Nihon Ken and Protectiveness
Just curious...In one thread I read something regarding a pup being more protective of one member of the household versus another and a response by another member of the forum asked if it might have something to do with size of the family member. Now, I may have understood it wrong, but it made me think about it, and I wanted to pose the following question...
Do you feel your Nihon Ken are more protective of some family members based on: 1) perceived weakness, 2) loyalty and bond, 3) training, 4) any other reason?
I suppose this could actually be any dog and protectiveness really...and, I may be way off, but would appreciate comments either way!
Do you feel your Nihon Ken are more protective of some family members based on: 1) perceived weakness, 2) loyalty and bond, 3) training, 4) any other reason?
I suppose this could actually be any dog and protectiveness really...and, I may be way off, but would appreciate comments either way!
Comments
I think Koda protects us/guards us from strangers (rudely BTW lol) because we take care of him and he loves us for it.
However, I do think AA are more prone to protect their owners. I have a good friend with a male AA, she worked in a shop and the owner allowed her to bring the dog with her at work. One day a customer got really angry and wanted to hit her. The dog jumped on him and went for his neck. No damage was done, it was clearly inhibited bite and the customer had just a few scratches. Another friend with a male AA has told me that her dog is very protective at night. Noone should approach them when it's dark. I don't think it's a matter of weakness on the part of the humans, they are both well in control of their dogs and training was done to erase or minimise aggression.
I don't think it's loyalty or bond either and I have another example for this. We were at a dog show and a friend of mine left his JA female with us (we were a group of JA owners) for a couple of minutes. A guy came up to one of my friends and grabbed him by the collar and the JA immediately reacted, which is totally out of character for her. Although at the beginning we all thought this guy had peaceful intentions the JA immediately recognized aggressive intentions and signalled danger.
To my mind, the tendency to protect is so engrained with all nihon ken and their instincts are incredibly powerfull that once danger appears this overrules everything. However, if it happens on a daily basis it should be reason for concern. These were all isolated events. The rest of the time the dogs are well socialized and tend to ignore strangers and imagine they don't even exist if they approach them in any way.
I've recently been looking at protection behavior through the lens of guarding. I don't see a lot of protection behavior from my dogs so it's tough for me to tell. But, my theory is that protecting a human is an act of resource guarding. I live with a roommate and both of my dogs are very close with him. Hands down, they prefer me though. Both my roommate and I are in the same graduate program and we both go through periods of intense stress. On occasion, when my roommate is really stressed my dogs will try to keep him away from me. He handles stress differently than I do (big displays of frustration with arm flailing and a raised voice). When he's in one of those modes, my dogs will sit by me and stare him down or curl a lip when he approaches. I redirect them because I don't want them to guard me. On the other hand, when I'm in one of my stress fits (which usually includes pacing, heavy calming breathing, and grunting...I know, I'm weird) my dogs stay away from both of us.
So, my observations/conclusions are these:
1) My dogs are MY dogs, not my roommate's dogs.
2) I am a valuable resource to them since I provide food, walks, training, and affection---my roommate provides affection and occasionally some minor training.
3) The behaviors my dogs exhibit when my roommate is stressed are very similar to the behaviors they exhibit when guarding a toy from each other.
4) Protection, therefore, is a form of resource guarding.
Logically speaking it's not a sound inference to arrive at (4). That's why it's still just a theory of mine. Just thought I'd throw it out there for discussion.
To me, IMHO, protectiveness (of family, property, etc...) can be broken down into 2 different ingredients:
1) Resource Guarding
Dogs guard things they value, and they value items more or less based on the context of the current situation. The more good stuff a dog gets from an item will indicate how high they value the items, and its subjective, some dogs really love balls, others prefer fuzzy things, others value companionship and so each dog will guard resources per their own personal value system.
Duh, right? We have all read about resource guarding. But wait, this is how under standing the way resource guarding works will help to answer your questions...
Dogs value children higher than adults because kids are more fun and more likely to give them things they like (like food) same generally applies to the elderly. Woman have a higher pitched voice and tend to speak faster than men, dog really dig this (for whatever reason), so they tend to value the companionship of women higher than the companionship of men (again, generally speaking). So, if you were to chart out this value system it would look something like children > elderly > women > men... which interestingly orders the resources from most-vulnerable to least (again, I'm generally speaking... I know a few women who could kick my butt *Jessica*, so, obviously, women are not always more vulnerable than men). This also applies to sick people, sick people usually want more companionship, dogs have been selected for +10k years to be human companions - so they have been selected to value companionship of humans.
Dogs guard their yard and homes (aka "territory" or "den") because its is a very valuable resource, it holds all the items that gives them good stuff. This is probably why a dog will guard their property much faster than they will guard their people - think of all the dogs you know that bark at strangers passing their home but wouldn't do that on the street when a strangers passes. These dogs are showing that they understand the value of their property (it contains all of the dog's good stuff).
So, to sum it all up, it may appear that dogs have a natural instinct to guard the more vulnerable humans and your home but really, they are just guarding these resources at levels based on their personal value system.
2) Defensiveness (the "fight" in "fight or flight")
In dogs defensiveness, combined with a drive to fight, dictates the threshold a dog must be pushed passed to show "aggression" (guarding, fighting, biting, etc...). A breed that is said to guard x or y (or just in general), will have a higher-than-average amount defensiveness (you can bet money on it). Defensiveness can yield 2 different behaviors: fight or flight. In dogs that "guard", most likely, they have been selected for (or come from a breed that has been selected for) a higher-than-average "drive to fight" - meaning "flight" has been phased-out of their breed. A dog like a CO, for example, (when compared to other breeds) has a very low defensive threshold and a very high "drive to fight" (maybe this could be called "reactiveness").
----
When I started in dogs I was very moved by the breed descriptions that paint specif breeds as having some instinctual ability to preform a task. Like being "instinctively protective of children" or "naturally aggressive toward big cats", etc, etc...
As I have become more experienced in dogs, and experienced living with breeds that are very over-hyped, I have found that none of them stand up to the fantasies painted in the breed descriptions.
When reading a breed description, one should keep in mind that the descriptions are often written by breed enthusiasts who are very passionate about the breed and its history. Whether they are moved by the breed's description because of its described "toughness" or for its "intelligence" or its "judgment", the truth is, as I have experienced it, dogs do not institutionally "know" anything when it comes to working and/or human environment. The only thing dogs institutionally "know" is to value things that give them something they need.
Dogs come pre-programmed with certain FAPs and a drive to survive (hunt, flight, fight, breed), all of these over-hyped "instincts" we read about are nothing more than behaviors manifested by these pre-programed FAPs and their drive to survive.
----
In conclusion, to sum up Brad's second part of the argument: if there are no specific traits for fight/flight in a breed, then it means it all boils down to the individual and the environment. If he is brought up in a loving environment with people providing food, water, love, walks, playtime etc, he will grow up with a higher desire to protect them. The dog makes an association between his wellbeing and people. People = resources
However, if we don't make a difference between humans and other resources, how can you explain the existence of shepherd dogs? There is no obvious correlation between sheep and a dog's wellbeing for example but somehow dogs protect them from wild animals. And I am not talking about the situation when a person is with them. Just when the dogs are alone with the sheep. Is this behaviour learnt or acquired through experience?
How about this? We all know dogs can perceive changes in our chemical composition (see for example dogs trained to announce epilectic seizures). What if dogs can 'read' our body when we are scared or upset or whatever and respond in agreement to this assessment by entering into defense mode?
My childhood dog (Fred) would put herself between even non-family children and cars- I'll file that under "protection", guarding. Are the children a resource to her? The incident I am thinking of involved the boys across the street, who didnt not feed or play with her, were not bonded to her (it was the olden days and Fred just wandered the neighborhood all day and did not have lots of owner-bonding like we do today) but were very spacey about getting out of the road. Their mother was always at them about cars ("Hel-LOoo?") it's a little rural neighborhood, and we dont get a lot of cars. Did Fred know these boys were clueless/weak? Was she just attracted to children by nature? Is it maternal guarding? just thinking...
And what of maternal guarding anyway? I have never had a mother with pups, but they do guard them, despite the mother being the resource provider TO the pups. The pups must be reinforcing for the mother to protect somehow (hormonally it feels good to be near them, maybe? oxytocin high? that must be the resource...), if guarding must have a source of good things worth guarding.
Sage will detect stress and tension (even at ridiculously low levels and great distances- ESP that he can;t ingore
I would observe too that once he goes hind-brain he isn't thinking (at all)/aware of any guarded person/item/territory. I'd say he is reactive, but not protective. He'd do this anywhere: with a fox, in a box, with a mouse, in a house, in the rain, on a train. (he does not like green eggs and ham) He's not a normal dog though, so probably a bad example.
I'd call Reilly primarily protective OF, less reactive TO. (subjective/objective) Especially with people in the house- left to her own devices, she controls visitor movement, she intimidates with stance and she attempts to enforce order on rowdy children (maybe she DOES have some german shepherd in her...). Fortunately she is obedient to me and we have established communication via training and I can relieve her of these duties easily. Because her behavior protects something (the house) against something (certain people entering it and moving too freely) it seems more like guarding/protective to me. She also appears to be in her front brain when she does it- she is responsive and proactively choosing her actions. Brads #1
hmm
...I've just noticed that my Shikoku tend to be territorial within my home property, my truck and in their crates.
They will sound the alarm if an unknown person, threatening animal or threatening object is tresspassing. They are definitely much more "leery" at night of both the living and non-living.
Even Kotomi will give her "big tough dog bark" (she really sounds like a BIG dog, lol). Generally speaking, my Nihon Ken aren't really "protecting" or "guarding" anything. They will become reactive if they feel that this stranger (human or other animal species) is threatening. They react the same exact way if an object "acts" strangely.
Becoming reactive = hackling of fur on withers, deep, loud barking and growling.
My Shikoku have never exhibited any behavior that would lead to "protection" of me, however...I do feel safer when I have Shoushuu with me (if I left the Malinois at home)...if push came to shove...I know what "buttons" to press to throw Shoushuu into "Samurai mode", lol. He's too "stupid" he doesn't know what to do with his aggression so I try not to tap into it but he's quite capable of it and it's fairly easy to do so
In conclusion, my Nihon Ken are alarmed when unfamilar (scents of) people, animals and objects tresspass on the property. However, they only become "reactive" if the person or other animal or object appears/feels threatening or seems "out of place/odd". They've never exhibited any "protectiveness" behavior towards myself or other people.
GREAT points/thoughts from everyone!
----
Irina - I had to give your point on LGD a little thought, tho it could be wrong, I came to this...
You wrote:
However, if we don't make a difference between humans and other resources, how can you explain the existence of shepherd dogs? There is no obvious correlation between sheep and a dog's wellbeing for example but somehow dogs protect them from wild animals. And I am not talking about the situation when a person is with them. Just when the dogs are alone with the sheep. Is this behaviour learnt or acquired through experience?
>> In a situation where LGD are left with livestock and not socialized with other animals/humans the LGD "bonds" with the livestock as if they are a members of the livestock, in other words, the livestock becomes the LGD's family. Dogs are social animals, and therefore they value companionship, and so they "guard" their livestock because: livestock = companionship = resource = value. A dog's need to be social is a direct effect of their drive to survive: numbers = safety. The dogs will protect the territory around the livestock because it contains all of their resources in the same way they guard their den or owner's house.
In the case of LGD, this all works really nicely, because LGD, in general, are very defensive and have a very low fight threshold. The high level of defensiveness means that they react to any change in environment (the scent of a predator, sound of a car) and their low fight threshold (and high flight threshold) means they will move to engage the threat if needed (ie: "protecting" their resources). In LGD it all comes together to make a great fix for a Shepard's problem.
When the LGD guard they get a rush of adrenaline, which reinforces the act of "guarding", and so they are more apt to guard again (because adrenaline is addictive). In other words, guarding is self-reinforcing for the LGD (in the same way fighting is self-reinforcing to some dogs - called "gameness").
Your wrote:
How about this? We all know dogs can perceive changes in our chemical composition (see for example dogs trained to announce epilectic seizures). What if dogs can 'read' our body when we are scared or upset or whatever and respond in agreement to this assessment by entering into defense mode?
>> Totally, this must play a part - but I would argue that it is learned, and I would also argue that it is stress dogs react to and nothing more. Perhaps they can "smell" stress (as Chrys pointed out too), and if the "smell of stress" leads a dog have a negative experience then they associate the "smell of stress" with negative things. Also, in a defensive dog, the "smell of stress" may just be noted as a change in environment, and therefore may yield a reaction (this is assuming the dogs has no negative association with the "smell of stress").
Lets take the "smell of stress" a step further...
Maybe stress is a factor in why dogs may tend to guard children more, or why they build positive associations with children: children tend to be less-stressed than adults and therefore do not have the "smell of stress", which may often be associated with negativity.
----
Chrystal - Fred is an interesting example, and I can only make a wild guess/leap to steer it back to my (and Dave's) post...
You wrote:
My childhood dog (Fred) would put herself between even non-family children and cars- I'll file that under "protection", guarding. Are the children a resource to her? The incident I am thinking of involved the boys across the street, who didnt not feed or play with her, were not bonded to her (it was the olden days and Fred just wandered the neighborhood all day and did not have lots of owner-bonding like we do today) but were very spacey about getting out of the road. ... Did Fred know these boys were clueless/weak? Was she just attracted to children by nature? Is it maternal guarding?
>> We know dogs do not generalize well when learning (tho they over-generalize when fearful) and we also know they like to "gamble" (meaning they will try a behavior most of the time even if it doesn't always yield a positive result). Also dogs will start to generalize wider as they practice a certain behavior under different circumstances. So, couldn't it be that, via lots and lots of positive dealings with you as a child, Fred started to generally think all kids = good stuff and so the value of all kids became high for him and therefore he had a reason to guard the boy across the street from a perceived threat?
You wrote:
And what of maternal guarding anyway?
>> I think a dog's instinct to protect and/or accept a puppy falls under their drive to survive. Reproduction, and its results, must be a factor in all mammals survival instinct Your wrote (about Sage):
I would observe too that once he goes hind-brain he isn't thinking (at all)/aware of any guarded person/item/territory.
>> I think that's that self-reinforcing quality I mentioned above - I think that's a result of adrenaline. I see this in our guardians and higher-drive hunting dogs. They "enjoy" the act and display, it "feels good" to them.
Your point on stress and sage's ability to "sense" it is really interesting. I tend to be more stressed than Jen, and, as you know, dogs tend to love Jen right off the bat, but they have to learn to love me. I think this is because my stress level is higher than Jen's (on average).
----
I remember you noticed a difference in Blue's behavior around Jen after she became pregnant. How does that fit in with your resource guarding explanation? The fetus that hasn't had a chance to become a high value item yet to Blue, and Jen wouldn't have become more of a high value item than she currently is.
There's also what we call in protection sports "presence". In this case, Jen has NO presence and you HAVE presence. In other words, dogs aren't afraid of Jen, but they are afraid of you...I know you already know this but I'm having fun typing (since I have a "natural ability" with cats but I really have to "learn" and pay close attention with dogs - it's quite the accomplishment for me), lol.
-------------------
I'd like to introduce the Threatening vs. Non-threatening catergory!
"People" say that dogs aren't emotional but I beg to differ, I think they are highly emotional or "sensitive" but they're just canine-like and not human-like =p. It would seem that "active-aggression" and "fear-based aggression" are the underliners for pretty much all catergories. Dogs seem pretty simple ("black & white") but humans tend to make them more complex. We ask A LOT of questions but if we pay close attention to (our) dogs...the answers are clearly there!
If I remember correctly, dogs can sense a chemical change in humans! Not all dogs may be this "aware" of it, some (like my dogs) are probably oblivious (know of this chance but not do anything with this "information").
I watched a program, many years ago, about medical labs using dogs (i.e. Labradors and mutts) as cancer detectors. They found these dogs much more effective and accurate on locating cancer areas then machinary. As far as training goes...not sure how they do it, most of these dogs probably are selected for exhibiting the "natural ability" of indicating cancer areas.
Yes, I agree that dogs can sense changes in a human body, but what I was inferring was that Jen's change in condition would be perceived more as a weakness or an abnormality to a dog. If so, the higher level of guarding behavior in Blue stems from a desire to protect a weakened member more than guarding a high value item.
I have a bunch to think about here, but I did pick up on one thing in Chrys' and Corina's posts. The point that Brad made really eloquently and which I also tried to make is that protection is a form of guarding. That is, when a dog protects a human, a yard, a car, etc. they are behaving as if the human, the yard, the car, etc. is a resource and they are guarding it from a perceived threat. This differs fundamentally from reactiveness (at least in my mind). A reactive dog will posture or display toward a perceived threat directed at themselves---a man with a scary beard approaching, a child with flailing arms, etc. A protective dog will make similar postures or displays toward a perceived threat directed at a resource they value---a man put his hands on mommy, that dog is threatening my yard, etc.
So, Chrys, when you described Sage: "Sage will detect stress and tension (even at ridiculously low levels and great distances- ESP that he can;t ingore
Similarly, Corina, when you said: "I've just noticed that my Shikoku tend to be territorial within my home property, my truck and in their crates." you were describing protection (resource guarding) exactly. You went on to say "they only become 'reactive' if the person or other animal or object appears/feels threatening or seems 'out of place/odd'" which reinforces the point. When they perceive a threat to their resource, they react to guard it. The fact that they don't protect you is probably due to the fact that they have not encountered anything they would perceive as a threat to you, but if they do protect their territory I'm sure they would protect you if they perceived a threat.
I totally get your point on LGD and can't find a good argument against it.
I do have some comments about the other points:
I totally agree with ShikokuSpirit (Corina? that's my sister's name also :D ), dogs can feel much more than stress. But it is highly likely that through associations they could learn to react only to specific changes in our bodies (aka mum is stressed, that means that nasty person/thing/animal can do smth that mum doesn't like so must scare away nasty person/thing/animal before mum freaks out).
I am not entirely sure this is a learnt behaviour, however, or a type of association. I haven't done extensive research on it, I can just share some stories with you from my experience. I was showing a JA that was not my own. Just when we were about to enter the ring a dog was startled by something, jumped right in front of us and snarled. I was quite annoyed that the owner was blocking the entrance on purpose and her dog jumping and snarling got me quite pissed especially since we were just about to enter the ring. The JA sensed my mood and entered what I called defensive mode, when the judge approached making high pitched sounds to get its attention the JA barked at him. This was something out of character for the JA and I am pretty sure it was caused by my reaction. I've showed the dog the next day also and absolutely nothing happened.
About what Chrystal wrote:
In general Akita are known for their dislike for children other than their own. I don't know if there is a myth or not but I've heard of a lot of cases with akita displaying intimidating/bordering aggression behaviour towards children that were not member of the family.
Totally off-topic: I am developing a very unhealthy interest in shikoku inu. What can I do to nip it in the bud?
STOP READING THIS FORUM! ;-)
...you're right...
...I noted that they are "territorial"
= (of an animal) characterized by territoriality; defending an area against intruders.
"defending"
= to make or keep safe from danger, attack, or harm.
= to ward off (keep away) or protect (to strike, push).
= guarding.
"guarding"
= to keep safe from harm or danger; protect; watch over.
I guess what I was trying to "get at" was that my dogs were just "defending" themselves from threats...
...but now that I'm actually thinking about it...it kinda seems to fall into the "Resource Guarding" catergory.
If they feel threatened, they will challenge, persue or engage the threat because in my opinion they are "afraid" this intruder will hurt them; do some kind of damage or perhaps take something away. Thus my dogs feel insecure and alarmed. If they feel the intruder is NOT a threat, they will still engage by investigation but they will not challenge because in my opinion they are "confident" that no harm or damage will be done and that perhaps nothing (stealing terms) "of value" will get taken away. Thus my dogs feel secure and at ease.
Maybe one of these days I'll put the Shikoku to the test to get an "idea" of any possible resource guarding and "protection" of me. I still think my dogs are more likely to protect themselves in weird threatening situations (hence Shoushuu's "Samurai mode" via defense). This might be a good way to find out: Temperment Test (TT) but then this test would have to be repeated again with a different handler (someone my dogs don't know). They might just react to the "stimulant" as oppose to "guarding a resource" <--- I'd be curious to see how they would react. Would they react the same? Or would they react differently? The test would be the same but with another handler instead of myself.
----
Ann -
You wrote:
"Brad,
I remember you noticed a difference in Blue's behavior around Jen after she became pregnant. How does that fit in with your resource guarding explanation? The fetus that hasn't had a chance to become a high value item yet to Blue, and Jen wouldn't have become more of a high value item than she currently is."
and...
"Corina,
Yes, I agree that dogs can sense changes in a human body, but what I was inferring was that Jen's change in condition would be perceived more as a weakness or an abnormality to a dog. If so, the higher level of guarding behavior in Blue stems from a desire to protect a weakened member more than guarding a high value item."
>> The three dogs that have reacted differently toward Jen since she has become pregnant is Blue, Luytiy, & Masha - our three most mature guardians, and the most defensive of all our dogs. IMHO, the defensiveness is the key, a good guard dog is very defensive as it makes them hyper-aware of change - Blue, Masha, and Luytiy are not acting different with/toward Jen because she is vulnerable, they are just acting different because she is different (which is a change in their environment). (I don't think I ever wrote that he was being protective of Jen, he was just acting different and 'clingy').
Also, just to be clear, I am not arguing that dogs cannot smell chemical change in humans, I am sure they can, and so they may be "smelling" her pregnancy (hormone change, fetus, more blood)... What I am arguing is that dogs do not instinctively know what these things they "smell" mean - like they do not know Jen is pregnant, or that she has a little person in her, they just "smell" that she is different. Add to Jen's change in smell, a different pattern of behavior (due to not feeling well) and Blue was noticing, to him, a pretty big change.
----
Irina -
You wrote:
"... I was showing a JA that was not my own. Just when we were about to enter the ring a dog was startled by something, jumped right in front of us and snarled. I was quite annoyed that the owner was blocking the entrance on purpose and her dog jumping and snarling got me quite pissed especially since we were just about to enter the ring. The JA sensed my mood and entered what I called defensive mode, when the judge approached making high pitched sounds to get its attention the JA barked at him. This was something out of character for the JA and I am pretty sure it was caused by my reaction. I've showed the dog the next day also and absolutely nothing happened."
>> How do you know for sure the JA's mood was not triggered by the dog snarling? I mean, that would make most dogs act defensiveness. I'm not saying you are wrong, that would be wrong of me to do because I am not an expert and, as I have written a few times, I could be completely wrong here...
But, in a situation like that (where their are 2 potential "ideas" of what could have been the trigger for a behavior) I tend to take stick with the simplest one. So, if it is between A) The dog "sensed" your mood change and became protective of you, or
You wrote:
"In general Akita are known for their dislike for children other than their own. I don't know if there is a myth or not but I've heard of a lot of cases with akita displaying intimidating/bordering aggression behaviour towards children that were not member of the family."
>> I had never heard of that, that seems like a huge liability issue with he breed since kids tend to play with other kids. I know with Mastiffs it is very dangerous to allow them to be free with their (human) child and their child's friends, as they may see the actions from the other child as threatening toward their (human) child, and, therefore, move to "protect" their child. Children are very erratic and volatile in their behavior patterns and dogs can have a hard time predicting their actions. With Mastiffs, their high pain tolerance and amazing patience allows them to be great with their family's children but potential dangerous with other unknown children. Maybe the same applies with Akita?
Our Akita do not like kids, Hilo especially, but I have always assumed this was because a little brat kid through a pool ball at him when he was a pup. :oT
----
Corina -
You wrote:
"There's also what we call in protection sports "presence". In this case, Jen has NO presence and you HAVE presence. In other words, dogs aren't afraid of Jen, but they are afraid of you"
>> Yea, I have heard of that, and been given that as an explanation... My issue is that it requires a logical leap - it assumes dogs have the ability to "sense" or "feel" something. It's like saying the dog "feels" or "senses" fear... Science has never proven (as far as I know) dogs have the ability to sense anything. Science has show that they can smell certain chemical changes or certain illnesses/diseases.
So, if someone said to me: "Brad, perhaps you have a small that dogs do not like and Jen doesn't" or "Brad, maybe Jen smells better to dogs than you" or "Brad, perhaps dogs can smell the chemical reactions in your body that occur when you are stressed, and since Jen is generally less-stressed than you she doesn't have that specific 'brad' smell than makes them feel uncomfortable"... Then, I could potential buy into it... but I just cannot buy in to the "black magic" stuff that's so common in dogs - to me, it boarders on metaphysical type stuff, and I am too logical of a person (its my nature - not saying its correct) to just accept something with little-to-no science to back it up.
Ya know?
----
For example, we humans do not institutionally know (from birth) that a puppy is more vulnerable than an adult dog. We learn it, society and our parents teach it to us, but it is not instinct.
So why would the instinct happen in reverse? Why would a dog institutionally know what a child is?
----
That being said, I don't think it's in the nature of most dogs to actively defend anything. They will give warnings that most social creatures will respect. Most people won't walk into a yard with an upset, barking dog, and most dogs won't bite you even if you do walk into their yard. They're likely to just keep barking at you and getting more upset while avoiding contact with you at the same time. But, some dogs will bite you, which is why most people won't approach a barking, snarling dog. The dog is snarling at you for the same reason you don't approach a snarling dog, and that is to avoid confrontation.
But, each dog has a different fight threshold. I can't really picture any of my dogs biting anyone, except maybe Rakka if she were being physically harmed. Although, I used to have a chow/GSD mix who, while friendly most of the time, did actually bite someone for coming into my parents' yard and approaching my little sister.
Tojo, while typically easy-going and aloof to anyone doing anything, has a very distinct "intruder alert" bark that he uses if someone's doing something unusual or what he considers off. For instance, a stranger approaching the front door, knocking on the door, waiting for me to answer and then coming in will get almost no reaction, even if they are weird-looking, loud, or whatever. What will get a reaction is someone approaching the back of the house, coming in without being invited, coming late at night, or even standing in front of the door without knocking on it. Those are "off" behaviours, and Tojo finds that unsettling. I actually can't believe how fierce Tojo can make himself sound. This is the dog who squeals like a monkey getting a root canal if he gets the leash wrapped around his leg. This fits in with the behaviour of a social creature, because when social creatures understand each other, they are usually fine. If you aren't being "polite", so to speak, or if you are breaking the social rules, they get upset. For Tojo, the proper way for a stranger to approach the house is to come to the front door during the day, knock, and wait for a response. Anything else isn't polite, so they get a warning, letting them know that they're acting inappropriately and that this could lead to conflict.
Rakka likes to follow the kids around when they go outside, especially Isaac. The only time she leaves the property is if she's told to or if she's following Isaac. I don't know how well she protects him, though. I mean, she'd definitely see if something happened to him. Not sure what she'd do about it.
As opposed to my sheepdog, Skella, who will stand between a child and something dangerous, like water or a deep hole, and bark until an adult comes to the rescue.
I am surprised you didn't know about akita's attitude towards other children, most breeders will tell you you should be careful with that. I do want to stress that it doesn't apply to the family's kids. And it doesn't matter if the dog was first and the kid appeared later or the other way around. I have friends that first got the dog and then the child and the dog is madly in love with the kid (not just one case, lots; the friend I was telling you about before - the one with the male AA that attacked when someone wanted to hit his owner- she lives with her family and her mum is a social worker - about a year ago she took in her care two twins, just a couple of weeks old and the dog was amazing - he was about 2 years old at the time; he simply adores them). There is even less to worry about if the kid came first and then the dog. There is one thing you should take into consideration - when the dog didn't grow up with small children they may bump into it and knock it over without meaning any harm. And, of course, no kid should pester a dog, regardless of breed. An akita should love kids, it's normal and its history proves it (being a nanny for the family's kids) and if an akita doesn't love kids it should not be bred to my mind. It's even worse if you are doubling up on this. I don't know why akita seem to be weary of other kids, but your explanation should apply.
PS: I've just tried to google akita children and I was amazed by the results. I found smth particularly annoying - on Akita rescue society of america : It says "Often, Akitas raised with children will tolerate their own children but may not accept the neighborhood kids". I totally disaggree with the idea that Akita will merely tolerate their own children. It's much more than that. I did try to see it from their point of view, dealing mainly with rescue dogs and placing adult dogs with new families. This reinforces my point of view, though, that it takes time for a dog to consider the adoptive family as his family and until that happens he perceives the family's kids as not his own and may tolerate them or try to intimidate them. Which brings me to my personal opinion - that no adult dog should be placed with a family with kids (it's ok if they are in their teens but not younger). And from what I remember reading on this forum there was a family that was having problems with their adopted dog and his behaviour towards their daughter.
However, I may be totally wrong about this and I have one story that tends to contradict my position. One friend of mine was moving the cars from the street into the garage and after closing the gates she discovered a male AA in her yard. She was familiar with the breed due to our stories but never owned one (she is a scottish terrier breeder). We later on discovered that the male was abandoned by his owner, he was 11 years old and came from a reputable AA breeder in my country. As AA tend to have a not so good rep she was very careful about approaching him. It turned out that he is a big cat and loves getting lots of care and attention. The person he clicked with the most was my friend's daughter - about 7 years old. He loves it when she brushes him, feeds him, he listens to her commands etc (all done under careful supervision, of course and the kid was 'trained' how to approach the dog without seeming threatening; she may slip, however, I think that when you grow up around Scots this leaves a mark LOL)
About a dog knowing smth from the moment he is born - I am not sure what to make of it, but Turid Rugaas states that pups start displaying calming signals (yawning) since they are 1 day old and that this is in the dog's genetic 'baggage'. If we can accept that (do you?) than why couldn't we accept that there are other things that are not learned through experience or association? I am just playing devil's advocate here, your arguments make a lot of sense to me but we can learn more by questioning stuff.
For the rest of the world, look for Human Instinct (with Robert Winston) - episode 1 (you can check out all 4 episodes, they're very interesting).
My point, which I'm attempting to bolster Brad's point with, is this: while dogs may yawn on day 1, it doesn't become a calming signal until much later when they begin to learn social skills. Along those lines, dogs can smell things from day 1, but they don't develop associations with those smells until much later in life. Smell, yawning, eye contact, etc. are all tools for dogs. There is little doubt that a healthy dog is born with those tools. But it is through exposure and growth that dogs learn how to use those tools.
Infants don't interact with dogs or give them anything, but dogs are often protective of them. Puppies and infants are more of a collective resource than a personal resource. The group needs to keep producing young to thrive, and the dog relies on the group to thrive. In my experience, dogs do place a special value on infants.
So, that extends to pregnant women as well.
When I was 6 my sister was born. When my sister was about 9 - 11 months old, my mum & I & her were driving down a road when our car broke down. We went to the nearest mechanic. Now, the mechanic had a very large female Rottie. Mum was sitting down holding my sister in her lap, & the mechanic behind his desk talking to her. All of a sudden the Rottie came up to my mother / sister, & put my sister's entire leg in her mouth & started to pull!
Of course, mum freaked out & the mechanic got the dog off of my sister. [ my sister was unscathed, not even a scratch ] The mechanic the apologized & then explained the Rottie was protective of children and especially babies & would often try to [ gently ] take them away to guard them herself.
Don't know why it happened, all I remember was seeing my sister's entire leg in the Rottie's mouth & the dog trying to pull her away LOL But it was clearly not an aggressive act, the dog was calm, came over, & just started pulling, & like I said, my sister was unscathed.
I kind of to this day wonder what that was about. Was the Rottie really trying to protect my sister? No idea, but it was a repeated pattern of behavior as the mechanic said it happens all the time. & the thing the mechanic explained was, when they had children, the Rottie did the same thing to theirs. But, when their children all grew up & moved out of the house, the Rottie started this behavior with other's children --- children she didn't even know.
---
Another story. When I was about 9 or 10, my sis & I lived in Jersey City. The neighbor next door had a Rottie named Eva. Eva was the SWEETEST dog ever. She was about the same age as me, 8 or 9 years old. Well, Eva's owners had a 3 or 4 year old child. & Eva was just the sweetest pup to the baby ever! As the baby grew up, Eva naturally began to protect her.
Eva would also guard me & my sister, who was about 4, almost the same age as the neighbor's kid. Everyday, we all would sit on the stairs of their house, Eva behind us sleeping. When a stranger walked across the sidewalk, Eva would get up, & put herself between us & the stranger.
If one of us strayed too far from the stairs, she'd follow us until we went back to the house. It was definitely clear that Eva liked children. When my mum would come to collect us, if Eva was there, Eva would put herself between us, & growl / etc. [ After Eva became more accustomed to my mother, 2 years later, she no longer perceived her as a "threat" ]
Eva only showed this "guarding" behavior around me, my sister, or the neighbor's child, and it was only when we were alone with Eva. If the neighbors were out on the steps with us, she would just sleep. But whe the neighbors were inside, watching us from the window, Eva would go into "protect" mode.
When the [ adult ] owners would take Eva on walks, any stranger passing could pet her. But, when Eva was with just us kids, she went into a different "mode."
Eva is probably the reason I don't believe in breed-specific laws. [ ie: Rotties are vicious ] Eva was one of the sweetest dogs I've had a chance to grow up with.
Also, interesting of note, Eva had NEVER been socialized with children. She was an older dog by the time the neighbors had a baby, & the neighbors had even been worried there'd be a problem. But, Eva ended up being a blessing to them, their over-protective babysitter.
I don't know why Eva "guarded" us, I don't THINK my sis & I were a resource to her. We would play with her, pet her, but we never were the source of treats or food or anything.
I do wonder how much of it is a natural "instinct." There's many things that we can't explain that go on in this life. For example, the Lioness protecting lost baby gazelle in Africa. I don't think it's too far of a stretch to think a dog might guard children because of a natural drive to do so.
Mind, I don't think ALL dogs will do this. & I think one should still be cautious in the beginning when introducing a new dog to a baby, or vice versa. There are definitely dogs who DON'T tolerate children...these are just my 2 experiences, both with Rottweilers, so maybe it was a breed thing. ~
I'll add this too:
I have never argued that dogs (or people) do not have instinct, I am sure they do (its been proven), and I am sure those instincts are present from day 1 - most of these instincts are in the form of survival behaviors or FAPs. What I am arguing is that dogs are not born pre-wired with a "human model" instinct, in other words they do not have a cache of pre-programmed behaviors for their human models. IMHO, dogs do not come with the ability to "know" anything about humans, they may be drawn to humans, but they do not "know" things about humans (like that children are more vulnerable and therefore need protecting).
What dogs are born with is the ability to learn about humans, and via this learning they can create complex association and linked behavioral patterns that make them appear like they instinctively "know" certain human things (like that children are children - young humans).
----
Heidi - I like your points and I think its one of the better arguments for why dogs may "protect" children, where it bothers me is that A) we are talking about dogs, not wolves, and
----
Again tho, I am starting to stretch to argue my point, and like I said before, I could just be dead-wrong on this. LOL
I'm enjoying the dialog tho, thank you all for joining in and giving your opinions, lets keep it going if you are still interested.
----