# A very interesting article on impulse aggression and Goldens



## Aislinn (Nov 13, 2010)

https://www.scribd.com/doc/14810086...rmally-Aggressive-Dog-by-A-Semyonova#download


An interesting article. Thoughts?


----------



## nolefan (Nov 6, 2009)

How did you find this? I think it's extremely interesting and I have thought this had to be true for over 20 years. I grew up with herding breed dogs and was always amazed at the behaviors they show with herding anything that moves (heel nipping, heading off etc.) even when they haven't had a working dog in the pedigree for generations. When I brought home my first Golden and he was a combo breeding of conformation and field lines and i saw his retrieving and working instincts were every bit as strong even without training, it got me thinking about how it must transfer to all breeds. My idiot neighbor had 2 Dobermans who occasionally got loose and were very threatening. He insisted that they were not aggressive and I insisted that they were bred for protection and they didn't understand the difference between his property line and mine and they were a huge risk to do what they'd been bred to: protect his property from me. It's fascinating to me that people don't have more interest in this.

Thanks for sharing the article.


----------



## Charliethree (Jul 18, 2010)

Fascinating article, it explains what I have felt for a long time, as well.


----------



## solinvictus (Oct 23, 2008)

I think some of the article is over simplified. When talking about the shape "Peremans found a significant difference in the frontal and temporal cortices of these dogs (but not in the subcortical areas) compared to normal dogs." my impression of the study says that with this shape change the dogs cannot act any other way. My understanding is that those people needing to go in the pit when the pitbull is fighting/baiting an animal can go in without fear that the dog will go after them. My understanding is a well bred pitbull will be animal aggressive but not human aggressive. How does that measure up to just the cortices being different than a "normal" dog? 

Form does follow function so when any breeders deviate from the standard they are changing the behavior makeup of the dog. 

I also don't think the study made it clear that when changing the form that in many cases it isn't just one gene that has been changed. Just like hip dysplasia more than one gene works together to cause an inherited trait.

A really good book written in 2005 by Patricia McConnell, "For The Love Of A Dog" goes into some brain function, emotions and hormones for our dogs. It mildly discusses that some things can be changed in the dogs and others cannot. In her book she isn't picking out breeds that could be a problem but individual dogs.

The study has a lot of good solid information but I do believe that the study was done with an agenda against protective/fighting/guarding breeds as it is connected to dogbites. org. The push in this article is to make the claim that breeds such as a husky, german shepherd, rottweiler, pincer etc shouldn't be bred. 

The early breeders selected for behaviors they wanted. The original motor pattern/sequence was instinctive in the dog so they can hunt/kill/consume. Breaking it down it is orient>eye-stalk>chase>grab-bite>kill-bite>dissect>consume. For breeders that wanted a herder aka border collie they selected dogs that had these behaviors more prominent orient>Eye-Stalk>Chase dissect>consume. As they mated dogs with these prominent behaviors they ended up with a dog that looks like a border collie. Form follows function.

In Raymond Coppinger and Lorna Coppinger's book "Dogs A New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior, and Evolution", he states for very best livestock guardian the motor pattern might be ..........................consume.

For a retriever it is Orient> chase>Grab-Bite> consume. 

We can use these instinctive motor sequence to our advantage in training.


----------



## TanyaB (Jan 22, 2016)

The thing that I didn't really see mentioned in this article, although I missed it, is the concept of environment as a causative effect based on breed rather than specific genetic risk. And the gene-environment correlation and gene-environment interaction that this will give rise to. For instance, Staffies are sometimes bred for aggression, but also they are encouraged to be more aggressive in their upbringing, purely based on the reputation they have for being aggressive. This means that there will be a correlation between their genes (those that make them a Staffies, regardless of how many of those genes predispose towards aggression) and their environment. In this case, their genes (for being a staffie) result in a risk environment that predisposes towards aggression, whether or not the genes themselves would have predisposed towards aggression. On the same note, we will assume there are genes for aggression (and they will never find one because it in multigenic and environmental) as well as their risky environment based on their reputation - so now we have an environment that occurs because of both genetic and environmental influences on their behavior which in fact leads to the reputation that further leads to their environment. This leads to an interactive effect. If the dog has a genetic risk but has an amazing environment, good training, no abuse, well socialized since birth, then there is a lower risk for aggression, despite the genetic risk. If the dog is born with a low genetic risk, but has an abusive environment, then the risk of aggression is increased above genetic risk. etc. This can easily fall over into breed differences. My pit-bull may well have had genetic risk, and she was a highly dominant dog, but we trained the dickens out of her - we made her work for everything she every got, and then when our kids came along we had no worries of her attacking them. She was a model dog. Of course, we now have a well bred Golden with hunting lines. I can see has has a high drive. If I don't work that drive, sure he could become a problem, although according to this article, he would only have an approx 1% risk of being aggressive. 

I think this article highly over simplifies the entire genetic / breed risk idea. However, I am coming from this as a researcher in genetic and environmental influences in aggression in humans, so maybe I am over complicating the issue - after all we do not breed humans in the same way as adults - although it would be untrue to claim we humans do not breed based on trait similarities.


----------



## solinvictus (Oct 23, 2008)

Looking at the guarding stock dog if we follow thru on their study every well bred guarding stock dog wouldn't be able to do their job as they would end up consuming the stock. This would be to much of a good thing isn't good anymore. 

And when Tanya writes about them not even considering the environment, I totally agree with her. This is why I suggest those interested in looking at Patricia McConnell's book as it does touch on there are times when the environment/socialization can't fix something that is extreme but it can work between certain perimeters.

I still think the study was done with an agenda in mind.


----------



## jennretz (Jul 24, 2013)

I have no expertise in this field and I did feel this article had an agenda behind it. It had some points that I agreed with, but I grew up with very loving German Shepards. I feel like the environment piece of the equation was downplayed significantly. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Charliethree (Jul 18, 2010)

I look at this article as I do most that I read as 'food for thought'. I absolutely believe that 'environment' is a contributing factor in all behavior in dogs, to what degree, there is much to be learned.


----------

