Seeking definition

For me "red zone" is when a dog is ready to kill another dog or a human,  its not "red zone" if a dog wants to kill his pray (we all know that is prey drive)

subject 3:

http://cesarmillaninc.com/blog/Season2ep04.php

For all your other questions we would have to be with those dogs to see if they become "red zone" at one point or not

What I consider 'red zone' has to do with the predictability factor of their aggression. If you can within reason (as no dog is 100% predictable) predict what will trigger aggression and the degree of aggression then I tend not to class that dog as red zone. If you have a dog that you don't know how they will react in any given situation or how agressively they will react, to me that is red zone. I would also add to the list dogs that extremely aggressive in most situations, even though you can predict it. JMHO

This is just my take and admittedly, I haven't thought it through, so it may be incomplete or not entirely accurate. []

To me, a "red zone" case is a dog who, unless there is intervention, control or isolation will end up seriously hurting another dog or person. It's one who has unpredictable and dangerous behavior as regards some particular stimuli.

Dominant Aggressive dogs can be red zone cases if they meet the above criteria, but aren't necessarily. Same with the other types (although I don't know what HA is). A dog who goes into a sudden rage may be a red zone case, depending on how that rage manifests.

although I don't know what HA

 
HA= Human Aggressive
DA= Dog Aggressive

 
It seems to me that alot of people are talking about "red zone" and still can't quite define it for themselves.  In other words, there is no set definition.

espencer you say:

For me "red zone" is when a dog is ready to kill another dog

and then say:

its not "red zone" if a dog wants to kill his pray (we all know that is prey drive)

Sometimes a dog with high prey drive will want to kill another dog.  Sometimes it's not even the size of the dog, but just the behavior of that dog at the time.  Is that "red zone?"

See how confusing that definition can be?

Denise makes a good statement here:

What I consider 'red zone' has to do with the predictability factor of their aggression.

That makes sense to me, from a behavior standpoint. 

So is the consensus that there is "red zone" behavior and also there are "red zone" dogs.
 
 
From the link so graciously provided by espencer:
 

  Red-zone” aggression is created by an extreme imbalance. A dog does not choose to be in the “red zone” because it does not exist in the animal world unless it is sick with a disease, like rabies. A good majority of the time, the behavior is caused by a traumatic experience humans may have inflicted upon the dog. If this is the case, the very least we can do is exhaust all methods in trying to restore the dog#%92s natural balance. I kept this in mind as I worked with Jonbee the Jindo, a “red-zone” case that had the good fortune of being rescued by Scott Lincoln, who thought his troubled, new dog could be rehabilitated and called me in to helpRed-zone” aggression is created by an extreme imbalance. A dog does not choose to be in the “red zone” because it does not exist in the animal world unless it is sick with a disease, like rabies. A good majority of the time, the behavior is caused by a traumatic experience humans may have inflicted upon the dog. If this is the case, the very least we can do is exhaust all methods in trying to restore the dog#%92s natural balance. I kept this in mind as I worked with Jonbee the Jindo, a “red-zone” case that hadRed-zone” aggression is created by an extreme imbalance. A dog does not choose to be in the “red zone” because it does not exist in the animal world unless it is sick with a disease, like rabies. A good majority of the time, the behavior is caused by a traumatic experience humans may have inflicted upon the dog. If this is the case, the very least we can do is exhaust all methods in trying to restore the dog#%92s natural balance. I kept this in mind as I worked with Jonbee the Jindo, a “red-zone” case that had the good fortune of being rescued by Scott Lincoln, who thought his troubled, new dog could be rehabilitated and called me in to help the good fortune of being rescued by Scott Lincoln, who thought his troubled, new dog could be rehabilitated and called me in to help

 
Espence:  I don't see how this explanation from CM gives any sort of definition.  Maybe it's just me.?

Nope, "red zone" dogs are in an unestable state of mind, if they are in "prey drive mode" you can see the difference (even is is with an smaller dog) between "there is the prey" kind of behavior and "i will destroy you" kind of behavior

Red zone behavior and red zone dogs are the same, it does not matter if you know what is gonna happen or you dont

ORIGINAL: espencer
Red zone behavior and red zone dogs are the same, it does not matter if you know what is gonna happen or you dont

This still doesn't give a definition.  You're saying that any dog that has ever displayed "red zone" behavior is a "red zone" dog.  And that it's because the dog is unstable. 

So, by your definition a dog that has aggressed for an unknown reason (unknown to the human) in a manner which the force exhibited by the dog was excessive- is always a "red zone" dog?  That makes no sense to me.

There are signs recognized by dogs that might make a dog attack another dog very quickly, yet the human didn't see those signs.  And now that dog is categorized as "red zone?"

Predictability sounds like a better criterion for classification than "unstable."  IMO.
 
ETA:  My own particular dog has 3 or 4 dogs that he absolutely hates and wants dead.  These dogs attacked him or Gaia before without provocation and he remembers them.  Since he wants them dead and will aggress upon them if given the chance, does that make him "red zone?"

I want to clarify what I mean by predictability. Once a dog is "diagnosed" as red zone, his behavior is pretty predictable. I think it's only unpredictable during diagnosis and when compared to normal dog behavior. That's what I meant.

I think I would slightly change the definition I gave to read:
... a "red zone" case is a dog who, unless there is intervention, control or isolation will end up seriously hurting another dog or person. It's one who, as a result of instability, displays extremely dangerous behavior as regards some particular stimuli.

And I will go further to say that when this dog is "acting out" or displaying this dangerous behavior (as a result of instability), he is in the "red zone".

It's like a person who is obsessive compulsive. They may look normal most of the time, but they still have the "illness". They are still an OC person. And when they wash their hands 50 times, they are displaying the OC behavior. A red zone dog is an unstable dog (as espencer said) who can appear and act normal most of the time, but under certain circumstances, they behave in an unpredictable (as compared to the 'norm") and dangerous way and at that time, they are displaying the red zone behavior. And I agree with espencer that this behavior is very different than prey drive. It's like an extreme frustration to the point of "kill"...

I agree CM's paragraph was ambiguous as regards a true definition.

(am I blocked? Can anyone see this?) [8D]

Don't worry, I can see you! I have been thinking about red zone and would like to add to the possible definition in terms of the dogs inability to react (or be aware of) to anything other than it's object of aggression. If a dog was to attack another dog, as an example, and could not have his attention by ANY means interupted, loud noise, water, shock. pain etc. then I think that would be a red zone dog. As for the unpredicabilty, whether it is a defining characterisitic of a red zone dog, it certainly adds tremendously to the danger a red zone dog poses.

my definition of red zone is a mental state of mind where the dog wants to fight with the intent on doing damage &/or kill.

it's equivalent to unchecked human rage

(gophers are one thing, but going after other dogs &/or humans is another)

Agree that the link i gave does not give a definition but at least talk about the subject a little bit

A dog does not always is in the "red zone", the dog can be in and out depending if the thing tha triggers that behavior is in from of him?her or not

Is like when you take an energy drink, when you have the effects going on you can be at "2,000 miles an hour" but when the effect goes away you are "normal" again, if the dog could be in a constant "red zone" 24/7 his/her body and mind would not be able to handle it

Just like the dog in teh alppha roll thread "Emily" she is not in a constant "red zone" status till she sees another dog, again, is the difference between the "i dont like you" or "i will destroy you or die trying" state of mind

My personal view is a dog is "red zone" if it's acting aggressively AND is uncontrollable. 

For me "red zone" is when a dog is ready to kill another dog or a human

Well, I've certainly not seen any of these kind of dogs on Cesar's show yet.  What I usually see are dogs that are leash reactive, or frustrated, but not murderous.  I admit I haven't seen every episode, but thus far, I think the term "red zone" is being used to hype the guy's "whisperer" status, not as an accurate description of the dogs he's dealing with.  What the heck is wrong with terms like "aroused", "reactive", "anxious" or "aggressive" to describe what's going on?  It seems to me that using the term "red zone" is just "smoke and mirrors" blather that makes the audience think the guy is always dealing with end of the line cases.  I'm sure he does that sometimes, but I certainly haven't seen many on the show that any ordinary trainer or behaviorist could not have dealt with.
If you are going to bandy about a term like "red zone", which is an emotional term, to me it should truly refer to a dog that would absolutely commit serious aggression if the handler lost control of the dog.

Everyone has made some valid points.

What I've learned from this thread, thus far, is that there is no clear cut definition of "Red Zone."  Some say it's the dog that is "red zone" some say the behavior is "red zone."  Everyone has the same idea about the term but different ways of approaching it.  Needless to say, it's a catchy term and I can see the why of it's use.

I think it's safer, and more accurate and helpful to label the actual behavior in reference to what the behavior actually is.

DA=Dog aggression
HA=Human Aggression
FA=Fear Aggression
Uncontrollable Aggression/ Aggression of unknown origin

We know that just because a dog is DA doesn't necessarily make it HA, or vice versa.

What I see the most of in any of these training shows is bratty dogs with owners that haven't a clue, dogs that were allowed to continue "cute" puppy behaviors into adulthood, or dogs that have needs not being met. 

Anyway, that's my [sm=2cents.gif]