# Predatory sequence differences in shepherd / mastiff / terrier?



## Bart Karmich (Jul 16, 2010)

I came across this article because someone linked a Bart Bellon interview on the same site in another thread, so I read this and I'm wondering a couple things. I'll start with one:
http://www.johnsoaresk9training.com/info/dobermanarticle.html

First of all, John discusses various types of dog in relation to sport work like: the shepherds that are basically the mainstream dog for the sports (schutzhund and ring sports), and then there's the terrier types (I suppose the Airedale would be the most important) and the Mastiff types. John's really getting at the Doberman and what type of dog it is compared to the Shepherds. His theory is that it used to be more terrier and is now more Mastiff like. I don't really care about that specific point so much but whether the theory of shepherd, terrier, mastiff behaviors really influence dogs in such remarkably different ways. I guess my understanding has been mostly based on drive theory thus far.

John describes the predatory sequence as: stalk, chase, pounce, bite, kill and dissect. I think the theory is because Shepherds have a high instict to pounce, most training for Schutzhund/ring works off of this aspect of the dog's prey motivation.

But with Mastiff types, the pounce is not there and aggression/defense is substituted. Terriers are said to be quite the opposite of the mastiff and have very high pounce but are different from the shepherds in that terriers tend to bite and kill, fighting often with little regard to themselves whereas the shepherds tend to chase, pounce, and bite to control rather than kill as in herding.

I won't attempt to summarize/rewrite the article any further but I'm wondering whether this is a commonly accepted idea with Doberman, Airedale, or other mastiff or terrier type trainers or if it's a wild hare. I wonder what other "off breeds" would be affected by this concept if it was valid. How would this effect the Giant Schnauzer, Bouvier des Flandres, American Bulldog, Rottweiler, Beauceron, as well as the Doberman.


----------



## Stephanie Perrier (Feb 7, 2008)

I wish I could remember the book, but I read one that had the same sequence. They were looking at it more from a behavioral and herding than a training aspect, but it was interesting. She compared Border Collies, Australian Cattle Dogs, and one of the livestock guardian breeds (Maremma Sheepdogs maybe?). She went on to define the same sequence that she said dogs "originally had": Eye stalk, chase, grab bite, kill bite, dissect. She then looked at how through selective breeding each breed has portions exagerated and/or lowered. So for eg the Border collie has had Eye Stalk exagerated, but kill bite lowered (don't want them damaging the sheep and going in for a strong bite/head shake when a nip will do), while the Maremmas would have all except perhaps dissect lowered.This applies ONLY to prey drive (not defence, etc). I think it's an interesting concept, and the more different breeds you see, the more it makes sense. It could be applied to a wide variety of training and behavioral problem solving, or even simply applied to training "plans". What I like about it is it defines prey drive "further". I can argue til the cows come home that my ACD has tons of prey drive, but a SchH person will tell me he doesn't, and he's a defense dog. Really it is that his chase is high, as is his grab bite, but the "hold" from the lowered kill bite is so low, the only way to get him to bite and hold the sleeve is through defense. The prey drive is there, but just in a different part of the sequence...


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

I would disagree that the Dobermann is more mastiff like. It is more sighthound like than I have ever seen before. Maybe that can help you.


----------



## Bart Karmich (Jul 16, 2010)

Stephanie Perrier said:


> ..... The prey drive is there, but just in a different part of the sequence...


 
I think that's a good digestion of the article. Soares is especially concerned with how non-shepherd dogs like the Doberman can be successful in Schutzhund by considering their differences. The shepherds have the pounce part of the sequence that allows them to close in but they are social with their "prey" for which the herd was substituted originally, whereas the terriers in contrast bite to eliminate (vermin). Apparently the tendencies of the Doberman were terrier like in possessing pounce but aggressive biting for the kill until breeding led it away from this for the potential liability it creates with clueless handlers/pet owners, thus leaving the Doberman as a breed with an inhibition to work close to the prey or distant from the handler and a potential reluctance to even bite. Soares disects the Doberman's peculiarties better than my rehash but what interests me more how the article suggests a different perspective on non-herding breeds for the sports.

Collies are not generally suitable for Schutzhund type sports for the reason you indicated, but other "off breeds" (non-shepherds) like the ones I mentioned have proven suitable but with limited success. I think the point of the article is that training methods have to be adapted for the non-shepherds.

The off breeds I mentioned, I don't think any of them were contributed to by the shepherds or herding dogs. Bouviers and Rottweilers were droving dogs not herders. Droving employs mastiff qualities and in the case of the Rottweiler these are hard to dispute. I wonder what considerations people who use Rottweilers in Schutzhund make in their training. The Airedale, Schnauzers, and Doberman all have terrier-like qualities and Soares describes how to go about changes in training.


----------



## Tracey Hughes (Jul 13, 2007)

Stephanie:

I think the book you are speaking of is Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior & Evolution.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

In Ostrander's work deciphering the canine genome, the doberman shared more genetic similarities with the breeds of the "Hunting" group.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I can only speak about terriers, airedales specifically. They are fun loving dogs and easily play inconsequential games. You have to push them to make it real enough for them to be serious but once they get serious, they intend to win. . Eveyone like to liken it to having an on and off switch. Once the switch is on, they will take it from there. They made their mark in civil work, not sport work. I know one Sch III dale and he is more civil than sport in my estimation.


----------



## Stephanie Perrier (Feb 7, 2008)

Tracey Hughes said:


> Stephanie:
> 
> I think the book you are speaking of is Dogs: A Startling New Understanding of Canine Origin, Behavior & Evolution.


Yes I believe that is it. It's been years since I read it, but the sequence stood out to me. I'll have to see if I can track a copy down to read again. I remember some of the stuff was controversial, but I remember it being a very interesting read.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

One part in the sequence is the "stare" - I know that bordercollies have that as part of the sequence and my highly predatory GSD will actually freeze, point and stare for an instant before the chase (that is the point at which I had to correct the problem as she was oblivious to pain during the chase)


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

DOGS by Raymond and Lorna Coppinger

Orient/eye/stalk/chase/grab-bite/kill-bite/consume in the wild canid.


----------



## Maureen A Osborn (Feb 12, 2010)

GOod article....gotta ask a question, may sound really stupid, though. Why do they call the herders "high prey" and consider them "higher" in prey drive than a dog like an AB or a dogo, when the AB and dogo are out for the actual fight/dominance/win(kill or be killed), but the herders are not...and what it seems like(to me when reading this article) is that the herders are higher in "pounce" drive and not really "prey drive?" Isn't prey drive the willlingness to chase and catch food and kill it(having ALL of the attributes listed in the predatory sequence? His artcile, though, does break it down to where I see why it is harder to get a dogo or an AB to commit to the bite b/c they are bred to work with humans, not fight against them or "dominate" them like their prey...that a lot of the times it seems(from what I have been told) that the way they get them to commit to the bite is through defensive work. Now, if I am way off base in what I am interpreting, please tell me so, I am really trying to learn all these things to attempt to understand why it is harder to work dogos in bitework than the typical breeds used. Thanks.


----------



## Wendy Schmitt (Apr 29, 2009)

The article John has is very interesting but I would have to disagree with what he has said about the Dobermann. Because he has handled dogs from mainly similar bloodlines/breeders his view is slightly slanted. I prefer a more terrier type Dobermann and they are out there but most people don't like them as they tend to be smaller, more compact, not such a pretty head and deffinatly is a sharper dog. Certain working lines still maintain this type but it's not fashionable. There are also some working Dobermann lines that are more of a herding style, high prey, longer back dogs with calm grips. The more Mastiff style tend be be the pretty Euro showline dogs that are large dogs( males average 95-100 lbs) with bigger heads, big bone, but deffinatly lacking in agression and drive.
Since the Dobermann is as split as the GSD between American Dogs/ Euro Show and Working lines trying to compare the three really can't be done fairly.

Wendy


----------

