The following are the arguments I have extracted from a volume of posts last year regarding whether LGDs should be protection trained and tested. This summary follows the development of the thread on this list. Comments welcome.
The underlying principle is that all breeds can be taught protection training/bitework and LGDs are NOT an exception to this rule. Successful training of an individual depends on the dog's individual drives as well as the age training begins. Depending on the individual's drives and the age of training, some dogs will view protection work as strictly a sport, others will view it more seriously. Obedience training of the protection dog is a prerequisite and control of the dog is paramount. Some groups use the performance of dogs in the protection training arena as a breeding criteria. Moreover, proponents argue that owners can have fun doing this activity with their dog.
Definitions: "Sharp" refers to displays of outward aggression. A fearful dog may be sharp. "Hardness" refers to a dog's fearlessness and alpha attitude. It was stated that LGDs should be hard, not soft nor sharp.
Regarding whether an LGD can be taught the "out", those in favor of protection training feel that all dogs can be taught the "out" command. Lack of successful training of LGDs is due to the few individuals being worked, and the fact that those individuals are worked infrequently. Trainers in the U.S. lack experience with regard to protection training LGDs. This type of training requires the right techniques and persistence. Using the right techniques, LGDs can be learn to obey. Teaching the dog obedience in a situation of stress or agitation makes for a MORE reliably obedient dog as compared to home obedience where the owner does not practice controlling the dog in full defense mode.
Because so few LGD owners have flocks, the protection training program offers an alternative venue for temperament testing the dog. Advocates of protection training are concerned that breeding today results in the "dumbing" of the breeds, that is, the selection for softer/weaker dogs that are easier to live with and sell but no longer have working value.
Advocates feel that they "know" the protection trained dog will come through for them, because they have put the dog through a simulation via the training. Advocates also point out that it isn't necessary to train a dog in bitework to utilize the protection program for the benefit of the breeds. Minimally, LGDs should be subjected to a temperament/suitability test to determine if the dog has courage (standing up) and nerve (not backing down). One test, or even a series of tests, will not change the temperament of the dog but will yield valuable evidence as to its working ability. You cannot really know what your dog will do unless it is actually put to a "test" or simulation because many dogs which initially appear protective will fold in extreme situations.
Advocates of protection training want the freedom to choose the activities they participate in with their dogs. They emphasize that protection training builds confidence in the dog, is a stress reliever and a good way for owner and dog to bond.
The strength of an LGD lies in its ability to think for itself and exercise self-control. Strict obedience over an LGD is difficult to attain. It is difficult to trigger the dog's aggression unless the dog TRULY perceives the threat as REAL. It is difficult to teach an LGD to "out" on command which lends itself to partially trained dogs and dangerous situations. Such training has been accomplished but it is rare. Many LGD owners who have tried to do this training have been unsuccessful/dissatisfied with the results and, speaking from their experiences, caution AGAINST such training. Even if all dogs can be taught to "out", LGDs have demonstrated that they may not always obey with 100% reliability - dangerous!
Acting on their own initiative, LGDs will not normally bite a person or animal. Instead the independent LGD is far more likely to chase off or knock down and hold, rather than maul. While it is possible to get an LGD to do bite work, the trainer must cause real hurt to the dog to get it to react. As a result this training produces a dog which will mistrust people - again a dangerous animal.
The LGD response is to drive off using only NECESSARY force. Attack training pushes the dog's response to the maximum level - biting. So therefore, why do it? Our LGD breeds are UNIQUE because of their "only necessary force response" and independent good judgment in exercising same.
It is unnecessary to train an LGD in "protection" because the protective instincts exist naturally in most wellbred dogs, honed over hundreds of years of selection. Correct breed temperament and protective instinct is BEST done by studying and evaluating a dog in a variety of situations NOT by administering a specific test. Study of the dog's behavior will provide SUFFICIENT RELIABLE information as to whether that dog has correct temperament and should therefore be used for breeding. It is BEST to assess the dog over time in naturally occurring circumstances. Don't rely on a test as a shortcut to gain long term data.
In a military or police type situation, where a specific, refined, predetermined type of behavior is desired which is geared to a specific and limited set of circumstances, protection testing IS necessary. However, the same necessity does NOT exist to select for dogs effective as general protection and HOME guardians.
Protection "testing" places the dog in a contrived situation. Protection testing FAILS to evaluate a dog's ABILITY TO DISCRIMINATE between true threat and benign interference which is a trademark of the LGD breeds. To convert an independent thinker to a "trained act on command per human direction machine" SACRIFICES the INNATE intelligence and behavior of the LGD breeds.
Other dog breeds are far more suited for protection training and those breeds should be chosen by people with an interest in this area.
The original purpose of the LGDs breed should be considered when deciding which activity to pursue while simultaneously keeping in mind that the old world breeders were not sacrosanct as their breed selection was motivated by their own particular needs and circumstances.
What may appear to be the "dumbing" of a breed, that is, the selection of softer/weaker dogs that are easier to breed and sell, may really be a present GREATER UNDERSTANDING of the LGD breeds and greater SOCIALIZATION and TRAINING to our western societal norms. Also, what appears at first blush to be "dumbing" of the breeds, may in fact be a selection for dogs with GREATER SELF CONTROL, less outward aggressive, which however, RETAIN MAXIMUM PROTECTIVENESS in REAL threatening situations. An easy to live with USEFUL WORKING COMPANION. Breeding a dog which is suited to the social standards of western culture is analogous to breed originators breeding dogs to suit their own needs and purposes.
To advise LGD owners to attack train and test may be inappropriate and socially IRRESPONSIBLE because owners generally lack sufficient knowledge and effort to control their dogs. Also, owners may lack good judgment and may misuse their attack trained dogs. Since the RISKS of attack training LGDs OUTWEIGHS the BENEFITS, attack training LGDs should be discouraged.
(c)1996-97 Stacey Kubyn