Rhodesian Ridgebacks - An Aggressive Breed ?

[summersun]

Hi,

 

I posted this information on a recent thread and many people responded saying that they were unaware of the innate basis for much poorer than normal communication skills in comparison to "your average dog". So, I thought the best thing to do would be to open a debate on the subject!

 

Just to be clear - what this debate is *not* about :

 

The debate is NOT about "deed not breed" or anything to do with prejudice based on perceived level of aggression due to "social myths" which typically happens with GSD, Dobies, Rotties, Bull Breeds to name a few). I wholly support "deed not breed" in that i believe the situation should be judged rather than the dog in the event of some certain "deed" happening. I have been bitten while working as we're all human and sadly lacking in hindsight at times!! ;) I have to say that it was not by any of the breeds "typically" tarred with the "aggression" tag. I have also had 2 of my dogs attacked fairly badly again not by "typically" tagged breeds.

 

 

Nor is it about dogs who are "altered" in some way (cropped ears, docked tails, accidental damage to ears, tails, or face, or about any colour of dog which may or may not make communication more or less difficult

[Helly]

no. not an agressive breed. I run a boarding kennels and i would say i get to meet all breeds of dogs in one of the most stressfull situations you can meet a dog in, ie strange place, lots of dogs, no owners, strange people handling them and i can say hand on heart ive never even felt a flicker of worry that any of the ridgies i have worked with have shown any signs of agression towards me, or my staff or other dogs in the place.

 

Although we are not doing DNB type answers, for the record, i have also not seen agression in any staffys, rotties, dobes, mastiffs etc towards me or my staff. I have however been bitten by several shih-tsus, a westie, a couple of yorkies and on sunday did a great impression of an irish dance/lord of the dance routine as a Lhassa went all out to eat my ankles

[summersun]

these are 3 comments in particular which are commonly used to describe the breed which can lead to aggression via the route in the brackets () these type of issues also come up in other breeds and will vary due to parentage/lines breeder/owner experience and environment.

 

keep a very watchful and protective eye on the family they love (resource aggression)

developed to think for themselves, they will chase anything that runs (control issues)

can play very rough, shoulder barging is a speciality (little awareness of own strength - aggression is not just bites)

 

(RR club of GB)

 

 

the reason i have noted them here is because when coupled with the genetics of communication it helps to better explain why attacks from RR's would be "more likely" than attacks by other breeds (that is assuming that neither RR or other breed was subject to abuse in some way - we are talking about basic innate stuff here in the main)

 

 

 

Ridgies and communication . . .

As a breed, they were originally developed for hunting and were selected towards having instinctive ability to hunt. They did not kill the lion themselves but used a set of calculated "false attacks" (think of when stunt people do fights in movies) this would hold the lion long enough for their master to shoot. They were bred for these instinctive skills specifically.

 

Typically, dog breeds communicate in "sentances" with turn taking structure (much like in normal human speech) however, Ridgebacks do not.

 

(off for dinner now - back later)

 

 

 

helly,

 

thank you for sharing but this debate is not on personal experience of ridgebacks or DNB, it is regarding genetic factors which may lead to aggression.

 

peoples experiences with the breed and which breeds they've been bitten by are very interesting (and i too have worked in kennels and been bitten but its not relevant to a debate on genetics )

 

claire.

Edited May 27, 2008 by summersun

[Sherlock Bones]

I *may* be going mad here, but isn't saying that a dog has a genetic "fault" leading it to a predisposition to aggression actually descriminating on a deed not breed basis ??

 

and, if it is genetic, then surely by your own admission any dog with any breeding must surely have a disposition to aggression, including every cross breed on the planet.

 

How on earth can any of this make any sense whatsever?

[Helly]

Hi,

 

I posted this information on a recent thread and many people responded saying that they were unaware of the innate basis for much poorer than normal communication skills in comparison to "your average dog". So, I thought the best thing to do would be to open a debate on the subject!

 

Just to be clear - what this debate is *not* about :

 

The debate is NOT about "deed not breed" or anything to do with prejudice based on perceived level of aggression due to "social myths" which typically happens with GSD, Dobies, Rotties, Bull Breeds to name a few). I wholly support "deed not breed" in that i believe the situation should be judged rather than the dog in the event of some certain "deed" happening. I have been bitten while working as we're all human and sadly lacking in hindsight at times!! ;) I have to say that it was not by any of the breeds "typically" tarred with the "aggression" tag. I have also had 2 of my dogs attacked fairly badly again not by "typically" tagged breeds.

 

 

Nor is it about dogs who are "altered" in some way (cropped ears, docked tails, accidental damage to ears, tails, or face, or about any colour of dog which may or may not make communication more or less difficult

 

 

and how difficult is it to debate, if experience of the breed is not allowed in your opinion. This is a public forum and as i really cant be arsed researching Ridgies in my valuable spare time having just done a regular 12 hour shift with dogs of all breeds, then i feel that my personal experiences are just as valuable as what the breed specifications say in a book.

[Jacobean]

I don't understand your posts sorry. No Rhodesian Ridgebacks aren't aggressive normally.

 

If your talking about genetic faults then every breed of dog could have one so can be potentially aggressive. Not sure why we're havng a conversation about RR's.

 

Breed specifics - strong willed, affectionate, independant.

Edited May 27, 2008 by Jacobean

[estweyn]

I think I know what you are getting at here Summer sun. I have always owned gsds and their signs of aggression are very easy to spot, raised tail, raised fur on the top of the wither, ears go back, teeth bared, stiff legs. These signs are normally given before any attack and are intended as a warning.

However I dog sat two rotties for a friend. I loved them both, lovely dogs. But one thing I did observe is that the signs of possible aggression (ie towards the postman one morning!) are not as easy to spot. Ok the fur is shorter and they dont have much of a tail but to an uniformed rottie sitter they seemed to go from 0-60 in less than 2 seconds. I am sure if they were my own dogs or I lived with them for a longer period of time then I would get to know the warning signs quicker. What I am trying to say here is that possibly due to the physical characteristics of the breed it is harder to spot possible aggression.

[mooandboo]

helly,

 

thank you for sharing but this debate is not on personal experience of ridgebacks or DNB, it is regarding genetic factors which may lead to aggression.

 

peoples experiences with the breed and which breeds they've been bitten by are very interesting (and i too have worked in kennels and been bitten but its not relevant to a debate on genetics )

 

claire.[/color]

Surely a debate on genetics of a particular breed only holds any value if those debating have a very solid knowledge of the subject and are qualified to do so

 

edited for spelling

Edited May 27, 2008 by mooandboo

[Red Rotties]

I think I know what you are getting at here Summer sun. I have always owned gsds and their signs of aggression are very easy to spot, raised tail, raised fur on the top of the wither, ears go back, teeth bared, stiff legs. These signs are normally given before any attack and are intended as a warning.

However I dog sat two rotties for a friend. I loved them both, lovely dogs. But one thing I did observe is that the signs of possible aggression (ie towards the postman one morning!) are not as easy to spot. Ok the fur is shorter and they dont have much of a tail but to an uniformed rottie sitter they seemed to go from 0-60 in less than 2 seconds. I am sure if they were my own dogs or I lived with them for a longer period of time then I would get to know the warning signs quicker. What I am trying to say here is that possibly due to the physical characteristics of the breed it is harder to spot possible aggression.

 

You see being a rott owner I can spot easily when mine haven't been happy with a situation, the change of stance etc. Now on the R.R. front that is the breed that attacked my Archie. At a dog training class, all relaxed with us all chatting. No sign of stress or upset from any dog when the R.R. flew at him, the owner, a breeder, did say later that this breed dont always show the signs of an imminant(sp?) attack, and can be difficult to read

[snow]

Well hello again - I've just introduced myself in the training thread and here we are again

 

I think its worth pointing out that there are staff members here who have the title "host" under their user name, they are the people who actually moderate on this forum, and then theres Pingu and myself, who have our own titles, mine says admin

 

And above this very thread the following is posted...

 

The forum is modded by admins

 

Now I can see one person posting here who has that title...and gee whizz that would be me - isn't that great??

 

Wheheyyyyy I guess that means I get to say what is and what isn't allowed to be discussed in here then - KEWL!!

 

So then - to be clear - the staff moderate... and everyone else... doesn't ... okiley dokiley?

[ReikiAnge]

What you actually said on the other thread was:

 

ridgebacks are a breed which are genetically more aggressive than "your avg breed" this is NOT "deed not breed" this is genetic fact.

 

So could we have some links to back up your "fact" please.

 

Stating that a bred is genetically more aggressive than the "average breed" is exactly what those who have caused the killing of thousands of bullbreed type dogs have said.

[summersun]

Hi,

 

sherlock bones - i've not finished the opening post yet it is not a "genetic fault" of the breed.

 

helly - i opened a debate on genetics, i'm not forcing you to debate here

 

jacobean - again, no not a genetic fault

 

estweyn - you are definately along the right lines, hopefully it'll become clearer why after i've actually finished the opening statement

 

Claire x

[murtle]

edited as I am now waiting apparently for the rest of the opening statement

Edited May 27, 2008 by murtle

[snow]

helly - i opened a debate on genetics, i'm not forcing you to debate here

 

 

Might I suggest you read my post above....

[Helly]

helly - i opened a debate on genetics, i'm not forcing you to debate here

 

 

if you continue to talk to me in this 'holier than thou' attitude whilst spilling utter tripe that mirrors the ignorance that let to people beleiveing the claptrap that is BSL i shall be forcing you to stop debating trust me. I put a lot into DNB in its early stages and spent a long long time trying to convince people that generalised twaddle like yours is dangerous, unhelpfull and about as beleivable as the tales of noddy.