# Vehicle Guard



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Did a bit of practice work this past weekend...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJdT9c0Wfn0&feature=em-upload_owner


----------



## Tiago Fontes (Apr 17, 2011)

Mark Herzog said:


> Did a bit of practice work this past weekend...
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJdT9c0Wfn0&feature=em-upload_owner


I know you like your dogs to transfer bites, it is not my thing. 

If you need a dog to cause damage when engaged, why dont you consider targetting different areas? The dog was mostly focused on the arms... Understand it is where danger comes from, but why not teach them to target leg/groin area?


Thank you for the video.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

Tiago Fontes said:


> I know you like your dogs to transfer bites, it is not my thing.
> 
> If you need a dog to cause damage when engaged, why dont you consider targetting different areas? The dog was mostly focused on the arms... Understand it is where danger comes from, but why not teach them to target leg/groin area?


Just like we females are trained to do if accosted.


----------



## Catherine Gervin (Mar 12, 2012)

Gillian Schuler said:


> Just like we females are trained to do if accosted.


much of Krav Maga training is alllll about groin strikes...because it's super effective


----------



## Austin Porter (Oct 14, 2011)

What's the reason for the dog coming off bite and the decoy allowing the dog to re-engage? If our young dogs do that they don't get another bite. If a dog pops off, the handler posts up and the dog gets agitated and put up in drive. There are a few situations where we would give another bite but that's only when high stress/pressure is involved and by the time they get that kind of stress, they are not popping off (decoy takes the dog to their threshold and then sees them through it). This work looks almost identical to one of the ways I work the out, but we back train so that the dog doesn't pop off when another target is presented or the decoy goes passive. Not criticizing, just want to know the why behind what im seeing. Thanks for sharing!


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

thanks for sharing.

I agree with the others on the coming off, but also would want my dog to take a much bigger bite, and NOT pull on the suit, but that is just my preference.


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Austin Porter said:


> What's the reason for the dog coming off bite and the decoy allowing the dog to re-engage? If our young dogs do that they don't get another bite. If a dog pops off, the handler posts up and the dog gets agitated and put up in drive. There are a few situations where we would give another bite but that's only when high stress/pressure is involved and by the time they get that kind of stress, they are not popping off (decoy takes the dog to their threshold and then sees them through it). This work looks almost identical to one of the ways I work the out, but we back train so that the dog doesn't pop off when another target is presented or the decoy goes passive. Not criticizing, just want to know the why behind what im seeing. Thanks for sharing!


Difference of philosophy... and need. I'm not interested in sport... Not trying to "apprehend" a criminal. My need is protection. For me, there is no advantage to having the dog bite and hold... It leaves the dog more vulnerable to being grabbed, hurt and/or defeated.

For those that think the bites this dog is inflicting here are not effective, we did two engagements that day, the one you see here and a second one that lasted another 2 minutes and 30 seconds. During that second engagement the dog repeatedly penetrated the suit arms and sleeve covers, breaking skin and drawing blood on both arms of the decoy. Multiple penetrations through to the arms.

The dog does not have to bite "full" to be effective.


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

If you didn't like the bite work in the first one you'll probably hate this one. This was the second (and final) session we did that day, with that dog. Done about an hour after the Vehicle Guard shown earlier. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awoIL7C8Z3Y

If you listen closely, at @ 2:23 in the video, the decoy comments that the arm bites are really hurting him. When he removed the bite suit he was bleeding on both forearms.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

what's the real world reason for training this ?

in most countries people lock their cars but don't keep a K9 in them to guard the car. impractical and often unsafe. every year i read of a PSD being killed in a vehicle

i can't think of vehicles with high value resources inside that are guarded by placing a K9 inside.

are there security outfits that guard cars with K9's this way ?

i see it as more of a test of territorial/space guarding than a protection exercise even tho it is somewhat interesting to watch

but if i was training for real world situations, i would try and set up the training to approximate how the dog has to perform in the real world


----------



## Jay Quinn (Apr 1, 2012)

non-sport or not, personally, i really don't like seeing such a messy biting style... you say it protects your dog from being beaten, but it also opens your dog up to being pushed away or blocked with an object if it just keeps dropping off and re-biting... it will also put you in legal hot water, one, two, maybe 3 bites on a person you'd probably get away with, but 5, 6, more? that's just excessive use of force bordering on assault... 

there is nothing wrong with teaching the dog to transfer when he is *actually* getting hit or beaten, but i don't see the point in having him come off the moment another limb is waved near him... in reality *most* people who get bitten are going down like a sack of shit and will probably thrash around on the ground screaming... if your dog is grabbing all over them you're going to have problems... and what if you have to step in to remove your dog? no matter how much training you do there is a good chance your dog will ignore a verbal out command when actually biting a person who is fighting and thrashing for real and won't hold still... is he going to grab YOUR arm when he sees it coming to get his collar?


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Jay Quinn said:


> *non-sport or not, personally, i really don't like seeing such a messy biting style...* you say it protects your dog from being beaten, but it also opens your dog up to being pushed away or blocked with an object if it just keeps dropping off and re-biting... it will also put you in legal hot water, one, two, maybe 3 bites on a person you'd probably get away with, but 5, 6, more? that's just excessive use of force bordering on assault...
> 
> there is nothing wrong with teaching the dog to transfer when he is *actually* getting hit or beaten, but i don't see the point in having him come off the moment another limb is waved near him... in reality *most* people who get bitten are going down like a sack of shit and will probably thrash around on the ground screaming... if your dog is grabbing all over them you're going to have problems... and what if you have to step in to remove your dog? no matter how much training you do there is a good chance your dog will ignore a verbal out command when actually biting a person who is fighting and thrashing for real and won't hold still... is he going to grab YOUR arm when he sees it coming to get his collar?


Isn't the important issue the safety and protection of the handler from assault? Why would "a messy biting style" be an issue for you, unless you are more concerned with "looks" than with results?

The job of the K9 is to engage the threat and allow the protectee time to escape the threat, or in rare instances the time to react and join the dog in attacking the threat as well. If the threat is focused on the K9 this takes their focus away from the protectee, allowing time to escape. The dog does not necessarily need to bite to do this... Holding the dog off with an object may delay the bite but it still means the dog has accomplished its goal... If the attacker is moving and spinning to avoid the dog's in and out and flanking movements, then this stops the attacker from focusing on the protectee... Whether it looks pretty, or "messy" doesn't really matter.

The measure of success is not how it looks or if the bite actually occurs... The measure of success is the dog's ability to draw the attackers attention and focus to give the protectee time to escape or the option to join the fight. Being able to do that while responding to the attackers assault and being able to avoid injury for as long as possible are also of value. How it "looks", whether it looks "messy" is of no value... at least not to me anyway.

With respect to your comment that this puts me in "legal hot water" I would respond that any dog bite, trained or not, single bite or multiple, puts the dog and owner in "legal hot water". That is a fact of life in this society, though Canada is far less litigious than the US. Having said that, when my life is threatened, the last thing I'm concerned with is the legal issues that follow... My first concern is to survive the encounter. I would rather my dogs and I survive the attack and explain/defend our actions in court afterwards, than the dog or I be killed.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

first, consider my previous Q's about real world applications for defense of a vehicle answered 

and i agree with the reply to being overly paranoid about litigation

but in keeping with the real world hypotheticals, if you are training a dog for the real world only, and expect your K9 to STOP and/or neutralize a threat, why not go all the way and have the dog target the face or neck area and be done with it ?
- it CAN be trained to target any part of the body 
- wouldn't everyone agree it is harder for a threat to fire a weapon with any accuracy with a face full of K9, rather than a dog on an arm that may or may not have the weapon in it ?

big differences between scoring points, protecting the family while out for a drive, making an arrest, and saving the handlers life in a life threatening situation

...just for the sake of argument here.... since that is what the thread is (partly) debating


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

please follow up with muzzle work vids.


----------



## Austin Porter (Oct 14, 2011)

For me, I like to see a certain "type" of bite. It tells me a lot about the dog im working. In my experience... I have never handled or decoyed a dog that was totally confident AND also had a frontal, nippy, chompy, on-off type of bite. So when I see this type of work and the decoy encouraging it, it makes me wonder. Especially because its a PPD and someone might actually have to put this dog between themselves and a legitimate threat. 

I would also be interested in seeing muzzle work, hidden sleeve, slip sleeve and continue to attack handler/escape...


----------



## ben litchfield (Nov 8, 2009)

this is a subject i find really interesting and have been looking into for a while.i really like the theory of the dog being allowed the freedom to fight the criminal in its own right rather than being taught to target the traditional area's leaving it's self open to harm.....

http://youtu.be/Lk5gypSvCjg

the issue for me is it seems like just a great theory,i really cant find any footage of dogs working that look committed to the fight whilst at the same time being effective in stopping the criminal.look at the second video mark put on from 35secs,the dog took several head shots without changing up targets and then took what could be argued as stabs to the upper shoulder next.the dog only seemed to switch arms when the opposite arm was offered slightly behind the other arm being bitten and it was still,like a well rehearsed sport type routine!.
please dont think im being negative towards marks video's or training or the training style in general,i really am just looking for some answers to something i have a great interest in.

this is probably the best clip i can find to show this type of training,

http://youtu.be/H2QnIa-0ZPc

at the moment i train my dogs to be comfortable targeting bi/tri and legs,i expect no threat in my life apart from opportune chance attacks,mugging etc.i think if there was a real time threat for what ever reason i would change the target area to one already stated in the thread.

there are people on here with a lot more time in dogs than me,with a lot more experience.i really am hoping to create more discussion on this subject and be educated by experience rather than hunting for theories.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

i think you also have to consider that most bite suits and hidden equipment are constructed to allow a dog to grip. live bites are a different matter ...literally 
... and will always be a new experience for the dog when/if they happen

if you went another route and made equip that was NOT easy to grip (and still safe for both parties) you might be better able to judge how much fire in the gut the dog the dog really has and how committed it was in a fight

but that aint gonna happen anytime soon, and live bites will never happen in training so it will be impossible to confirm which type of engagement is best
- which seems to tell me the debate will always be hypothetical and based on what each individual trainer is satisfied with, and at what level they will consider their dog fully "trained"


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

rick smith said:


> i think you also have to consider that most bite suits and hidden equipment are constructed to allow a dog to grip. live bites are a different matter ...literally
> ... and will always be a new experience for the dog when/if they happen
> 
> if you went another route and made equip that was NOT easy to grip (and still safe for both parties) you might be better able to judge how much fire in the gut the dog the dog really has and how committed it was in a fight
> ...


OLD Can-AM jackets, hard as hell, uncommited dogs will slip right off.

Leather hidden sleeves..


----------



## ben litchfield (Nov 8, 2009)

rick,is this the type of thing your talking about...

go to 48secs
http://youtu.be/bDKUsgkyaeU


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

rick smith said:


> i think you also have to consider that most bite suits and hidden equipment are constructed to allow a dog to grip. live bites are a different matter ...literally
> ... and will always be a new experience for the dog when/if they happen
> 
> if you went another route and made equip that was NOT easy to grip (and still safe for both parties) you might be better able to judge how much fire in the gut the dog the dog really has and how committed it was in a fight
> ...


I agree somewhat... but not fully. To me, the "sport bite suits" I see don't really allow my type of dog to bite and work... they are like bubble suits and in no way resemble the density or feel of clothing and flesh for the dog. The bite suit I like to use is custom built and is much thinner and much more flexible. The dogs feel the arm inside and their canines can penetrate the suit. The dog can grip better because of that flexibility and penetration... and the dog tries to rip and tear when biting. This is how the dog works in real life... ripping and tearing clothing, skin, muscle and joints.

Most of the bite suits that I see are designed for dogs that "bite full" and hold. They are built to protect the decoy and are usually quite restrictive in the ability of the decoy to move. The decoy in these two videos has only worked with this dog a few times over the past couple of years. He normally uses his regular "sport suits" and this dog recognizes those suits and knows he really can't penetrate those suits, so he "fights" like it's a game... half hearted and without real intensity. Those suits are too restrictive for the decoy to really fight and "strike" the dog or grab the dog... and the dog knows it... just like it knows it can't penetrate those suits.

In the two videos I posted, the decoy didn't want to wear my suit pants, (he did once about a year ago and got bit in the legs) so in these two videos he chose to wear his sport suit pants but wore my suit jacket, because it allows him the flexibility to reach the dog and strike the dog and try to grab the dog. The jacket has sleeve covers which give him a bit extra protection in the arms... but the legs are much less protected in my suit. The dog instantly knew all of that... where normally the dog would have taken bites at the legs if available, instead the dog ignored the legs and went for areas where it knows there is weakness and where it knows it can penetrate.

This dog has had live fights and bites... the more the fight the more the dog turns on.


----------



## Leon Sampson (Feb 10, 2011)

Mark,

Thanks for the video and I appreciate the transfer approach that you have implemented. I agree with the philosphy to transfer allowing the dog to avoid potential injury as long as the dog stays engaged and eliminates the threat, versus apprehension for a practical purpose. 
If in a situation that requires my dog to be sent he is being to eliminate the threat not apprehend it.


----------



## Ben Thompson (May 2, 2009)

Mark Herzog said:


> If you didn't like the bite work in the first one you'll probably hate this one. This was the second (and final) session we did that day, with that dog. Done about an hour after the Vehicle Guard shown earlier.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awoIL7C8Z3Y
> 
> If you listen closely, at @ 2:23 in the video, the decoy comments that the arm bites are really hurting him. When he removed the bite suit he was bleeding on both forearms.


 I like the dog and the training. He looks like he can do guard work and Personal protection. I always thought deep bites like in schutzhund were about preserving the teeth keeping the canine teeth from breaking. I think it would be a boring world if we all trained our dogs the exact same way for the exact same reasons.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Leon Sampson said:


> Mark,
> 
> Thanks for the video and I appreciate the transfer approach that you have implemented. I agree with the philosphy to transfer allowing the dog to avoid potential injury as long as the dog stays engaged and eliminates the threat, versus apprehension for a practical purpose.
> If in a situation that requires my dog to be sent he is being to eliminate the threat not apprehend it.


Eliminate how, in what way?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Leon Sampson said:


> Mark,
> 
> Thanks for the video and I appreciate the transfer approach that you have implemented. I agree with the philosphy to transfer allowing the dog to avoid potential injury as long as the dog stays engaged and eliminates the threat, versus apprehension for a practical purpose.
> If in a situation that requires my dog to be sent he is being to eliminate the threat not apprehend it.




 Do you mean STOP the threat from escalating? :-k 

If my dog attacks someone that "threat" better be in my house my yard or in my face. If I have to "send" the dog then the law will look quite unfavorable on my actions. 
Similar to laws concerning a gun. The perp better be on your property or within 20 ft of you or your in deep $#!+


----------



## Zakia Days (Mar 13, 2009)

Aaah! Old school personal protection and guard dog training! Cool!! VERY NICE!!!!!


----------



## Leon Sampson (Feb 10, 2011)

Each individual owner has the right to define "eliminate" to his/her needs. Whether the term eliminate, subdue, or neutralize is used the end result should be the potential for physical harm to me and/or family no longer exists. However there a more than one way to acheive that goal during training, e.g. calm grip vs.transfers. 
We have to realize that in a real encounter there is no clean presentation of the pocket or forearm and the canine must engage with commitment to resolve the threat. The only successful encounter is accomplished with the owner be safe.


----------



## Zakia Days (Mar 13, 2009)

Leon Sampson said:


> Each individual owner has the right to define "eliminate" to his/her needs. Whether the term eliminate, subdue, or neutralize is used the end result should be the potential for physical harm to me and/or family no longer exists. However there a more than one way to acheive that goal during training, e.g. calm grip vs.transfers.
> We have to realize that in a real encounter there is no clean presentation of the pocket or forearm and the canine must engage with commitment to resolve the threat. The only successful encounter is accomplished with the owner be safe.


Well said!


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Ive used both types of dogs in real life to engage real people personally, as well have clients of mine..

results were same, people ran if they could, the ones that couldnt went to the hospital, or at least should have . and a couple got "detained" until police arrived..

For me its preference, what I personally liketo see in my dogs Im using / training, for the situation and the dog.

I personally dont make up hypothetical reasons for things.


----------



## Ben Thompson (May 2, 2009)

The only thing to watch out for in real life bite situations in the bad guy might have one or more empty recycleable products and be shaking them at your dog while he is yelling at the same time.


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Joby Becker said:


> For me its preference, what I personally liketo see in my dogs Im using / training, for the situation and the dog.


For me too... agree 100%



Joby Becker said:


> I personally dont make up hypothetical reasons for things.


Agreed. I find that most people I meet do "fantasy training" for "fantasy encounters" that will likely never happen to them... usually because they themselves have no experience or real understanding of what "threats" are likely to happen to them; how they happen; or how to effectively deal with them.

Other than "in your own home" the BEST way to deal with a threat is to RUN!!! Remove yourself from the equation wherever and whenever possible... as soon as possible. The PPD's job is to help you do that. Inside your home the equation changes slightly, but honestly, if the attack is coming from experienced "bad people" with real intent (not just a couple of kids busting into what they think is an empty home, looking for booze, drugs and cash) then you better have more than a dog as your protection plan and you better be prepared to deal with some very serious legal issues afterwards (right or wrong you're going to have to defend your actions, usually in criminal as well as civil courts).

If you can, ESCAPE. Don't fight. Don't engage in "threat displays" which only serve to ESCALATE the problem, not solve it. Don't let pride or macho behaviours over-ride what should be common sense. 

You want to "eliminate the threat"? Leave! If you're not there then the "threat" isn't a threat. To be a threat requires three elements: AOI (Ability, Opportunity and Intent). If you remove the opportunity by leaving the scene, then you remove a required element and the threat no longer exists. It might come back in future but you can work to eliminate that later.

Don't be fooled into thinking that "now I have a PPD so I can stand up to anyone and anything" because life doesn't work that way. It's like the guy that takes some MA courses or "knife fighting" training and believes he can now hold his own in a "fight". I could write pages on this topic... others more knowledgeable and more experienced than I already have. If you want an "eye opener" I'll gladly give you the links so you can do some reading.

The world of Personal Protection Dog training reminds me a lot of the current craze of "Knife Fighting" (made popular by Hollywood movies and TV). Seems like everywhere I look there is someone teaching their MA version of Knife Fighting techniques... and there are lots of different techniques and systems and training methods... each boasting to be the best and/or the only system that really works. Most of these systems are developed/taught by people who have little or no actual real world experience but that doesn't really matter to them. It's a business and selling their system is what matters. Whether it works or how the training may get the student killed is not a concern to most of these people... at least the thought rarely enters their minds. Many even believe their own crap (which may be worst of all).

Here's my point: It's almost all BS. There is no such thing as Knife Fighting. What they are teaching is something called Duelling and as most people know, duelling went out of style a long long time ago . In fact a very knowledgeable fellow (on the topic) has written that a "real knife fight" isn't a "fight" it's an execution and it happens nothing like what you see in the movies or train for in a MA Knife Fighting course. Well, a "real" PPD encounter is going to be nothing like what 99% of PPD trainers train for because 99% of PPD trainers have never seen a "real" encounter, they have no idea what a "real" encounter is like, no experience on how it developed (threats don't just happen, they develop), no idea how to spot it, avoid it, respond to it or how to survive it.

The good news is that the vast majority of people will never experience the "real, hard-core violence and/or offenders" that I'm talking about. The bad news is, if you are one of the unlucky ones, either by chance or because of your occupation or your lifestyle, or because you've made some bad/stupid choices in your life, then you better understand what you're going to be dealing with, otherwise you're in for a world of hurt and disappointment.

Don't take my word for it... do some research. See what people who have "been there" and "done that" say about violence (gun, knife, etc.). The dog is a "tool"... how you use it depends on your attitude and beliefs. If your beliefs and your attitude are based on the wrong things (bad intel), then likelihood is you'll use that tool poorly and the outcome will not be what you expect or want.

My beliefs are very different than most of the people on this forum... they are based on 50 years of experiences, numerous violent encounters, extensive experience with firearms, firearms training and other weapons. I don't say that my way is the only way... quite the contrary... my way is "A WAY" that works for me. It might work for you, it might not.

I used to tell people that no-one wins a gun fight (or a knife fight), you just hope and train to survive. I believe the same is true with the dog. That's why I try to teach my dogs to "fight" and survive, not to target or engage in a specific way or place. They must fight (or they are of no value to me as protection) but they must survive, at least survive and stay in the fight for as long as necessary or possible. Like lethal force, they should only to be used when there is no alternative. Marc MacYoung said it very well when he paraphrased Masaad Ayoob (from his book entitled Judicious Use of Lethal Force) : _Using lethal force is like chemotherapy. It is a horrible, traumatic, painful and life altering experience. One that no sane healthy person would willing submit themselves. But when the choice is that or dying of cancer -- you take the treatment._​


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Mark Herzog said:


> Here's my point: It's almost all BS. There is no such thing as Knife Fighting. What they are teaching is something called Duelling and as most people know, duelling went out of style a long long time ago . In fact a very knowledgeable fellow (on the topic) has written that a "real knife fight" isn't a "fight" it's an execution and it happens nothing like what you see in the movies or train for in a MA Knife Fighting course. Well, a "real" PPD encounter is going to be nothing like what 99% of PPD trainers train for because 99% of PPD trainers have never seen a "real" encounter, they have no idea what a "real" encounter is like, no experience on how it developed (threats don't just happen, they develop), no idea how to spot it, avoid it, respond to it or how to survive it.
> 
> The good news is that the vast majority of people will never experience the "real, hard-core violence and/or offenders" that I'm talking about. The bad news is, if you are one of the unlucky ones, either by chance or because of your occupation or your lifestyle, or because you've made some bad/stupid choices in your life, then you better understand what you're going to be dealing with, otherwise you're in for a world of hurt and disappointment.
> 
> ...


Heres my point,

I came about my ideas based on over 20 years of working with biting/fighting dogs, predominantly for protection, guard, with a dash of police and sport.

I believe that most of the "theories" I read specifically about PP training are BS, like your knife fighting analogy.

I believe you dont teach or train a dog to "survive". I believe the dogs ability to "survive" is a healthy mix of circumstance, and qualities that come from within the dog itself.

I place far more value on the dog being able to survive through its ability to fight forcibly with power, than any fighting "techniques" that I think I am training into the dog to help him survive. A dog fighting forcibly with power to me is far more important in real situations, than whether or not he escapes without injuries, or even survives at all.

I do not personally want a dog that is thinking about self preservation techniques, as that can quickly lead to "baying" behaviors, hesitation, and bailing all together...

I believe that the very best dogs for the job are the ones that show little to no self preservation instincts while fighting.

How old is the dog in this video?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

addition:

I believe you dont teach or train a dog to "survive"a physical fight against a human. I believe the dogs ability to "survive" is a healthy mix of circumstance, and qualities that come from within the dog itself. 

I do believe you can help a dog by teaching it things, for example, not rushing a barrier, and waiting until someone enters his area for example, to add to his chances of survival.


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Joby Becker said:


> I believe that most of the "theories" I read specifically about PP training are BS, like your knife fighting analogy.


I agree with you there.



Joby Becker said:


> I believe you dont teach or train a dog to "survive". I believe the dogs ability to "survive" is a healthy mix of circumstance, and qualities that come from within the dog itself.


I think we're saying the same thing... I try to teach the dogs to fight by showing them (through training) what "works" and what doesn't "work"... help them to learn the types of things that are going to result in their defeat. It's not about "teaching them to survive" it's about teaching them to fight in a way that maximizes their chances to survive while still having them "stay in the fight". Obviously escape is the best way to maximize survival but escape does nothing for the "protection" side of the equation.



Joby Becker said:


> I place far more value on the dog being able to survive through its ability to fight forcibly with power, than any fighting "techniques" that I think I am training into the dog to help him survive.


But aren't you also teaching your dog "fighting techniques" when you train him to "fight forcibly with power"? I teach (or rather encourage) him to fight in what I believe to be his most natural instinctive ways... you teach him to "fight forcibly with power" in the ways you believe are most effective for what you want. Isn't that what we're both describing?



Joby Becker said:


> A dog fighting forcibly with power to me is far more important *in real situations*, than whether or not he escapes without injuries, or even survives at all.


What does "in real situations" mean exactly? Aren't all situations real (I'm not talking about "training" I'm talking about day to day, moment to moment, situation to situation)? Is a yelling match any less "real" than a screaming match that escalates to blows? Is it any less real than a quiet stare down that erupts into gun fire? Aren't they all "real"... isn't the difference the level of violence, how they unfold and the weapons employed?

The importance of the dog "surviving" is more about the dogs' ability to survive long enough to be effective and less about walking away in the end with little or no injuries. 



Joby Becker said:


> I do not personally want a dog that is thinking about self preservation techniques, as that can quickly lead to "baying" behaviors, hesitation, and bailing all together...


Sure it can but just because it "can lead to" doesn't mean it will or that it has to end up that way. Nor does it mean that training can't help to overcome and control those instincts, just like many people train their dogs to never think about self preservation in the first place... or at least they try to. 



Joby Becker said:


> I believe that the very best dogs for the job are the ones that show little to no self preservation instincts while fighting.


What happens when a dog that has always been taught that it "wins" every encounter and never shows self-preservation instincts because it has never been shown "defeat", what happens when that dog loses for the first time? 

I've had trainers tell me that the dog must always win otherwise you can "ruin the dog". You'll destroy his/her confidence, their willingness to engage. 

Earlier in this thread someone posted a video of a news report of a Police K9 that was sent to apprehend a fleeing suspect. The dog bit the suspect and the suspect then bit the dog's ear. Did you listen carefully to the report and the suspect's description of what happened. The dog let go... the suspect was quite proud of the fact that the bite to the dog's ear had effectively stopped the dog's attack on him. From what everyone said it appears the dog did not re-engage. There were no other bites on the suspect... no talk by the suspect or any further bites, only a statement that the officer himself struck the suspect twice after the suspect bit the dog's ear. The officer admitted to doing so. From all accounts it appears the dog left the fight and did not return when he was attacked himself. 

I would love to know what happened to that dog... what his behaviour is like after the event... did he have issues in training afterwards... were they addressed and corrected... how were they addressed... has he been deployed since then, had any further engagements, shown any signs of hesitancy, etc..

My distaste for many of the PPD training practices I've seen where dogs are taught to blindly ignore weapons and allow themselves to be grabbed and stroked while maintaining a "calm full bite", is that I've watched this very behaviour be used to easily defeat dogs (both in training tests as well as in real life).

Joby... during training do you show/teach your dogs that they don't always win? Do you show them that they can be hurt and/or defeated by being grabbed or struck with a weapon? Do you expose them to the types of things that an assailant may do to them in response to the dog's engagement methods? Do your decoys actually fight the dog during training?

That's not to suggest that we should beat the crap out of our dogs to teach them what might happen to them... but, as an example, I try to teach my dogs what "can" happen if the decoy is allowed to grab them. We will start by swallowing up and grabbing a young dog during bite work... this will often get a reaction where they work to escape the grab and we encourage that behaviour and encourage the re-engagement immediately after that escape. A dog that won't re-engage (overcome its' self preservation instincts will not be effective obviously). If they don't instinctively react and work to escape the grab then the decoy will literally swallow them up and lie on them in a smothering type move. I have yet to have a dog that didn't react to that and fight hard to escape. It doesn't take long for the dog's to become aware that the decoy presents a danger and that, how they fight is important. It's also not difficult to insure that the dog continues to fight rather than run... if the genetics are good this is already in the dog... if the genetics aren't there, I'd rather know that in training than out in the field.

We do similar things with water, heights, vehicles, etc... all the places that we operate and that the dog will be expected to operate.



Joby Becker said:


> addition:
> 
> I believe you dont teach or train a dog to "survive"a physical fight against a human. I believe the dogs ability to "survive" is a healthy mix of circumstance, and qualities that come from within the dog itself.
> 
> I do believe you can help a dog by teaching it things, for example, not rushing a barrier, and waiting until someone enters his area for example, to add to his chances of survival.


Absolutely agree.

Almost forgot... you asked the age of the dog in the video. He's just over four years old.


----------



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

I also saw that story. I would say the dogs failure to reengage has a lot more to do with his genetics then the training style. Im with Joby no coming off the bite for me.


----------



## Austin Porter (Oct 14, 2011)

Mark H. do you have any video of a finished dog using this biting technique? Also if its available and you don't mind sharing, I would like to see some footage of a dog taking some real pressure from the decoy, physical or physiological. Thanks!


----------



## Zakia Days (Mar 13, 2009)

Mark Herzog said:


> I agree with you there.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Old skool protection training. Used and proven effective back in the day. Several militaries used to use this form of training for engagement. It is quite effective. If you're training a personal protection dog the things Mr. Herzog is describing are critical to the handler's survival which is the point of it all anyway.


----------

