# Introducing man focus with young dogs...



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

At some point you decide it is time to teach a young dog to not only focus on the prey item but also the man holding it. Some people do this as soon as the puppy starts work and others wait until a dog is 12-18 months (or never in some cases).

When you guys start introducing man focus how do you do it?

I've seen people who simply agitate with no equipment, possibly making it more serious by popping the dog with the whip or flanking him.

Others have started the session in a normal manner and after slipping the sleeve they then threaten the dog with no equipment. I guess this ties in prey guarding and teaching the dog to remained focused on the man.

How do you guys do it?

Disclaimer: I'm not looking for specific advice for my dog or a dog I'm training. just curious how everyone approaches this.


----------



## Alison Grubb (Nov 18, 2009)

My young male was started with no equipment when he was 8 months old. Even though there was no equipment he would still switch between prey and defense drives, so it's not like there is no such thing as prey work when you are not using a tug or a sleeve. When he earned them, he got a few grips on a leather tug (3-5 total) before moving on to the full suit and the hard Sch sleeve. He's 13 months old now and I am very pleased with the level of man focus that he displays. If the decoy slips the sleeve or jacket and walks away then he keeps the object but maintains a watchful eye, if the decoy approaches him after slipping the object then the dog drops the object and will climb over it to deal with the man.

I just got a new female who is a year old and had your typical Sch foundation for the first few months before being put away for the last 5-6 months. Tug tossing and prey games are what she is used to. When I got her I dropped her in the same situation that I had started my male in; she had to deal with a man with no equipment and the pressure that came with it. She did well. She's only had two sessions so time will tell how focused she stays on the man. There's every possibility that she will revert to her foundation when the equipment is brought back into the picture.

In the past I have had my dogs worked for man focus later in life, I think the youngest was a year old. Even then it was typically not much more than some whip popping and quick movements from the decoy while the dog maintained possession of the object that had been slipped. The dog did agress toward the decoy at that point, but it never stuck like it has with the dog I described above.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

So let's say, my dog is focused on a big old piece of pizza on the training field. I call my dog, but they are so fixated on the pizza they do not listen. I get a really good idea. What if I put the pizza away? So, I do then I call my dog... What do you know...It works! Can I claim that I am teaching my dog to focus on me and not the food? 

I do not think I can. 

So, I do not get the idea of removing the prey item from the field and have the man agitate the dog and claim your teaching the dog to focus on the man and not the prey item. 


I think at first the focus has to be simple OB....look at the man, get the dog the prey item. If we got a defensive dog...we do not have to worry about focus on the prey item. 

I think once it's taught in OB. It can be enhanced later by some pressure. But I have never once seen a trainer use force with any thing I would call success in teaching the dog to focus on the man. It just makes lesser dogs, worry, they only fight when they have to. the rest of the time they are half assed. And the higher drive dogs....they just get hectic.

I think agitation has one purpose to teach the dog to fight back. Agiation for me does not at all sound like a good method to teach focus. 

Just one small time trainers opinion.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Hey Ben, I can't remember...are you still training for Schutzhund only or something else now? If you're training strictly for the sport of Schutzhund, I cannot imagine why you would need to "add defense" or "man focus" into a Schutzhund dog except to make their B&H a little stronger than "yawp yawp yawp" prey barking. Don't really need it in any trial, right? And it can sometimes create more problems than solve them...just be really careful when/if you decide to go down that road. You can't always come back it.


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga (Apr 7, 2010)

I don't think there's a specific way of doing this. I asked Jim how they converted their 'green' dogs to street dogs and basically he explained that it depends on the dogs. Some are so naturally civil that it doesn't take much work but majority have to be taught to focus on the man.
Civil agitation with the sleeve on the ground is the most common way i've seen people start. A good decoy can read the dog and know when to redirect to prey drive by giving the sleeve, using the table may not be a bad idea for those who aren't against it. As the dog grows older you can agitate and not give the sleeve, just have the decoy run away from the dog, muzzle work is also a good tool.
There was a Benhard flinks video sometime ago where he pulled the dog's tail to kinda frustrate the dog, i think things like that could help with man focus as long as its done with sense.

This is Nate Harve's 13month old dog, i think its a wonderful example for man focus

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbHnT20OuSU


----------



## Martine Loots (Dec 28, 2009)

"Real" man focus can't be taught... its is there genetically or it isn't.
Techniques can be taught but quality can't


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

I have seen some very strong dogs with almost zero man focus. These dogs were certainly capable of it but they were never taught in anything but prey. How would you introduce the concept to these dogs that it's not all about the prey item.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

a little OT, but is there a diff between a dirty dog and man focus ?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

rick smith said:


> a little OT, but is there a diff between a dirty dog and man focus ?


It is a little OT, Dirty in what way?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

what is man focus to you, what would show you that the dog is focused on the man? might help to define it for your purposes...


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

rick smith said:


> a little OT, but is there a diff between a dirty dog and man focus ?


Hey, HEY! Get your own thread!

I guess I would define man focus to be more or less what you see in the vitor thread. A dog that will take a sleeve and suit but will is also willing to agress on a man with no equipment. A dog that recognizes that there's more to the game than just winning the suit jacket.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Ben Colbert said:


> Hey, HEY! Get your own thread!
> 
> I guess I would define man focus to be more or less what you see in the vitor thread. A dog that will take a sleeve and suit but will is also willing to agress on a man with no equipment. A dog that recognizes that there's more to the game than just winning the suit jacket.


I have never met Tim YET, or Vitor...but I suspect that very little if anything special was done. If I had to guess, just NOT discouraging the dog from doing it, or possibly a little praise for doing it. Most likely this came about in training by the dog working in a normal fashion, realizing that the decoy is presenting a "challenge" (I would not say "threat") to him, through posture and eye contact.

Vitor is a dog that has basically been bred to fight people (in addition to the other things as well). He was introduced to bite work, and sees the decoy as a person who is challenging him, and he responds to that challenge. 

For a dog like that, that is about it. Eye contact and posture, a little civil challenge... 

I could be wrong, but I imagine that Vitor would hold the sleeve for a looong time, if the "man" did not turn and "pick a fight" with him, if he just walked off the field quietly, because there would be no reason to spit it out then....

I know this is not what you are asking for, but Vitor is probably different than most dogs you will encounter in training, genetically.


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

You're right...that's not what I was looking for!

What about the prey driven dog that is gentically capable of it but doesn't neccesarily come out of the box like vitor.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I begin by introducing pressure when they are ON the bite. Keeping the prize means withstanding the pressure from the man, at ever increasing intervals. It's equipment oriented still, but enough pressure that the dog is nevertheless under duress, learning for itself what is it is able to withstand. Then, increasing levels of threat and challenge are administered during the dog's APPROACH for the bite. I don't think it's necessary to take the reward element out of the picture, meaning the sleeve, instead that it learns to clearly distinguish between the two. That the more fight it puts up, the more satisfying to reward.


----------



## Adam Swilling (Feb 12, 2009)

Martine Loots said:


> "Real" man focus can't be taught... its is there genetically or it isn't.
> Techniques can be taught but quality can't


 I agree. A dog that truly has what I call a "warrior mentality" is going to naturally have a desire to go bite, with or without equipment. I'm not saying the dog is out of control and unneccesarily aggressive; I'm saying they come out with the "just give me a reason" attitude. Sure, you can make them focus more on the man by heating them up or trying to steal their prey object, but all you're really doing is tapping into defense; you're making it distrustful of the helper, making the dog keep an eye on him/her so to speak. It's not man focus as much as it is the dog being parannoyed that something is going to happen and it slips into defense. Dogs that have real man focus WILL hold onto the prey item if the man doesn't come back on him, but not always.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> I have never met Tim YET, or Vitor...but I suspect that very little if anything special was done. If I had to guess, just NOT discouraging the dog from doing it, or possibly a little praise for doing it. Most likely this came about in training by the dog working in a normal fashion, realizing that the decoy is presenting a "challenge" (I would not say "threat") to him, through posture and eye contact.
> 
> Vitor is a dog that has basically been bred to fight people (in addition to the other things as well). He was introduced to bite work, and sees the decoy as a person who is challenging him, and he responds to that challenge.
> 
> ...


Joby, look at Vitor, it's the dogs first session on that video and the dog still carries the sleeve. He is already showing an attraction to the sleeve. How do you think that would look in a year if the dog was trained using the sleeve as prey attraction? If you take him and train him in IPO 3 days a week for a year without working with some aggression he will start to focus on the sleeve. I guarantee it!

Just because a dog as a lot of aggression does not mean that he dosen't have as much, if not more, prey drive.


----------



## Brian Anderson (Dec 2, 2010)

Real man focus is either there or it isn't. You can train a facsimile of it. But a real man focused dog hit the ground with that in him. JMO


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

Brian Anderson said:


> Real man focus is either there or it isn't. You can train a facsimile of it. But a real man focused dog hit the ground with that in him. JMO


I just don't believe this. A dog is part genetics and part environment. I worked a dog that was just sold as a PPD. This dog is strong enough to do anything with but because it had only been worked in prey with no real pressure he saw the man as a holder of his toy. Had you spent a session or two teaching the dog that there was more to it than just the game I'm sure he would have turned on.

This is what I'm asking. If you were preparing this dog as a PPD what steps would you take to remind this dog that it's not all about the sleeve? I'm not saying "teach' aggression but how do you pull it out of a dog who already has it?


----------



## Brian Anderson (Dec 2, 2010)

Ben Colbert said:


> I just don't believe this. A dog is part genetics and part environment. I worked a dog that was just sold as a PPD. This dog is strong enough to do anything with but because it had only been worked in prey with no real pressure he saw the man as a holder of his toy. Had you spent a session or two teaching the dog that there was more to it than just the game I'm sure he would have turned on.
> 
> This is what I'm asking. If you were preparing this dog as a PPD what steps would you take to remind this dog that it's not all about the sleeve? I'm not saying "teach' aggression but how do you pull it out of a dog who already has it?


But its there in the dog to begin with right? Your saying its because of poor or improper training. But you validated my point because the drive is present in the dog naturally. If the dog is not equipped naturally to do what your wanting to do he cannot do it. If he could every dog would be working on a dept some where. There would be no need to test for dogs. 

Not trying to be a smart ass here its just in my experience the genetics play a large part in EVERYTHING the dog does. Sure there's the occasional freak but not very often.


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

This is the problem with the internet. 
*
My question is how do you introduce man focus to a young dog who is genetically capable of it?*

It's easy to never introduce man focus to a confident dog. Start the pup in prey, do nothing but prey work, never put more pressure on the dog than it will see in a trial and *poof* you have a dog genetically capable of aggression but never worked in it. It happens all the time. How would you diverge from this?


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Daryl Ehret said:


> I begin by introducing pressure when they are ON the bite. Keeping the prize means withstanding the pressure from the man, at ever increasing intervals. It's equipment oriented still, but enough pressure that the dog is nevertheless under duress, learning for itself what is it is able to withstand. Then, increasing levels of threat and challenge are administered during the dog's APPROACH for the bite. I don't think it's necessary to take the reward element out of the picture, meaning the sleeve, instead that it learns to clearly distinguish between the two. That the more fight it puts up, the more satisfying to reward.


 
This is to me is an intelligent way to coach the dog. The question a training helper should always be asking himself (stole this from a buddy) "Does the dog believe he can beat me".


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Ben Colbert said:


> How would you diverge from this?


The real question is...why would you need to?

BTW, I'm definitely not saying don't ever show a dog presence and pressure. Particularly in a sport like PSA where there is a LOT of forward pressure on the dog that they see in a trial both environmentally and with decoy pressure. But I keep that separate in my mind from putting the dog in actual flight/fight defense. JMHO.


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

Maren,

You've already established on this thread that you don't think anyone should teach a dog to focus on the man. That's fine. We get it. I'm not trying to debate why, I'm wondering how others do it.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Christopher Smith said:


> Joby, look at Vitor, it's the dogs first session on that video and the dog still carries the sleeve. He is already showing an attraction to the sleeve. How do you think that would look in a year if the dog was trained using the sleeve as prey attraction? If you take him and train him in IPO 3 days a week for a year without working with some aggression he will start to focus on the sleeve. I guarantee it!
> 
> *Just because a dog as a lot of aggression does not mean that he dosen't have as much, if not more, prey drive.*


Never said it did.... 

I know that Tim had not worked him that much, and he is young...
I was speaking about that dog in particular, at this stage in training. I think that is his first session in the civil work, not his first session with a sleeve...He is carrying, until challenged...and then spits...and he should carry it, if there is no reason to spit it out..

I could be wrong about what he did with him, and I imagine he is not going to be promoting the civil too much with him...just a guess, since he is trying ring with him ( I think)

With my female, all it took was one guy to give her the stink eye and a stutter step, at 8 months, and she was on fire...Her first sleeve bite she released the sleeve and grabbed the guys stick arm. That is when I had saw what was in there..

I know exactly what you are saying, I did not even come close to impying that it would stay like that forever, if not worked for that. 

My bitch used to spit it out all the time for my decoy when he first started working her, now she trusts and knows him, (he is a softie with the dogs) and does not spit it with him, unless he stimulates her in some way (gets her attention), she has 2 yrs of bites on him..sometimes she takes it out on the sleeve with him instead of spitting, but she likes him, a lot. He will even slip it sometimes now with her offleash, and takes the leash sometimes...which he would not have done a year ago....I tell others NOT to do that, even though she probably would be fine with someone slipping it... but why take chances...the dog is pretty civil...

My decoy is strictly her training buddy...mostly sleeve, some suit, all fun...

muzzle and hidden sleeve and other suit stuff...is done with other people, not him....

It is still there when we tap into it, if it is a different guy, and he comes back at her strong she spits it, or stimulates in some other way...popping the whip or the stick...if they don't...she holds it....which is fine...

I coulda went a different way, but wanted to keep her calmer and safe to work...not much learning happening when the aggression is full bore...

I agree with you 100%....


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Brian Anderson said:


> But its there in the dog to begin with right? *Your saying its because of poor or improper training*.


I agree on the genetic aspect for sure...but I would not call it poor or improper training...many people just do their thing and bury it, dont ever try to bring it to the surface...because they do not want to, or have no reason to...


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> The real question is...why would you need to?
> 
> BTW, I'm definitely not saying don't ever show a dog presence and pressure. Particularly in a sport like PSA where there is a LOT of forward pressure on the dog that they see in a trial both environmentally and with decoy pressure. But I keep that separate in my mind from putting the dog in actual flight/fight defense. JMHO.


Maren...there is a difference in fight/flight Defense... and FIGHT because the dog likes to FIGHT.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Ben Colbert said:


> Maren,
> 
> You've already established on this thread that you don't think anyone should teach a dog to focus on the man. That's fine. We get it. I'm not trying to debate why, I'm wondering how others do it.


Read it again:



> BTW, I'm definitely not saying don't ever show a dog presence and pressure.


You need to know "why" before you know "how." You can teach a dog that the sleeve only moves when they bark at the helper. That's pretty easy and that's really just in prey too. Just have the sleeve on the ground and the decoy moves only when the dog barks and focuses on them instead of barking at the sleeve. But I will warn you as someone who's still pretty new to sport (and so am I, but I do have a little more experience that you) before you put serious defensive work into a dog to do it with someone who *really* knows what they are doing AND competes at a high level in your sport of choice. Not someone who claims to and just ends up junkyarding your dog so you can't ever step on the trial field because you've switched a switch that can't be turned off. 

A dog having a prey bark in the B&H is not a big problem. A dog that tries to takes someone's face off because someone pets them on the side right where they got flanked really hard to make them "more serious in the work" is a serious problem. Dogs don't forget that stuff either. Just keep it in perspective that you're training a sport, that's all. PM me if you want some of my experiences on this.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> Maren...there is a difference in fight/flight Defense... and FIGHT because the dog likes to FIGHT.


So when does a dog have to fight in a Schutzhund trial exactly? I'm not talking someone with a PPD or a police dog. Purely 100% Schutzhund sport dog.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> Maren...there is a difference in fight/flight Defense... and FIGHT because the dog likes to FIGHT.



Can you explain the difference? In my opinion, it is a conditioned response, still based on defense (the way a dog reacts to threat).

I have seen dogs that seemed to enjoy working and biting, as you say, they like to fight. They would bite harder the more fight/threat the decoy brought. Also social with people, the fight was still a reaction to threat being applied, the dog just didn't bite everyone for no reason. Therefore if defense which is fight, flight or displacement is the reaction to threat perceived by the dog, isn't he just a strong defensive dog and fight is just fight still? 

Even if he is a nasty dog that bites everyone, the same would hold true, the threshold for a defensive display would just be lower it could be just being in eyesight of the dog.


A huge misconception in this stuff is that it has anything with what the decoy is doing, and instead is* how the dog perceives what the decoy is doing. *

IE I had a horse whip I was swinging over my head at the temperament test. I was walking, then wildly swinging it, then beating it on the ground advancing on the dog. One dog was extremely prey high, and I may as well have had a chuck it in my hand with a tennis ball all the way through, once he saw prey movement. The dog never kicked into defense, because I didn't push him to his threshold either because of his genetics or training.


----------



## Alison Grubb (Nov 18, 2009)

When choosing any trainer you need to do your research and be careful who you work with. It's not just the folks who dabble in the defensive work that mess up dogs. ;-) If you get with the right group of people and your dog is strong enough to come through the work and remain clear headed then you shouldn't really end up with a dog that is just gonna snap at people.



Dave Colborn said:


> A huge misconception in this stuff is that it has anything with what the decoy is doing, and instead is* how the dog perceives what the decoy is doing. *


I very much agree with this statement. Defensive work is not defined by the decoy's actions or by saying that doing X, Y, or Z makes the work strictly defensive, instead it is defined by the dog's understanding and perception of the situation.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> So when does a dog have to fight in a Schutzhund trial exactly? I'm not talking someone with a PPD or a police dog. Purely 100% Schutzhund sport dog.


When does it HAVE to? obviously it doesn't?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Dave Colborn said:


> Can you explain the difference? In my opinion, it is a conditioned response, still based on defense (the way a dog reacts to threat).
> 
> I have seen dogs that seemed to enjoy working and biting, as you say, they like to fight. They would bite harder the more fight/threat the decoy brought. Also social with people, the fight was still a reaction to threat being applied, the dog just didn't bite everyone for no reason. Therefore if defense which is fight, flight or displacement is the reaction to threat perceived by the dog, isn't he just a strong defensive dog and fight is just fight still?
> 
> ...


I would say the difference to me is some dogs see a "threat" and some dogs see a "opportunity" to fight. 

I agree with you if we split hairs, but I have read Maren's descriptions in the past about flanking, and getting dogs to bite in defense by pushing them into defense. That to me is fight or flight in the dogs mind.

I guess I could draw a comparison to someone who is not really a fighter, that gets pushed into a bar fight, because someone picks a fight with them and then starts the fight. They would fight to defend themselves.

And then you have the guys that like to fight, and are basically waiting for someone to give them a reason to to fight, and look forward to someone trying to provoke them into a fight, and are not looking to talk their way out of it.

I certainly see the conditioned response part, but also have seen dogs that rise to a challenge the very first time one is presented, dogs that are natural fighters.

Another way to look at it would be if 2 dogs get into a fight.

A dog may fight to defend itself, or a dog may fight to fight. 
If all it takes is for another dog to give a physical cue, such as eye contact or some posturing, and the dog runs head first into a fight, is that defense? Like in gambred type dogs...they look forward to fighting, it is bred into them....they fight the first time...and do fight not in defense, they fight in prey/fight...and may use defensive techniques during a fight, but defense is not what got them into the fight.

I think there is a big difference when you look at certain dogs, dogs like Vitor, Dick's dogs, and others...(those are examples)...

When I got my dog, I was basically told that the dog was bred to fight people...and that was very evident to me, and everyone involved once we started bitework.

I know there are different opinions on drives and such terms...I think of it like this now.

Some things that are done put dogs into defense, some put dogs into fight. Mostly for me I see a difference in the quality of the dogs and what they bring to the table genetically...

thats it for now...


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> I would say the difference to me is some dogs see a "threat" and some dogs see a "opportunity" to fight.
> 
> I agree with you if we split hairs, but I have read Maren's descriptions in the past about flanking, and getting dogs to bite in defense by pushing them into defense. That to me is fight or flight in the dogs mind.
> 
> ...



I have seen dogs that will fight at the drop of a hat. You and I haven't seen the same ones, but I think we would both agree if we were standing together watching a dog, in most cases.. To me defense covers that. Those dogs just have a very low threshold to stimulate the fight and in most cases are strong confident dogs. 




> A dog may fight to defend itself, or a dog may fight to fight.
> If all it takes is for another dog to give a physical cue, such as eye contact or some posturing, and the dog runs head first into a fight, is that defense? Like in gambred type dogs...they look forward to fighting, it is bred into them....they fight the first time...and do fight not in defense, they fight in prey/fight...and may use defensive techniques during a fight, but defense is not what got them into the fight.


Here you are within the way I like to hear defense defined. Eye contact or posturing and the dog runs head first into the fight. He reacted to a threat, and chose to fight instead of flee. Same with a human posturing on them or meaning them harm. They still have a choice to fight or flee. I think I would say what you are describing is just a lower threshold to be pushed into defense and a strong dog being successful in his or her fight. Also noteable these dogs may have a very high avoidance threshold and be very good fighters. I think defense has negative connotations since flight is included with it. 

I have seen dogs that are dog aggressive that seek out other dogs that are a great distance away. Did these dogs get like this because of genetics, or learned behavior on top of genetics. I don't know. Could you compare that to a dog and a man, sure, but is it learned or genetic and learned?


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> I agree with you if we split hairs, but I have read Maren's descriptions in the past about flanking, and getting dogs to bite in defense by pushing them into defense. That to me is fight or flight in the dogs mind.


Right. It's probably a terminology thing, but in my mind, what's the point of putting a dog in heavy defense (read: fight/flight) for a sport where it's not required. If you have to flank a dog hard to make them more serious about it, they're probably not the right dog if you want a serious dog to begin with. That and most average Schutzhund clubs have a small handful of really serious people but most of them have pets that just do it as a hobby. Heck, that's what I have and that's okay for me. They still want to be able to take their dogs out in public and so on, not a firebreather that never comes out of the kennel except to work. So to me, we do need to answer the question of "do we really *need* to put lots of hard defense into a dog for a sport that doesn't need it?" Then we can answer the hows. I'm not saying there is never a time to put heavy defense in a dog either. But for the average Schutzhund participant? Nah... 

Again, while I'm not an expert, I believe a skilled helper/decoy can show a dog presence and pressure gradually and get the dog confident without putting them into heavy defense where they think their life is in jeopardy so they must fight. Too many people already hate protection sports. No sense in getting it all shut down by having somebody put their nice pet on the high defense table and showing someone whipping or flanking the tar out of the dog on Youtube because someone thought it needs to be "more serious in the work." :roll: If you *need* to do that to a dog to get it to perform, get a new dog. JMHO.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> I have seen dogs that will fight at the drop of a hat. You and I haven't seen the same ones, but I think we would both agree if we were standing together watching a dog, in most cases.. To me defense covers that. Those dogs just have a very low threshold to stimulate the fight and in most cases are strong confident dogs.


 I did martial arts for a number of years and that's where my terminology probably comes from. I think of defense as protecting yourself from an outside attack, not actively seeking out a fight. I don't see loving to fight as defensive drive any more than having road rage is defensive driving of a vehicle. I'd probably use the term fight drive instead (as much as it's probably over used). Ah, I love terminology threads! :-|


----------



## Alison Grubb (Nov 18, 2009)

I think you are presuming some extremes in the work when talking about defensive work. Not all dogs need to have the tar beat out of them in order to show aggression. 

Then again, not all dogs need a gradual introduction to presence and pressure in order to stay confident.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Alison Grubb said:


> I think you are presuming some extremes in the work when talking about defensive work. Not all dogs need to have the tar beat out of them in order to show aggression.
> 
> Then again, not all dogs need a gradual introduction to presence and pressure in order to stay confident.


I don't presume the extremes, but I have certainly seen the extremes what some people will do to make their dog more serious. "Working a dog in defense" clearly has different meanings to different people. I think of working a dog in defense as having the dog perceive there to be a situation where it's threatened to the point of flight/fight (and the flight option is usually taken away because the dog is typically tethered to something or to the handler). Others might just think doing a little hand waving over the dog without equipment on just to get the dog to look at the helper or teaching the dog to bark at the helper instead of the sleeve by having them only move towards the sleeve when they bark.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Right. It's probably a terminology thing, but in my mind, what's the point of putting a dog in heavy defense (read: fight/flight) for a sport where it's not required. If you have to flank a dog hard to make them more serious about it, they're probably not the right dog if you want a serious dog to begin with. That and most average Schutzhund clubs have a small handful of really serious people but most of them have pets that just do it as a hobby. Heck, that's what I have and that's okay for me. They still want to be able to take their dogs out in public and so on, not a firebreather that never comes out of the kennel except to work. So to me, we do need to answer the question of "do we really *need* to put lots of hard defense into a dog for a sport that doesn't need it?" Then we can answer the hows. I'm not saying there is never a time to put heavy defense in a dog either. But for the average Schutzhund participant? Nah...
> 
> Again, while I'm not an expert, I believe a skilled helper/decoy can show a dog presence and pressure gradually and get the dog confident without putting them into heavy defense where they think their life is in jeopardy so they must fight. Too many people already hate protection sports. No sense in getting it all shut down by having somebody put their nice pet on the high defense table and showing someone whipping or flanking the tar out of the dog on Youtube because someone thought it needs to be "more serious in the work." :roll: If you *need* to do that to a dog to get it to perform, get a new dog. JMHO.



OK, who flanks or whips a dog to put them in defense? I can threaten most dogs with my eyes and posture. Even tough dogs read body language.

The reason you put threat on your dog for a sport that doesn't need it is simple. When you get that great sport dog out to the field where he has never been, he is going to be more defensive possibly from being in a new area, new decoy, etc.. If he learns to fight (react to a threat) in training, and then go back into prey in training, then maybe, just maybe he'll stay in the fight on the field when he needs it, and so he can out cleanly after a bite because he is used to channeling. 

The concept would be to see way more in training than on the field so it is easy for the dog to manage.


----------



## Faisal Khan (Apr 16, 2009)

Maren, do you really know what you are talking about?


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Faisal Khan said:


> Maren, do you really know what you are talking about?


I bet I know her answer! And I bet I know the real answer! And I bet they are different!


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Faisal Khan said:


> Maren, do you really know what you are talking about?


'
Faisal, did you have to ask?


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> OK, who flanks or whips a dog to put them in defense? I can threaten most dogs with my eyes and posture. Even tough dogs read body language.


Ben was who brought it up in the original post:



Ben Colbert said:


> I've seen people who simply agitate with no equipment, possibly making it more serious by* popping the dog with the whip or flanking him*..





> The reason you put threat on your dog for a sport that doesn't need it is simple. When you get that great sport dog out to the field where he has never been, he is going to be more defensive possibly from being in a new area, new decoy, etc.. If he learns to fight (react to a threat) in training, and then go back into prey in training, then maybe, just maybe he'll stay in the fight on the field when he needs it, and so he can out cleanly after a bite because he is used to channeling.
> 
> The concept would be to see way more in training than on the field so it is easy for the dog to manage.


Yes, I've heard this before from numerous people: train a dog way above and beyond what they'll see on the trial field and then the pressure in a trial will be easy. And again, I agree that showing a dog pressure and presence along with prey is a very good idea and necessary in sports, particularly like PSA where's there's a lot of forward pressure on the dog from the decoy. I just disagree that putting the dog in actual serious flight/fight defense where the dog sees the threat as a danger to its life as necessary FOR SPORT. Now in certain circumstances such as police dog training and not sport, I do think that can be a viable route to go down if it is done very carefully. I just do not see why it's a great idea for the average Schutzhund hobby handler that trains a few times a week at the club and does club trials, but still expects their dog to be a house dog who they can take out in public (nothing wrong with that either!).


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Ben was who brought it up in the original post:
> 
> I just disagree that putting the dog in actual serious flight/fight defense where the dog sees the threat as a danger to its life as necessary FOR SPORT.
> 
> Why what do you think the down side is?


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Like all terminology threads, this is one best left for talks after training at dinner instead of on teh interwebs. I fully realize training "in defense" is a spectrum with a lot of variables. I guess the main reason I wanted to post was as a warning to those relatively new in the sport to be careful of what you let your training director or helper/decoy do to your dog and speak up if you are not comfortable. You can usually add more in, but it's very difficult to take it out once you've gone down a point which will be different for every dog. That's all.


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> I just do not see why it's a great idea for the average Schutzhund hobby handler that trains a few times a week at the club and does club trials, but still expects their dog to be a house dog who they can take out in public (nothing wrong with that either!).



Maren,

What is your purpose in this thread? I honestly don't give a damn that you don't think it's a great idea for the average handler to teach man focus. I don't start threads to ask your opinion on a training method. If you have a method you'd like to add to the mix then feel free. Otherwise...


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Ben Colbert said:


> Maren,
> 
> What is your purpose in this thread? I honestly don't give a damn that you don't think it's a great idea for the average handler to teach man focus. I don't start threads to ask your opinion on a training method. If you have a method you'd like to add to the mix then feel free. Otherwise...


Never thought I’d be saying “well said” to Ben, but well said. She is like a bad virus that gives you the runs. I keep thinking about the people she must be giving her ignorant useless advice to.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Chris McDonald said:


> Why what do you think the down side is?


If you keep your dog in a kennel and never take him out in public, it may not be an issue. But if you train your dog for a sport a couple hours a week and expect them to be a pet that you can bring out in public or hang out with the kids the rest of the time, it can be a liability. If your dog who is normally pretty social, stable, and clear headed has been flanked hard (and I mean actually picked up by how hard he was flanked) and then just a few weeks later, a friend pats your dog on that same side and your dog jumps back and snarls in surprise and probably would have bitten that person if they wouldn't have known them, that gives you some pause. Trust me. Suffice it to say if you are going to go down that path, it needs to be a very carefully and mutually agreed on plan ahead of time. That's as far as I'll go into it. Want more details, you can PM me. :???:


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> I guess the main reason I wanted to post was as a warning to those relatively new in the sport to be careful of what you let your training director or helper/decoy do to your dog and speak up if you are not comfortable. You can usually add more in, but it's very difficult to take it out once you've gone down a point which will be different for every dog. That's all.


This was the purpose. Don't get all yellow belt syndrome on us, Ben. If you're asking on a message forum about how you* as a new helper* should work a dog in defense, you shouldn't be working dogs at all. So is it the Aussie that you need to "focus on the man?"


----------



## Ben Colbert (Mar 9, 2010)

Yeah, it's the aussie Maren. I've been putting a shit load of pressure, I flank him like every session and yet he is still focused on the prey.

Mind your own damn business. How about that. I know damn well how to work a dog in defense. This is a forum designed for the exchange of information. If you have a problem with this exchange of info then don't click on the thread. there is no need for you to act like an overbearing mother when people talk about things in which you obviously have limited experience.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

How long have you been working dogs again, Ben? If you know, you wouldn't have asked.


----------



## Chris McDonald (May 29, 2008)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Trust me. Suffice it to say if you are going to go down that path, it needs to be a very carefully and mutually agreed on plan ahead of time. That's as far as I'll go into it. Want more details, you can PM me. :???:


 
That’s ok ill just trust you.:roll:


----------



## Adam Rawlings (Feb 27, 2009)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> If you keep your dog in a kennel and never take him out in public, it may not be an issue. But if you train your dog for a sport a couple hours a week and expect them to be a pet that you can bring out in public or hang out with the kids the rest of the time, it can be a liability. If your dog who is normally pretty social, stable, and clear headed has been flanked hard (and I mean actually picked up by how hard he was flanked) and then just a few weeks later, a friend pats your dog on that same side and your dog jumps back and snarls in surprise and probably would have bitten that person if they wouldn't have known them, that gives you some pause. Trust me. Suffice it to say if you are going to go down that path, it needs to be a very carefully and mutually agreed on plan ahead of time. That's as far as I'll go into it. Want more details, you can PM me. :???:


 
A dog that is normally social, stable and clear headed that is naturaly civil isn't going to change if worked in defence correctly. You are only developing something that is already there, just like working a dogs prey drive. If a dog needs to be flanked to react to pressure, then it's the wrong dog for the job and the wrong trainer. Just like everything else there's a right and a wrong way to train, your example is the latter.


----------



## John L'Orange (Aug 29, 2011)

In nature, males of "tournament species" (those who have annual battles specifically for mating rights) definately come to a fight without any initial "thoughts" of flight. It's completely voluntary and pro-active. Fear, pain, retreat is induced by what happens during the course of the fight...pain, exhaustion, etc.

I don't know for sure, but I would imagine that screwing with selective breeding has created dogs with a constant readiness to bump chests. Similar to (but not exactly like) bulls in the rut. Maybe some other wrinkles thrown in there related to predatory instincts.

If it were me, I'd want a "bull" at the end the leash in a police dog situation. 

I'd bet that the best dogs really don't need their heads messed with very much in terms of this "man focus" you talk about. They just need to be given the green light in a few situations and they'll "get it". But, like any animal (including humans) who actually like combat, they are stable enough to learn and abide by rules. Otherwise, I would expect to see police dogs coming off bites, going for the face and hands, etc etc. That's what happens when a combatant panics. With the good ones you just don't see that. They seem stable enough to stick with what they've learned as far as targeting and committment. They are most certainly fighting, but they aren't _panicking_.

Pack leaders, harem masters, etc. They're born, not made. I 
I hear enough authorities saying the same thing about dogs and aggression, and I suspect they're right. At least the ones who are held accountable when things go wrong in the real world.

In other words, the dog comes stock. The best you can do is minor customization.

If it takes a schitt-ton of careful work...well...look elsewhere. I would say that includes a carefully planned regiment of "defense work". I think that's one big case of missing the point entirely.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> I just disagree that putting the dog in actual serious flight/fight defense where the dog sees the threat as a danger to its life as necessary FOR SPORT.



Maren. You never *want* to do that. Systematic desensitization so it can handle the pressure without thinking it is life and death. Successive approximation. Teach the dog pressure and stress can be countered if the dog shows the right behavior. IE he can win if he holds up his end of the fight. 


Your dog is probably in defense a lot more than you think. Maybe not, I don't know what you think. Dogs are there some of the time and it's not a bad deal.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Adam Rawlings said:


> A dog that is normally social, stable and clear headed that is naturaly civil isn't going to change if worked in defence correctly. You are only developing something that is already there, just like working a dogs prey drive. If a dog needs to be flanked to react to pressure, then it's the wrong dog for the job and the wrong trainer. Just like everything else there's a right and a wrong way to train, your example is the latter.


Definitely agree. Worked with that particular trainer once. Will never work with him again.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> Maren. You never *want* to do that. Systematic desensitization so it can handle the pressure without thinking it is life and death. Successive approximation. Teach the dog pressure and stress can be countered if the dog shows the right behavior. IE he can win if he holds up his end of the fight.




Oh,_ I_ sure don't want that! :lol: But I have seen other trainers that *do* actually want that and that's how they operate (usually PPD trainers, but not always...). Even my very first Schutzhund dog, one of the helpers at our club wanted to flank my shelter dog to make him "more serious in the work." I knew my dog was a pet and I wanted no part in it. My current dog doesn't need that either, but it's because he can do the work.

I like the systematic densitization. I do that myself, as I'm sure most trainers/handlers here do. As I have said before (multiple times at this point), I know there is a spectrum for putting a dog "in defense." Everything from just eye contact and posture to strapping them to a defense table post with no tether and flanking the dog over and over to get it to react. Seen that in person. I fortunately did not allow that with my dog, nor does he need that. It was for a dog with little to no prey drive that someone wanted to make a PPD out of. :roll: Seen defense worked hard at another facility as well, but at least that was for finishing police dogs.



> Your dog is probably in defense a lot more than you think. Maybe not, I don't know what you think. Dogs are there some of the time and it's not a bad deal.


Probably. You're always welcome to come on over and train with us. I'll buy ya dinner and we can discuss terminology after training. That always goes much better than going round and round on the internet, as I do agree with you on most things.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

John L'Orange said:


> In nature, males of "tournament species" (those who have annual battles specifically for mating rights) definately come to a fight without any initial "thoughts" of flight. It's completely voluntary and pro-active. Fear, pain, retreat is induced by what happens during the course of the fight...pain, exhaustion, etc.
> 
> I don't know for sure, but I would imagine that screwing with selective breeding has created dogs with a constant readiness to bump chests. Similar to (but not exactly like) bulls in the rut. Maybe some other wrinkles thrown in there related to predatory instincts.
> 
> ...


I agree wholeheartedly John.


----------



## Brian Anderson (Dec 2, 2010)

Joby Becker said:


> I agree on the genetic aspect for sure...but I would not call it poor or improper training...many people just do their thing and bury it, dont ever try to bring it to the surface...because they do not want to, or have no reason to...


I hear ya Joby and I agree. But who wants a dragster with a governor on it?? LOL I want to run it wide ass open HAHAHA!!


----------



## Brian Anderson (Dec 2, 2010)

John L'Orange said:


> In nature, males of "tournament species" (those who have annual battles specifically for mating rights) definately come to a fight without any initial "thoughts" of flight. It's completely voluntary and pro-active. Fear, pain, retreat is induced by what happens during the course of the fight...pain, exhaustion, etc.
> 
> I don't know for sure, but I would imagine that screwing with selective breeding has created dogs with a constant readiness to bump chests. Similar to (but not exactly like) bulls in the rut. Maybe some other wrinkles thrown in there related to predatory instincts.
> 
> ...


If only I could have expressed it so well. Excellent post John!!


----------



## John L'Orange (Aug 29, 2011)

Does anyone know how to train a wild deer to let people approach it? (kind of) I've done this with some regulars who come to the bird feeder.

Treats? Collar corrections? 

No.

You take a step toward her and when she doesn't run, you walk away immediately. Next time you take two steps toward her. You reward her by walking away. Next time three. etc

Am I changing anything about the deer? No. I'm fabricating the appearence of tolerance. It's a house of cards, however. All I have to do is go out next time and throw a firecracker at it and all that work is for nothing. Under stress she goes right back to her genetic disposition (of running away from crap).

The way it sounds here, with a good enough helper, I might be able to train me a low level personal protection doe.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

John L'Orange said:


> Does anyone know how to train a wild deer to let people approach it? (kind of) I've done this with some regulars who come to the bird feeder.
> 
> Treats? Collar corrections?
> 
> ...


Unless someone throws a fire cracker


----------



## Faisal Khan (Apr 16, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> '
> Faisal, did you have to ask?


I could tell but decided to be PC :-D


----------



## John L'Orange (Aug 29, 2011)

Dave Colborn said:


> Unless someone throws a fire cracker


All I have to do is have people throw really small firecrackers at first then she'll get used to them as they get progressively louder.

Now, do I put sunflower seeds in the sleeve she gets to kick? 

I'm not sure on the specifics here.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

John L'Orange said:


> Does anyone know how to train a wild deer to let people approach it? (kind of) I've done this with some regulars who come to the bird feeder.
> 
> Treats? Collar corrections?
> 
> ...


:wink:


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

John L'Orange said:


> All I have to do is have people throw really small firecrackers at first then she'll get used to them as they get progressively louder.
> 
> Now, do I put sunflower seeds in the sleeve she gets to kick?
> 
> I'm not sure on the specifics here.


You have to make the fight valuable to the deer. I would put the sunflower seeds behind the suited decoy. Keep the firecracker work separate.

I can't wait to see the courage test with a run down field turn and kick. the only reason this will work is because PPD is the acronym for it.


----------



## Faisal Khan (Apr 16, 2009)

John L'Orange said:


> Does anyone know how to train a wild deer to let people approach it? (kind of) I've done this with some regulars who come to the bird feeder.
> 
> Treats? Collar corrections?
> 
> ...


Very well put. I trained this doe to pose next to my rifle,


----------



## John L'Orange (Aug 29, 2011)

She displays great joy in the work!


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

This one was desensitized to firecrackers?



Faisal Khan said:


> Very well put. I trained this doe to pose next to my rifle,


----------



## John L'Orange (Aug 29, 2011)

For the record I would say I'd want my sport dog to tune out everything in the world except the sleeve/suit and me. Two way street. Me and the bite material. Make him crazy for those two things in the most benign, flashy, and enjoyable sense. Then the progressive desensitizing has a point to it....tune out discomfort and keep getting to play with one or the other.

The alternative is creating a problem which never had to exist in the first place...a dog with anxiety about the person.

Fact is....the most *valuable* memories to ANY animal's' survial are *fear* memories. Those cut the deepest and never completely heal.

Civil work for sports is POINTLESS. Pointless. Civil work is NOT progressive desensitizing. Progressive desensitizing keeps the material at the forefront. Civil work for sports is answering a question most people shouldn't ask unless the dog clearly has those dominant tendencies and you have to deal with them. Then again, if you have to ask (if your dog is a bad-ass), you already have your answer.


----------



## Faisal Khan (Apr 16, 2009)

We're talking super sonic, the boom is after the fact.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

John L'Orange said:


> For the record I would say I'd want my sport dog to tune out everything in the world except the sleeve/suit and me. Two way street. Me and the bite material. Make him crazy for those two things. Then the progressive desensitizing has a point to it....tune out discomfort and keep getting to play with one or the other.
> 
> The alternative is creating a problem which never had to exist in the first place...a dog with anxiety about the person.
> 
> ...


You win the internet. This is exactly what I was trying to say.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

John L'Orange said:


> For the record I would say I'd want my sport dog to tune out everything in the world except the sleeve/suit and me. Two way street. Me and the bite material. Make him crazy for those two things in the most benign, flashy, and enjoyable sense. Then the progressive desensitizing has a point to it....tune out discomfort and keep getting to play with one or the other.
> 
> The alternative is creating a problem which never had to exist in the first place...a dog with anxiety about the person.
> 
> ...



So how do you teach a muzzle attack for sport?


----------



## John L'Orange (Aug 29, 2011)

Teach a dog to poke a someone with his snout by way of plain old operant conditioning, I suppose. I mean, if it's something one is inclined to actually _teach. _Isn't it Belgian Ring which has that? The "attacking" wouldn't be the telling part about the dog's character, but rather all the other body language which goes along with it. But even that would be polluted by the sheer reptitions involved.

I gather in the "real world", a muzzle attack is usually more of a test?


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

> For the record I would say I'd want my sport dog to tune out everything in the world except the sleeve/suit and me.


Are you still competing? Or between dogs? From your bio it sounds like you don't do IPO. I don't really care if you train PPDoes, but I would like the perspective of where you are coming from. Are you a highly accomplished trainer? Or just have opinions that you are trying out?


----------



## John L'Orange (Aug 29, 2011)

Oh, I'm not highly accomplished. I'd be happy to be averagely accomplished. The IPO thing was a mistake when I registered. Disregard that.

I did train those deer I mentioned, and I've seen a lot of people scare dogs on the internet and leerburg videos. I've also seen my own dog (a pet) scared too, and I know there's only so much one can do.

I figure, the differences aren't really fundamental. It boils down to the fact that we (mammals) all share the same kind of emotional wiring. It's just a matter of amounts and proportions of these inborn "drives" and tendencies to experience certain internal sensations(feelings). We could be desensitizing some wimpy deer to my presence, or we could be densisiting a "wimpy" dog (remember...it's matter scale) to withstand X amount of physical pain while his mouth is clamped on something for one reason or another.

I realize there's a difference between explaining and doing, but I am trying to position myself so that I definately know what I DON'T WANT someone else doing to my dog, and hopefully can find people who are experienced in executing the mechanics of what I do want. At this point, I think I'll know it when I see it, but I'm not so sure I can personally pull off the execution I see in my head.

I actually think I've been kind of blessed insofar that I kept having to put off getting my own dog. I know I would have made a lot of excuses for stuff. In the mean time, I was able to spend my time trying to be honest about what I see in the body language of other people's dogs. That's a whole lot easier to be honest, lemme tell you.

I'll tell you this, though, when I do graduate to a performance bred dog from personal protection does, I'll be as ready as one can be.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

John L'Orange said:


> Oh, I'm not highly accomplished. I'd be happy to be averagely accomplished. The IPO thing was a mistake when I registered. Disregard that.
> 
> I did train those deer I mentioned, and I've seen a lot of people scare dogs on the internet and leerburg videos. I've also seen my own dog (a pet) scared too, and I know there's only so much one can do.
> 
> ...


For not getting a dog yet for this stuff, you sound pretty informed. I think you have over-simplified some of what you've written, but I do the same thing. I think most people do. I would challenge you to also see what you DO want in a dog, as coming from what you don't want someone to do is kind of a negative stance. Understandable, but negative. If you are ever in Ohio, you are welcome to stop by and see some work if we are training. Good luck with what you are doing and best of luck when you get a dog/doe.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Dave Colborn said:


> I have seen dogs that will fight at the drop of a hat. You and I haven't seen the same ones, but I think we would both agree if we were standing together watching a dog, in most cases.. To me defense covers that. Those dogs just have a very low threshold to stimulate the fight and in most cases are strong confident dogs.
> Here you are within the way I like to hear defense defined. Eye contact or posturing and the dog runs head first into the fight. He reacted to a threat, and chose to fight instead of flee. Same with a human posturing on them or meaning them harm. They still have a choice to fight or flee. I think I would say what you are describing is just a lower threshold to be pushed into defense and a strong dog being successful in his or her fight. Also noteable these dogs may have a very high avoidance threshold and be very good fighters. I think defense has negative connotations since flight is included with it.
> 
> I have seen dogs that are dog aggressive that seek out other dogs that are a great distance away. Did these dogs get like this because of genetics, or learned behavior on top of genetics. I don't know. Could you compare that to a dog and a man, sure, but is it learned or genetic and learned?


Yeah about the same page I would think..just a slightly different interpretation.

I was more responding to Maren, as she has quoted often some of the terrible defense work she has seen, and sort of seems to be against it...

I personally would use the word challenge, in some cases as opposed to a threat...each dog has his tipping point to where something is viewed as a threat..(distance, pain, pressure, and whatever else)

Just they way I see it, not arguing or saying I am right.

I wouldnt say a dog posturing another dog is necessarily a threat, could be a challenge...especially since most dogs and animals work out that type of thing without fighting..kinda like most other animals do that "fight" over territory or females.

One other thing I have come to think in my own head is that there is a distinction between the fight and the defense in my mind..without getting into Fight Drive and all that discussion .Looking back on the dogs I have worked, when doing "defense" type work, with some dogs I would say it was "defense" work, and with some it was promotion of fight, the difference being what the dog did with it... if the fight is not there, it is not there. Granted I have worked a LOT of off breed dogs, that are not even in the same category as a well bred herder..

I think you can touch on defense/fight in quite a few ways that do not get the dog close to fight or flight. Which is how some people view defense, and unfortunately some people work a dog in "defense" (The ones that Maren seems to use as a example) a dog pushed to fight or flight..

I have seen dogs that have to be pushed deeply like that, for various reasons..that do fine, and others obviously crumble...

same goes for civil work...if muzzle work was more common with everyday dogs that people are working...it would be a good study...does a dog punch in to ward off the "threat" and then stop or return to its handler? or does he continue on and try to fight the guy that decided to "challenge" him? 

just thinking out loud here....


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> I was more responding to Maren, as she has quoted often some of the terrible defense work she has seen, and sort of seems to be against it...


Not just seen, unfortunately... :sad: 



> I think you can touch on defense/fight in quite a few ways that do not get the dog close to fight or flight. Which is how some people view defense, and unfortunately some people work a dog in "defense" (The ones that Maren seems to use as a example) a dog pushed to fight or flight..
> 
> I have seen dogs that have to be pushed deeply like that, for various reasons..that do fine, and others obviously crumble...


Yes, this is what I'm talking about. The only reason I even brought it up is because Ben mentioned whipping or flanking in the first post. I absolutely agree that you can show a dog presence and pressure without sending a dog into defense (in the way that I define it as flight/fight). That's how I train. Heck, just doing the silly Schutzhund WH needed some equipment-less civil agitation training (mixed in with a prey reward).

I have both seen and heard of dogs when pushed really hard appeared to do fine on that session, but later had problems in bitework. In a completely different session maybe even weeks later, they were hesitant to engage or came off a bite or whatever. Or the dog was basically junkyarded and could never compete again on a trial field because there was this superstition about bitework now. Or that was once social but now could not really be in public safely. Maybe those dogs are all shitters that couldn't handle heavy defense work. Maybe not. But you can't always tame the beast once you let it out of its cage. If you want a maneater for a PPD that never comes out except to work, that might be okay. If you want a certain type of police dog, that might be okay. But for the average Schutzhund person, that's probably not okay for the nice dog that still has to be a pet for the majority of the time when they're not on the trial/training field. People need to be very aware of what might happen if they say they want their dog worked in defense, have a game plan in advance, and not be afraid to say no, I don't want my dog in that position. Wish I would have sooner...


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga (Apr 7, 2010)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Not just seen, unfortunately... :sad:
> 
> Yes, this is what I'm talking about. The only reason I even brought it up is because Ben mentioned whipping or flanking in the first post. I absolutely agree that you can show a dog presence and pressure without sending a dog into defense (in the way that I define it as flight/fight). That's how I train. Heck, just doing the silly Schutzhund WH needed some equipment-less civil agitation training (mixed in with a prey reward).
> 
> I have both seen and heard of dogs when pushed really hard appeared to do fine on that session, but later had problems in bitework. In a completely different session maybe even weeks later, they were hesitant to engage or came off a bite or whatever. Or the dog was basically junkyarded and could never compete again on a trial field because there was this superstition about bitework now. Or that was once social but now could not really be in public safely. Maybe those dogs are all shitters that couldn't handle heavy defense work. Maybe not. But you can't always tame the beast once you let it out of its cage. If you want a maneater for a PPD that never comes out except to work, that might be okay. If you want a certain type of police dog, that might be okay. But for the average Schutzhund person, that's probably not okay for the nice dog that still has to be a pet for the majority of the time when they're not on the trial/training field. People need to be very aware of what might happen if they say they want their dog worked in defense, have a game plan in advance, and not be afraid to say no, I don't want my dog in that position. Wish I would have sooner...


Hey Marell,
Your second paragraph is on point. I had a very high prey drive Gsd mix. At 7 weeks i would let her bite a piece of cloth and raise her feet off the ground, fake stick hits and a whole lot of pressure that she souldn't have been exposed to. Now at over 2 years its hard to get her to bite anything, she's not afraid of me really but she outs if i add any kind of presure. Damage has been done but i won't make the same mistake with my next dog......hopefully:-D


----------



## Tracey Hughes (Jul 13, 2007)

We don’t introduce any sort of pressure (whip, stick hits etc) onto a dog until it is mature enough to handle it. A year would be the earliest we have ever done it, and normally it is more 13-14 months before protection work is started, before that it is just a game of tug.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

John
i agree in principle with a lot of what you've posted, but some parts are a bit "cryptic", so could you explain :

re: "Oh, I'm not highly accomplished. I'd be happy to be averagely accomplished. The IPO thing was a mistake when I registered. Disregard that.

I did train those deer I mentioned,
>>> a trainer might have done it your way, but most people would have just held out food and waited til the deer was hungry enuff and approached, etc. - do you train animals in general or was this done in preparation for the future dog based on studying OP or observing wild animal behavior?

and I've seen a lot of people scare dogs on the internet and leerburg videos. 
>>>i'm not very good at net surfing; could you send me these links ? i haven't seen that kind of video on the net and i thought leerburg was posting training vids, so does that mean you saw some vids of a "trainer" scaring a dog ?

I've also seen my own dog (a pet) scared too, and I know there's only so much one can do.
>>>u lost me on this one..plse be a bit more specific of the circumstance and the limitations you are alluding to...are you talking about dealing with the fear as it happens or trying to "repair" the behavior damage it causes ?

I figure, the differences aren't really fundamental. It boils down to the fact that we (mammals) all share the same kind of emotional wiring. It's just a matter of amounts and proportions of these inborn "drives" and tendencies to experience certain internal sensations(feelings). 
>>> this one is the most cryptic. varies species of mammals process sensory perceptions in a wide variety of ways, and humans do it on a very much more sophisticated level using less of the physical senses with much more complicated mixes of emotions thrown in .....i happen to have had some experience with marine mammals and i guarantee you they don't process like canines at all and have a much different "wiring system".....are you saying all mammals have basically the same drives and feelings as humans ? i don't get the "same emotional wiring part"

We could be desensitizing some wimpy deer to my presence, or we could be densisiting a "wimpy" dog (remember...it's matter scale) to withstand X amount of physical pain while his mouth is clamped on something for one reason or another.

I realize there's a difference between explaining and doing, but I am trying to position myself so that I definately know what I DON'T WANT someone else doing to my dog, and hopefully can find people who are experienced in executing the mechanics of what I do want.
>>>meaning, set the priority at eliminating the problems b4 they happen ? as i think it it was pointed out; much easier said than done 

At this point, I think I'll know it when I see it, but I'm not so sure I can personally pull off the execution I see in my head.
>>>this part is crystal clear 

I actually think I've been kind of blessed insofar that I kept having to put off getting my own dog. I know I would have made a lot of excuses for stuff. In the mean time, I was able to spend my time trying to be honest about what I see in the body language of other people's dogs. That's a whole lot easier to be honest, lemme tell you.
>>>agree in principle to an extent, but not sure what you are using for training aids :
internet vids, friends with their pets, pets in public, dog parks, going to field trials and competitions, .... ?? all have limitations.....but i would also add, if u try and change "honest" to accurate, and the next sentence becomes a LOT harder 

I'll tell you this, though, when I do graduate to a performance bred dog from personal protection does, I'll be as ready as one can be.
>>>well, my famous last words are you can't learn to swim without getting wet and you will usually swallow some water in the process ... 

sorry to just focus on you but this man focus thread is interesting to me, and btw i DO respect trying to learn as much as you can BEFORE you get the dog......it's usually the other way around

hope i haven't gotten too far off on a nit picking tangent 
either way, good luck


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Not just seen, unfortunately... :sad:
> 
> Yes, this is what I'm talking about. The only reason I even brought it up is because Ben mentioned whipping or flanking in the first post. I absolutely agree that you can show a dog presence and pressure without sending a dog into defense (in the way that I define it as flight/fight). That's how I train. Heck, just doing the silly Schutzhund WH needed some equipment-less civil agitation training (mixed in with a prey reward).
> 
> I have both seen and heard of dogs when pushed really hard appeared to do fine on that session, but later had problems in bitework. In a completely different session maybe even weeks later, they were hesitant to engage or came off a bite or whatever. Or the dog was basically junkyarded and could never compete again on a trial field because there was this superstition about bitework now. Or that was once social but now could not really be in public safely. Maybe those dogs are all shitters that couldn't handle heavy defense work. Maybe not. But you can't always tame the beast once you let it out of its cage. If you want a maneater for a PPD that never comes out except to work, that might be okay. If you want a certain type of police dog, that might be okay. But for the average Schutzhund person, that's probably not okay for the nice dog that still has to be a pet for the majority of the time when they're not on the trial/training field. People need to be very aware of what might happen if they say they want their dog worked in defense, have a game plan in advance, and not be afraid to say no, I don't want my dog in that position. Wish I would have sooner...


if the training is good and clear, and the dog is balanced and confident.. defense/ civil work will not affect a dogs ability to be social, even to the guy that just worked them...


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> *if the training is good and clear*, and the dog is balanced and confident.. defense/ civil work will not affect a dogs ability to be social, even to the guy that just worked them...


This is key too and not something new helpers should be doing. 

To some relatively minor defense work where the dog doesn't think its life is in jeopardy, I agree. If they are pushed to that point of fight or flight, I disagree. It can change them. If the guy who just worked them in really hard defense with no equipment, pushed them into fight/flight, and went up to the dog to pet them right afterwards and the dog did nothing, that'd be a pretty rare dog. This is probably all I'll go further into this. I've seen things that have changed my mind on training in really heavy defense for sport work. I went into it with an open mind and now that I've seen what can happen afterwards, even with my own dog. I no longer believe the ends justify the means for sport dogs. If anyone wants further details, you can PM me here or on Facebook. But it's not something I will go into detail on a public forum. =;


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> if the training is good and clear, and the dog is balanced and confident.. defense/ civil work will not affect a dogs ability to be social, even to the guy that just worked them...


What Joby is describing here is a well trained dog. I have met them. They bite what they are told to bite. It is a job. Nothing personal about it for them. Handler tells the dog it is ok, they back off and are still friends with you. That is a good dog. Lots of people like to see suspicion in a dog. Suspicion comes from lack of confidence and fear. The dog capable of what Joby desecribes has no suspicion because he knows he can take care of things one way or the other. No fear. Never seen one that needed to worked in defense if the handler knew what he was looking at.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> What Joby is describing here is a well trained dog. I have met them. They bite what they are told to bite. It is a job. Nothing personal about it for them. Handler tells the dog it is ok, they back off and are still friends with you. That is a good dog. Lots of people like to see suspicion in a dog. Suspicion comes from lack of confidence and fear. The dog capable of what Joby desecribes has no suspicion because he knows he can take care of things one way or the other. No fear. Never seen one that needed to worked in defense if the handler knew what he was looking at.


I would not say no suspicion, but I would say no "real" fear, in most situations...

this seems to contradict your earlier statements Don, regarding my question about what you are doing to prepare for the testing... You stated you did not want the dogs to show aggression towards people...

I would think if they were solid and confident that would not be an issue, unless someone acted aggressively towards them...like the dog you describe above...


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> I would not say no suspicion, but I would say no "real" fear, in most situations...
> 
> this seems to contradict your earlier statements Don, regarding my question about what you are doing to prepare for the testing... You stated you did not want the dogs to show aggression towards people...
> 
> I would think if they were solid and confident that would not be an issue, unless someone acted aggressively towards them...like the dog you describe above...


I haven't contradicted anything Joby. We are talking about the dog you described, not my dogs. My dogs are great with people and have no suspicion, until a person makes them suspicious, then unlike the dog you are describing, they will never trust that person again, but, they haven't been trained to play games. And no, I don't need th dogs to show aggression, just let me know something isn't right....I will take it from there. If I needed a dog for that, I would be into bite sports.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Maren is the dog you speak of the mal? from the WH test the Mal, it does not appear to be...

I would not consider that test as a fun thing personally..I would take it more seriously...and the part about guarding the object, that was not guarding...I would suggest you do more civil work for the barking at the the gate...that will not be done well with straight prey...unless your dog has the non-classical prey type that dave spoke about, where he views the man as the prey...

for someone that says civil and defense is bad, it seems you are interested in titles that would require that type of work..


----------



## Adam Rawlings (Feb 27, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Lots of people like to see suspicion in a dog. Suspicion comes from lack of confidence and fear. The dog capable of what Joby desecribes has no suspicion because he knows he can take care of things one way or the other.


Don,

I don't agree with what you're saying here, unless it's just a difference in definition.

A dog that has no suspision of anything in it's surroundings that may be out of the norm or a dog that lacks the ability to realize a threat is a serious fault in my eyes. Like any other quality a dog may posses there can be too much, a balance or not enough of that certain trait. A lack of confidence and fear may enter the equation when a dog is suspicious of everything and is overly reactive to a non-threat, but a dog that keeps a watchfull eye on things waiting to see if anything materializes and reacts accordingly is a great quality IMO. My favorite dogs are the confident dogs you speak of that also have a high desire to fight. Fear doesn't enter their minds they just look forward to the opportunity when someone steps out of line.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> Maren is the dog you speak of the mal? from the WH test the Mal, it does not appear to be...
> 
> I would not consider that test as a fun thing personally..I would take it more seriously...and the part about guarding the object, that was not guarding...I would suggest you do more civil work for the barking at the the gate...that will not be done well with straight prey...unless your dog has the non-classical prey type that dave spoke about, where he views the man as the prey...
> 
> for someone that says civil and defense is bad, it seems you are interested in titles that would require that type of work..


Joby, Joby, c'mon now...does anyone ever read what I write?  That would actually explain a lot. :lol: I say over and over that you have to show a dog presence and pressure in PSA or it won't get past the PDC. It's rather hard to teach car jacking solely in prey after all. That being said, I disagree with putting a dog into fight/flight defense where it thinks its life is in danger for the sake of sport. Does that make sense?

As far as the WH goes, he passed the protection in the trial nicely. A few barks on the object guard with me out of sight and the judge complimented him on the civil agitation and chase part and the agitation with two decoys with the dog on a trolley line part. I'm kicking myself that I didn't think to hand over my camera to video. ](*,) Anyways, they like to see barking at the decoy (like a bark and hold from behind a kennel panel once the decoy gets behind the gate) for that aspect, so we used the tug to teach him what to do and reward the barking. He had a nice vigorous response with those two on trial day, so I was pretty pleased.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> I haven't contradicted anything Joby. We are talking about the dog you described, not my dogs. My dogs are great with people and have no suspicion, *until a person makes them suspicious*, then unlike the dog you are describing, they will never trust that person again, but, they haven't been trained to play games. And no, I don't need th dogs to show aggression, just let me know something isn't right....I will take it from there. If I needed a dog for that, I would be into bite sports.


again difference of defintions.. If I was preparing my dogs for a similar test as your dogs are about to ...they would be suspicious only of a person that would exhibit behavior that they should respond to...that would NOT EQUAL the go ahead to display aggression to normal people under normal circumstances... which is what you stated as your reason for NOT preparing your dogs (that they would think it was OK to exhibit aggression towards people). I asssume you think it is ok to be aggressive towards people that are obviously threatening towards you. if the are stable..preparation would have no bearing on normal human interaction...

in a nutshell...preparing a dog for a test that is similar to what Dave is going to do, would have absolutely NO influence how the dogs would react to normal human interaction, unless the dog were unstable, or fearful.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Joby, Joby, c'mon now...does anyone ever read what I write?  That would actually explain a lot. :lol: I say over and over that you have to show a dog presence and pressure in PSA or it won't get past the PDC. It's rather hard to teach car jacking solely in prey after all. That being said, I disagree with putting a dog into fight/flight defense where it thinks its life is in danger for the sake of sport. Does that make sense?
> 
> As far as the WH goes, he passed the protection in the trial nicely. A few barks on the object guard with me out of sight and the judge complimented him on the civil agitation and chase part and the agitation with two decoys with the dog on a trolley line part. I'm kicking myself that I didn't think to hand over my camera to video. ](*,) Anyways, they like to see barking at the decoy (like a bark and hold from behind a kennel panel once the decoy gets behind the gate) for that aspect, so we used the tug to teach him what to do and reward the barking. He had a nice vigorous response with those two on trial day, so I was pretty pleased.



Maren. This is a definition thing. Threat presented --->>> Dog reacts in Defense --->>>Fight, Flight or Displacement. You are saying pretty much the same thing with presence or pressure, but defense is what you are talking about from what I am hearing. We obviously never want flight, so we start with a low enough amount of stress so the dog can overcome and win in prey. Do what's in his comfort zone. It's why we don't start with a sleeve and coming screaming at a puppy, but a flirt pole, in prey. The next step is getting him used to the presence of a man, and at this point he may very well show some defense. Especially a house dog that has been corrected. The idea is to let them realize they can win repeatedly and biting is okay. All of this and desensitization goes hand in hand. 

I think it IS a terminology problem, and you're thinking that Flight or Fight are individual choices and not a spectrum to be travelled up and down, staying away from the flight end, but creating pressure that moves the bar that way, then relieve the pressure and go into prey. IE Dog is threatened a little, fights well, relieve stress, makes them stronger. Then successively approximate. 

Fight<---------------->Flight


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

maren bell jones said:


> joby, joby, c'mon now...does anyone ever read what i write?  That would actually explain a lot. :lol: I say over and over that you have to show a dog presence and pressure in psa or it won't get past the pdc. It's rather hard to teach car jacking solely in prey after all. That being said, i disagree with putting a dog into fight/flight defense where it thinks its life is in danger for the sake of sport. Does that make sense?
> 
> As far as the wh goes, he passed the protection in the trial nicely. A few barks on the object guard with me out of sight and the judge complimented him on the civil agitation and chase part and the agitation with two decoys with the dog on a trolley line part. I'm kicking myself that i didn't think to hand over my camera to video. ](*,) anyways, they like to see barking at the decoy (like a bark and hold from behind a kennel panel once the decoy gets behind the gate) for that aspect, so we used the tug to teach him what to do and reward the barking. He had a nice vigorous response with those two on trial day, so i was pretty pleased.


so barking because he wanted to kick the guys ass...is equal to barking for a tug???


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> again difference of defintions.. If I was preparing my dogs for a similar test as your dogs are about to ...they would be suspicious only of a person that would exhibit behavior that they should respond to...that would NOT EQUAL the go ahead to display aggression to normal people under normal circumstances... which is what you stated as your reason for NOT preparing your dogs (that they would think it was OK to exhibit aggression towards people). I asssume you think it is ok to be aggressive towards people that are obviously threatening towards you. if the are stable..preparation would have no bearing on normal human interaction...
> 
> in a nutshell...preparing a dog for a test that is similar to what Dave is going to do, would have absolutely NO influence how the dogs would react to normal human interaction, unless the dog were unstable, or fearful.


I haven't a clue what you are trying to say Joby. But, I can see different lines in it. There is no prep to do with the dogs. They are what they are and will react however they do. Seems pretty simple. Yes, Dave is going to have to be aggressive or they will not react. What is going on for this event, not a test, is to see that reaction. I will condone my dogs being aggressive for this event because this is what it is about.....protecting me without training.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> so barking because he wanted to kick the guys ass...is equal to barking for a tug???



He doesn't always bark a ton when he's more in defense, for whatever reason. Sometimes he does, sometimes he just strains at the end of the leash. But he'll bark a lot in prey. So because they want to see barking at the gate, we just taught him run down to the gate and bark and he'll get the tug thrown over for barking. We only spent perhaps 2-3 sessions on the protection aspect to the WH, but it worked fine for the trial. Waine and Kidd both did more civil agitation, so his barking for that was more defensive and less prey. I know there were multiple forum members who saw it. Perhaps they could comment? Heck, I couldn't even totally see all of it since I was supposed to be out of sight for parts. But it sounded about right.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> I haven't a clue what you are trying to say Joby. But, I can see different lines in it. There is no prep to do with the dogs. They are what they are and will react however they do. Seems pretty simple. Yes, Dave is going to have to be aggressive or they will not react. What is going on for this event, not a test, is to see that reaction. I will condone my dogs being aggressive for this event because this is what it is about.....protecting me without training.


I am referring to your statements about NOT preparing your dogs for the test, becasue you DO NOT want them to be aggressive towards people in general.....you implied that preparing them for a test against an aggressive person would somehow give them the green light to aggress people in general...i can go back and find the quotes if you do not agree with what I say.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> He doesn't always bark a ton when he's more in defense, for whatever reason. Sometimes he does, sometimes he just strains at the end of the leash. But he'll bark a lot in prey. So because they want to see barking at the gate, we just taught him run down to the gate and bark and he'll get the tug thrown over for barking. We only spent perhaps 2-3 sessions on the protection aspect to the WH, but it worked fine for the trial. Waine and Kidd both did more civil agitation, so his barking for that was more defensive and less prey. I know there were multiple forum members who saw it. Perhaps they could comment? Heck, I couldn't even totally see all of it since I was supposed to be out of sight for parts. But it sounded about right.


The last time I saw one of Waine's dogs was at the Tom Riche Memorial event... His dog bit Ronnie Weiss in the face in the Blind...maybe they could comment on that...


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> I am referring to your statements about NOT preparing your dogs for the test, becasue you DO NOT want them to be aggressive towards people in general.....you implied that preparing them for a test against an aggressive person would somehow give them the green light to aggress people in general...i can go back and find the quotes if you do not agree with what I say.


Joby, what I said was, in regards to the dog YOU described is, that it was a well trained dog. Has not a thing to do with my dogs as I never said they were trained, much less well trained. You can think I implied what ever you wish. Obviously, if I am not going to prepare them for the event and I do expect them to defend me AGGESSIVELY without preparation, should imply they don't need to be prepared. I really can't help why you think was implied. Yes, I do think unless they are going to be completely trained to be reliable, a few days of getting them to bite will be the wrong thing to do. If they get a few days of biting people, it will make them more comfortable doing it. That is one of the reasons for so much repetition in training....so the dog is more comfortable doing it because he always wins.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Joby, what I said was, in regards to the dog YOU described is, that it was a well trained dog. Has not a thing to do with my dogs as I never said they were trained, much less well trained. You can think I implied what ever you wish. Obviously, if I am not going to prepare them for the event and I do expect them to defend me AGGESSIVELY without preparation, should imply they don't need to be prepared. I really can't help why you think was implied. Yes, I do think unless they are going to be completely trained to be reliable, a few days of getting them to bite will be the wrong thing to do. If they get a few days of biting people, it will make them more comfortable doing it. That is one of the reasons for so much repetition in training....so the dog is more comfortable doing it because he always wins.


I can only rebutt about a stable, confident dog...if the training is clear..such as a person stink eyeing the dog, raising a shovel as a threat as I suggested as preparation..it would have absolutely no bearing on the dog's reaction to a person behaving normally...unless the dog is unstable..or fearful of people in general...you clearly stated you do not want to prepare the dogs, because you do not want them to think it is ok to be aggressive towards people..implying that preparing them would make them people aggressive..which would not happen under normal circumstances..


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Like I said Joby, the dog you described is a wll trained dog. No more, no less. Rebutt to your hearts content. :wink:


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Like I said Joby, the dog you described is a wll trained dog. No more, no less. Rebutt to your hearts content. :wink:


BLAH DIDDITY BLAH BLAH BLAH...i did NOT describe a well TRAINED DOG..i described how a clear, confident dog would respond if put into that situation...the training does not matter if it is done once or a couple of times, the characteristics of the dog does...you would know this if you ever did this type of training..


----------



## Brian Anderson (Dec 2, 2010)

Joby Becker said:


> The last time I saw one of Waine's dogs was at the Tom Riche Memorial event... His dog bit Ronnie Weiss in the face in the Blind...maybe they could comment on that...


Sounds like one of my dogs!!


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Brian Anderson said:


> Sounds like one of my dogs!!


Duly Noted..

But your or my type of dog does not make the ideal dog for all involved...


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga (Apr 7, 2010)

Tracey Hughes said:


> We don’t introduce any sort of pressure (whip, stick hits etc) onto a dog until it is mature enough to handle it. A year would be the earliest we have ever done it, and normally it is more 13-14 months before protection work is started, before that it is just a game of tug.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqmaR-Lt9I

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omJq3bm6_V8

I was mislead by these kinds of videos. She acted like the puppies in this video. It was long after training that she began to lose drive/confidence.
I think it does boil down to genetics. The dogs in the second video grew up to be really good sport dogs. My dog is basically a mutt so that is understandable.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Oluwatobi Odunuga said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GuqmaR-Lt9I
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omJq3bm6_V8
> 
> ...



Good genetics are a necessity but how the pup is brought up is as, if not more important. 
Not a jab at how you raised your pup because there are a million and one reason for a pup to change as it matures. ;-)
There are many folks here that have raised many more pups then I have and discuss how a pup can change from what you see at 7-8-10 wks old. I can only say I've never seen any big change in any pup I've selected and raised myself.
What you do with that pup can change everything from what you see at selection.


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga (Apr 7, 2010)

Bob Scott said:


> Good genetics are a necessity but how the pup is brought up is as, if not more important.
> Not a jab at how you raised your pup because there are a million and one reason for a pup to change as it matures. ;-)
> There are many folks here that have raised many more pups then I have and discuss how a pup can change from what you see at 7-8-10 wks old. I can only say I've never seen any big change in any pup I've selected and raised myself.
> What you do with that pup can change everything from what you see at selection.


No offense taken at all. I'm almost sure she would have been a better pup if i went slowly with her. Other pups with stronger genetics would have fared better i guess. On one hand being patient helps to make sure you don't push the pup beyond its genetic ability and on the other hand tests/training like those in the videos may indicate a dog that is genetically strong i guess. I'm thinking if a pup can handle a decoy hitting and threatening it at that age its certainly a pup with good drives/nerves. I may be wrong though;-)


----------



## Alison Grubb (Nov 18, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> *I can only rebutt about a stable, confident dog...if the training is clear..such as a person stink eyeing the dog, raising a shovel as a threat as I suggested as preparation..it would have absolutely no bearing on the dog's reaction to a person behaving normally*...unless the dog is unstable..or fearful of people in general...you clearly stated you do not want to prepare the dogs, because you do not want them to think it is ok to be aggressive towards people..implying that preparing them would make them people aggressive..which would not happen under normal circumstances..


Yep yep. It seems the main reason people have for being against defensive work is that it will affect the dog in a negative manner when put in more social positions when not on the trial or training field. My personal experience with this kind of work and the dogs I am working shows NONE of this...and I don't even allow other people to pet or talk to or generally interact with my dogs past a certain age and point of socialization. My male (who is the more advanced simply because I have owned him longer) can go anywhere with me and never have a problem. I can also let him off lead around people and he is great.

For me, I won't own a dog that doesn't have the nerve and confidence to stand up to this kind of work. It's just not what I am looking for.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

I think dogs read the visual picture as well as what the person is exuding from within. I guess that is where the acting ability of the decoy comes in. Personally, from a sport perspective, its an orchestrated game and I don't see a whole lot of reason for the big "show" of aggression for the fake threat. But to each's own. The OP was asking about focus on the man and training for it. That doesn't necessarily involve some of the more extreme fight/flight for your life stuff that Maren is alluding to. All decoys aren't training decoys and any of the protection work has to be consistent and progressive from the dog's point of view. I think its an entirely different issue/thread as far as newbies handing their dog off to a decoy to do whatever and then there are negative repercussions in how the dog deals in non-protection work situations. 


T


----------



## Travis Ragin (Apr 10, 2010)

Alison Grubb said:


> *Yep,yep* . It seems *the main reason* people have for being against defensive work is that it will affect the dog in a negative manner when put in more social positions when not on the trial or training field. My personal experience with this kind of work and the dogs I am working shows NONE of this...and I don't even allow other people to pet or talk to or generally interact with my dogs past a certain age and point of socialization. My male (who is the more advanced simply because I have owned him longer) can go anywhere with me and never have a problem. I can also let him off lead around people and he is great.
> 
> For me, I won't own a dog that doesn't have the nerve and confidence to stand up to this kind of work. It's just not what I am looking for.



Yep x3! (good post Joby Becker)

I would add on another reason is that they truly know that *they* can't control_ THEIR_ dog in random social positions...when _not _on the trial or training field.






I'm with you Alison Grubb:smile:....i'm easy breezy with my dog off-leash around new people and dogs!

first day agility class 8/17/11 













Cheers,
t


----------

