Rhodesian Ridgebacks - An Aggressive Breed ?

[Rachelpirate]

The RR's we have now, as pets are very far removed from the lion hunting dogs they were. Like many breeds I don't think those traits RR's were bred for years and years ago are very prevelant now. Similarly to Staffie's, who have not been bred to fight for a long time.

 

Secondly I'm a great beleiver in nurture over nature - if you take a Lab and abuse it, it may become aggressive. If you take a Ridgie and treat it well, socialise and train it, it will be a lovely dog. I definatley can't buy into the idea that a dog can be born aggressive based on breed. Can a person be born aggressive based on race?

 

Mainly I suppose I'd like to ask if summersun has ever owned a Ridgeback. If she had I wonder if she'd be able to make these claims. Having lived with Ria for just year or so (yes, she is a cross - but then Staffie's are supposedly aggressive too) I can say that I've never had a softer, sillier or wimpier dog than my Ridgeback cross. I'm sure the other RR owners on here would agree with me on that.

[wickychoo]

The way I see what's happened on this thread is:

 

a) summersun's brought up something she was asked to clarify on another thread but hasn't fully set out her case in the few first posts which leads to potential misinterpretation

b) she has then made a couple of comments about what the debate is about/not about

c) snow has rightly pointed out that only admin moderates in here - i.e. to keep people on topic

 

I hope its just a matter of getting to grips with the ebb and flow of a forum where people care so passionately about their dogs and not anything more.

 

 

Back on topic:

I know bog all about RRs but more than a smidge about genetics, and while I'm interested to hear the arguement I'm not convinced it could be the sole basis of the "percieved aggression" but I'm all ears...

[ranirottie]

I have trained several Ridgies and found them a little aloof with selective hearing (typical hound trait) they can play a little rough when young (a typical boistrous puppy trait) but I have never yet met an aggressive one or one with a quick temper. They dont generally appear to be unreliable with cats and other small furries and generally seem to be good with kids so I am mystified as to what this thread is about. Are we going to get the rest of the originl opening post? x

[Melp]

I would like to see factual evidence that Ridgebacks are more aggressive than other breeds.

Given that the organisation I work for passionately beleives that NO breed is inherently more dangerous/aggressive than any other I'm surprised and upset that someone, whether a newbie or not can come onto a board full to bursting with dog lovers and judge an entire breed in this way.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Kathy, when the contro area was set up hosts specifically asked that be be allowed to refrain from moderating it as there were often threads we had strong personal opinions on and would like to participate in as individuals rather than representatives of the board. [ I think there was supposed to be some punctuation in there somewhere ]

[ReikiAnge]

I would like to see factual evidence that Ridgebacks are more aggressive than other breeds.

 

You and me both. I've been asking since yesterday afternoon.

[Rachelpirate]

As far as I'm aware, you can easily prove that not all RR's are aggressive - through experience of the breed (and cute photos). But I don't think there's any way you could prove that all RR's are aggressive. There are too many out there proving the exact opposite.

[estweyn]

Hello Red Rottie, yes, if I got to know the two rotties better I am sure I would have been able to spot the imminent signs of the dogs getting a little wound up. Its just not as apparent to the untrained eye. Perhaps the same can be said of RRs, the breeder/owners tune into their dogs and spot the signs earlier that those who do not know the breed.

 

I find it amazing that some people dont pick up on the body language of their dogs(in general- not breed specific), they will often say 'oh look hes wagging his tail' when in fact he is flying his tail and his front legs have gone stiff. Perhaps it comes with living with dogs for a length of time you learn to tune into them

[Kathyw]

As I have already explained to snow, I did forget that mods can post their opinions in here as ordinary members but the fact that their 'title' is displayed can be intimidating to fairly new members. And let's be honest can be a green light for some people to 'jump' on someone.

The only post I thought valid was Di's as she was replying to someone who was high handed with her

Ordinary members are never aware (thankfully in m ost cases) of what may or may not be going on behind the scenes and I for one do not think of such things, I am on a forum and only thinking about what I am actually reading, not a member of mi5.

Let's face it if we all thought about and in a few cases worried about what was going on behind the scenes as it were, very few would post.

 

I do not go in training and behaviour (once bitten twice shy) so did not see the thread I was just going by what I saw on here as many other members may do.

 

I also do not agree with blanketing breeds with certain genetic traits - yet it happens in every other way and seems to be acceptable except when 'aggression' is mentioned as a trait.

ie this breed are known for this or that, this breed will always do this or that, seen those types of statements made many times.

Yes I realise the danger and unfairness when a breed is labelled aggressive but if one thing is not genetic to any breed then surely it follows that nothing is genetic to any breed or does it only apply when it is a nice trait?

Yes dogs with nice traits would be bred to enhance the nice traits and the breed gets a good name but a trait is a trait whether good or bad.

To me a dog is a dog is a dog etc.

 

Some will say 'this' breed have a strong prey drive because genetically they were programmed to be that way, will nurture stop that in most cases?

A couple off the top of my head.

GSD's - strong protective traits - loyal etc - 99% of dogs are protective/loyal to their owner even if that owner abuses them.

Sighthounds - strong prey drive - they could kill your cat/rabbit - many hounds live alongside cats/rabbits happily.

Golden Retrievers - Brilliant with children - 90% of dog bites recorded in canadian hospitals on children were from GR's.

The list is endless.

So what's the difference? If prey driven etc are genetic traits then why not aggression?

[jacqui d]

No evidence has been put forward that RR's are known for aggression Kathy

 

 

Ridgebacks are loyal and intelligent. They are, however, aloof to strangers. This is not to be confused with aggression: A Ridgeback of proper temperament will be more inclined to ignore a stranger than to challenge him. This breed requires positive, reward-based training, good socialization and consistency. Ridgebacks are strong-willed, intelligent, and many seem to have a penchant for mischief, though lovingly. Although they can withstand wide temperature variations due to their African heritage, they are pack animals and should be with their human families inside. They were traditionally hunters, guardians and companions.

 

Despite their athletic, sometimes imposing exterior, the Ridgeback has a sensitive side. Excessively harsh training methods that might be tolerated by a sporting or working dog will likely backfire on a Ridgeback. The Ridgeback accepts correction as long as it is fair and justified, and as long as it comes from someone he knows and trusts. Francis R. Barnes, who wrote the first standard in 1922, acknowledged that "rough treatment ... should never be administered to these dogs, especially when they are young. They go to pieces with handling of that kind."

[ReikiAnge]

As I have already explained to snow, I did forget that mods can post their opinions in here as ordinary members but the fact that their 'title' is displayed can be intimidating to fairly new members. And let's be honest can be a green light for some people to 'jump' on someone.

The only post I thought valid was Di's as she was replying to someone who was high handed with her

 

Kathy, I asked the OP (again) to provide a link to confirm her claimed "fact" that RRs are genetically more aggressive than other breeds. I'm sorry you don't feel that was a valid post, but I have asked several times now and I do feel it was a valid question

[Kathyw]

I didn't say they were known for aggression - that was someone else

 

'Ridgebacks are loyal and intelligent. They are, however, aloof to strangers. This is not to be confused with aggression: A Ridgeback of proper temperament will be more inclined to ignore a stranger than to challenge him. This breed requires positive, reward-based training, good socialization and consistency. Ridgebacks are strong-willed, intelligent, and many seem to have a penchant for mischief, though lovingly. Although they can withstand wide temperature variations due to their African heritage, they are pack animals and should be with their human families inside. They were traditionally hunters, guardians and companions.

 

Despite their athletic, sometimes imposing exterior, the Ridgeback has a sensitive side. Excessively harsh training methods that might be tolerated by a sporting or working dog will likely backfire on a Ridgeback. The Ridgeback accepts correction as long as it is fair and justified, and as long as it comes from someone he knows and trusts. Francis R. Barnes, who wrote the first standard in 1922, acknowledged that "rough treatment ... should never be administered to these dogs, especially when they are young. They go to pieces with handling of that kind."

 

I can think of many breeds/crossbreeds and mongrels that most of the above would apply to.

 

Again why is it that these 'traits whatever' are known to be in this breed yet 'aggression as a trait is not known in any breed?

And I am not talking about RR's here - the above is about any breed/dog.

[Helly]

kathy, the reason i got mildly narked with this person was not just her high handed attitude towards me. bloody hell im a scouser, we have as many sweeping statments made against us as pit bulls do It was the fact that we had somone making such ridiculous sweeping statments about a breed they obviously know little about, thus resorting to copying some woefull genetic theory from god knows where.

 

Dont forget in the early days of DNB i was stood in court with people whos dogs lives were on the line. Dogs who looked a bit type or had the wrong colour nose and all because some muppet in merseyside decided that all bull breeds with a red nose or a certain build were genetically dangerous. So yes, that makes me passionate about this kind of thread because it is ill informed and as yet, still not backed up with any real proof of what the OP is claiming

 

I find the type of post that summerone has posted to be dangerous, misinformed and ignorant. Being born in merseyside makes me no more genetically likely to rob someone than being born with a ridge down its back makes a dog inherantly agressive (although im sure my tendancies to pinch peoples dvd recorders will commented on by some southern shandy drinking softy - oops is that genetic southern stereotyping at its best )

[Sherlock Bones]

And let's be honest can be a green light for some people to 'jump' on someone.

 

I take huge offense from that, I'm afraid. Not one of our hosts uses their title to 'jump' on anyone.

[jacqui d]

All dogs have the ability to show aggression Kathy, as do all humans, but no one species is known specifically for aggression so why say (with no evidence) that one breed is?

 

why is it that these 'traits whatever' are known to be in this breed yet 'aggression as a trait is not known in any breed?

 

I assume because no breed has yet to have every pup born aggressive and continue to be so through every generation.

 

The OP made a statement as if there were facts to support what she had written, members asked for those facts to be put forward, as yet, she has chosen to not give those "facts".

[Kathyw]

Di you alone on here scare the pants off me simply because you are a scouser and I have heard the rumours about the bodies:laugh:

I have a friend who is a scouser and if anyone shouts at her she jumps.

 

Seriously I do understand your anger and agree as I have said that to label a breed is wrong but I was asking why if 'aggression' cannot be a genetic trait then how come many other breeds have so called genetic traits?

 

All dogs were hunters originaly, they would have died out if they had not been. Man saw this and used them to help him get his food, man would have died out without their help imo.

We domesticated them and saw the loyalty and the protection they could give us.

This applies to 99% of dogs regardless of their breed/cross/whatever.

I am not well informed (nor do I want to be) on training of working dogs and whether or not they can withstand harsh treatment and reamin unscathed but I do know, tis trotted out constanly, that harsh treatment doesn't sit well with any dog.

Ill treatment/harsh training whatever will cause the dog to suffer and sooner or later the repercussions will be felt.

 

To give certain breeds 'traits that are nice' instead of saying that all dogs, if treated fairly and kindly will react well is wrong imo.

 

To me this is akin to saying that all English people are animal lovers, all Scottish people are tight, all Irish people are thick etc etc.

Dogs are individuals the same as people and I really cannot go along with the idea that nice traits are genetic to a certain breed yet aggression cannot be genetic.