"Aggressive" dogs

I don't think there are "aggressive dogs". I think that dogs display aggressive behaviours in particular circumstances. To me there is a huge difference with that semantic change.

First we need to define aggression. My definition for aggression is a threat display with the intent to harm. I don't necessarily define a scared dog barking, for instance, a display of aggression. I do consider it a threat display, but not with intent to harm.

I do not see it as bad, although I don't see it as good either. I see it as a normal behaviour in dogs (and people!), that sometimes gets out of hand and becomes a part of a dog's repertoire in inappropriate situations. In other words, aggression on its own is a natural, and normal, part of life. It's when dogs being displaying aggressive behaviours out of context that it becomes pathological. For instance, a dog that becomes highly aroused and starts displying aggressive behaviours the second it sees another dog, no matter how close or far away - that is a pathological issue. A dog that resource guards with extreme aggression is a dog with pathological behaviours.

I think dogs show aggressive behaviours for many reasons. Most forms of aggression stem from fear and anxiety - fear of an object, person, other animal, fear of losing a particular valued object or freedom. Aggression can stem from a dog that has not learned to cope with frustration, or even dogs who can cope with frustration but experience it for long periods of time. Dogs can simply become angry, so that there is no conflict, no fear, and no frustration - just a clear intent to tell off another being. Some dogs become aggressive because they are, to their own minds, defending themselves (stemmed by fear of course). So dogs that bite while being groomed, dogs that bite when they are cornered, dogs that bite when faced with aggression from another being (dog or human). Part of whether or not a dog will display aggression is also genetic - there are genetic components that will change the probability of aggressive behaviours being exhibited in other dogs. It doesn't mean they will show aggressive displays for certain, but it does up the chances that inappropriate aggressive responses will be brought about.

I have a dog who had rather inappropriate aggressive displays towards other dogs, which were stemmed from anxiety and loss of control over situations. She also attempted to guard objects from those dogs that were not appropriate guarding objects (me, the bed). It was serious enough that it had caused injury to other dogs - lacerations, punctures, one dog even required anaesthesia for suturing and glue. It was always very specific in the cause, though. She could be left alone with any other dogs, but it was only in the proximity of certain factors that the behaviours were exhibited. To this day she does not do those things anymore, she has learned better skills and coping methods so that she can choose to no longer use aggression. But that was a classic case of when aggressive displays become pathological.

This doesn't really even touch on the surface of the topic of aggression. I'll be interested to see what comes of the thread (and hoping for no flame wars!!), because it's not a simple thing to talk about.

Thanks, Kim.  I'm going to write my answers over lunch, once I decide what I think!  The idea came to mind because I keep getting this feeling that in many dog training circles, a dog is either hyper-tolerant of all other dogs regardless of their behavior, or he is "dog aggressive".  I also see posts/hear people say things that seem to imply they believe a dog can "become" aggressive (like after a certain age, or after a certain experience).  I disagree with both.

1. I define an aggressive dog as one that is at that moment, aggressing...taking into account posture, sound, and visual cues the dog is throwing out there. It is not a permant thing, but it CAN be a transient state of being for any dog, at any time. That same dog can later be a loving dog, a happy dog, a frightened dog, etc. It is not a label for me but a descriptor for a given moment in time. eta: it CAN become a label for me, when as in #3 below aggression is a constant state or a state commanding much of the dogs time and energy, in the course of a day

2. A dog crosses my line when I feel the aggression being displayed in that moment, is dangerous to another human or animal.

3. Aggression like sadness or happiness, is a mood...and as such it is not always bad. It can be productive and motivational, rewarding even. Like any other emotion the lack of ability to CHANGE out of that emotion to feel another different one based on social cues and surrounding circumstances is where the "bad" comes in. Just like with people. If you're happy every moment of every day...there is likely something wrong with you, just like the person who is sad every moment or every day, or angry, or frightened. IOW any emotion or mood taken to an extreme at the cost of other priorly available emotions or moods...is "bad".

4. Due to whatever is in the environ at that specific time. Or due to a cue or command, given by a handler. Totally situational.

Liesje

I also see posts/hear people say things that seem to imply they believe a dog can "become" aggressive (like after a certain age, or after a certain experience).  I disagree with both.

I don't necessarily disagree with these. The reason people say dogs "become aggressive" (I would call it beginning to display aggressive responses) is because it really does have to do with adult social maturity. 2-3.5 years of age is the general age when dogs reach true social maturity, and it is a time when a dog's behaviour repertoire may begin to change. It is caused by the hormonal balances and the brain changes that go on during adolescence, and it is pretty much a known scientific thing. Most dogs, such as Pitty types, most any terrier, and those dogs who may be predisposed to aggressive tendencies, don't tend to exhibit them until social maturity. A lot changes when a dog becomes an "adult" in mind (not just body), and this is also when fear-based aggression sometimes can change over to quite confident aggression too. The brain really does physically change, and new pathways are activated which can result in quite drastic changes in behaviour, and there is a known link in age-related aggression developing in certain lines and breeds.

I am closer to agreeing with you on the first one though. People who think dogs are either "friendly" or "not" are slightly ignorant I think of the entire being of dogs. Dogs have emotions, likes, and dislikes much like people, and they have dogs they match best with, and those they don't at all. Many dogs have certain circles they run with perfectly, and sometimes have the one dog they hate, for whatever reason. Also, to be honest it's a rare dog that really enjoys running and playing with all dogs as they get older. That is mostly a young dog thing, and it's only the most social of breeds that seem to really enjoy it. I don't expect my dogs to like every dog (but in Gaci's case, I don't expect that it's appropriate that she not like all dogs either!!), and I am the first to explain when an aggressive action or social behaviour is warranted. I've seen Zipper "correct" other dogs in such a way that some folks would think he's being tooaggressive, when in all reality it is the exact opposite - he has amazing canine skills and only does as much punishment as necessary, no more, only when warranted, and is totally forgiving (non-judgemental) after the fact and generally initiates play.

The only dogs I classify as “aggressive dogs” are the ones who are looking to fight 100% of the time with anyone or anything, and have little to no chance for behavior modification. I have never met a dog like this.

Kim_MacMillan

there is a known link in age-related aggression developing in certain lines and breeds.

I agree with Kim about certain types of dogs predisposed to aggression. Rosco is DA with strange dogs, and it started with him at 18 months. Because of him and my work with pit bull rescues, I know what inborn DA looks like, and it’s different than dogs reacting aggressively out of fear or say when resource guarding.

I think a big difference is that with something like fear aggression or resource guarding aggression,  the aggressive display is actually about getting the threat to go away/end an interaction. Whereas with Rosco, he’s looking to start an interaction.

Life with Rosco, when a strange dog is present goes something like this:

Walking nicely on LL, sees what could be a dog a mile down the road. Adrenaline switch goes on, gets up on his toes, tail goes from loose pump position with loose wag to arched all the way over his back and stiff wag, forward body posture, mouth closes, eyes narrow and a hard stare. If allowed, he would do this all the way up to the dog, would turn around while we passed the dog and would be at the end of his lead. If he was off leash, he would get in the other dogs face and try to start a fight immediately. He wants to rumble with any strange dog he sees.

The key is he is not allowed to start that routine at all.

Typically, as soon as I see the dog (before him!) I start working him at 110% watch me, look at that game, tricks, offering calming signals on cue -- basically anything to keep him focused on me and earning reward. I move as far off the road as I can when the other dog approaches and put him in a sit with watch me eye contact, back to the other dog. We do rapid fire treats all the time, and then swiftly move on our way once the other dog has passed.

You can imagine that it’s a little bit more of a challenge when we’re at the vet, where he is already stressed, and another DA pit bull is suddenly within 10 feet.

After all that, people are probably thinking, god lord, her dog is crazy aggressive. He’s not actually. He’s just aggressive with strange dogs.

He lives peacefully with two female dogs. He gets along well with all of my friends dogs, my parents’ dog, and other dogs he’s had a proper introduction too. He adores all people, especially children, and he truly prefers people to other dogs. We just have to be ready for anything when we leave the house.

 A while ago, I read an article that describes my view point. I will post it below. This article is from http://101-dog-training-tips.com/Behavior/dog_aggression.shtml You can go there to read the full article.

"What is the proper term for describing undesirable aggression? At this time I now use the terms undesirable aggression or agonistic aggression. I will also sometimes use the term active and passive defense response when describing aggression. Traditionally agonistic aggression has been used to describe aggression between the same species.

Agonistic aggression includes threatening, avoidance, and appeasement. For appeasement to occur does not there also need to be a socially acceptable threat? Isn’t this threat most likely in the form of dominance? The idea of aggression stemming from dog vs. dog and dog vs. human as two different types of aggression raises the whole question of, do dogs display dominance towards people? Or is it even possible for dogs to display dominance towards people? I can see threatening and avoidance with another species but the appeasement part of a dog’s behavior always makes me wonder.

Since aggression is a big component of normal social interaction, I feel we need a term to describe agonistic types of aggression in the context of human and dog encounters as well as dog on dog encounters.

My working definition of aggression is threatening to engage in or actually engaging in fight and bite behavior, or a strong predisposition to engage in this kind of behavior. Aggressive threats and/or biting are often associated with fearful or threatening body postures in response to a perceived threat. We can use the dog’s body posture and other signs such as dilated pupil, stiffness, tucked or raised tail, and growling as indicators of an active defensive or offensive emotional state

My true definition of aggression is broader and more inclusive.

Many people I deal with upon first encounter do not want to admit their dog has an aggression problem. I often here excuses for biting or descriptions that hide the behavior in euphemisms, such as he’s doing a little nipping. Or he prefers not being around new people. If a dog is defensively or offensive threatening which could include grabbing with the mouth, it’s probably aggressive behavior. This is not always the case, but it usually is.

Before a person can deal with their dog’s aggression problem they need to admit and realize they have a dog with aggressive tendencies. Dog bites often occur because the owner did not take the proper precautions that are needed when owning an aggressive dog. I don’t think aggression places undo responsibility on the dog, but I do believe it places a great deal of responsibility on the owner."

 When I was a kid, the neighbors had a lab x, who lived outdoors all year, on a chain. If you walked by, he would lunge, growl and bark. One day his chain broke and he attacked the dog, being walked on-leash, across the street. His owner had to hit the dog with a 2x4 to get him off. The dog almost died.The dog was mine. Thats aggression.

Liesje

Thanks, Kim.  I'm going to write my answers over lunch, once I decide what I think!  The idea came to mind because I keep getting this feeling that in many dog training circles, a dog is either hyper-tolerant of all other dogs regardless of their behavior, or he is "dog aggressive".  I also see posts/hear people say things that seem to imply they believe a dog can "become" aggressive (like after a certain age, or after a certain experience).  I disagree with both.

Dogs can become aggressive at any age or as the result of any experience that pushes them beyond a certain threshold.  I like Kim's definition because it separates the dog that means harm from the dog that is using an aggressive display to increase distance (the latter is often a sign of fear or uncertainty).  Having seen many DA dogs who don't get that way until social maturity, I don't know why you think that age is not a factor, but would like to hear your thoughts on that.  I also know, fairly intimately, one dog that became severely dog aggressive after being attacked and bitten repeatedly by a former playmate who had never shown any aggression toward him prior to the event (his mom is a trainer, and understands body language very well).  I don't think it's either or.  Aggression occurs on a continuum and it just depends where the individual dog's threshold is.  Even the placid Lab we have at play group reacted with a growl when a rude young Akita attempted to mount him.  He lets other dogs do it, but that dog had ill intent, and the Lab knew it.  So, he handled it.  Granted, no teeth, but if the rude boy hadn't listened, the ante would have been raised, for sure, and this is a dog that is so mellow he lets multiple puppies, adolescents, and even my Sequoyah, take his stuff, climb on him, hump him, whatevahhhh.  His threshold is very high and hard to reach.  My herder?  Not so much - she wouldn't tolerate too long of a butt sniff from a whippersnapper like that.

For me, true aggression is more proactive than how most people see it, at least based on this thread.  I guess my personal definition is much more narrow.  Just because a dog barks, growls, lunges, bites, and draws blood doesn't mean that dog is aggressive.  I tend to separate a dog being "reactive" or a "fight or flight" type of response from real aggression.  Even in a sport like Schutzhund, strong, real aggression is becoming increasingly rare.  An aggressive dog is the one in control.  For these reasons, I see real aggression as a temperament trait, something a dog has or doesn't have.  Of course dogs that have it start to display it at maturity, I'm OK with that, but I think those dogs always had it in them.  But I don't think that a puppy being attacked a few times can truly cause that dog to become aggressive, at least not the way I see it.  Reactive, definitely.  I don't think true aggression has anything to do with fear or avoidance.  For me, real aggression is a *good* thing, as long as the dog is otherwise mentally sound.  I think what most people label "aggression" are just "aggressive displays", we're labeling the behaviors and not the true temperament of that dog.  For me it's a temperament trait, not a reaction.  The most aggressive dog I know personally has never bitten a human (other than missed targeting in play) or another dog.  Likewise, most of the dogs I know that have bite histories are not what I consider to be truly aggressive.  They are reactive, nervy (so a low threshold for "fight or flight" response), lack confidence.  I think sometimes an truly aggressive dog can be guardy, but I don't think that just because a dog is guardy means it's aggressive. 

The thing is, reactivity is really just a word recent trainers have made up to describe a subset of dogs who show aggressive displays or threat displays. You would never hear that word used in educational texts, nor would you hear it used by certified behaviourists. Reactivity developed as a word to try to make "aggressive display" seem less serious, as nobody wants a dog who is "aggressive", but somehow "reactive" became a better word to use to describe it. It's actually not even an appropriate word to use in many training circles.

I don't define aggression in the way that you do. So if you define it like you do, it would make sense. But because I follow the literature in which aggression is define scientifically, it doesn't match what you describe. Most cases of aggression in dogs are because dogs lose control of themselves, or are at risk and fear for losing control of something, not because they are in control. Aggression in wild animals is different in that they are generally always calm and in control, and aggression in some of the breeds that are designed to have higher levels of aggression (or higher tendency for) are generally more calm. For instance, most Pitty aggression I have seen is very controlled, calm aggression. The same with a lot of other terrier aggression. Contrast that to the two GSD's I've worked with who display aggression, both of those dogs are clearly aggressing from fear, anxiety, and frustration. The symptoms of each look so totally different from each other. Then again GSD's these days have a common "weak nerve" in a lot of lines, so I'm not surprised to see this coming out. The only dog that bit me in redirected aggression was an anxious, nervous young male GSD who redirected on my arm when I was trying to get him back inside from the play area and he was freaking out about where he was. Even Gaci's aggression that she displayed when fighting was not confident at all, it was actually quite insecure and bullyish, as she would shiver and shake and whine afterwards, and remain tense until she was physically and visibly separated. There was no confidence in her aggression at all.

I think the difference is that you are facing what some would call an appropriate use of aggression (trained aggression), and that is the type of aggression you are most used to seeing and learning about,  whereas in my line of work the aggression people are dealing with is the total opposite - dangerous, scary, and most often totally inappropriate.

Kim_MacMillan

The thing is, reactivity is really just a word recent trainers have made up to describe a subset of dogs who show aggressive displays or threat displays. You would never hear that word used in educational texts, nor would you hear it used by certified behaviourists. Reactivity developed as a word to try to make "aggressive display" seem less serious, as nobody wants a dog who is "aggressive", but somehow "reactive" became a better word to use to describe it. It's actually not even an appropriate word to use in many training circles.

I don't define aggression in the way that you do. So if you define it like you do, it would make sense. But because I follow the literature in which aggression is define scientifically, it doesn't match what you describe. Most cases of aggression in dogs are because dogs lose control of themselves, or are at risk and fear for losing control of something, not because they are in control. Aggression in wild animals is different in that they are generally always calm and in control, and aggression in some of the breeds that are designed to have higher levels of aggression (or higher tendency for) are generally more calm. For instance, most Pitty aggression I have seen is very controlled, calm aggression. The same with a lot of other terrier aggression. Contrast that to the two GSD's I've worked with who display aggression, both of those dogs are clearly aggressing from fear, anxiety, and frustration. The symptoms of each look so totally different from each other. Then again GSD's these days have a common "weak nerve" in a lot of lines, so I'm not surprised to see this coming out. The only dog that bit me in redirected aggression was an anxious, nervous young male GSD who redirected on my arm when I was trying to get him back inside from the play area and he was freaking out about where he was. Even Gaci's aggression that she displayed when fighting was not confident at all, it was actually quite insecure and bullyish, as she would shiver and shake and whine afterwards, and remain tense until she was physically and visibly separated. There was no confidence in her aggression at all.

I think the difference is that you are facing what some would call an appropriate use of aggression (trained aggression), and that is the type of aggression you are most used to seeing and learning about,  whereas in my line of work the aggression people are dealing with is the total opposite - dangerous, scary, and most often totally inappropriate.

I couldn't have said this better.  Reactivity is a response to a stimulus but is often expressed as an "aggressive display" - the reason some of us make the distinction (albeit in unscientific public-pacifying language) is that we don't want people to use aggression themselves to thwart it, and, more importantly, we don't want to see a treatable dog lose its home because its owner fears having an "aggressive" dog. (Oy, the semantics).  Reactive aggression is almost always fear based, and the use of more aggression simply triggers more fear which can send the dog over the edge to follow through with a bite, rather than just keep to barking, growling, lunging, air snapping, etc.  That's why you often see CM getting bitten - he aggresses when a dog is reactive, and gets the redirected bite.  It's also why a lot of behaviorists who work with severely aggressive dogs don't often get bitten - they work under the threshold using desensitization and counter-conditioning.  Aggression is in *every* dog - it's a coping mechanism that any animal can use to repel threats or get what it wants - even humans.

Kim_MacMillan

I think the difference is that you are facing what some would call an appropriate use of aggression (trained aggression), and that is the type of aggression you are most used to seeing and learning about,  whereas in my line of work the aggression people are dealing with is the total opposite - dangerous, scary, and most often totally inappropriate.

But it's not something that can be trained, it's just there (or not).  Like the various drives, hardness, courage, mental soundness, confidence, etc.  You can train the dog and manage around it, but you can never actually change or train away aspects of the dog's temperament.   I think real, powerful aggression goes hand in hand with a dog that is very resilient and has a good fight drive.  You can push a nervy dog to bite you pretty easily but that doesn't mean the dog has any fight drive.  That's not something you can train into a dog.

I guess I see a huge difference between nutty dogs growling and biting out of fear, and a really sound dog that has good fight drive and aggression.  By labelling all aggression bad/undesireable we're doing a disservice to some really amazing breeds and dogs.

I don't like the trends I'm seeing where owners and trainers have these expectations that every dog of every breed be tolerant (to the point of going against their breed standard in some cases) of every dog and person and fit this neat little mold. 

In Schutzhund it is "passive" or "active" aggression.  Passive is what most people in this thread seem to be talking about, active is something different (which most people probably never see).  Someone else explains it better:

[Passive] Aggression in my world, is the dog’s willingness to meet a real threat with forward engagement and if given the opportunity to escape, the dog chooses to stay in the fight. [...] This type of dog has the confidence to meet a man head on (without equipment) and the good sense not to perceive threat where there is none.

I would think it would be difficult to evaluate active aggression in a dog that has a very low threshold for passive aggression, and probably inappropriate for such dogs to be bred and used for work/training that utilities active aggression.

 just chiming in to say I am enjoying the conversation - no personal definition of aggression - just an experience I'd like to share..............

Many of you know that last year Bugsy showed aggression for the first time towards a dog with very poor leash manners and grumpy disposition and that I have worked really hard to get passed this and to understand it.  He has never even growled in any other situation, including being bit by a ball guarding aussie mix, yet this dog sets him off EVERY time.  There is no doubt that given their freedom these two dogs would have a nasty fight.  I find this very disturbing because Bugsy is such a tolerant dog the rest of the time and because his strength is greater than mine, I fear one day he will overpower me to take care of things.

This dog is usually running with a family member and this has led to Bugsy starting to scrutinize everyone that runs with their dog and in fact he has gotten edgy towards people running with dogs a few times.

I have termed this 'being reactive' and I worry that it means he is aggressive, yet he shows no aggression except in this situation.  He has had dogs growl at him, jump on him, attempt to hump him and he doesn't care about it.  I am getting to the point of accepting that he just doesn't like something about this dog (this dog sets off every other dog I know too) and that avoidance is best and desensitizing to running dogs with owners in general is what we should focus on.

It is certainly something I wish I would have never seen from him

Karen, you say the other dog has poor leash manners.  This is the sort of thing that bugs me.  Why does Bugsy (or any dog) have to be tolerant of every dog that has poor leash manners, instigates fights, jumpes in their face, etc?  Why do we have to label your dog "aggressive" for saying "No! Back off!"  Why does every dog have to be accepting of every other dog?  Lord knows there's quite a few people I do not get along with an intentionally avoid, but no one has ever labeled me "aggressive" or "mean".  I think it's just the way of the world.  Not all people are going to be chums and not all dogs care to interact with each other.  There's one dog that Coke doesn't like, and generally Coke is tolerant to a fault.  We still take him to the dog park all the time and haven't had any problems, he just can't play with that one dog.  Due to training, they can be together and be fine, they just can't be off leash getting rowdy because their play styles just aren't compatible (and likewise I know that this dog has other dogs he cannot play with, yet he is a very submissive, calm, well-trained dog that easily passed his CGC, rally title, and therapy certifications....aggressive?  I think not!!).

So here you have two dogs that might escalate to a fight if forced to be together and left to their own devices.  Do they look "aggressive"?

Here is the same dog, playing with Nikon, who *is* aggressive.  I say that because I truly believe that if I released him in a large open area with other dogs, he would instigate a fight with one of them.  But again, I don't think that being "aggressive" automatically means a reactive frenzy.  I show (conformation) Nikon in several venues, so he is routinely in a small, cramped ring with other intact males and intact females.  He also does various training activities in close proximity to other dogs.  He is aggressive, but he is under control, and just because a dog is there does not mean he will react to that dog.  He likes some dogs, but I think he would pick fights with other males around his age.