# Defensive Aggression vs. Social Aggression



## Mike Schoonbrood

How do you agitate a dog in social aggression? What is the difference between agitating in social aggression or in defensive aggression? Is this just an automatic temprement thing, where if a dog is socially aggressive they give that response opposed to a defensive response when faced wtih threatening body language from the decoy? Or is there a different technique you use? During agitation, how can you tell/what body language does a dog display in Social Aggression vs. Defensive Aggression?


----------



## Thomas Barriano

*Terminology*

MIke,

I'm not sure how you are using the terms, social and defensive aggression. I'm more familiar with prey and defense and active aggression. Active agression is where the dog likes to bring the
fight to the man. Jago is mostly prey. He'll get serious if he is pushed
enough, but he does fine in prey. Dubheasa is mostly active aggression.
The decoy pushes, she pushes back. He puts pressure on her, her drive
goes up. She is fun to watch, but hard to control 
I'm happy if the Decoy just does prey or defense moves and doesn't
worry too much about what drive the dog is in?


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

I first heard the term social aggression from Koos at Tiekerhook kennels, a test I've been shown for this in pups is to cause discomfort to the pup by the sides of their necks and seeing the reaction, a pup that gets pissed off and aggressive trying to get revenge on you is displaying social aggression. Andres Martin made a comment recently about only working his dogs in social aggression without prey movements... I was kinda curious what the decoy does to make the dog react in social aggression opposed to defensive aggression, or whether social aggression is merely the reaction a socially aggressive dog gives when presented with defensive pressure. A socially aggressive dog like my lil dutchie will bite in serious aggression at 5 months old (and even younger, but I only started her helper work at 5 months) if the decoy were to challenge her.... but we work her in prey right now without any tugging while she is teething... as she gets older and her teeth all set then I'm sure my trainer will challenge her during preywork since she is a dog that can clearly handle the challenge. My guess is that social aggression is brought out using defensive/challenging pressure from the decoy, rather than side of body presentation and side to side movement.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Hi Mike

I had never heard those terms before. Thanks for the explanation.
It sounds like social aggression could be a form of defense drive?
Defense is fight or flight, yes? A strong dog will fight when presented with
pressure. A weaker dog will fight if cornered (backtied/onleash) but will
turn tail if he can. A very weak dog will go belly up or hide behind the
handler? An actively aggressive dog will go looking for an opportuninty to fight


----------



## Doug Wendling

*social aggression*

Mike
First of all, in today's K-9 world their are veryyyyy few truly socially aggressive dogs. Society has dictated pretty much that they don't exist. A dog cannot be worked in "social aggression" if he/she is not a socially aggressive dog.

In my opinion Koos is maybe mixing his English up a bit? It sounds to me that he is eliciting an aggressive response do to the pain the he has put on the pup. A socially aggressive pup would get aggressive just by being handled.

Social aggression is the only truly active form of aggression. In other words it takes no real action (stimulus) from the person getting bit, to stimulate the dog to bite him/her. It is a dog that puts everything in a social order and everyone comes after "hopefully" the handler and then the dog. If said dog does not like the way you walked up to him, you will get bit. An anti social dog can be taught to accept strangers, but he will never no matter what kind of training you do become a "social" dog. A social order can also be established if, say the dog and stranger go head to head and either completely submits to the other, then you will have a social order. They tend to be just aggressive to strangers and are not good dogs for inexperienced handler.
Their is a biological reason for this drive. In the wild it would be to maintain order in a pack and to drive off equally strong opposition.

To elicit a defensive reaction in a dog, all you have to do is threaten them, make them worry. Defense is worry, it is a fear. Although I am sure some people will not like hearing that term fear used. Especially if we are talking about a police dog. It does not matter, it is still a fear based form of aggression. It is what the dog does with it that matters. Forward to the threat or sit and watch and see, or run the other way?

This is not the same as a dominant dog either. Dominance in my opinion is more of a behavior anyway. A dominant dog will like to posture and try to over power an adversary. In bite work he will maybe try to knock you down, climb on you, etc. Rott's were full of this behavior, they did not like someone standing over them, they would growl, etc and if it is a strong defensive dog, said stranger will get bit. But, if he is a dominant, weak defensive dog, he will just growl and act like he wants to tear you up, but somehow just can't get the strength to do it. Difference being a truly socially aggressive dog would never let it get that far, he would just whack you and more then likely not give to many warnings. Which makes people believe they are not stable dogs, but they are, as long as you have someone that can read this type of dog correctly and can handle that type of dog and knows what he is walking around with. 


The only problem with discussions like this is, many people have different takes on drives, what they are and aren't. So, these are my opinions and beliefs which I stole from someone else  

Doug


----------



## Bob Scott

Welcome Doug! Enjoyed your post!


----------



## Andres Martin

> social aggression is merely the reaction a socially aggressive dog gives when presented with defensive pressure.


Mike, I agree with that, but would like to add that defensive pressure is not the only trigger, although it was the initial one. The dog can be conditioned to respond in social aggression to a variety of cues.

Doug, good post.


----------



## Reinier Geel

Doug Wendling

Welcome, and a very good post  and icebreaker  hope you will do more in the future

Mike, like your self I was baffled with this new Terminology and now I can actually say that I know more, on what it is all about. 

Thanks to Doug and Martin.

Honestly, we are into drives here  it makes more sense  especially to a K9 cops like meHaHa.


----------



## Phil Dodson

Me too! If this terminoligy gets any harder to understand, I may enroll to go back to school. :? I understand now what Mike was explaining.


----------



## Doug Wendling

*drives*

I think any easy way to look at some of these terms is to put the terms to use in regard to people you know or people you have come across? This is something that has helped me over the years with understanding these terms. 
For years I struggled to get a handle on the mystical world of "drives" prey, drive defense drive, fight drive, etc. My favorite over the years is, my question to many trainers, how will I know the dog is working in "fight drive"? Or even has "fight drive"? Trainers answer; well you will know it when you see it, WHAT?????  
Once again looking at these terms in regards to people has helped me simplify all this crap to a useable, provable (provable, meaning I can show someone while I am working a dog exactly what a dog is doing and why) terminology, for myself and other people. Take it for what it is worth? I stole these terms anyway.......  

Social aggressive, or anti social- I am sure you have come across people that would just as soon punch you in the face then say Hi? Same as a dog.

Dominance behavior, A person that likes to be in control, likes to throw his/her weight around. Again same can be said about the dominant dog.

Defense drive/ Strong aggressive defense drive, Here again it can be seen as something close to anti social, but in defense something or someone has to stimulate that response. Where as in "social aggression" the acting out (the aggression) came from what looks like almost no where.
But, in regards to people think about someone that is ready to fight as soon as someone dares to threaten him in the slightest manner and goes through with the blows.

Defense drive again, but strong passive, someone that is quiet and reserve and may put up with a lot of BS, but push comes to shove the fight is on. Same as this type of dog.

Defense drive again, but weak defense or flight. I am sure we have all seen the big mouth that acts like he wants to fight everyone as soon as he is threatened and as soon as someone takes him up on that, he shuts up. Or someone swings and then he is the guy watching the brawl hiding in the restroom.
Same with the dog, acts tough maybe even looks tough, but push comes to shove he is gone. 

Doug


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

Is it possible that people who talk about fight drive are actually seeing social aggression? Or is that supposed to be something entirely different?


----------



## Tim Martens

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> Is it possible that people who talk about fight drive are actually seeing social aggression? Or is that supposed to be something entirely different?


mike, i think he's only partially on to something. to me social aggression requires no "outward" stimulus. this is just the dog wanting to be dominant among people, dogs, etc. just the fact of a person who tries to stand over the dog, walk in front of him, these are things that will trigger the dogs aggression. whereas defence requires the dog feel threatened. that his/her well being is in jeopardy. social aggression is just the dog wanting to be pack leader at all times. these are the dogs that are generally "one handler" dogs. they take a long time to "bond" with and will probably for the rest of the dogs life, challenge their owner on a regular basis. my trainer speaks of a doberman he had. he said like clockwork every 6 months or so, he'd act out and have to be "dealt with". this is what i would call social aggression.

these terms are all subject to interpretation. the important thing is that your training group are all on the same page with these definitions...


----------



## Doug Wendling

Tim
I am not sure if this was in response to my post?



> mike, i think he's only partially on to something. to me social aggression requires no "outward" stimulus. this is just the dog wanting to be dominant among people


 If it was, I thought my first post clearly states that social aggression needs no trigger stimulus and it is the only form of aggression that needs no trigger stimulus. And a dominant dog does not equal a socially aggressive dog. They can be tied into the same package, but they do not have to be.

The problem that some people have when they do have a socially aggressive dog and the dog keeps challenging them is they themselves have allowed the door to open and allowed the dog to think a change in social order is possible. If the dog does not see the "door" open these challenges will not take place.



> these terms are all subject to interpretation. the important thing is that your training group are all on the same page with these definitions...


 Tim, I think it needs to go beyond the training group. Some of these terms have been labeled and talked about by scientists for years. It is only in the K9 world that we come up with many different meanings of a set scientific term. I am not sure why that is, to me it is a bit baffling? If you talk to a biologist say in Yellowstone Park about Bear behavior and then you talk to a biologist in Glacier National park about bear behavior, they will use the same terms to describe the same thing. Same goes for Marine Biologists. So, why is it that the terms that are used in the K-9 world are so open to interpretation? I want this perfectly clear I am not trying to be difficult here, just asking a question that baffles me. A comment reply to drive discussions is it is just semantics, or they are open to interpretation. This seems to be the answer to everything every time discussions on drives come up. Well, you use it like this, but we use it like that? I just don't get it?

Biologists say to label something a drive it has to have a biological meaning to the survival of the species. It also has to have a beginning and and end goal, i.e. social aggression in a pack of wild dogs. Lets use this as an example; It starts when another strong male comes into contact with the leader of said pack of dogs, this is the starting point, their will be a fight unless one of them completely yields and submits to the other. The end goal is to drive one of the males away from the pack so the strongest will have breeding rights within that pack.
The biological significance of the social aggression in this specific example is the strongest get to breed assuring the future of the species.

I think discussions on drives take on a great deal of meaning. Getting to know and understand the different terms and drives and how to use them in training is super critical to a persons ability to being a dog trainer or a very good dog trainer.

Mike, I think this is where these discussion always get sticky, fight drive. Let me ask you what you think. What biological significance would their be to a dog just wanting to start fights for the sake of fighting with other dogs? (and I am not talking about the twisted breeding practices that went on in the dog fighting world. That is not natural, that is something that was man made) What is the end goal? To have a 20 and 0 record? 
But, this is the way many people define fight drive. The dogs desire to actively fight or engage someone for the fun of it. The forwardness of prey, with the seriousness of defense? Sounds confusing? Sounds like a combination of both drives and not a single "fight drive". 
I personally don't believe their is a "fight drive" that exists on it's own as a separate drive. I think "fight drive" would be better termed maybe as "fight package"? I think it is a combination of what nature has given the dog in the form of drives and temperament. The fuller a dogs package is the stronger the dog. Say the dog is socially aggressive, he has strong prey drive combined with strong active defense drive and throw a little dominance in there and maybe some frustration aggression and you have a very nice well rounded dog. A very nice "fight package" if you will? If you have a dog that has strong prey drive, but he is a weak defensive dog and that is about it, you don't have a well rounded dog and therefore you are missing some components to this total package.

Just my opinions.

Doug


----------



## Tim Martens

doug, i agree 100% on your "fight drive" comments. can't say it any better than that...

as for why these terms are so different...you can't compare it to biologists. we're talking about behavior here. you cannot measure or quantify them as you can with a "science". if you have to compare it to something, compare it to psychology. even though their human subjects are able to talk to them, psychologists agree about as often as k9 trainers. with dogs, we don't even have the benefit of being able to talk to them! like i said, i believe it is only important that those who you train with are on the same page. the rest of us can argue about it on the internet!


----------



## Andres Martin

My view of fight drive...which I believe to exist...is that it indeed does help the species survive. In pitbull circles it's called gameness, in bullfights it's called nobility, in horses it's called heart, in people it's called courage. Indeed...it's what delays or prevents one from giving up, and enables one to carry forth "social agression" longer and in a more intense fashion than the competitor, even in the face of pain...even if the competitor is bigger, etc.

Social Agression makes the conflict possible, fight drive makes it unavoidable.

In no way is it uncontrolled.

I might agree that it's not a drive, but rather a character trait.


----------



## Doug Wendling

OK, I kind of burn out on these threads pretty quick. So I will leave you all with this. For the young to the dog game and looking for great information on drives and how to use them in dog training buy Helmut Raiser's book Der Schutzhund. The only thing that is kind of out dated in the book is the availability of some of the types of dogs he talks about in the book. This was written in the mid to late 70's and that is a lot of dog years. I would be willing to bet that this book will give you better and more acurate information then talking to the majority of the "dog trainers", "training directors" in the US.

Doug Wendling


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Doug Wendling said:


> OK, I kind of burn out on these threads pretty quick. So I will leave you all with this. For the young to the dog game and looking for great information on drives and how to use them in dog training buy Helmut Raiser's book Der Schutzhund. The only thing that is kind of out dated in the book is the availability of some of the types of dogs he talks about in the book. This was written in the mid to late 70's and that is a lot of dog years. I would be willing to bet that this book will give you better and more acurate information then talking to the majority of the "dog trainers", "training directors" in the US.
> 
> Doug Wendling


Or Armin Winkler interprets Helmut Raiser in SchH Village:
http://www.schutzhundvillage.com/drives.html


----------



## Doug Wendling

Connie
What Armin has on the web site is no where near the complete book. The book is VERY much worth getting, some may find they need to read it and reread it until you start to understand what Dr. Raiser is talking about. This book did a tremendous amount of explaining things to me, things trainers I asked were not able to explain or they would make it sound so mystical and confusing you got now where anyway.

Doug Wendling


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Doug Wendling said:


> Connie
> What Armin has on the web site is no where near the complete book. The book is VERY much worth getting, some may find they need to read it and reread it until you start to understand what Dr. Raiser is talking about. This book did a tremendous amount of explaining things to me, things trainers I asked were not able to explain or they would make it sound so mystical and confusing you got now where anyway.
> 
> Doug Wendling


I'm sorry, Doug; it was kinda tongue-in-cheek, and also kinda 
serious (because Armin Winkler's words were what made me 
get the book).

I definitely did *not* mean to say that it was a substitute. But
reading Winkler's words about Raiser does demonstrate that there's
a great source for clarification of every term that's been brought
up in this thread.


----------



## Tim Martens

Doug Wendling said:


> I would be willing to bet that this book will give you better and more acurate information then talking to the majority of the "dog trainers", "training directors" in the US.
> 
> Doug Wendling


so we should disregard all of your long posts and just read the book?


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Tim Martens said:


> Doug Wendling said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be willing to bet that this book will give you better and more acurate information then talking to the majority of the "dog trainers", "training directors" in the US.
> 
> Doug Wendling
> 
> 
> 
> so we should disregard all of your long posts and just read the book?
Click to expand...

 :lol: :lol: You are SUCH a brat!


----------



## Tim Martens

Connie Sutherland said:


> Tim Martens said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doug Wendling said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be willing to bet that this book will give you better and more acurate information then talking to the majority of the "dog trainers", "training directors" in the US.
> 
> Doug Wendling
> 
> 
> 
> so we should disregard all of your long posts and just read the book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> :lol: :lol: You are SUCH a brat!
Click to expand...

who me? :twisted: 

well, he just finished a few long winded posts about his ideas on a few points, then when others offer their ideas, he throws that (quote) out there. seems pretty arrogant to me. then again, this is the internet and you cannot listen to someone's tone. so who knows what he meant....


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Tim Martens said:


> Connie Sutherland said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tim Martens said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doug Wendling said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would be willing to bet that this book will give you better and more acurate information then talking to the majority of the "dog trainers", "training directors" in the US.
> 
> Doug Wendling
> 
> 
> 
> so we should disregard all of your long posts and just read the book?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> :lol: :lol: You are SUCH a brat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> who me? :twisted:
> 
> well, he just finished a few long winded posts about his ideas on a few points, then when others offer their ideas, he throws that (quote) out there. seems pretty arrogant to me. then again, this is the internet and you cannot listen to someone's tone. so who knows what he meant....
Click to expand...

Yes, you! :lol: 

You're correct, of course: Tone does not translate well in typed 
text. Although, Jeff gets his across really well most of the time. I
hardly ever have to wonder what his intended tone is (or yours,
for that matter :twisted: ).


----------



## Andres Martin

I saw *the* table training thread produce a rather interesting result in the subsequent poll. The discussion was never thwarted...it just went until all the rounds were spent. No damage done...and an interesting CONCLUSION was evident.

In all the forums I have visited...3...I have always read super long posts regarding fight drive, its existence, its manifestation or lack thereof. Posters use examples back and forth...

I just want to get it clear in my head...so I can bury my philosophical dog view forever.

Because...for me...fights to the ultimate consequences are certainly not prey driven...and they are not defensive...as AVOIDANCE is never even considered.

There are some dogs that simply WILL NOT GIVE UP. They will take THE FIGHT to the man, under a bunch of pain, over and over. Stabbed, hit over the head, kicked, etc...and there is no...NO...prey. And there is no defense, because THE OPTION TO FLEE IS OPEN, and it IS NOT CHOSEN.

What makes a dog KICK ASS then?

A DIRECTED FIGHT COMMAND, WHERE THE DOG *through his genetic make up, and previous, incremental success* wants to DOMINATE and sometimes KILL, or die trying (the latter I think is genetic).

I have three questions: 
1) Do those that think fight drive DOES NOT exist, mostly view biting as a function of prey or defense...and they DO NOT think that it's possible for a dog to have a CONTROLLED manifestation of persistent dominant biting, even under much pain?
2) What drive causes a dog to continue fighting to the ultimate consequence even if it can flee?
3) What drive is a dog in when it kills anything "unauthorized" in its TERRITORY?

There's more to dog agression than prey, defense and the usual meaning of rank.


----------



## Doug Wendling

*drives*



> I have three questions:
> 1) Do those that think fight drive DOES NOT exist, mostly view biting as a function of prey or defense...and they DO NOT think that it's possible for a dog to have a CONTROLLED manifestation of persistent dominant biting, even under much pain?
> 2) What drive causes a dog to continue fighting to the ultimate consequence even if it can flee?
> 3) What drive is a dog in when it kills anything "unauthorized" in its TERRITORY?
> 
> There's more to dog aggression than prey, defense and the usual meaning of rank.


Andres
Your first question, I do believe that most biting in today's dogs are either prey or defense based. As I stated earlier in today's world their just aren't that many truly socially aggressive dogs.
Although if you want to break this down a little like Dr. Raiser does in his book he places defensive biting and social aggression as forms of "Aggression Drive" as he calls it". Defensive biting is a reaction to some form of stimulus. And he goes on to state that social aggression is the active form of the "aggression drive" meaning not needing a stimulus. But, even here he uses the term drive to describe defense only. 
I want to make sure my intent is clear here, I do not understand the second part of your first question?

I believe the answer to your 2nd question is defense drive. But, even that if a dog is really getting it handed to him and he sees no way of winning and he can leave he will leave. Dogs are not by nature suicidal. 
Although I do agree with Armin's article where he talks about a form of rage. Once again dogs are not suicidal so they for the most part will not willingly fight to the death. By their are some dogs (that I have work and have had the privilege of owning two so far) that will at some point when they feel are truly in a life and death fight will throw all of their survival instinct out the window and go into a (in my opinion) a possessed like state and just go absolutely nuts. At this point even as the handler you have to be very careful of getting in the middle or involved in the "fight" as the dog will bite anything around him. So, it is hard to put it into some of the other forms of aggression or drive other then the term Armin used which is a rage kind of state of mind.

3rd question, I think depends on the situation at that time. I think if you go back to Dr. Raiser's book and to the Aggression Drive part of it, it would depend on what if anything triggered the dog i.e. defense drive. Or if the dog acted out actively as in social aggression.

Connie
To clarify, Armin and I are business partners. His ability to bring the most out of a dog and his insights into dogs drive and behavior in my opinion are among the very best.

Tim
You may take it how you wish? This is nothing personal, but I tend to stay away from these web boards. The only reason I have posted anything recently was because I had time to kill recovering from another knee surgery. Mike emailed me about the board he was starting when he first got it going. I have read over it from time to time, but because of lessons learned years ago as stated I tend to leave it at reading from time to time. It takes me a ton of time to write one of my post as I am not the best with the written word and I read and re-read what I wrote to make sure I am hopefully getting across what I want to get across. I don't mind debating someone point for point, but then again I am not going to go over the same thing time and again just to argue with someone and that unfortunatly (nothing personal once again) is where most of the web board stuff ends up.
As for my comment about Dr. Raiser's book, I see no reason to rewrite what has been written so well. Dr. Raiser's book is excellent as are Armin's articles.

If more people took the time to investigate and learn theories on drives and behaviors and not just follow some trainer (some trainers are well educated on these theories and can put them to practical use. But, I think you will find many in the US don't have near as good of a handle on things as they think?) blindly they will learn that their is a lot of information out there based on solid research and years of practical experience. 
The reason I have such a problem with leaving things at a "we agree to disagree, kind of thing" is that on the surface that is a nice politically correct way to end things, but it resolves nothing. I have had the privilege in the past few years of being invited to do a fair amount of seminars around the States for both sport, decoy work and police work, and get to travel to Europe and watch and learn from some very talented trainers as well, and then when I here and see how some of these guys are putting to use their limited knowledge of drives and behaviors it makes me cringe and wonder how they ever get the dog to do anything in the first place. And it is not as simple as their are a 100 ways to do something. Their are not, because 95 of those ways may be the wrong way. I constantly see dogs with bite problems, out problems, obedience problems, scent work problems and the list goes on and on and more often then not the answer is in understanding drives, behaviors and how to manipulate them to get what we want from the dogs. And looking at the problem through the eyes of the dog and not trying to make the dogs think the way we think or learn.

I read Mike's post on one of the other subjects about the police dogs in the US and why it is that their are so many dink dogs out there. I agree with much of what he said, but to be fair there are some very good units out there and with very good training and trainers getting more out of a single dog then any other Country in the world. You will find K-9 units in the US don't specialize like so many other Countries do i.e. a specific tracking dog, narc dog, bomb dog, patrol dog, SWAT dog, etc, etc. The US for better or worse at times has a single dog doing multiple functions. But, the other side of that and I believe this whole heartedly over all in the US dog knowledge is not what it is in Europe.

Sorry for the long winded post! 
Doug Wendling


----------



## Connie Sutherland

QUOTE: Connie 
To clarify, Armin and I are business partners. His ability to bring the most out of a dog and his insights into dogs drive and behavior in my opinion are among the very best. END

Yes, I knew that; I follow the links of people who post
and read their web sites.  

As for myself, I welcome your well-written posts. JMHO.


----------



## Woody Taylor

I second that...Doug, great posts, I don't wish you more knee problems but I hope you find more idle time to spend here. Thanks for your insights and your thoughtfulness..


----------



## Woody Taylor

Doug...one thing though...you said...



> What biological significance would their be to a dog just wanting to start fights for the sake of fighting with other dogs? (and I am not talking about the twisted breeding practices that went on in the dog fighting world. That is not natural, that is something that was man made) What is the end goal? To have a 20 and 0 record?


So here's my question about trying to define "fight drive" as something that's not a drive because it's not "natural." Given the nature and intensity of dog breeding, why would someone not be open to the notion that fight drive can be bred into dogs independent of biological significance? Quite frankly, what do service dogs do today that would indicate that all of their behaviors are biological significant? Is dog dancing biologically significant? Signalling on drugs in a car trunk? Running up to a handler behind a blind, barking for 30 seconds, and then biting a sleeve? Dogs have to be bred for those behaviors over time (well, maybe not the dog dancing) in an _unnaturally controlled breeding environment that works without regard to the dog's survival_. That is what it is, but I see no reason why you couldn't breed out particular behaviors that are just as natural as the evolutionary stuff 10,000 years ago.

And this can be done to excess, as evidenced by dogs like the Cordoba Fighting Dog, which was bred to the point of preferring fighting over mating (my understanding, could be wrong) and went extinct in the process. Sad story, but you can't argue that this dog's need to fight (and I'm not calling this fight drive in whatever flavor the boards are using it, just "fighting") overrode very primal and innate "biologically significant" drives.

So I guess....however clumsily I just said it...there is no reason why you couldn't bred a new drive into existence in a world of Chihuahuas and St. Bernards.


----------



## Tim Martens

*Re: drives*



Doug Wendling said:


> I have three questions:
> 1) Do those that think fight drive DOES NOT exist, mostly view biting as a function of prey or defense...and they DO NOT think that it's possible for a dog to have a CONTROLLED manifestation of persistent dominant biting, even under much pain?
> 2) What drive causes a dog to continue fighting to the ultimate consequence even if it can flee?
> 3) What drive is a dog in when it kills anything "unauthorized" in its TERRITORY?
> 
> There's more to dog aggression than prey, defense and the usual meaning of rank.
> 
> 
> 
> Tim
> You may take it how you wish? This is nothing personal, but I tend to stay away from these web boards. The only reason I have posted anything recently was because I had time to kill recovering from another knee surgery. Mike emailed me about the board he was starting when he first got it going. I have read over it from time to time, but because of lessons learned years ago as stated I tend to leave it at reading from time to time. It takes me a ton of time to write one of my post as I am not the best with the written word and I read and re-read what I wrote to make sure I am hopefully getting across what I want to get across. I don't mind debating someone point for point, but then again I am not going to go over the same thing time and again just to argue with someone and that unfortunatly (nothing personal once again) is where most of the web board stuff ends up.
> As for my comment about Dr. Raiser's book, I see no reason to rewrite what has been written so well. Dr. Raiser's book is excellent as are Armin's articles.
Click to expand...

Doug,

I would consider myself, for the most part, a raiser believer. therefor i agree with your ideas on drive and the comments you've made in this discussion. however, i would never get "locked in" to any ONE theory or idea on anything. i am always open to new ideas or methods. that is why i visit these boards. that is why i seek out other training groups and trainers (even though our department's trainer has over 30 years of experience in the field). while there may be 95 wrong ways, i am always looking for those 5 ways that work and perhaps work better than what i do. 

andres,

i would answer your questions with a question. since your idea of "fight drive" seems to be a dog either has it or doesn't. does this drive need to be worked? because if the dog "has it", it shouldn't ever need to be worked on. 

the way i see it, going back to the old drive paradigm of wanting to have a dog balanced in prey/defense. the defense side needs to be worked. yes, defense is "flight or fight", so we teach the dog they can win by being aggressive and staying in the fight. we start with little pressure that would trigger defense and then gradually add pressure to the triggers, thereby increasing the dogs threshold at which he will choose the flee option. some dogs naturally have a very high threshold which the "fight drive" theorists may be calling "fight drive".

i think too often people associate prey drive with movement. that is absolutely not the case. a perfect example is the schutzhund dog doing a bark and hold in the blind. if you think that is anything but prey drive, i would beg to differ and the decoy is not moving at all.

the "fight drive" people need to get on the same page. when we had this discussion before, one person said "fight drive" was more controllable than prey drive beccause the end goal was not to kill the opponent. andres, your definition seems to have the kill as the goal. although you have said that you would concede that it is not a "drive". i think you answered your own question. "it" (if it exists) is a sum of drives (prey/defense) and character traits (courage, high pain threshold, etc.).

doug, this just came to me. i think we have different goals when coming to message boards. my goal is not to "convince" other people that i'm right and they're wrong. it's just about sharing ideas and talking dogs. i enjoy it (when it's kept civil). agreeing to disagree is just fine with me...


----------



## Andres Martin

> "locked in" to any ONE theory or idea on anything. i am always open to new ideas or methods. that is why i visit these boards.


 ABSOLUTELY AGREE. For me it's complicated to discuss ideas with fanatics and disciples, but not impossible. Besides...no one has the psychological blueprint FOR ANY LIVING BEING...let alone AN ENTIRE SPECIES!!!!!!

Tim, I'm sorry I'll have to answer a la Lou Castle (If you're reading Lou...I'm kidding), so...regarding fight drive...


> does this drive need to be worked? because if the dog "has it", it shouldn't ever need to be worked on.


 Does prey drive get worked? YES. Does defense get worked? YES. Do all dogs have great prey drive? NO. Can prey drive be developed? Yes. Etc. And so, to me fight drive, if a dog has it, must get worked, and developed. Also, a puppy can have fight drive yet become totally submissive if you beat the shit out of him continually and play with his mind. If you had stimulated his abilities, the result would have been different.

My definition of fight drive does NOT have KILL as THE objective...but it can be one of them. Mostly the objective is to DOMINATE. It's SOCIAL.
Doug calls this "aggression drive"? Fine. Rage...DEFINITELY NOT.

A sum of drives...prey, defense? I don't think so...because I have seen a few dogs that will fight anything to the ultimate on command, yet not respond to rags and tugs AT ALL. 

You wrote that...


> I think too often people associate prey drive with movement. that is absolutely not the case. a perfect example is the schutzhund dog doing a bark and hold in the blind. if you think that is anything but prey drive, i would beg to differ and the decoy is not moving at all.


...but ALL of them were started with rags, tugs, and rabbitlike movement. So they display prey, and offer behaviors ANTICIPATING MOVEMENT!!!!!! They are axpecting a new and active bite...right?

Now, the threshold thing is very interesting to me. I think thresholds apply to dogs far better than drives do. The questions are, "What and How much does it take for a dog to (fill in the blank)? But to me it does not mean that a high pain threshold equals a fighter. It just helps a fighter, as does great physical conditioning and technique.

Woody wrote,


> So here's my question about trying to define "fight drive" as something that's not a drive because it's not "natural." Given the nature and intensity of dog breeding, why would someone not be open to the notion that fight drive can be bred into dogs independent of biological significance?


...clearly, anything that can be bred into a dog...AT SOME POINT WAS PART OF A DOG... and is thus COMPLETELY NATURAL. Can fight drive be bred for, selected for? OF COURSE. The pitbull people do it all the time! But all of this is semantics TO ME.

At the end of the day, I see myself. How easily do I give up? How easily do my friends give up? I see the same in dogs. Some have a fighting tenacity that DOES NOT STOP in the face of adversity. To those that think it's more controllable...yeah right! How easy is it to stop a dog fight?

Fight drive, or agression drive...the inclination towards full fledged combat for the main purpose of domination. Does it serve a biological purpose? I think it does...because it makes winning confrontations more probable, which translates to better breeding (perpetuation) opportunities.

Think of this...is it possible to send a bulldog on a BEAR? The dog does not view the BEAR as prey...it views the BEAR as an ADVERSARY...

I think...

as I have yet to successfully interview a FOUR legged dog... :twisted:


----------



## Woody Taylor

Andres Martin said:


> Think of this...is it possible to send a bulldog on a BEAR? The dog does not view the BEAR as prey...it views the BEAR as an ADVERSARY...


Totally off topic...it would be kind of interesting to talk to Karelian Bear Dog breeders. I have no idea if KBDs actually engage bears or just scare them off...but that's a heck of a point you bring up, when a dog is engaging with something that could kill it...what drive is it in? KBDs and bears, Filas and jaguars....

Anyway.


----------



## Andres Martin

They are in _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ !!!! Fill in the blanks.

I remember a great post about Boerboels by Geel. He was knocked about because BB's didn't make great working dogs...but alas working does not constitute sport. I would find it interesting to read Geel's view of fight drive in the context of his local breed.


----------



## Andres Martin

> And he goes on to state that social aggression is the active form of the "aggression drive" meaning not needing a stimulus.


Doug, I can't even see the possibility of observing a purposeless, therefore un-stimulated, behavior. I don't think it's possible. Nope.

Perhaps, Dr. Raiser does not yet know what the stimulus is.

Please note I'm not encompassing cerebral irregularities, chemical imbalances, traumatic conditioning.


----------



## Woody Taylor

Andres Martin said:


> They are in _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ !!!! Fill in the blanks.
> 
> I remember a great post about Boerboels by Geel. He was knocked about because BB's didn't make great working dogs...but alas working does not constitute sport. I would find it interesting to read Geel's view of fight drive in the context of his local breed.


Was that the stuff over at Leerburg? I remember him getting beat about the head and face for insinuating that there might be mastiff breeds with qualities herders might not have...or that Boerboels have in equivalent (greater?) amounts...in any case, blasphemy!!!


----------



## Reinier Geel

Thanks for the compliment Martin, well someone once said, if you think you can do it, or think you cant, in both instances you are right. 

This is why I did not jump in here long ago, to much complexity in the terminology - in all honesty, I relate, and I am sure do most - to what Martin is saying far better than to what Dough is saying: Two different schools of thought both describing the very same thing from different sides - Both being right of course. Like Doug said, we may differ in order to agree at some point  solves nothing. 

	The truth is I prefer things simple:  I write books on various management topics: ranging from disaster recovery and mitigation, security, training, to strategic and event management. 
	The point is this, I have found that in each field of expertise people relate better to commonality, they way they traditionally do things, and understand it being done, this includes terminology taught and used.
	In my opinion, we relate more readily to things taught that relates to our senses;  seeing, hearing, touching, smelling and tasting.
	By seeing, we see with one word, that which does not translate into many different interpretations, this leads to less confusion  by using academic like arguments, we exclude others from the possibility of learning simple things, described in very difficult scientific ways. 
	Somewhere the effort seems to get lost in translation and interpretation  we loose our sense of involvement.

Now, with that much said, I would like to give some simple views on Aggression:

Aggression is not a point in the sky, like the Southern Cross that one can simply point to and say that is aggression. To me aggression is a trait, - and traits have many attributes -, which is heritor in predators mostly. In addition, it is developed through interaction, training, and socialisation. In tribes that have a bias for aggressive behaviour, the villages are clean and neat, and you will find structure. Where apposed to tribes with low-level aggression, the opposite is true. This is as far as I will take the argument of aggression being inherited, or transferred  Dr Bruce Fogal  in his book The Dogs Mind, relates this aspect to the dog with many examples.

As far as what threshold is concerned, I think it is situation dependant  just like with us.

As for drives; Well Aggression is not a drive  a drive is better divined as a behaviour to continue the species, a primitive instinct - sexual, food, status, and territory. The Attributes that flow from these  drives could be ladled traits  and this is a sub category that we relate to in training, stemming from the aforementioned drives.

Perception and culture will dictate how we as people translate these anomalies (differences in behaviour to stimulus) into words, as we see and understand them, I say each onto his own, and right fully so.. . if it works for you then good.

Aggression is something that is adrenal driven  in other words triggered -, just like defence, it is not pre meditated actions, or an attribute of character (Breed) alone (social aggression) we find many examples of this in many breeds  (weak dogs with no aggression  un characteristics of the breed), and these are all survival actions. So, to categorise behaviour on one aspect of it manifesting is flawed. It is multi dimensional.

Every dog has his own unique character, under the skin resides both weak and strong traits. How they surface is a question of socialisation, exposure, and training. 

Having said this, we do realise that traits are genetically passed on, and can be genetically enhanced (or fowled up) through breeding. 

So defensive aggression, is spontaneous, the dogs freshold is breached  pertaining to the magnitude of the perceived threat  and the dog instinctively reacts, and defends him self, or goes into defence.

Where with social aggression, it is based on a decision, or trait of the dog with the most testosterone to dominate, others  it could be fuelled by his sexual, territorial or drive for pack status.

The two are totally removed, defence and offence are both actual aggressions, and can be called aggression, at two opposing parts of the spectrum. 

The dog in attack, and the dog in defence, both have the same ability, to attack and do it viciously  the only difference is the one is active the other passive forms of aggression  of which the defence drive is the most lethal, this dog leaves him self no way out, no options  but to fight if it comes down to it... 

This aggression can be upped or tuned down, but never extinguished. Opposed to social aggression, the dog can be taiught to be a bully or behave  so it is the same as with humans, we have the steroid pumped boys that push, dominate and throw their weight around, and then we have the athletic types that just mind their own business  social aggression  a chosen - learned response.
:wink:


----------



## Andres Martin

Geel...a quick question...what drive are dogs in when they seek non prey animals...Bears, Boars, Lions, etc.?

I have a bit of experience with Presa dogs, American Bulldogs, Argentine dogos, and Pit bulldogs...and I see a willingness to fight...but not significant levels of prey drive.

Is a desire to fight simply testosterone dependent? Is a desire to fight a sub to aggression?

I work 4 intervention dogs here in El Salvador...and my own pup. They are all social as can be...they can be hugged, petted, fed by strangers quite easily. They don't respond to movement as the typical "working dog" does...yet given a command or a trigger...the response is active aggression. They were all chosen carefully, raised carefully and trained carefully. They remain after 12 other dogs were given to friends...because in my view they were not stable. They were defensive or prey. Not fight.


----------



## Reinier Geel

Non  pray animals  well I assure you a lion is a very BIG Pray animal, and a bore or a bear the same  yes, only joking, I understand that the dog would note like a big lion steak for supper etc. so  Martin

Think of this...is it possible to send a bulldog on a BEAR? The dog does not view the BEAR as prey...it views the BEAR as an ADVERSARY... 

I think..., well so do I, I would say that it is territorial  they are all predators  to some extent  warring for the survival of the species  (and the source of food is capped) relates back to a drive to protect food resources, and claim territory.

Example, my wife got a kitten, my dog Chaka, hates cats  one attacked him in a pipe once  was this because of his previous experience  or his territorial behaviour?

Knowing my dog, it was because of his territorial behaviour  he will attack any one or thing on his own accord that does not belong in the back yard  Rats, Birds, Snakes and even the maid  he is a gentle giant and very good with my kids  so I would say it is territorial behaviour.

Example two; wild dogs here in Africa will attack a Lion in the winter, to defend a carcass  this is not in defence  they are not in harms way  it is territorial. To supplement this, the Boerboel, is a herd protector, and will also of his own accord attack other predators that it finds in its territory, without being commanded.

I think?  ha ha :lol:


----------



## Andres Martin

Geel...are you ready for this... next question?

Does a dog have to pee all over a new building (that it has never been to ) to consider that building ITS TERRITORY then?


hahaha CHeers.

Andres


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

Cujo tried to pee on Lÿka's crate when I first introduced them in the back yard thru the crate :lol: :lol: :lol: I pulled him away before he could give the girl a shower.

He also likes to try and pee on bags of dog food in pet stores.


----------



## Andres Martin

Mike...

...dogs learn from example!!!!

:lol:


----------



## Reinier Geel

Is a desire to fight simply testosterone dependent? Is a desire to fight a sub to aggression? 


On testosterone  (now I have to get technical to show the significance of testosterone in dogs). The testes are responsible for the production of testosterone, therefore, we find more aggressive behaviour by males, than females because of this. Dog aggression is defined as any behaviour meant to intimidate or harm. A desire to fight as we see it  well in my experience with humans and dogs alike, equates to the testosterone levels, people who are more physically active, and produce more testosterone tend to be more aggressive, and irritable. Testosterone plays a big role in muscle building, and affects the brain, to secrete more adrenaline. Researchers discovered that giving testosterone to dogs caused an increase in the muscle mass of these animals, under certain conditions.

Territorial marking is a result of testosterone; it is the main reason for urine marking in male dogs. As pack members, wild dogs and wolves lived within a well-defined territory, which they marked.

The Power of the Pack. Also plays a role in territorial behaviour traits. I have to throw this in here -To use unbalanced Positive Only training methods to manipulate a dogs aggressive behaviour, and attempt to gain their compliance through the use food, does not provide a dog with leadership  they are all about aggression, and who is in the ALPHA role.

Two internal factors that greatly affect aggression, as we see it, are sex hormones and the neurotransmitter serotonin. When male or female sex hormone levels are high, aggression is more likely. When serotonin levels in the brain are high, aggression is less likely. The difference in this threshold at which a dog displays aggressive behaviour is influenced by both environmental and genetic factors

In Nature, territory provided all the resources required to sustain a pack, and only the fittest survived, including hunting for food and mating opportunities. Dominant dogs will guard their own exhibiting territorial behaviour. Nowadays we see the evidence of this in the urine markings, the means by which dogs mark the boundary of their territory. Protective, territorial and possessive aggression are all very similar, and involve the defence of valuable resources. Territorial aggression is usually associated with defence of property. 

This makes it clear to strangers that they have crossed a territorial boundary and, to avoid conflict, it would be a good idea to turn back now, we dont read these signs, and then brand dogs as unsocial or aggressive.
Female dogs are also prone to urine marking, but to a lesser degree than there male counter parts and usually for a different reason. Females also have small amounts of testosterone, female dogs also excrete their own urinary (and vaginal) pheromone, parahydroxybenzoic acid. This chemical signal to other dogs how receptive they are to mating and it is at its strongest during a heat cycle. 

Although aggressive behaviours are normal for dogs, theyre generally unacceptable to humans. From a dog's perspective, theres always a reason for aggressive behaviour.

i think? :wink:


----------



## Andres Martin

The "other" term...COMPETITIVE AGGRESSION...comes to mind then, when dogs deal with other apex predators outside of their established territory?

For me, there are too many terms. I tend to see dogs' TENDENCIES as a function of three things, mostly: stability, intelligence and fight.

If a dog is stable...he is stable, period.
If he'll fight...then he has fight drive.
If he learns quickly and generalizes quickly...he's smart.
If he bonds easily (trait), great.
If he's dominant (trait), no major problem.
If he likes to play (trait), that's fine.
If he can focus for a long time (trait), fabulous.
If his defensive threshold is low...he scares easily and IS NOT STABLE.
If he's excessively sharp...he IS NOT STABLE.
If his prey threshold is low, but he's stable, great...he is stable.

But I can see how the terms PREY, PLAY, PACK, HUNT, FIGHT, SEX, FOOD, ETC DRIVES can be used to illustrate dog behavior and desires...

Actually, those terms kind of describe mine as well...


----------



## Reinier Geel

Yes, Martin, I can relate to where you are coming from, a practical training perspective, you have a keen sense of practical observation, and you describe things as you relate to them, via interaction and training  yes/no? 

None of these traits and drives amount to much  if you cannot train a dog, it acts as an added benefit  like a GPS, when one gets lost, but it should not replace good common sense about training methodology in my opinion. 

If you ask most trainer if they can train a dog  they will say yes, if you ask them what drive, or social behaviour is this dog exhibiting  well in all likely hood ten trainers standing together will have ten different answers and opinions on this matter.

This is the point, where the two worlds in dog training differ  the Frederick Neicher philosophy  of two opposing parts, reasoning in the same plane but from different points in the spectrum, using different measuring criteria  meter (practical) vs. foot ( theoretical ? biological/ scientific ).

I am of the same opinion, when it comes to many definitions used lately

	Competitive aggression, whats next  
	uncompetitive aggression, 
	psychopathic aggression,
	breed specific aggression
 etc.

Is it not just plain vanilla - just drive, either territorial or pack status  that manifest in the aggressive trait, we are seeing here. 

Aggression remains aggression by any other name, no matter how many prefixes we use, the principle of aggression stays the same  it is the language of dogs, again, by definition: Dog aggression is defined as any behaviour meant to intimidate or harm.

When two dogs meet, and they have the same height and build, and are of the same status, but from different packs  you will find what Lou Castle explained  in the ALPHA role  they want to dominate each other. If neither submits, then the only way to get the status right is to arm-wrestle. To see whos bite, is as big as his bark.

I think.
:wink:


----------

