Rhodesian Ridgebacks - An Aggressive Breed ?

[Rachelpirate]

Agression is different from other traits, because IMO a dog generally only shows aggression as a response to fear/ a threat of some kind in most cases. Either that or it is a behaviour problem, probably caused by trauma of some kind, or a health problem.

 

Eg - My Connie (Collie/Golden cross) is aggressive towards dogs because she was not socialised by her first owners as a pup, and because she was subsequently attacked by the same dog several times. I can pinpoint that period when this collie kept going for her as the time she started showing aggression to dogs. Now if she had had a different upbringing I'm sure she wouldn't have had these problems. She was definately not born with innate aggression.

 

I don't beleive any dog can be born aggressive, although their experiences in life can make them that way. They might inherit a nervous or excitable disposition, but for that to turn into aggression there has to be some environmental conditioning. Aggression is more of a response to situations than a personality trait.

 

Dunno if any of that made any sense at all.

 

Oh, and I agree with Kathyw about the nice traits too - I don't think a Lab for example will love kids from the moment it is born. If it is socialised and grows into a confident and well adjusted dog it will, but if it has bad experiences of kids it will be just as bad with them as any "aggressive breed" is supposed to be.

Edited May 28, 2008 by Rachelpirate

[cycas]

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.

 

I believe that the answer to your question lies in the relatively dangerous physical size and shape of dogs, and their long history of domesticity. For thousands of years, people have been killing off any dog that showed aggression towards people. OK, it still happens, but it's pretty rare and usually coupled with the dog being abused or ill. Because most large dogs could easily kill an unarmed human, on the whole, dogs have been very specifically selected for not being aggressive to people.

 

There are some dogs that, I am told, have an in-built tendency to aggression towards other dogs. Pit bulls, I am told by those that own them, can be picky about their dog companions and a typical example might not do well in a group situation with dogs they don't know well that use different body language. This makes some sense given the history of their breed. Sighthounds are often 'breedist' and if not properly socialised, may not identify much smaller dogs as being dogs, but see them as prey. Both types of dog can do perfectly well with other dogs or animals, but their owners need an awareness of where the challenges might lie, just as, say, labrador owners may have to be aware that their dogs might want to eat things that most dogs would not see as food items.

 

It's really difficult to imagine a scenario where a dog would be bred for aggression towards human beings. I can't think of any breed that would apply to. Even dogs used for guarding need to be familiar with their own group of people and willing to do what they say. There is some historical evidence that dogs have been used as attack dogs in war, that would probably be the closest, but again, if you were going into battle with sword, shield, and dog, I think you'd want to be damn sure the dog was only going to bite the people you told it to.

 

Even assuming that you had a ridgeback of original stock that really would tackle a lion, I cannot see why a guardian dog bred for protecting people and their herds would display generalised, unqualified aggression towards people. That makes no sense to me. It seems to me that a stock guardian animal that attacks animals and people indiscriminately would be no good at its job.

[Rachelpirate]

Good point.

[redditchlady]

My opinion is that any breed of dog is capable of agression.

 

I know several people with RRs and they are one of the most docile dogs in the world. It does pose a question to me as to why the OP seems to have it in for the breed.

 

It gets my goat that so many have worked their backsides off with DNB then someone comes along making *sweeping* statements like that.

 

 

*apologies*, but that is how it looks to me.

 

 

Kazz xx

[Rachelpirate]

I do think that with most ex fighting breeds nowadays, such as Staffies etc, even the picky-ness around dogs has pretty much been bred out. I know it's only an example, but Roxy has got to be one of the most sensible dogs around other dogs I've ever known. She's not pushy, she'll get on with anyone and if the other dog is being rude she'll give them a telling off (she hobbles after them for a few feet barking) but will never go further than that. Even when she got attacked and this much larger dog had her whole back leg and stomach in his mouth, all she did was swear at him, and the moment he stopped she was willing to make friends again.

 

Also, all the best "stooge dogs" (ones that we have used to socialise aggressive or very rude/pushy dogs at work) we've had have been male bull breeds. They've been dogs that are so confident in themselves that even if a dog is going ballistic at them they won't react.

Edited May 28, 2008 by Rachelpirate

[jacqui d]

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.

 

Im no expert (on anything) but would guess that genetically an individual (be it any species) could be aggressive due to "breeding", BUT would assume that trait could be bred out over a number of generations.

 

As you say, i would assume all dogs would have been aggressive to man initially, through fear of the unknown, but as man and dog bonded and worked together over the generations, so the fear would diminish and with it the aggression which takes us back to the OPs original point of saying that RR's are an aggressive breed, this may have been true (of all dogs) several centuries ago, but not now

 

All breeds have known traits of their breeds and individual traits the same way humans do, for dog owners, imo, its understanding those traits and your own individual dog that allows you to work/live together in harmony.

 

 

PS

My Dad is Irish and in no way "thick" but i do wonder about my Irish mum sometimes

[Kathyw]

Thank you Rachel, cheque is in the post.

 

I actually believe that some people iand animals nherit bad genetics. After all if we inherit other genetics, why not our nature?

I know someone who was adopted. The biological father of this child was a waste of space. never worked, was a con man and had no scruples whatsoever (his mother was the similar, did work but also conned) the other members of the family were hard working, decent people.

Now the child was adopted by a middle class family. The child was brought up with love. kindness and boundaries (this from the child's own mouth).

The child had two siblings also adopted.

The child, now a man, is a mirror imagine of his father. Never works unless there is a con to be worked so to speak. Can lie while looking so sincere and I wouldn't trust him one iota.

His siblings are both hard working, professional people.

All three were told they were adopted and special as soon as they were able to understand.

Now all three traced their biological parents. The other two's parents were 'decent' people who were too young to raise a child as was the parents of the first child.

All three would tell you there were treated the same, loved and cared for yet one went 'wrong', coincidence that his 'line' was faulty?

I think not, genetics play a big part in living beings make-up.

Yes nuture counts for much but so does nature.

And I am not saying rr's are aggressive, I have only known a few of them and they were nice dogs.

[Rachelpirate]

Not to mention that Ridgebacks I beleive hunted in groups when they were used for their original purpose. In order to hunt effectively in a pack, the dogs would surely have to have decent communication skills with the other dogs? No point working in a group if nobody has a clue what anyone else is doing.

[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

 

I asked the OP for a link to back up her claim that RRs are more genetically aggressive than other breeds. I don't see how that is not a valid question on this thread Kathy. I feel rather upset by some of the comments you have made.

[Kathyw]

Ange I was not saying I didn't think others made valid points. Perhaps I should have quoted the posts I was referring to to make things clear.

I was talking about some of the what I saw as nastiness of some of the posters.

 

I apologise for any upset I caused you, it was certainly not intended.

[cycas]

I actually believe that some people iand animals nherit bad genetics. After all if we inherit other genetics, why not our nature?

 

Absolutely, but saying that a dog inherits certain temperament features from its parents is a world away from saying that an entire breed has a tendency to 'aggression'.

 

It's like the difference between you saying that the person you knew who was adopted was a 'natural' waster, and saying that all the people who came from the same town and shared a broad genetic inheritance with him were exactly the same and all of them were 'wasters' too. Even in a family all with the same parents, you can get a lot of variation in temperament and behaviour, once you get out to the cousins and the half-uncles, there isn't likely to be much correlation at all.

 

And in any case, 'aggression' is such a broad term, it's almost meaningless. Aggression to whom? To his owner? To his owners family? to visitors to the house? To strangers on the street? to other dogs? To terriers? To small white terriers?

[laura g]

thread and a half this!

 

bit confused if the op has made her openeing statement now or not?! are we set to go yet?!

 

one thing I will say. when someone relatively new comes on and makes such controversial / sweeping comments, you cant help but check out what else they say. well, i cant anyway. its cold and i've nothing better to do while i'm drinking me coffee!!

 

she's a one woman fan club for a trainer thats being promoted over numerous threads. and has worked wonders with her guys. that trainer herself appears to claim that "There is no such thing as an ‘aggressive’ dog".

 

The point being: A number of contradictions going on here. If I was the suspicious type I'd be looking for the agenda.

[cheryl33]

We could start threads on every breed couldnt we?

 

Westies - a small yappy breed?

Beagles - an intelligent but naughty breed

[Lainey]

I found this.....

 

"They were used to track big game (hence the name "Lion Dog") and were trained to trap the prey without attacking, and to alert their masters by barking".

I got it from here........

 

http://www.kennel-corner.co.uk/breed-rhode...-ridgeback.html

 

which makes them sound to me, like they were in the same class as any other breed used for it's tracking ability only

 

I have only ever met 2 RR's and they were both delightful

[Rachelpirate]

Exactly, so if we were talking about their genetic predisposition due to what they were bred for (as the OP is doing) then that would suggest they are less likely to bite.

 

Course I think any breed of dog is capable of biting if put in certain situations.