# typical drive progression



## Simon Mellick (Oct 31, 2006)

Keep in mind that I'm pretty new to bitework, but there's something that I've noticed that to me seems counter-productive...

Typically what I've seen (in various bitework sports, police K9...) is that once a dog has a solid foundation in prey, the dog is threatened to illicit a more defensive response (methods vary with the decoy), the dog barks aggressively, and is then rewarded with a prey bite; the theory (as I understand it), is to show the dog how do handle pressure from the decoy, to learn to work outside of prey.

But is this really rewarding aggressive behaviour in a positive way? The reward to the aggressive posturing is a prey movement by the decoy, followed by a bite. To me, this doesn't show the dog that he can meet an aggressive decoy head-on, but rather teaches the dog that defensive posturing will "flush" the prey.

Isn't this simply rewarding the dog's "bluff"? Obviously great dogs are going to bite without a prey movement, but for a lot of dogs, this seems like it's only reinforcing defensive posturing, not an effective response to an aggressive threat. To me, most dogs still associate the bark with the threat, and the bite with the prey movement. What happens off the field when the agitator doesn't make prey?

Simon


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo he is catching on to the Buuuuuuuuulllllllshiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit that people have coming out of their mouths. Congradulations you are almost there!!!!!

I love when people start figuring this stuff out at this level.

Your statement is also why people say that it is the dog that determines whats up.


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

C'mon, ease up. If you think he's getting bad info, say why.


----------



## Andres Martin (May 19, 2006)

Simon...for me the ways to "reward" aggression is the decoy goes down if a bite was allowed...and gets his butt royally kicked by me and the dog, and THEN walks away (choosing not to confront the dog further) or runs away (escapes in total submission), gets dragged away by someone else (making believe he's in a coma); or the decoy walks or runs away slowly...if a bite was not allowed. There are variations.

BTW, You are correct in what you say, IMO.


----------



## Simon Mellick (Oct 31, 2006)

I can't believe I'm dissapointed that Jeff agreed with me  .

I've seen this in nearly every facet of protection training, so I'm sure there are those here that train somewhere along these lines. Other than a way of making a weak dog "look" like he's got it for sport purposes, do you find any merits to training this way? Or is it simply a case of "well, that's how it's done..."?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Dogs really are not as cool as we want them to be. Sucks doesn't it?


----------



## Simon Mellick (Oct 31, 2006)

Andres Martin said:


> Simon...for me the ways to "reward" aggression is the decoy goes down if a bite was allowed...and gets his butt royally kicked *by me and the dog*...


Ever have problems with the dog redirecting on you? What if you were on the bottom end of the fight? I've heard horror stories that a lot of dogs (even dogs very bonded with their handler) will often side with the winner (kinda goes along with jeff's last comment I guess...). 

I've jumped into some of the training scenarios without a problem with my dog, but the results were not nearly as positive with higher prey-drive dogs.

This area of training is important to me. While I kinda depend on my dog as a PPD, he's no man-stopper; a nerve-bag distraction at best, lol, so he needs all the teamwork he can get.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

In some ways I really miss training PP dogs. They usually are not the high end, and are really interesting to train. Mals are like the "retard dog trainers kit" they are so easy to work with.

We all come to a point where we realize that most dogs are exactly what you described: SHOW.

Even the strong ones will have trouble with a person that knows what is up. When people realize this, they start buying guns for protection.


----------



## Andres Martin (May 19, 2006)

> Ever have problems with the dog redirecting on you? What if you were on the bottom end of the fight? I've heard horror stories that a lot of dogs (even dogs very bonded with their handler) will *OFTEN* side with the winner (kinda goes along with jeff's last comment I guess...).


 Not often at all, but can happen. I'm not sure it's "siding" with the winner. More frequently, the bites are quick and accidental. We train like this OFTEN.


----------



## Simon Mellick (Oct 31, 2006)

Andres Martin said:


> Not often at all, but can happen. I'm not sure it's "siding" with the winner. More frequently, the bites are quick and accidental. We train like this OFTEN.


I've tested this scenario with a few different dogs in muzzle. Almost half the time the dog went for the handler if he was on the ground being clearly dominated by the decoy. These were not accidental bites. Take the protection equipment off and get on the bottom. Better it happens on the field.

Of the dogs that did this, I don't know them well enough to say whether it was a prey-related response (obviously the downed opponent was going to be easier prey) or a pack response to side with the victor. But it was definitely not accidental. This were all very high-drive, dominant animals.


----------



## Andres Martin (May 19, 2006)

Simon...you can't expect - for the most part - ANY desired (unnatural) behavior AUTOMATICALLY. If someone in his lack of wisdom, chooses to fight together with his dog, placing himself UNDER the dog and the decoy THE FIRST TIME he trains to fight together with the dog...he shouldn't, to say the least. What you saw or "tested" was COMPLETELY inadequate training. A dog cannot be allowed to make that mistake even once. This stuff must be carefully built up to. Let me stress the word "carefully".

If you saw the results you say you saw, and nobody explained to you and the handlers, that you all shouldn't be doing that - that way - you need to find someone with expertise in that area to give you a hand. This will prevent problems between the dog and his handler at a later time.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

Simon Mellick said:


> I can't believe I'm dissapointed that Jeff agreed with me  .


Did Jeff agree with you? I thought he was being sarcastic. Jeff please clarify.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

I was agreeing with him.

So much training depends on what you have in front of you. Many trainers realize this fact, but leave it unsaid.

A huge jump in understanding is seeing that you put many artificial things into a dog. 

Many people talk about 100% prey, or DEFENSE, and when you look at the dog he is not in prey or defense when they are trying to get one or the other.

Soooooo, we see a lot of people that don't know what they are doing rewarding threat behavior.

There is also the basic fact that the dog starts to realize when the silly decoy is doing his "defense" thing that he will not cross that line.

I also see that a lot of decoys do not see that the dog has figured this out.

So no matter what people say with "defense" work (haha) the dog is the one that either has it to bite the everlovinstank out of you or not. These dogs do this wether you teach them or not.

I see people talking about training this or that, but without the dog to actually do it, I can see they are full of....well............poop.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> A huge jump in understanding is seeing that you put many artificial things into a dog.


It's like Cujo, he's no killer dog, but with training we can make him believe he is, n if he believes, he will play the game n at least look good


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

But what about the n00b that doesn't know any better?????


----------



## Greg Long (Mar 27, 2006)

Ok,I have to comment.If a dog bites his handler then there is one of two things going on.Either the dog does not view his handler as the leader or he is just playing and thinks its a game.If the dog is in a serious mindset and he is bonded with his LEADER, the handler.He WILL not bite his handler.If the handler has been doing too much playing and drive building with the dog therefore he thinks its just another silly game, it might make it more likely.

I hate to agree with Jeffery but I too believe the dog will bite or he wont and all the training in the world wont make a weak dog strong.


----------



## Simon Mellick (Oct 31, 2006)

Mike, the false confidence that the dog has doesn't bother me so much, that's important regardless of the strength of the dog you're training, IMO. It's the false sense of confidence in their dogs that a lot of handlers and trainers get from this style of training that's scary.



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> But what about the n00b that doesn't know any better?????


I don't think it's just the noobs, I'll go out on a limb and say that *most* schutzhund clubs train this way (not a schutz, bash, I've seen it everywhere, that's just the prevailing dog sport). It's like it has become "the" way to train dogs, and a lot of people are fooling themselves.


----------



## Simon Mellick (Oct 31, 2006)

Greg Long said:


> Ok,I have to comment.If a dog bites his handler then there is one of two things going on.Either the dog does not view his handler as the leader or he is just playing and thinks its a game.


Pack dymamics are not static. Watching the pack leader get severely whooped may sway otherwise solid allegiances. Plus I think this may be as prey-related as pack.

Andres,
Completely agree with your comments about how stupid it was to test the theory. You're not the first person to tell me that, you won't be the last. It was corrected as best as possible during the scenario (decoy became VERY aggressive toward the dog at the first sign of handler targetting), but still not worth exposing the dogs to the possibility of handler aggression.

But rather than hide my embarrassment and not tell the story... My opinion is still that some dogs will naturally go after the handler in those scenarios, and I though it beneficial to share.


----------



## Greg Long (Mar 27, 2006)

[/quote]Pack dymamics are not static. Watching the pack leader get severely whooped may sway otherwise solid allegiances. Plus I think this may be as prey-related as pack.[/quote]

Ahhh...but I dont believe a dog is a true pack animal and even if I did I know that dogs know we are not dogs.I said leader not "pack leader".Youll probably say semantics and Ill probably say Bulls$#%.

THe dog either thinks that is what he is supposed to do because of prior silly games or he does not see the handler as his leader, its that simple.The bond is key and what that bond was built on will determine how hell interact with the handler.Most people dont have that kind of bond with their dog so I can definitely see this problem happening.


----------



## Simon Mellick (Oct 31, 2006)

semantics


----------



## Greg Long (Mar 27, 2006)

:roll: :lol:


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

Having false confidence is a problem with the trainer or the handler. Some trainers don't want to tell people that their dog sucks. Some handlers don't want to hear that their dog sucks. Nothing to do with training techniques or weak vs tough dogs, but rather an issue with $$$$. For the rest of our lives, for the rest of our childrens lives, for the rest of the entire worlds future in dog training, for as long as the dollar is green, there will be weak dogs tough dogs hard dogs soft dogs every kind of dog for every kind of handler.

So what would happen if the only dogs left in the world were tough dogs (definition pending  )? The number of people who could handle the dogs would go way down, so now trainers aren't making money because they have nobody to train, equipment manufacturers stop producing quality K9 training equipment because there's not enough demand to turn a profit anymore, many of the worlds best breeders will stop breeding or studding dogs, because now their world champion stud dog isn't worth a damn because there's not enough people in the market for a puppy that is too tough for the average handler to train with. Police departments won't be able to afford dogs anymore because there's less dogs being bred because of less demand so for a dog dealer to make enough money to justify doing the job the dog prices now skyrocket. The entire world of dogsports goes down the crapper because it's some guys dream for there to never be any weaker dogs in sport, when the reality of the situation is... it's the people who train at club level dog sports with their weak(er) dogs are the ones driving the working dog economy and spending the money that keeps things going. Being able to train a weaker dog to do a sport is the keystone to the entire world of dog sports, n without dog sports all the anti-sport people will suffer too. It's not just Schutzhund, it's all the sports. I guarantee that there's weak(er) dogs in French Ring, Mondio Ring, KNPV, Belgian Ring, Swedish whatever its called, Japanese Ring if there is even such a thing.... weak weak weak, everywhere, n there's no amount of whining that anyone can do in the world to change that. Tough dogs exist, and are bred regularly. If you don't want to own a weak dog you don't have to, it's not like it's impossible to get a tough dog or a dog who can do the job you need it to do, it's just not as easy as walking to "Just Puppies" down the street n picking the first GSD you see in the window, n why would you want it to be that easy anyway? What makes you and your dog so special if every idiot can just walk over to a puppy mill n buy a champion quality dog n train it?


----------



## Simon Mellick (Oct 31, 2006)

I'm not one of those "pack leader" worshipers that trace every and all obedience issues back to inadequate leadership as seems to be the fad (but rather the dog just not understanding). But I do see pack dynamics alive and well in domestic dogs.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

I see whoever is on the bottom getting bit.

I also don't see dogs are smart enough to see us as not dogs. We are there as long as they can remember, so why would they see any different. Dogs do not reason so I question that.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Mike, most people with weak dogs eventually figure it out, if they are not ego driven types.

I would be perfectly good with all this weak sh%t being driven out. I do not think it is soooo much harder to work a tougher dog. It is not like they are all handler hard or aggro.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Mike, most people with weak dogs eventually figure it out, if they are not ego driven types.


But we both know it's never gonna happen, so I say make the most of it instead of fighting the uphill battle


----------



## melissa mims (Jul 12, 2006)

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> The entire world of dogsports goes down the crapper because it's some guys dream for there to never be any weaker dogs in sport, when the reality of the situation is... it's the people who train at club level dog sports with their weak(er) dogs are the ones driving the working dog economy and spending the money that keeps things going. Being able to train a weaker dog to do a sport is the keystone to the entire world of dog sports, n without dog sports all the anti-sport people will suffer too. It's not just Schutzhund, it's all the sports.


Your whole paragraph is eloquent, and impassioned, and I wholeheatedly agree. But....those same people are not in the sport for the raw training knowledge that comes from working a weak dog (and this knowledge can be VAST); they are in it for the breeding, and the big bucks that come with, show and working people alike. I (and the people I train with) admire those that tough it out with a dog that doesn't have it (I was one for a long time); it is when the fantasy of the training field makes you think that you have a breed worthy specimen or a 'real dog' that I get skeptical. 

There is nothing at all wrong (IMHO) with training for sport. Just be clear that it is sport, and the demands and framework of reality are different on the field. Even training for defensive posturing, and agressive response to a set of conditioned stimuli, nothing wrong with it. Just don't think it is real. If the dog thinks that it is real, every single time, you got a problem.

Just my n00b sport gal POV. Interesting topic.


----------



## Simon Mellick (Oct 31, 2006)

If the style of training I described was only a "sport" problem, it wouldn't really be such a problem.


----------



## Andres Martin (May 19, 2006)

> I see whoever is on the bottom getting bit.


IMO, good dogs in good hands don't change "allegiance" and "side" with someone they don't know, whom they have just been sent to bite. Dogs that have very high prey drive and that have been trained in prey mostly, will occasionally give the handler a good bite, but IMO it is generally due to confusion and movement, NOT DUE TO, "MY HANDLER IS DOWN, I'LL BITE HIM AND THIS CRIMINAL WILL BE MY NEW HANDLER AFTER I DISPATCH MY OLD ONE." :roll: 

A dog develops a bond - to a good handler - that is VERY difficult to break.

In teaching a dog to fight together with you, you must go progressively. If you work in teams, you must train in teams. If you wear uniforms, you must teach your dog to recognize uniforms. If you have a dog for family protection, teach your dog to protect your family. Be aware of your dog's relationship/bond to each family member. If you have a "family protection dog" that wants to dominate your kids, you need to do something about it quickly...or get another dog. Accidents do happen, of course, but they should be the exception, not the norm.

Clearly, if you reward aggressive behavior with a prey bite and a sleeve, you will not teach the dog to submit the decoy. You will not reinforce the dog's dominance...you will teach him to reward himself via a specific behavior: an aggressive display gets him a sleeve. If you do this often enough, it becomes one more pattern.

The [prey - defense - prey reward] progression ... is the "cookie-cutter" aproach to dog bite-training. It's easy...more or less.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: I (and the people I train with) admire those that tough it out with a dog that doesn't have it

It is this mentality that makes all these weak dogs more acceptable. Kinda like mutts, at what point did they become acceptable in comparison to purebreds?

If I can get people to start sending breeders back the crap weak ass dogs instead of training them, they go out of business. To me it is like having to use a pliars for every job. You might be able to do so, but it really stinks to use a pliars instead of a hammer.

If a crap breeder keeps getting back their puppies, they will stop breeding. These measures ARE necessary. I guess the other little anecdote I would use is that you paid 2000 dollars for the pliars. OUCh.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

> If a crap breeder keeps getting back their puppies, they will stop breeding. These measures ARE necessary. I guess the other little anecdote I would use is that you paid 2000 dollars for the pliars. OUCh.


Didn't you say that you once (still do?) own(ed) a dog like Cujo? Your "truck dog"? Or did I imagine that? 

No I get where you are coming from, n I agree to a point, but I think there is a happy medium somewhere, not that it will ever be reached, because like I said, all the whining in the world ain't gonna stop people from doing what they want to do.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I am going to stay out of the technical training part of this because, as I have been told, I don't know squat about bitework. But, if you have ever been around pack bonded dogs, it is easy to tell they don't see you as another dog. They don't trust you and never willl but they will submissively come up behind you and like your hand, or you can reach over the fence and they will lick your hand.....no way will they let you touch them on your terms. And these are not spooky dogs, they were tough confident dogs that were allowed to run unchecked with the older dogs from an early age. Totally pack bonded. I raise my dogs as a pack with multiple dogs in big yards.I had to start keeping the pups in smaller enclosures until they bonded to me before releasing them into the big yards.

As far as a dog biting the handler......I can wade into 4 big males just putting it to each other without a lot of worry about getting bit as long as I am not stupid and stick my hand into the middle of things on the business end. The females are a different thing altogether which I imagine more than a few have discovered. A cattle prod is the safest way to break them up and you better still be on your toes. I have been bit twice by the gils just for trying to take shoats away from them when they were in high drive also. Ex wife let two very dominate females into the same yard once against my specific instuctions. Almost $40,000 dollars later after getting the the tendons all reconnected and brocken bones in her right hand fixed and the 12 days in the hospital after she developed pleurisy from the damage to the veins in her leg and the subsequent heart attack she was back to normal. She made an ultimatum, it was the dogs or her....I told her I would help her pack.


----------



## melissa mims (Jul 12, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: I (and the people I train with) admire those that tough it out with a dog that doesn't have it
> 
> It is this mentality that makes all these weak dogs more acceptable....
> If I can get people to start sending breeders back the crap weak ass dogs instead of training them, they go out of business.
> ...


I don't think the weak dogs are more acceptable, but an astute handler can learn a great deal from any dog. Perhaps an experienced handler would have less to learn. And the helpers at the club are honest about whether or not your training goals are reachable with the dog.

Bad breeders do get back puppies; you just never hear what happens to them. They found a 'home' on a farm, or another state, and look, 'I have two litters on the ground now'. If you have good PR, and you are not selling to top level people, you are selling to pet people. There is a sucker born every minute, and the money keeps rolling in. Doesn't matter if you get no return buyers.

Edit for spelling


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Melissa, the vast majority opf airedale owners will not even consider my dogs because they see the pictures of what they do and it scares them. Jeff, the majority of people don't want hard dogs, they want a loving companion. Because of this you will never get rid of inferior dog by yours or my standards. To most people they are the superior dogs and like it or not, we are in the minority here. The hard dogs will go before the weak ones. There will always be weak dogs anyway, there has to be. If everyone had the ultimate dog, there would be no dog parks, no dog beaches because they would be a war zone. In packs, there is only one leader, the rest are followers. It is the natural course of things. Besides, if everyone had top dogs there would be nothing left to strive for. Weak dogs are exactly what makes the strong dogs special whether it is owning them or working them. Jeff is on the money IMHO. If I have a "weak" dog, I get rid of them. I have no use for them. The vast majority of people will not get rid of a dog even if it is not what they really want. Oh, the kids or the wife is attached to them, He is attached to them or whatever. The average cost of a pet dog is figured at something like $6500 in the dogs lifetime and I suspect working dogs are much higher. If a dog isn't what I want, I am not going to keep him. A working dog is just that, a working dog. If he can't do the work I want to see, he is down the road, no different than an employee.


----------

