# not a drives question but close



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

gave up on trying to know the difference between sharp and thin/thick nerves. related to that is this question/observation: 

having two very different dogs and my first shepherd breed i know that my shep has a full awareness of everything in his environment - he only chooses to respond further to certain stimuli but nearly everything is a trigger in the first instance. 

i beleive in contrast theory that a dog learns first what normal is and then reacts to what does not fit that normal picture - that will be dependent on where/how the dog is raised. 

my shep never really sleeps, he will lay completely fatigued after hours of swimming and running for k's off leash but will still trigger at anything/everything anytime. my dogs have never seen the inside of a crate so there is always stimulation.

the settling down period though is variable and proportional to the stimuli

my curr on the other hand sleeps most of the time and nothing or noone on this earth will ever rattle her, an F1-11 (its final service goodbye to the country flight) flew over at tree top level in the bush and she never even flinched, not many animals period will do that. most hounds & mollosers i seen are extremely trusting and people friendly with zero suspicion. it takes a special kind of idiot to get them past that and they switch into pure anger which is different to what a shep breed switch into.

there are a lot more dogs more athletic than shep breeds but will never do bitework, like my curr.

i says bitework is only possible because the shep breeds are fundamentally genetically fear based dogs, all training is to just get them over and through that and how to channel it into something humans find productive.

thats my take on this thus far, appreciatte any comments to straighten this out.

cheers


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I do not really agree Pete. There are a lot of variables, things you dont like to think about too much LOL....like thresholds, territoriality, social aggression...etc. etc. etc.

There are tons of molossers that are territorial and aware of things, and tons that are not really friendly towards strangers, and that have a low threshold for defense. Dogs that are bred that way, and it does not take a special kind of idiot to bring it out, with some you might need to have someone threatening the dog or his master, or his territory, or his toy, his food, etc. if that is idiocity then so be it 

Territoriality is one thing that will effect this type of thing as well. 

A sharp dog can still have good nerves, a low threshold dog can still have good nerves. 

To say herders are reacting out of fear could be argued on some level I suppose, but the term fear gives one the wrong impression, I think. I would say a suspicion level, or awareness or "worry" about a possible threat...

take a CIA spy for example, or a soldier, or cop, or some civilians...they are looking for and are aware of possible threats, but are they operating that way out of fear??

Many of those herder type dogs have been bred to be territorial, protective by nature. Some to be suitable to take on men and fight them, a fearful dog will not really do that very well. 

Of course the range for all of those traits are highly variable, regardless of what breed of dog you are talking about, well with most anyhow...

here a couple small segments of an article from Armin Winkler (my Guru, LOL). , which talks a little bit about his opinion on thresholds and types of sharpness... 
since I know you like to read about dog terms so much..

*Stimulus Thresholds*

_This is the most logical first subject, since every response a dog shows is triggered by a stimulus. Webster defines threshold as "the point at which a stimulus is just strong enough to be perceived or produce a response." In other words it is the lowest level of stimulation that will trigger a response.

Unfortunately, this term is not used often enough when a dog is assessed. When we talk about drive, nerve, hardness, etc. most of the time we are in fact talking about the stimulus threshold of the dog, and nothing else. Let's use the example of pain to examine this. Pain is nothing more than discomfort, and every dog has a different point at which a particular physical stimulus becomes uncomfortable. In other words every dog perceives the sensation of pain at a different level of physical influence. This has nothing to do with the dog's character or temperament, it simply describes his body's response to a physical stimulus. We often use words like "hardness" to sum this up. But hardness has become a quality assessment. Can we really simplify it that much? I don't think so. I will address hardness a bit later in the article, for now I want to stay on the topic of thresholds.

Another example to help illustrate the point. Often dogs are assessed as being "defensive." That does that really mean? I guess that depends on the person making the assessment. But again, the term "defensive" leads to interpretation. The broad range of dogs that have this said about them are vastly different, yet they are all categorized with the same term. One thing that most of the dogs that are called "defensive" have in common is this. They all have a low stimulus threshold for defensive stimuli. You may say, "Isn't that the same thing." The answer would be, "No!" I will also discuss defense drive a little bit later, for now I will just say this about it. A dog's self defense drive is activated when the dog perceives a stimulus that leads him to feel concerned or worried about his own physical welfare. The response could be active defense (aggression) or passive defense (flight or other types of avoidance behaviors). And that encompasses all the dogs that are called "defensive," the only common thread is their stimulus threshold. Each of these dogs may require a different approach in training, depending much more on their response to the stimulus than to the stimulus threshold. Some dogs may have a very high stimulus threshold for defensive stimuli, this says nothing at all about their ability to handle the stimulus once they perceive it.

Prey drive also has stimulation thresholds. Many quality assessments are made about dog's prey drives when in reality all that was assessed was the stimulation threshold. This often leads to faulty conclusions about the dogs and consequently less than optimal training. A dog may perceive a prey trigger stimulus very easily. So it is easy to activate the prey drive the dog has. But this in no way means that the dog also has good prey drive. The quality and strength of the dog's prey drive requires separate careful assessment that goes beyond the stimulus threshold. Just look at puppy testing. How often do we see puppies that are very easily stimulated in prey and find that the puppy grown up falls far short of the expectations we had for him? Again, under more careful examination we see that the ease of reaching stimulation is a different assessment category than the quality of the drive itself.

Another example is the stimulus threshold for noises. I believe that the test currently in place to test so called "noise-sensititvity" does nothing more than allow a small assessment of the noise stimulus threshold. My friend Thomas Baumann also views the current test as an inadequate assessment of noise sensitivity. He is currently conducting research into this matter at his private training facility as well as at the police service dog school (Naustadt/Sachsen/Germany) he heads up. He set up a training room with high-tech stereo equipment over which he plays a collection of about 15 different noises for three minutes with short pauses between the different noises (ranging from a bicycle bell to breaking glass, to engine noises and fireworks) to each dog who is left alone in the room while being tested. The results of these tests were amazing. While some dogs appeared completely unfazed initially some broke down completely after about one minute. Others initially showed reactions to the sounds, light fear or aggression, but some of those steadied themselves and handled the test fine. The range of reactions included panic stricken flight, cowering in a corner, standing completely frozen shivering with fear, aggresive reactions and neutrality. This research is far from over, and more researchers will become involved to interpret the final findings of the studies. For now, it is enough to allow me to illustrate that noise sensitivity is much harder to assess than often thought. And once again the thresholds of when a noise becomes bothersome to a dog is an important factor in the assessment. To determine more than that one has to look at the reactions, and interpret those with great thought and detail. Again oversimplifying a character assessment of the dog does not help us to get a clear picture of who he is.

Stimulation thresholds have to be assessed individually and for every separate assessment category. They represent sub-categories to every trait a dog may exhibit. Many dogs may have identical stimulation thresholds, but their responses could vary a great deal. It is not uncommon that the thresholds are different levels in each category. I will refer to stimulation thresholds probably in every subject still left to discuss which hopefully will help to further illustrate where and how they fit into reading a dog. The conclusions I would like the reader to draw from the discussion of stimulation thresholds is that they require separate examination, that they are only parts of traits, that they should be designated separately, and that they in themselves tell us nothing about the quality of a dog.

One final comment on thresholds. Many can be manipulated through experiences. In other words, training can raise or lower some thresholds of stimulation. The process of raising a stimulus threshold is what we call de-sensitizing. If this process is done correctly, a dog will require a much higher level of stimulation to show a response. Stimulus thresholds are lowered by setting up situations which will pre-dispose the dog to perceive a stimulus at a lower level. While in the beginning it is actually a combination of stimulating factors that trigger a response, if it is done correctly a single low level stimulus may later be enough to trigger a response.
_
*Sharpness*

_Sharpness is probably the most incorrectly used term in English dog terminology. I may be wrong here, but I thought the word sharpness was a translation of the German term "Schärfe." But the use of the term sharpness is very much a contradiction of the German term. In every conversation I have, people use sharpness synonymous with spooky or jumpy or nervy. But the word "Schärfe" in German texts is actually defined as being synonymous with aggression. So there certainly is a great discrepancy between the uses of the word.

The type of aggression that is talked about when the term sharpness is used seems to vary depending on the designed use of the dog. For example, in big game hunting dogs and terriers it refers particularly to the intensity and attitude with which these hunting dogs kill their respective prey. It is not prey drive as such; it is the actual killing response that is assessed. I have heard the term "gameness" used in the US in a similar context. For the large game hunting dogs the word used is "Wildschärfe," which translates as game sharpness. This assessment is made best when observing how the dog deals with wild boars. Because of the "bringing down" requirement in this type of hunting many of the dogs of these breeds use physical dominance techniques. For terriers the term is "Raubzeugschärfe," which translates as small predator sharpness. Terriers are used to hunt and kill small predators such as martens, foxes, badgers, etc. It is no easy feat to kill these predators without suffering injury. So a particularly fast and furious shaking technique is very common, as is a chomping bite behavior. These types of sharpness categorize the dog's prey drive.

Now to the term that we should be most interested in for our service dogs. The term used here is "Mannschärfe," which translates into man sharpness. The definition of this quality states the following. The quality in the dog that leads him to actively confront any apparent (or feigned) or actual threat from a person in a hostile manner. If I were to use terminology I have already discussed in this article I would say that sharpness could be equated to showing an active defense reaction to a real or perceived threat.

I did a fair bit of research and could not find anything written that stated that this quality has to come together with a low stimulation threshold for threat. So in fact how easily a dog is triggered does not seem to be a factor by definition. But to be fair, when I was growing up, the dogs we called sharp were the ones that would become very aggressive without much provocation. One thing that I never thought of when I used the term sharp was spooking away. In the old East German Koerung system, sharpness was rated from 0-5 with 5 being the most desirable. So when did sharpness become a bad thing? I don't know. I don't think it is a bad thing.



_


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

thanks, do you have the original link.

i cant really verbalise the question coherently enough so that even i know what i am trying to ask and fear was not really the best word, appreciatte yr comments.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> gave up on trying to know the difference between sharp and thin/thick nerves. related to that is this question/observation:
> 
> having two very different dogs and my first shepherd breed i know that my shep has a full awareness of everything in his environment - he only chooses to respond further to certain stimuli but nearly everything is a trigger in the first instance.
> 
> ...


You need a LOT of straightening out. What do you define as "shep breeds?" Also, don't assume a 11 month old puppy is representative of all within his breed.

T


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

*Training Articles by Armin Winkler*
Helmut Raiser on Protection Drives
Prey Drive Promotion, Part I
Prey Drive Promotion, Part II
Defense Drive Promotion
Suit Work for Schutzhund Dogs
Getting a GripThe Hold and Bark
Protection Obedience
Two Sides to Everything
Dog Terms, Part I
Dog Terms, Part II
A Tracking Perspective, Part I
A Tracking Perspective, Part II


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Daryl Ehret said:


> *Training Articles by Armin Winkler*
> Helmut Raiser on Protection Drives
> Prey Drive Promotion, Part I
> Prey Drive Promotion, Part II
> ...


thanks, will download and print this weekend. much articles on breeding / training available in english by Helmut reiser (spelling) any got an easy link to.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> You need a LOT of straightening out. What do you define as "shep breeds?" Also, don't assume a 11 month old puppy is representative of all within his breed.
> 
> T


 
shep breeds = german, belgium, dutch.

i start from the particular and generalise, can you comment on the comment and not on the commenter if you please.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> shep breeds = german, belgium, dutch.
> 
> i start from the particular and generalise, can you comment on the comment and not on the commenter if you please.


I don't agree with the fear comment at all and not all of them trigger at everything, anything, any time. Mine certainly didn't. And btw, you're wayyy off the money about bouviers too. There is a Helmut Reiser book that I believe Winkler is the translator on. Go to dogwise.com. 

T


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

i do regret i used the word fear but can't think of a better word without adding a descriptive paragraph, fear is not the best word but it is something like that.

is it possible to generalise anything at all T, yes its biology not mathematics but sheesh

bouv's - never seen a real one, love to hear more about them, they seem an interesting/off beat proposition. but no generalising lol.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> i do regret i used the word fear but can't think of a better word without adding a descriptive paragraph, fear is not the best word but it is something like that.
> 
> is it possible to generalise anything at all T, yes its biology not mathematics but sheesh
> 
> bouv's - never seen a real one, love to hear more about them, they seem an interesting/off beat proposition. but no generalising lol.


Hahaha, you can generalize about dutchies and mals all you want. Just leave the beloved GSD out of it. I'd rather you did the descriptive paragraph. Seriously, dogs are being bred up on exaggerated reactivity but one of the things about the herders is that they read other animals [including humans] and behavior.

T


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

I think I was referring to what I thought was a distinguishing feature of the herders not a GSd specific thing


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I don't agree with the fear comment at all and not all of them trigger at everything, anything, any time. Mine certainly didn't. *And btw, you're wayyy off the money about bouviers too*. There is a Helmut Reiser book that I believe Winkler is the translator on. Go to dogwise.com.
> 
> T


That book is a good read...

Just out of curiosity what is Pete way off the money about bouviers on?


----------



## Tony Hahn (May 28, 2011)

Armin Winkler makes a great point about thresholds. What you referred to as 'fear' is more appropriately refered to as the lower thresholds Mr. Winkler writes about.

To put it into human terms, one could use the comon color code continuum. If you are not aware of that continuum, it is one of the best ways to describe or understand states of awareness. These codes are often used by law enforcement and are taught in various self defense type classes. Jeff Cooper, an American combat pistol instructor, created the original coding system as a way to size up threats, assess situations, and/or help avoid conflict.

The color continuum starts with White, then progresses to Yellow, Orange, Red and finally Black.

White is totally relaxed, oblivious or clueless. 
Yellow is a state of general alertness.
Orange is when you have alerted to a specific potential threat.
Red is the point at which you must take some sort of action to deal with the threat.
Black is a state of panic.

Your Curr lives most of it's life in "White", or in other words for the most part he is oblivious to potential threats. The various protection type breeds live their lives in "Yellow", or in other words they are constantly scanning the environment or generally suspicious.

Thresholds are the points where a dog shifts throughout the color continuum. In other words, what does it take to shake your Curr out of condition White and into Yellow (or Orange/Red/Black). 

In theory, the GSD/Dobermann/Malinios type breeds should start out in Yellow and shift much more smoothly through the continuum in comparison to a hunting dog. 

Winkler points out (correctly) that a dogs threshold does not necessarily have any correlation with his reaction once the threshold has been crossed. In other words, an event can push a dog from 'Orange' (the dog focused on a specific threat) into 'Red' (the dog decides that it's going to take some sort of action in regards to the threat). BUT, the action the dog takes is independent of his threshold. In other words when the dogs shifts from "yellow" to "red" he could run away, attack, stand his ground and bark, etc. 

All that is a fancy way of saying that it isn't fear per se that makes your Herder more alert than your Curr.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Tony I actually get that, thanks. You need to post more.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

"The various protection type breeds live their lives in "Yellow", or in other words they are constantly scanning the environment or generally suspicious."

Not having the patience to discuss it at length or in detail through my smartphone, T. was describing this behavior as improper german shepherd temperament, when we were discussing one of my pups, Rook. Some people prefer a dog that is highly alert, suspicious, and not all that socially engaging. Not saying Rook slips into "orange" or "red" easily, so is that necessarily outside german shepherd breed standard?


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

What does the standard actually say?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Daryl Ehret said:


> "The various protection type breeds live their lives in "Yellow", or in other words they are constantly scanning the environment or generally suspicious."
> 
> Not having the patience to discuss it at length or in detail through my smartphone, T. was describing this behavior as improper german shepherd temperament, when we were discussing one of my pups, Rook. Some people prefer a dog that is highly alert, suspicious, and not all that socially engaging. Not saying Rook slips into "orange" or "red" easily, so is that necessarily outside german shepherd breed standard?


Yellow is not how I would describe Rook at all. With Tony's system there is oblivious and then general alert. Then there is the seeing potential threat [orange]. Rook is on the threat side of things not what I certainly would see as generalized alert. There is the dog that is relaxed and only see certain behaviors demeanors as something to alert too. That's the herder I know and like. Kids as potential threats to stay away from in a 16 week old puppy is not what I consider correct GSD temperament at all.

T


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

What does the standard actually say?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

For Joby, this was Pete's bouvier comment:

*on another note, i never seen a bouv in real life but for me they carry a high visual deterrent and they seem kind of psycho/skitz.*


Having had them and seen public response to them, I don't think they have a high visual deterrent--maybe if you shave them bald. Most see them as fluffy cute. Nor, by nature do I think they are lunging snarly barkers. I'm sure there have been a few bred that way but that's not what they are supposed to be. No once you trigger them and they commit to something they can have that "die trying" type mentality. There is nothing psycho schizophrenic about a good one at all.

T


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I thought yellow was looking for a threat, and orange responding to it. Rook doesn't alert, he's just watchful and mindful to stay watchful.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> For Joby, this was Pete's bouvier comment:
> 
> *on another note, i never seen a bouv in real life but for me they carry a high visual deterrent and they seem kind of psycho/skitz.*
> 
> ...


I have done bitework and muzzle work with a few bouv's.

I just met a strictly pet bouvier last week, our 13 yr olds friend's family pet...when no one was looking I gave the dog the hairy eyeball, and I almost got bitten LOL.

I dont have much exposure to them really, but I do like them..

I think lunging snarly barker fits the description to the ones I saw, but I was also doing things that would cause the dog to try to lunge, snarl and bark.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

The colour coding is a good concept, i'm thinking the language from the horse world would fit to, 

Arabs, thoroughbreds etc = hot blooded

warmbloods

Cold bloods 

Seems to fit, sheps, hounds....


Quarter horse trainers will rate a horse too hot blooded for cutting etc.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Here we go again... 

*Aloof:*
having or showing a lack of friendliness or interest in others.

Not friendly or forthcoming; cool and distant.
Conspicuously uninvolved and uninterested.

*Synonyms for Aloof*
antisocial, asocial, buttoned-up, cold, cold-eyed, detached, distant, dry, frosty, offish, remote, standoff, standoffish, unbending, unclubbable, unsociable

*Antonyms for Aloof*
cordial, friendly, sociable, social, warm

*Wary*
On guard; watchful
Characterized by caution 

*Synonyms for wary....*
alert, cautious, chary, circumspect, conservative, guarded, heedful, safe, careful

*Antonyms for wary....*
careless, heedless, incautious, unguarded, unmindful, unsafe, unwary


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Thank you, those terms might be necessary, as T. can drive me a little crazy with the character overanalysis. I realized in another recent post, that I'm not singled out in this regard. That's just T.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Forgive me all, Joby, can a sharp dog have thick nerves??


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Where it all began...

Rook @ 16 weeks


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> Forgive me all, Joby, can a sharp dog have thick nerves??


Not an answer, but I thought it was thin or weak nerves, and strong nerves. I don't recall anyone saying "thick nerves".


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Sorry must be aussie lingo I defaulted to, question is still same.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Where it all began...
> 
> Rook @ 16 weeks


Want to know his character......whats his star sign - all I got.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Thank you, those terms might be necessary, as T. can drive me a little crazy with the character overanalysis. I realized in another recent post, that I'm not singled out in this regard. That's just T.


 
You brough the previous Rook discussion up and what I think of your description of it. Otherwise, I can let that sleeping dog lie. 

T


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Peter it depends on your definition of sharp..and of course how you view stimulus thresholds and nerve 

If you read those articles by Winkler they spell it out pretty well, it is easier for me to agree with the way he lays it out, than to disagree with it, at least it is concrete in definition..

May seem like a lot of mumbo jumbo to some.......

here is the section on* nerve*...


_Nerve

Nerve has become a catch phrase for almost everything. Good nerve, bad nerve, weak nerve, strong nerve, thin nerve, thick nerve. Where do these terms come from? And more importantly, what do they mean? The nerve itself is nothing more than a fibrous long cell that transmits impulses from parts of the body to the central nervous system and back again. I don't think anybody is talking about one dog actually having "thinner" nerve cells than another, that would be a bit hard to measure. Webster also refers to nerve as a "boldness or brazenness." And even though that is a bit more useful, it still does not really address the uses of the term. I personally believe that all the talk about nerve came from conversationalizing a behavioral concept that many people using the term are not even familiar with. I will attempt to give a brief description of this concept before talking about a practical assessment of nerve.

The concept I am referring to is one that the behaviorist Ivan P. Pavlov developed to type temperament. He used a system to differentiate between four basic "types" of higher nervous system activity (This where the term nerve came from.) He based his terminology on a concept that leads back to Hippocrates (500 B.C.) where the temperament types were based on four different bodily fluids, namely blood (sanguine type), mucus (phlegm/phlegmatic type), bile (choler/choleric type), and black bile (melancholic type). That is just to explain where the names came from. Now the breakdown of what the types actually mean.

What does Pavlov mean by "higher nervous system activity?" The two basic types of nervous system processes are arousal (excitement) and inhibition (blocking). Both of these processes are necessary for an animal to adapt to its environment and to learn and perform skills and tasks in order to function. These processes take place in the cerebral cortex of the brain as physiological studies have shown. It is the strength of these processes as well as their balance and speed of mobility between the processes that gave Pavlov the separation criteria for his temperament typing.

Dogs who displayed weakly developed arousal and inhibition processes were categorized as "weak types." The name for this type is the melancholic type. Since these dogs are identified by their weakness of nervous system processes they will never function properly in their environment. Any degree of difficulty when performing a task leads to failure. They generally show passive behavioral tendencies and weak reactions. Avoidance and flight tendencies are pronounced. They appear often inhibited, anxious, and unsure, which are results of this weakness of nervous system processes. They generally have low stimulus thresholds.

"Strong types" are split into three different separate types as well.

First there is the "strong, unbalanced arousable (excitable) type." This type is referred to as the choleric type. In this type display very strongly developed a rousal (excitement) processes with weakly developed inhibition processes. They often appear unruly and out of control. They have aggressive tendencies, and are very active dogs. Their responses to commands and handsignals that trigger arousal (excitement) processes are very fast. But the accuracy of the performances of tasks is often poor, since inhibition (blocking) processes are weakly developed and arousal processes dominate them. In other words, they do not differentiate as clearly between tasks. The active defensive reaction is pronounced. These dogs appear irascible (easily angered or quick tempered). They have low stimulus thresholds.

Second there is the "strong, balanced, mobile type." This type is called the sanguine type. The word balanced refers to a balance between strong arousal (excitement) and strong inhibition (blocking) processes. These types perform all tasks very fast and accurately. They rarely make mistakes and learn very quickly. If they have the right attributes for protection work they make excellent service and performance dogs. They generally have medium stimulation thresholds.

Third, there is the "strong, balanced sluggish type." This type is called the phlegmatic type. They have strongly developed arousal (excitement) processes and strongly developed inhibition (blocking) processes and a good balance between the two. The designation sluggish refers to a slow mobility between the two processes. These dogs are generally described as calm. They work consistently but slowly. They require strong stimulation to stay motivated and require repetition of stimuli. Their performance potential is limited due to the slow mobility. They have high stimulus thresholds.

I hope this gives the reader a bit of an understanding of the basic temperament types that have lead to the term nerve. Naturally there are still differences within each type. Again I would like to stress that the more detailed an assessment is, the better.
*
Now that we know where the term nerve comes from, we have to examine what we should look at when discussing the nerve of a dog. One big misconception is once again the stimulus thresholds a dog exhibits. A low stimulus threshold does not make a dog weak nerved. But it is likely that such a dog is a more reactive than one with higher stimulation thresholds. But the reactions have to be assessed separately to determine the strength of the dog.*

*Another misinterpreted trait is the activity level vs. calmness of a dog. Calm and sometimes even passive dogs are often said to have good nerve. And while the calm type still is one of the strong types, they are certainly not the most desirable workers. The passive type is actually more often the weak type than not. *To give a little more food for thought on that topic, I'd like to refer to the findings of the behaviorist Krushinsky during the training of "anti-tank dogs" during the war. Anti-tank-dogs were trained to run under tanks with a pack of explosives strapped to their backs and remain there until the explosives could be detonated. Putting aside the wasteful aspects of this use for dogs, it needs to be said that it was an extremely difficult task for dogs to perform. Aside from the distractions of battle noise, smell, and people everywhere which made it difficult to direct the dogs, they also had to overcome natural fear and inhibition to stay only a few feet away from the steel tracks of the tanks. So it only stands to reason that dogs which were required for this task were dogs who had especially strong nerves. But to quote Krushinsky "it is a mistake to expect to find these dogs among the calm and passive types, instead they were all very highly arousable (excitable) and very active." This didn't become apparent however until all the candidates who showed great results in training were also tested for their arousability (excitability) and activity level. They performed tests measuring ease of arousal and physical mobility. The results were very clear, the dogs who performed their tasks in a reliable, fast and precise manner under these extreme demands were all dogs who also displayed very high activity levels and low stimulus excitability.

So all the talk about nerve that I hear in discussions is quite vague and not very descriptive at all. People's tastes regarding which of the temperament types (or nerve types) they prefer seems to play a large role in which adjective they put in front of the word nerve when it comes to describing a dog. Again, I feel that we need much more detail in our discussions if we want to get a true picture of the dog in question._


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> You brough the previous Rook discussion up and what I think of your description of it. Otherwise, I can let that sleeping dog lie.
> 
> T


Well, then I couldn't have explained more simply, but you pretty much took off with it and made other statements that were completely inaccurate. It must be a difference of understanding terms.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Well, then I couldn't have explained more simply, but you pretty much took off with it and made other statements that were completely inaccurate. It must be a difference of understanding terms.


 
What statements are completely inaccurate before I do a cut and paste on how you describe the dog and what he will need to keep his "defensiveness" in check??

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> I have done bitework and muzzle work with a few bouv's.
> 
> I just met a strictly pet bouvier last week, our 13 yr olds friend's family pet...when no one was looking I gave the dog the hairy eyeball, and I almost got bitten LOL.
> 
> ...


I imagine they were doing the lunge, snarl bark because they couldn't get to you. As for the other, do you make a habit to teasing other people's dogs to see what reaction you can get out of them. Why was it an almost bite?

T


----------



## Tony Hahn (May 28, 2011)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> Forgive me all, Joby, can a sharp dog have thick nerves??


 In the Pavlovonian (is that a word?) sense, nerve is defined a little differently that what we are probably used to. 

Think of a “Monkey see, Monkey do” scenario.

Four Monkeys see a human pick up a hammer and beat on a box which makes a treat pop out. 

Monkey #1 tries to pick up the hammer but can’t quite figure out how to hold it, drops it on his foot, glares at the box thinking that is what hurt his foot, then runs off. Pavlov considers this Monkey a weak type because his nervous system does not communicate effectively from brain to body and back again. 

Monkey #2 runs over, snatches up the hammer, swings wildly, misses the box, gets pissed, starts flailing all over the place until he eventually hits the right spot and a treat pops out. Pavlov considers this Monkey a strong, unbalanced, excitable type because his nervous system communicates stimuli from his brain to body and back again very well, but the stimuli is overwhelming his brain and preventing clear, controlled action.

Monkey #3 trots over, picks up the hammer correctly, whacks the box, gets his treat, thinks it’s pretty cool and does it over and over without difficulty. This is Pavlov’s strong, balanced, mobile type because his nervous system communicates clearly and effectively between the brain and body.

Monkey #4 ambles over, inspects the hammer, picks it up correctly and lightly taps the box. Nothing happens, so he hits it a little harder but still not hard enough for a treat to pop out. He says in monkey talk “the hell with it, this is stupid” and starts to wander off but he sees Monkey #3 enjoying his treats so he goes back, gives it another try and finally gets it right. Pavlov calls this Monkey strong, balanced, sluggish type because although his nervous system is communicating clearly, the Monkey processes it slowly and looses motivation easily.

Monkey #1 is weak nerved, but by Pavlov’s definitions Monkeys #2-4 are all strong nerved. You can envision various dog behaviors’ that would correspond to those examples.

So, if you use the old school definition of Sharp along with Pavlov’s definition of strong nerves, yes, you can have a Sharp, strong nerved dog.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Lot to process, me definately sluggish monkey but I keep banging away.

Is there a common doggy word for not sharp. 

When a dog is not clear headed in a fight is he monkey #2? Which would mean strong nerved unbalanced.


Gonna write down a flow chart with every possible combination of dog that can happen, or better yet is there a link to an uber-chart of every dog temprement combinations/permutations out there.


----------



## Travis Ragin (Apr 10, 2010)

What drive is a dog in when he pulls and drags a weighted down cart for it's owner?






t


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Travis Ragin said:


> What drive is a dog in when he pulls and drags a weighted down cart for it's owner?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Good question but you had to mention the 'D' word didn't ya.


----------



## Tony Hahn (May 28, 2011)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> ............snip.........
> 
> When a dog is not clear headed in a fight is he monkey #2? Which would mean strong nerved unbalanced.
> 
> ...


Provided the dog fits the rest of the criteria, (he is motivated for the fight, etc) I would say yes, but I purposely used monkeys instead of dogs as examples so that I wouldn't end up arguing about something like that.

Speaking of arguing, someone is probably going to come along and post “Pavlov never said ‘strong, balanced, sluggish type’. That terminology was borrowed from Joby’s post because it makes more sense than saying Phlegmatic.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

I am guessing appropriate training to the specific dog's needs can compensate for everything, ie a dog can learn some form of impulse control through training and learn to balance where its inner dog would otherwise be unhinged??


----------



## Tony Hahn (May 28, 2011)

Not everything, but a lot of things can be compensated for. Dogs do not fit neatly into packages of temperament/nerves/thresholds/etc either. A dog may have a higher threshold at home than he does at the train station. Repeated actions or success can calm down an excitable dog or motivate a sluggish one. After enough repetitions, Monkey #2 will probably figure out the sweet spot on the box and his actions will appear like Monkey #3. A single success for Monkey #4 may be all it takes before he is getting treats out of the box just like Monkey #3


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I imagine they were doing the lunge, snarl bark because they couldn't get to you. As for the other, do you make a habit to teasing other people's dogs to see what reaction you can get out of them. Why was it an almost bite?
> 
> T


*I imagine they were doing the lunge, snarl bark because they couldn't get to you.*

???? 

I imagine this is the reason that most dogs being worked, will snarl bark and lunge, if in fact they are snarl barking and lunging...

As far as the other...

I gave it a hairy eyeball...not really much in the way of teasing the dog.

Yes, I will often do that with untrained dogs from breeds that I am interested in to see what their reactions will be.. (especially dogs out of breeds that are described as fearless in their standards, as well as a host of other words like protective, or that had/have functions of protection/guard)

*Why was it an almost bite?* Dont really understand the question?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Tony Hahn said:


> Not everything, but a lot of things can be compensated for. Dogs do not fit neatly into packages of temperament/nerves/thresholds/etc either. A dog may have a higher threshold at home than he does at the train station. Repeated actions or success can calm down an excitable dog or motivate a sluggish one. After enough repetitions, Monkey #2 will probably figure out the sweet spot on the box and his actions will appear like Monkey #3. A single success for Monkey #4 may be all it takes before he is getting treats out of the box just like Monkey #3


I agree with this as well.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> What statements are completely inaccurate before I do a cut and paste on how you describe the dog and what he will need to keep his "defensiveness" in check??
> 
> T


Oh, well then allow me to cut and paste...



> He's inherantly suspicious of people. I had half a dozen kids age 4 to 7 interact with them all today. He wasn't very engaging like the rest of the pups, trying to keep his distance just watching them with a wary eye. A bit of social conditioning will help tone his defensive concerns down some, so he doesn't develop an overeactive response toward strangers.


NOWHERE did I say he was ACTing defensively. I said he was "defensively concerned" and that socialization would help relieve him of his wariness toward strangers, so that he doesn't develop a defensive reaction.

At his current age, five months later with minimal exposure, he will approach strangers on his own volition, but briefly, and he is still wary of them. I have no issues with a dog that doesn't easily trust, depending on how it reacts. Rook does not react, but it's plain to see he prefers his distance, and stays watchful. Nothing wrong with that, depending on how you want to stretch and twist it.

I've heard from many rural neighbors in my area, who would much rather that their dog not be tailwagging at a stranger's side to the front door of their house, and even prefer that the dog alert the owner to their presence. If a unscrupulous stranger were getting the "hairy eyeball" from Rook, they might reconsider their ill intent.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

*The Hairy Eyeball*

"A glance made with partially lowered eyelashes.* This usually indicates suspicion or hostility but may signal other emotions too"*.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

*The Hairy Eyeball*

"A glance made with partially lowered eyelashes.* This usually indicates suspicion or hostility but may signal other emotions too"*.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

A Rook vs Joby "hairy eyeball" contest sounds fun! I might even drive to Montana to see that :mrgreen:


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> A Rook vs Joby "hairy eyeball" contest sounds fun! I might even drive to Montana to see that :mrgreen:


I think humans have a greater advantage in a hairy eyeball contest 
could be wrong though...


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

If we are gonna cut and paste, let's do it completely. Your descriptions of Rook from the previous thread:

_He's inherantly suspicious of people. I had half a dozen kids age 4 to 7 interact with them all today. He wasn't very engaging like the rest of the pups, trying to keep his distance just watching them with a wary eye. A bit of social conditioning will help tone his defensive concerns down some, so he doesn't develop an overeactive response toward strangers. _

_This is merely where socialization, or a conditioning exposure to these sorts of experience, become an important part of his learning, to accompany his caution. With age will come confidence, but he does not lack courage._

_The mother Nyx is wary or suspicious of strangers, very territorial, but has social needs and can quickly warm up to them. You can see her at odds with these conflicting behaviors, but it's a bit too complicated and inappropriate for this thread to elaborate much further, having nothing to do with Rook.

Rook is wary, not aloof, and not social toward strangers. *He has concerns or reservations about strangers soliciting him for a response. You can say there's an element of fear if you like, but I'd think it more appropriate to call it uncertainty. The uncertainty will diminish with more frequent exposure to strangers.*_
_*

*__When at the vet's, getting his heart monitored, he didn't struggle as if afraid or show any other obvious signs, but I do know that his heart was racing like a machine gun, so yeah, there's an element of fear.

Courage is NOT lack of fear, it's the ability to work through your fear. Confidence is the built result of gained experience. That's part of what "defense" is, you know._
_

__*The doctor holding him for a heart reading was the ONLY example I gave of evidence for fear. So what if he was afraid? Imagine being already suspicious of strangers, preferring distance, and suddenly restrained by one.* Rook trusts me immensely, and lavishes in my company. He just doesn't know what to think about anyone else._

You describe a pup that is "trying to keep his distance" from a group of 4-7 year olds and he's 16 weeks old. 
You also mention that social conditioning will help "tone his defensive concerns." Now you want to say he wasn't ACTING defensively and that socialization will help relieve him of his wariness so he doesn't ACT or react defensively. I guess it hasn't occurred to you that left to his own devices he does have a reaction. What do you think "trying to keep his distance is?" Now at 9 months he will "approach briefly but only briefly because he is still wary." If you like all this inherent suspicion and wariness, why do the socialization? I haven't stretched or twisted anything or made any inaccurate statements.

As I said before--good luck with him and I hope socialization and maturity is on his side.

T


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Now I think you finally get it! His only reaction was (then) to stay out of arms reach. Nothing wrong with that, kids or not. Maybe you don't, but I totally get it. I like my space, there are lots of situations where I like to position myself so I can see every thing that's going on, yet be apart from it. Shall we make another epic thread together? ;-)


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Now I think you finally get it! His only reaction was (then) to stay out of arms reach. Nothing wrong with that, kids or not. Maybe you don't, but I totally get it. I like my space, there are lots of situations where I like to position myself so I can see every thing that's going on, yet be apart from it. Shall we make another epic thread together? ;-)


DARYL... i sincerely hope you can fix this drastic problem in your gsd, and that he will be more accepting and friendly of strangers...with proper socialization, he might even seek attention from them


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Now I think you finally get it! His only reaction was (then) to stay out of arms reach. Nothing wrong with that, kids or not. Maybe you don't, but I totally get it. I like my space, there are lots of situations where I like to position myself so I can see every thing that's going on, yet be apart from it. Shall we make another epic thread together? ;-)


I think you want one which is why you brought the discussion up in the first place. Hey if you're comfy with Rook---wonderful. As for Mr. Smarty Pants, I'm certainly not saying any GSD is supposed to be "friendly" and "attention seeking" with strangers. But I'm curious about the rest of the litters--working homes? If so, what type?

T


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Joby Becker said:


> DARYL... i sincerely hope you can fix this drastic problem in your gsd, and that he will be more accepting and friendly of strangers...with proper socialization, he might even seek attention from them


What problem???

If Darryl can breed consistently like Rook sounds, put me on the list.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

If you're talking about anything after Pitch, Pia, and Pike then there were two litters plus a stud service. I have most of both litters in my possession still. R-litter is 9 months, and S-litter is 10 weeks.

The stud service to a showline female provided fairly nice pups, almost all (except 1?) went to working homes for LE and SAR. They are a year old this month. One will actually be a certified patrol dog this month.

R-litter had one not hard enough, sensitive to the needle. One, I couldn't raise with the others, because she viewed every scrap as serious business, even when purely in fun. One likes to seek affection (which I can't stand) and needs to go yet.

My two best S-pup females are gone, plus one male, to casual working homes. the remaining 7 are all still VERY nice pups, but I'm only wanting one male for myself. I started obedience imprinting with hot dogs yesterday, and 2 were "just right" while the other 5 were far too ambitious little pihrannas, snagging fingers and palms despite my careful holding presentation.

Overall, drives are very consistently good, strong desire to interact with the handler, quick and athletic, love for biting. Some are more "serious" about their protection instincts than others, and some show stronger herding instincts (to gather and direct other dogs) than drive for the toy.


----------

