and we may not want it to heel sometimes. 

>I am not against it and know little about it,

Quite, perhaps you wouldn't give advice or make recommendations about things you admittedly know little about, then.

>You are clearly entirely missing all the points I am making.

That seems to be working both ways. :-(

    You are clearly entirely missing all the points I am making.

That seems to be working both ways. :-(

That is a bit of a worry if we are supposed to be offering advice.

This thread has gone way off topic consdering that it is also in the heath section.