# Bad Bites Start...



## Howard Gaines III

For those who have a foundation in stuffed animals, this one isn't for you...:twisted:​ 
You often see dogs or puppies giving typewriter bites or pop off bites on the sleeve or bite suit. This can be seen in some "seasoned" dogs as well. The other thing is when the eyes are closed and the ears drop back. If you were to rate the top three reasons for bad grips or bites and to help new folks who have just joined the WDF, what would you list?

Too much pressure in puppyhood, heavy defensive pressure comes to mind. Like the kid learning to spar in karate, someone always steps up to kick his/her butt and the lesson is never learned. (Block-Counter)
Poor genetics, animals which are too soft in temperament to even explore without crying come to mind. Everything to too much for the animal to handle without stress.
A poor foundation, without giving to puppy the ability to feel strong, it has been made to feel like every training session is a battle. Steps to success are skipped to hurry the end results.
If all things are equal, I feel it goes to foundation work. The very reason handlers NEED to speak up when TDs are using the wrong method or trying to prove a "bad" a young pup is, "It can take it, these are fighting lines!"


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

I don't "often" see that howard. I don't see typewriter biting "often" either. 

Can't help you out.


----------



## Bob Scott

I think a good, firm bite can be ***ed up with poor training just as a weak bite, because of genetics, can be hidden with good training.
To much stress and the weak genetics will rise to the surface regardless of training.


----------



## David Frost

Or the conflict caused by allowing a decoy to do the corrections.

DFrost


----------



## Geoff Empey

All of the above .. and just the conflict of the out itself David!  

To many not use tension from a line on a harness during training, either operated by an experienced handler or a bungee for line operating impaired people. If the dog has back pressure, well it can't satisfy itself by biting all over the sleeve or suit because it looses the grip. If it doesn't want the bite and keeps popping off anyways you are going no where fast with that one.

Question at Howard. This seems to be a recurring theme in your training protocol "typewriter biting" this is not the first time I read a post about it from you, how come you keep seeing it? Is it your training groups/director/decoys methods or the dogs shortcomings why it is a recurring theme?


----------



## Dave Colborn

David Frost said:


> Or the conflict caused by allowing a decoy to do the corrections.
> 
> DFrost



Do you really believe a dog is conflicted with just decoy corrections or are you just kidding? They are conflicted just as much if done improperly by a handler. That's why improperly trained dogs spin away from their handlers sometimes. 

There is conflict when the dog wants something initially and you correct him. Usually until he understands he can operate his environment to get what he wants. IE reward.


----------



## Ricardo Ashton

I think its because of handlers promoting multiple regrips too much in puppy development. In playing with the tug the pup they'd have too focused on trying to get the best grip possible so he doesnt lose his toy. So he gives a few quick bites looking for the best grip. When he lets go somehandlers will start him over on the process. Essentially they're training a snapper. Though those "typewriter bites" are better at allowing the dog to protect itself, a dog that bites that way can potentially do a lot more damage in a really short time.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: Or the conflict caused by allowing a decoy to do the corrections.

Here is Cristova's dog Monkey outing on the decoy for the first time. As you can see he is not hectic or crazy. He is 11 months old, and has had very little training at all. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpaUJ7wBRPQ

Maybe it is time to re-think some of the myths about getting an out. LOL


----------



## Dave Colborn

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: Or the conflict caused by allowing a decoy to do the corrections.
> 
> Here is Cristova's dog Monkey outing on the decoy for the first time. As you can see he is not hectic or crazy. He is 11 months old, and has had very little training at all.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpaUJ7wBRPQ
> 
> Maybe it is time to re-think some of the myths about getting an out. LOL


There are probably a few that won't believe that's a first session or question the dogs intensity, but it's just that easy. I learned and use something similar, it's just off a sleeve. Our dogs are usually older, and slightly more difficult in some cases because we don't do all the foundation work, getting them at 11-16 months, but when the dog starts to realize outing gets the reward, it makes the behavior strong quickly. I like doing it with the dog on the back tie, but you can't argue with those results.


Nice example.


----------



## David Frost

Dave Colborn said:


> Do you really believe a dog is conflicted with just decoy corrections or are you just kidding? .


I really do believe that. We train the dog to fight the decoy, then we want the decoy to show some control over the dog? To me that causes conflict. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: Or the conflict caused by allowing a decoy to do the corrections.
> 
> Here is Cristova's dog Monkey outing on the decoy for the first time. As you can see he is not hectic or crazy. He is 11 months old, and has had very little training at all.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpaUJ7wBRPQ
> 
> Maybe it is time to re-think some of the myths about getting an out. LOL


If the bad guy grabs the leash, which shouldn't be on the dog, or the collar, or the harness or the scruff of the neck, I want that dog to go into super fight drive. I surely don't want him obeying. For me, what I see is not a myth. That dog is doing nothing but playing. 

DFrost


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

I wasn't talking about super cop drive dogs, I was talking about decoy corrections and showing that it doesn't make them hectic.

Pretty sure you can train a dog LATER to go ballistic on someone that does not work with him on a regular basis. That is just me though. HA HA


----------



## will fernandez

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> I wasn't talking about super cop drive dogs, I was talking about decoy corrections and showing that it doesn't make them hectic.
> 
> Pretty sure you can train a dog LATER to go ballistic on someone that does not work with him on a regular basis. That is just me though. HA HA


Your right Jeff. But I think the order should be different for the PSD. First learn to fight at the highest level......then cap the drive and teach the nuances...it is more difficult but it is easier to take away than build up.


----------



## David Frost

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> I wasn't talking about super cop drive dogs, I was talking about decoy corrections and showing that it doesn't make them hectic.
> 
> Pretty sure you can train a dog LATER to go ballistic on someone that does not work with him on a regular basis. That is just me though. HA HA


Conflict does not always portray itself as "hectic" behavior. The decoy corrections did make the dog compliant. That is what I don't like about it. 

DFrost


----------



## Lou Castle

Dave Colborn said:


> Do you really believe a dog is conflicted with just decoy corrections or are you just kidding? They are conflicted just as much if done improperly by a handler. That's why improperly trained dogs spin away from their handlers sometimes.


The conflict can come from either source. I have no issue with sport dog folks having their decoys give their dog corrections. I believe that it's a serious mistake to do it with a police dog though. Those dogs should regard people they bite as an opponent and any sort of pulling or trying to correct them should result in an escalation, not an out.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

So the dog cannot tell the difference between the guy he works with all the time and when he is out working ? No idea that the guy with the swollen arm is not really the bad guy. That is what you are saying ?

So, with this style of training, then the sleeve is useless, as the dog will not be sleeve sure, and will come off and grab something more useful in his fight to win............ right ??


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

SSSHHHHHHH that is a set up, don't let the cop guys know ! ! !


----------



## Dave Colborn

David Frost said:


> I really do believe that. We train the dog to fight the decoy, then we want the decoy to show some control over the dog? To me that causes conflict.
> 
> DFrost


We don't train the dog to fight. We train the dog to bite through distraction and pain and let him know he is winning. Teach him to bring intensity to win. We do it through successive approximation making the fight more and more realistic, still showing the dog he can win. That is a conditioned response.

We want the dog to learn to operate his environment to get what he wants, which is a bite in most cases if we have a suitable candidate for police work.

Stimulus=Response=Reward

Out command = Out = Rebite on a variable reward.

As far as a real bad guy outing your dog, you successively approximate that too. The dog knows who you are and who is giving his out command if he is trained regularly. Same thing for touching the collar, or attempting to give a correction.

Funny thing about all this is, almost all of the police dogs with an out problem I have seen, all settle down and out when you put a pinch on backwards, hook them on a back tie, and correct into the decoy. Reward. They already know it. From there you successively approximate it off the back tie and into the working environment. I also like to stress lift offs more than outs, because that is what is more likely to be used and it builds frustration and a stronger biter generally


----------



## Dave Colborn

Lou Castle said:


> The conflict can come from either source. I have no issue with sport dog folks having their decoys give their dog corrections. I believe that it's a serious mistake to do it with a police dog though. Those dogs should regard people they bite as an opponent and any sort of pulling or trying to correct them should result in an escalation, not an out.


I agree with the conflict can come from either source. 

You train like you fight. If you train a dog to be adversarial with a decoy, he has more problems with everything. The out, staying on the bite in the first place, recalls, etc. If you train them to bite and hold through whatever the decoy throws at them, through successive approximation, then you are all set. Working them in prey to defense back to prey to teach them how to win. How to respond strongly defensively to turn it back into a prey situation.


----------



## Geoff Empey

David Frost said:


> Conflict does not always portray itself as "hectic" behavior. The decoy corrections did make the dog compliant. That is what I don't like about it.


What is there not to like? It's a *sport dog* David totally different goal in mind and totally different training. With a Ringsport dog if you have a dog that makes it personal with every decoy and doesn't trust the decoy during training you basically have a untrainable dog for that sport. 

If you did a different foundation and different technique with decoy adversion techniques the dog would be in another frame of mind, most likely more to your sensibilities to be a patrol dog. 

I see it all the time, most recently with a Malinois that has had a foundation of personal protection. i.e scenarios where the decoy jumps out of bushes, backs the dog into the corner and the famous  table training. This dog has a lot of untraining to do to even attempt to get it to somewhat calm enough level to have it think straight.


----------



## David Frost

Dave Colborn said:


> We don't train the dog to fight. We train the dog to bite through distraction and pain and let him know he is winning. Teach him to bring intensity to win. We do it through successive approximation making the fight more and more realistic, still showing the dog he can win. That is a conditioned response.


I don't disagree with that. "Fight" isn't something a dog learns. Biting through distractions, to me, would also mean fighting through pain (corrections) administered by the decoy. All I'm saying is, not allowing a dog to do that can cause conflict.

DFrost


----------



## Dave Colborn

David Frost said:


> I don't disagree with that. "Fight" isn't something a dog learns. Biting through distractions, to me, would also mean fighting through pain (corrections) administered by the decoy. All I'm saying is, not allowing a dog to do that can cause conflict.
> 
> DFrost



I haven't seen dogs trained this way show much visible conflict behavior after initial stages, because he was told to out, he does and then he is rewarded. This behavior can be put on an a e collar correction later on as well to take the Decoy out of it, but it's a great way to train or retrain the out behavior. Reward helps more to maintain the behavior than correction. Variable reward is a huge deal here.

I'd like to see the ring dog past 11 months and see what he develops into, and how much the decoy is needed at a later stage for the out. I think that is the point. It's a great method to teach the out. The dog gaining age and intensity but maintaining the out isn't seen here.

So I am clear, I think there is going to be some kind of conflict with most dogs that like to bite at one point or another with the out. Minimizing that to keep a good strong dog clear with the out is the goal. Reward to me is more important to maintain the behavior and get past the conflict.


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Geoff Empey said:


> Question at Howard. This seems to be a recurring theme in your training protocol "typewriter biting" this is not the first time I read a post about it from you, how come you keep seeing it? Is it your training groups/director/decoys methods or the dogs shortcomings why it is a recurring theme?


 Nope, none of my dogs or dogs in our group have this issue Geoff. I have seen cop shows where the dog is up and down the arm, a former TD put excess pressure on some dogs and I saw it there, but it does seem to be a nerve issue. Additionally frontal bites from the same venues. Not to worry here!!!:mrgreen:


----------



## Howard Gaines III

David Frost said:


> If the bad guy grabs the leash, which shouldn't be on the dog, or the collar, or the harness or the scruff of the neck, I want that dog to go into super fight drive. I surely don't want him obeying. DFrost


David I agree with you on this point. And the reason for training the "out" with the decoy requesting it. The dog shouldn't come off, ONLY from the direction of the handler. JMO...

The bad bites, with decoy corrections, does that promote more conflict bites? Shouldn't the handler and dog work as a team, and with that said the dog complying ONLY to the handler direction/s?


----------



## Dave Colborn

Howard Gaines III said:


> David I agree with you on this point. And the reason for training the "out" with the decoy requesting it. The dog shouldn't come off, ONLY from the direction of the handler. JMO...
> 
> The bad bites, with decoy corrections, does that promote more conflict bites? Shouldn't the handler and dog work as a team, and with that said the dog complying ONLY to the handler direction/s?



Howard, does the decoy request it when the handler says "out"?


----------



## Geoff Empey

Dave Colborn said:


> So I am clear, I think there is going to be some kind of conflict with most dogs that like to bite at one point or another with the out. Minimizing that to keep a good strong dog clear with the out is the goal. Reward to me is more important to maintain the behavior and get past the conflict.


Exactly! Good post Dave. In Jeff's video with Monkey, I'm sure it will progress in the dog's head that out means reward but you have to reward always by either another bite or a payment to the dog at the end of the session or recall. 

I found a quick video of a nice Dobermann doing pivot work on the leg. The dog doesn't have great technique as I suspect it is a pretty green dog but even in this short session you see the dog get cleaner and the grip technique improve as the dog becomes clearer in it's head that it isn't going to lose. I'm sure that in further sessions with Monkey and this Dobermann it will progress to even faster reward bites for the out on the pivot legs as well. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHEpCLVgC60


----------



## Geoff Empey

Howard Gaines III said:


> Nope, none of my dogs or dogs in our group have this issue Geoff. I have seen cop shows where the dog is up and down the arm, a former TD put excess pressure on some dogs and I saw it there, but it does seem to be a nerve issue. Additionally frontal bites from the same venues. Not to worry here!!!:mrgreen:


Again which is why in training it should be _back tie, back tie, back tie_ with tension from the handler on the harness or a bungee. If the dog is doing this it 'could' be a nerve issue. But to me it is more a self reward issue that is a learned behaviour from crappy foundation. I.e. skipping steps and allowing it to happen in training, just reinforces it to continue on the trial field. 

Why would it be any different on the field or street if it is allowed to happen in training?


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Dave Colborn said:


> Howard, does the decoy request it when the handler says "out"?


The decoy generating the "out" command. Proofing the dog's ability to stay on the bite. If the decoy sees something wrong and wants an out to rework a behavior, only the handler should command that, the dog then spits the decoy out and training continues. Hope I'm not confused....again! 8-[


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga

The GSD on my avatar had very nice grips as a puppy so i foolishly did excess environmental stressing: shaking bottles with stones inside over her head, swinging her etc a few months later her grip was almost non-existent. I haven't seen her in a while now but it seems she's getting better. Maybe she isn't totally ruined.....i won't make that mistake again.
On the other hand there are some really hard puppies that will take some hard training at a young age, i don't try and find out anyway. Puppies are better handled by experienced people IMO, i consider them fragile.

I like these pups.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qLJqL6NUaJM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaQa6ayQTQw


----------



## Howard Gaines III

"I found a quick video of a nice Dobermann doing pivot work on the leg."
Geoff this was nice and something I would be happy to see in a young pup. The out was they and she was ready to rebite the man...nice. Ankle biters rule!


----------



## Dave Colborn

Howard Gaines III said:


> The decoy generating the "out" command. Proofing the dog's ability to stay on the bite. If the decoy sees something wrong and wants an out to rework a behavior, only the handler should command that, the dog then spits the decoy out and training continues. Hope I'm not confused....again! 8-[



I think we are talking about two different things. I am talking about the helper/decoy supplying the correction. Not giving the out command. Handler verbally "outs" the dog.


----------



## Lou Castle

Dave Colborn said:


> We don't train the dog to fight. We train the dog to bite through distraction and pain and let him know he is winning. Teach him to bring intensity to win. We do it through successive approximation making the fight more and more realistic, still showing the dog he can win. That is a conditioned response.


I'd call this "training the dog to fight." 



Dave Colborn said:


> Out command = Out = Rebite on a variable reward.


I don't care for this method. It takes time to get to the variable reward. If a problem arises after the dog is in service, it means that while getting to the variable reward the dog is getting the reward of a rebite for every out. Since there are sometimes officers in the immediate vicinity of the suspect while he's being bitten it's a dangerous environment for them if the dog releases his bite and anticipates that he's going to get an immediate rebite. If you take the dog out of service during this training, well, you've taken the dog out of service. 



Dave Colborn said:


> As far as a real bad guy outing your dog, you successively approximate that too.


As above, if the problem develops after the dog is in service you'll have created a potentially dangerous situation if, soon into the training, before it's weaned away, a suspect grabs your dog's leash or collar. The dog may release on the suspect's action. Even after it's been weaned away, in a stressful situation, it may come back. 



Dave Colborn said:


> I also like to stress lift offs more than outs, because that is what is more likely to be used and it builds frustration and a stronger biter generally


Sometimes the reason that the lift off occurs is because there is no verbal out. Some officers don't want a verbal out, they don't understand the need for it, except that it's required at their certification. Some trainers are incapable of getting and keeping it. Many K−9 handlers spend a couple of weeks getting ready for their recert, much of it devoted to "getting the dog clean" meaning, "getting him to release on a verbal command." I think that the dog should be clean all the time.


----------



## Lou Castle

Dave Colborn said:


> I agree with the conflict can come from either source.
> 
> You train like you fight. If you train a dog to be adversarial with a decoy, he has more problems with everything. The out, staying on the bite in the first place, recalls, etc. If you train them to bite and hold through whatever the decoy throws at them, through successive approximation, then you are all set. Working them in prey to defense back to prey to teach them how to win. How to respond strongly defensively to turn it back into a prey situation.


I ALWAYS want a dog to be adversarial with a decoy. If so he'll be adversarial with a suspect. They are not working together. 

I NEVER want a dog working in prey to go to defense. Defense is satisfied by fleeing! The best way to defend yourself against an opponent that you perceive is bigger and stronger is to leave! 

Perhaps the issue here is one of definitions. I've not heard you talk about fight drive, where I want the dog to be during most of his search and bite work. Perhaps you're one of those who don't believe in it.


----------



## Lou Castle

Dave Colborn said:


> Howard, does the decoy request it when the handler says "out"?


The decoy "requests [actually DEMANDS] it" because the dog can clearly see that he's the one giving the correction. Even if it's done with someone standing behind the decoy with a line running between his legs (or a tie off run the same way) it comes from the direction of the decoy so the dog realizes (or thinks) that's where it came from. At best it's a 50:50 proposition. 

In THE MONKEY VIDEO it looks like the handler gives the initial out command but that THE DECOY gives most of the commands after that. Even if this is later weaned away, in the stressful situation of a real bite, it could come back.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Lou Castle said:


> I ALWAYS want a dog to be adversarial with a decoy. If so he'll be adversarial with a suspect. They are not working together.
> 
> I NEVER want a dog working in prey to go to defense. Defense is satisfied by fleeing! The best way to defend yourself against an opponent that you perceive is bigger and stronger is to leave!
> 
> Perhaps the issue here is one of definitions. I've not heard you talk about fight drive, where I want the dog to be during most of his search and bite work. Perhaps you're one of those who don't believe in it.



Defense = Fight, Flight or Displacement. Yes or no, Lou?


----------



## Dave Colborn

Lou Castle said:


> At best it's a 50:50 proposition.



At least I have you half way there. Now to get you the other 50%...


----------



## Lou Castle

Dave Colborn said:


> Defense = Fight, Flight or Displacement. Yes or no, Lou?


Defense = instinct of the dog to defend himself against a perceived opponent. That can happen via fight (usually only if the dog thinks he's capable of winning), flight (fleeing − if the dog thinks that the opponent is too big, too tough, etc.), or avoidance (which may be the same thing as your word "displacement") where the dog pretends that the opponent isn't there. 

The "fight" mentioned here is the act of fighting, not "fight drive" which I define as the instinct of a dog to detain or drive off an opponent.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Lou Castle said:


> I'd call this "training the dog to fight."
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs are conditioned response animals. They do what we train them to do. If you make the decoy seem like someone adversarial the dog can get beat up by, then that's how you train and in the end what your dog will be conditioned to. I want the dog confident that he is going to win. Sparring partner that is just a level below him, every time. Obviously we can kill a dog or hurt them. That's why decoys I work with I suggest to not shoot or stab the dog in training. Keep the training a level below the dog, but always progressively harder. Successively approximate. Simple to complex. Bite, hold, take all the pressure. We can't show them everything they'll see or feel, we just need to do as much as we can.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a problem arises after the dog is in service, it means that while getting to the variable reward the dog is getting the reward of a rebite for every out.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know what this means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since there are sometimes officers in the immediate vicinity of the suspect while he's being bitten it's a dangerous environment for them if the dog releases his bite and anticipates that he's going to get an immediate rebite. If you take the dog out of service during this training, well, you've taken the dog out of service
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is why the lift off is good, as well as a clean out. You have to make a tactical decision on which to use. A guard on out and a recall are both nice tools to be able to choose from.
> 
> NZ LIFT OFF VID HERE
> 
> YOUNG DOG IN TRAINING DOING LIFT OFF HERE
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As above, if the problem develops after the dog is in service you'll have created a potentially dangerous situation if, soon into the training, before it's weaned away, a suspect grabs your dog's leash or collar. The dog may release on the suspect's action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree it can be weaned away. Your caveat that it may not be weaned away goes for every dog behavior that we teach and successively approximate. Poor argument IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes the reason that the lift off occurs is because there is no verbal out. Some officers don't want a verbal out, they don't understand the need for it, except that it's required at their certification. Some trainers are incapable of getting and keeping it. Many K−9 handlers spend a couple of weeks getting ready for their recert, much of it devoted to "getting the dog clean" meaning, "getting him to release on a verbal command." I think that the dog should be clean all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's focus on fixing things with the status quo instead of just saying it's too hard to train. Honestly the dog is a tool. I tell everyone that I encounter doing police K9 work that they better have a back up plan every time they use the dog, no matter how they train. They are a knife or gun or environmental issue away from being on their own or at least without a dog. It's a state of mind. Staying in the fight. Your argument suggests that spending two weeks getting ready for a recert is the status quo. If you find that, you should attempt to train that out of the handler or trainer. You can't fix everything no matter what you do, but your mindset in dealing with issues can contribute to a longer term problem or it can fix them. Even fixing one handler or trainers thought process can be a help.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Dave Colborn

Lou Castle said:


> Defense = instinct of the dog to defend himself against a perceived opponent. That can happen via fight (usually only if the dog thinks he's capable of winning), flight (fleeing − if the dog thinks that the opponent is too big, too tough, etc.), or avoidance (which may be the same thing as your word "displacement") where the dog pretends that the opponent isn't there.
> 
> The "fight" mentioned here is the act of fighting, not "fight drive" which I define as the instinct of a dog to detain or drive off an opponent.



Read your definition of defense and then fight drive (which I don't believe is a drive).

Lou says, Defense = instinct of the dog to defend himself against a perceived opponent.
Lou says, Fight Drive = I define as the instinct of a dog to detain or drive off an opponent.

Substitute defend with drive off, which a reasonable person I am sure would equate one with the other, and you have the same definitioin minus the ludicrous idea that a dog will detain a human with something inherent in it's make up.

Holy crap did you just write that??? Please on all things holy tell me you didn't say that. We aren't even from the same planet if you said that...


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Dave Colborn said:


> I think we are talking about two different things. I am talking about the helper/decoy supplying the correction. Not giving the out command. Handler verbally "outs" the dog.


 I have done this before and had it done. I like it better when the handler does the work. In the case where the out isn't good, Dr. Buzzy on paulse or thump might help! :mrgreen:](*,)


----------



## Lou Castle

Dave Colborn said:


> Dogs are conditioned response animals. They do what we train them to do.


They also have their own agendas. They are instinctive animals many of whom look FIRST to self−satisfy. 



Dave Colborn said:


> If you make the decoy seem like someone adversarial the dog can get beat up by, then that's how you train and in the end what your dog will be conditioned to. I want the dog confident that he is going to win.


Just because there's an adversarial relation between the dog and the decoy hardly means that he's not confident that he is going to win. It's simply a matter of having moments where he's losing, but in the end, in the long run, he wins. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Sparring partner that is just a level below him, every time.


Problem is that when he comes upon a suspect that he realizes is well above him, he's liable, if he has too much defense drive, to split. The reality will overcome his conditioning. If you've not exposed him to this, there easily could be a problem. In sport work this is not an issue because the decoy is never going to try and kill the dog. In the street it might happen tomorrow. 

Earlier I wrote,


> If a problem arises after the dog is in service, it means that while getting to the variable reward the dog is getting the reward of a rebite for every out.





Dave Colborn said:


> I don't know what this means.


I mean that if you're using a method to get the out where the dog is rewarded for releasing the bite by immediately getting another bite (this philosophy can get you into all sorts of trouble in court if the plaintiff's attorney finds out you subscribe to it, so I don't) it's happening all the time at first. That is, EVERY time the dog outs, he's immediately given another bite. After a while of doing this, the variable reward is introduced where he only gets another bite once−in−a−while. If you're in the early stages of this and the dog gets a bite on a suspect. When you out him he'll immediately start looking for his next bite. If there's an officer immediately available, he's going to get bitten. You can't fall back on the tactical take−off, because it might not be appropriate in that situation. 



Dave Colborn said:


> This is why the lift off is good, as well as a clean out. You have to make a tactical decision on which to use. A guard on out and a recall are both nice tools to be able to choose from.


The tactical take off was adapted for use with police work because sometimes there's a crowd of officers around the suspect after the bite occurs. Because everyone is moving around it's sometimes safer for those officers to have the handler have physical control of the dog when he releases the bite. But occasionally it's advantageous for a handler to call the dog off from a distance. Problem is some handlers don't see the need for the verbal out, especially from a distance. They simply don't understand the issue. 




Dave Colborn said:


> So you agree it can be weaned away. Your caveat that it may not be weaned away goes for every dog behavior that we teach and successively approximate. Poor argument IMO.


I think it's an excellent argument!. Yes, it can be weaned away. But sometimes, especially under stress, things that have been weaned away in training will reoccur. If that happens when a suspect grabs the dog and the dog releases there could be a problem. Since this can occur I prefer to use methods that DO NOT have the decoy correcting the dog for anything, especially the out. If he's never done it in training, there's nothing to wean off and no chance of him reverting to it. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Let's focus on fixing things with the status quo instead of just saying it's too hard to train.


It's not that it's too hard. It's that it may introduce problems. I prefer not to build a mountain and then try to climb over it. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Your argument suggests that spending two weeks getting ready for a recert is the status quo.


I've seen that many times. 



Dave Colborn said:


> If you find that, you should attempt to train that out of the handler or trainer.


I never had it with the dogs or handlers that I trained. But I see it with other agencies, where I have nothing to do with the training, very frequently.


----------



## Lou Castle

Dave Colborn said:


> Read your definition of defense and then fight drive (which I don't believe is a drive).


It's exists, even if you don't believe in it. I've had this discussion in person with many people. Then I've put on a sleeve and SHOWN it to them. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Lou says, Defense = instinct of the dog to defend himself against a perceived opponent.
> Lou says, Fight Drive = I define as the instinct of a dog to detain or drive off an opponent.
> 
> Substitute defend with drive off, which a reasonable person I am sure would equate one with the other and you have the same definitioin minus the ludicrous idea that a dog will detain a human with something inherent in it's make up.


You can't make this substitution because the fastest and easiest way "to defend" is to flee. Driving off takes a lot more courage. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Holy crap did you just write that??? Please on all things holy tell me you didn't say that. We aren't even from the same planet if you said that...


Not only did I say it, but I'll repeat it if necessary. Welcome to planet earth!


----------



## Dave Colborn

You think a dog will detain a human, and that this is instinctual?


----------



## Dave Colborn

Lou Said today


> The tactical take off was adapted for use with police work because sometimes there's a crowd of officers around the suspect after the bite occurs. Because everyone is moving around it's sometimes safer for those officers to have the handler have physical control of the dog when he releases the bite. But occasionally it's advantageous for a handler to call the dog off from a distance. Problem is some handlers don't see the need for the verbal out, especially from a distance. They simply don't understand the issue.


Lou said in an "out" thread last year


> Not sure why you mentioned _"tactical lift offs"_ but as an aside, I find it hilarious that people refer to taking the dog off a bite by using his collar to lift him, depriving him of air so that he releases the bite as _"tactical." _ There's nothing tactical about it. In fact it requires the handler to leave cover and concealment go to where the bite is occurring and use at least one hand, to grab the dog's collar. This happens BEFORE the suspect has been searched. It's a JOKE that people call this _"tactical."_ I first heard this described as "taking the dog off strong" or "… off hard." I think those terms are much more appropriate and descriptive. __________________
> Regards,
> 
> Lou Castle, Los Angeles, CA
> [email protected]
> www.loucastle.com


Explain your way out of that one, now that you call it tactical. Explain to your heart's content. I think this gives good insight to all your arguments, with everyone. It shows that you do learn and evolve, albeit slowly.

The good news is that you're learning, and my arguing with you is doing some good.

Amen.


----------



## Dave Colborn

> You can't make this substitution because the fastest and easiest way "to defend" is to flee. Driving off takes a lot more courage.


See Defense HERE






> Not only did I say it, but I'll repeat it if necessary. Welcome to planet earth!


Lou, I know where I am. Just not sure where you come from.


----------



## Geoff Empey

Howard Gaines III said:


> "I found a quick video of a nice Dobermann doing pivot work on the leg."
> Geoff this was nice and something I would be happy to see in a young pup. The out was they and she was ready to rebite the man...nice. Ankle biters rule!


It is pretty simple Ringsport foundation the leg pivot work that is all this is. Do it from the front and the back, move to center mass chest bite and inside arm bites and finish the training with bicep, shoulder and tricep bites. 

It's a bite suit and why some guys buy a suit and then catch dogs like they have been all along on the arm sleeve makes me chuckle. [--k


----------



## David Frost

Geoff Empey said:


> It's a bite suit and why some guys buy a suit and then catch dogs like they have been all along on the arm sleeve makes me chuckle. [--k


Agreed. I tell my handlers they are not allowed to turn around when they have the suit on. We used it a lot the past couple of weeks. Worked on decoys running away, laying down motionless, in a vehicle and charging the dog.

DFrost


----------



## Dave Colborn

David Frost said:


> Agreed. I tell my handlers they are not allowed to turn around when they have the suit on. We used it a lot the past couple of weeks. Worked on decoys running away, laying down motionless, in a vehicle and charging the dog.
> 
> DFrost


David.

Do you ever think it would be realistic to expect organizations such as USPCA and NAPWDA to raise the bar and have more scenario based training? Something that would lead guys to train for work, and be able to pass a cert as well.


----------



## Lou Castle

Dave Colborn said:


> You think a dog will detain a human, and that this is instinctual?


I don't think this Dave, I know it. As kid my family had two dogs, neither with any training beyond a little bit of OB, that would allow guests into the house but not let them out. If they tried to leave they were greeted with aggression. One of them would not let a certain family member leave unless someone else took the dog away. And those were just pets. 

As a police K−9 trainer I've seen it with dogs that passed my stake out test and some others as well. Fight drive is much rarer today than in dogs that were available for police use when I got started. The shift in breeding has been away from it and towards prey drive. Breeding in this is aimed more towards sport work and prey drive gives a much more intense−looking dog.


----------



## Lou Castle

Dave quoted me as saying this earlier today,


> The tactical take off was adapted for use with police work because sometimes there's a crowd of officers around the suspect after the bite occurs. Because everyone is moving around it's sometimes safer for those officers to have the handler have physical control of the dog when he releases the bite. But occasionally it's advantageous for a handler to call the dog off from a distance. Problem is some handlers don't see the need for the verbal out, especially from a distance. They simply don't understand the issue.



Then he writes that I said this _"last year"_


> Not sure why you mentioned _"tactical lift offs"_ but as an aside, I find it hilarious that people refer to taking the dog off a bite by using his collar to lift him, depriving him of air so that he releases the bite as _"tactical." _ There's nothing tactical about it. In fact it requires the handler to leave cover and concealment go to where the bite is occurring and use at least one hand, to grab the dog's collar. This happens BEFORE the suspect has been searched. It's a JOKE that people call this _"tactical."_ I first heard this described as "taking the dog off strong" or "… off hard." I think those terms are much more appropriate and descriptive.


No Dave, it was NOT in a thread _"last year."_ It was in THIS POST that was written 11-12-*2009, *NOT _"last year."_ There too, you removed the context of what I'd written and edited it to suit your convenience. You do the same thing again now. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Explain your way out of that one


Not hard to do. It's easy to confuse people when you take their statements out of context and then don't provide a link so that they can read them in context, as you just did. Unluckily for your argument, I've provided the context for the earlier statement with the link. 

Probably the first person ever to use this movement (getting a dog to release something by lifting him by the collar) had his dog grab a piece of meat that the owner was about to eat as it was sitting on the floor of the cave. That handler grabbed the dog's collar, which he had made himself from the skin of a wooly mammoth, and choked the dog until he spit out the meat. If you watch a video of someone training a dog for some of the biting sports you can see an owner doing the same sort of thing to his dog who's "won" a sleeve from the decoy and is carrying it around, refusing to drop it. 

From there it evolved into a training method where it was used to help keep a dog in balance and to get him to release something (anything) before he was taught to release it on command. Part of the idea was to "leave him wanting more." It provided a way to get a dog off a bite without teaching him to release with a command. Trainers who were incapable of training and maintaining a verbal out started teaching it as the way to get a dog off the bite, tactics be hanged. It was a cover−up for their lack of training ability. 

IN THIS THREAD about a year earlier that the post you quoted, I wrote this


> I may be the Lone Ranger on this but I don't think it's "tactical" for a handler to leave a position of cover/concealment, approach a crook that his dog is biting while he's holding his gun in one hand and grabbing the dog's collar with the other. (I've seen this on TV done with the leash in one hand and a flashlight in the other)! I think that the "tactical" way to do this would be to stay behind cover/concealment and call the dog off the bite with a verbal command.





Dave Colborn said:


> now that you call it tactical.


I call it "tactical" because that's what everyone else calls it and I want everyone to know what I'm talking about. But it's not "tactical" at all. It may be used occasionally when a suspect keeps fighting but it's apparent that he's given up. He can't hold still because of the pain of being bit that they sometimes feel. If you were to out the dog with a verbal command, the suspect would likely thrash around and kick or hit the dog as he released, drawing another bite. So to prevent the dog from inflicting more injury on the suspect, the handler would physically control the dog. But it puts the handler and the team into a very dangerous position. The suspect has not been searched and could be armed. That certainly is not "tactical." 

If there are officers surrounding an unhandcuffed, unsearched suspect with the dog still attached, the tactics are already out the window. The term that's used is a misnomer "Tactical lift off" (it's sometimes called "taking the dog off strong" or "taking the dog off hard") but "tactical lift off" sounds so much cooler. LOL. 

Earlier you wrote, _"This is why the lift off is good, as well as a clean out. You have to make a tactical decision on which to use."_ A "tactical lift off" is often something that a handler is forced to do. It's usually not something that he wants to do. It may mean that the discipline of the back−up officers has broken down. That is, they're not following their training to stay back in safe positions, and now the handler has to play "catch up" to out the dog and provide for their safety. It's a "fall−back position," not something that should be done most of the time on the street, as it sometimes is today. It's become the norm because many handlers don't have a verbal out unless their cert is right around the corner. And often, even then, they're keeping their fingers crossed. 



Dave Colborn said:


> I think this gives good insight to all your arguments, with everyone.


What it shows is how you sometimes take statements out of context and twist the meaning of words in your efforts to win a disagreement. 



Dave Colborn said:


> It shows that you do learn and evolve, albeit slowly.


I've always said that my mind is always open and that I'm always willing to learn from anyone. Even you! Lol. 



Dave Colborn said:


> The good news is that you're learning, and my arguing with you is doing some good.


Please don't think that you've taught me anything new except how to better explain my position to someone who doesn't understand.


----------



## Lou Castle

Earlier Dave wrote,


> Substitute defend with drive off, which a reasonable person I am sure would equate one with the other and you have the same definitioin minus the ludicrous idea that a dog will detain a human with something inherent in it's make up.


And I responded,


> You can't make this substitution because the fastest and easiest way "to defend" is to flee. Driving off takes a lot more courage.





Dave Colborn said:


> See Defense HERE


Dave now provides a short clip from the movie "We Were Soldiers" It's based on a very early engagement in the war in Vietnam. A relatively small force of US soldiers happens to be inserted by helicopter where there is a VERY large force of the enemy. Dave conveniently ignores the fact that if those soldiers could have withdrawn, as can a police dog in most situations, they would have. Since they had no choice, they fought and won. 

Using this term as Dave tried to do here, is silly. "Defense" as we're discussing it here is NOT the term as is used commonly or as it's used in that video clip. Now it's the jargon of dog training and it's an instinctual drive.


----------



## Lou Castle

Geoff Empey said:


> It's a bite suit and why some guys buy a suit and then catch dogs like they have been all along on the arm sleeve makes me chuckle. [--k


You'll see this time after time if you go out to train with LEO's. It's another sign of poorly trained decoys that are the rule rather than the exception in LE. They initially learned to take bites on the arm and many of them never learn to properly use the suit. Sometimes they're not interested in learning more. Sometimes it's because there's no one to teach them. Sometimes they're just not agile enough. Sometimes it's a combination of these. Sometimes they do want to learn and they do, and then they transfer to another assignment.


----------



## Lou Castle

Dave Colborn said:


> David.
> 
> Do you ever think it would be realistic to expect organizations such as USPCA and NAPWDA to raise the bar and have more scenario based training? Something that would lead guys to train for work, and be able to pass a cert as well.


What is there about those certs that people who "train for work" are not able to pass?


----------



## David Frost

Dave Colborn said:


> David.
> 
> Do you ever think it would be realistic to expect organizations such as USPCA and NAPWDA to raise the bar and have more scenario based training? Something that would lead guys to train for work, and be able to pass a cert as well.


There are so many ways to answer this question. I think the most accurate answer is; USPCA and all the other organizations exist because of paying members. In my opinion, they'll not do any more than necessary to call it a certification. Necessity is primarily based on the current legal environment. There are also many venues they (all cert organizations) conduct certifictions. 

A second answer is, there will always be a rift between those teams that want a competition and those that just want a certification. If it's a competition, then there are points, when points are invovled, it's no longer objective. A certification of pass/fail can be more objective. The dog either did it, or he didn't. (my preference by the way).

I'm in agreement with what Lou C. alludes too. If you train properly, you'll not have a problem with certification. I know Jim Nash's unit has been very successful both in USPCA certifications and on the street. I'd be surprised if he didn't agree with my proper training analogy. 

I get in trouble when I say this, but it's my opinion none-the-less. The more influence sport and vendors have on PSD's the more controversy there is going to be. More often than not the controversy is contrived. Whether it's to broaden the market, make a product more sellable or whatever, I don't know. One doesn't have to read much of any forum that discusses PSD's, their training and police trainers, to get the idea that we (in general) don't know how to purchase, train, deploy or for that matter, properly certify police dogs. 

As for USPCA, I've been a member, off and on for 40 years. There are things about the organization with which I both agree and disagree. I've never taken a back seat when I disagree, and have voiced my disagreement, along with a fix on each occasion. The membership drives the rules.

Basically, their certification is a test of basic skills as any certification should be. Blind targets in drugs and explosives. 

In PSD you know what your going to do, only the order of the bite work is a surprise, because you draw that just before you start your turn. The box search, is also blind, unlike some sport where the decoy is always in the last blind (if I'm not mistaken.) Explosives certifiction has changed in the past 2 years. Drugs hasn't. USPCA does post their certification requirements, Just go to the website and you can read them. 

I think all of the organizations will do enough to ensure they cover those items recommended by the USC and are agreeable to the membership. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost

One important fact I left out is the benefit of standardization. With the certification agencies, at least they have a standardized certification with written guidlines and rules. I feel that is the single most important step in having a certification. 

dFrost


----------



## Jim Nash

David Frost said:


> There are so many ways to answer this question. I think the most accurate answer is; USPCA and all the other organizations exist because of paying members. In my opinion, they'll not do any more than necessary to call it a certification. Necessity is primarily based on the current legal environment. There are also many venues they (all cert organizations) conduct certifictions.
> 
> A second answer is, there will always be a rift between those teams that want a competition and those that just want a certification. If it's a competition, then there are points, when points are invovled, it's no longer objective. A certification of pass/fail can be more objective. The dog either did it, or he didn't. (my preference by the way).
> 
> I'm in agreement with what Lou C. alludes too. If you train properly, you'll not have a problem with certification. I know Jim Nash's unit has been very successful both in USPCA certifications and on the street. I'd be surprised if he didn't agree with my proper training analogy.
> 
> I get in trouble when I say this, but it's my opinion none-the-less. The more influence sport and vendors have on PSD's the more controversy there is going to be. More often than not the controversy is contrived. Whether it's to broaden the market, make a product more sellable or whatever, I don't know. One doesn't have to read much of any forum that discusses PSD's, their training and police trainers, to get the idea that we (in general) don't know how to purchase, train, deploy or for that matter, properly certify police dogs.
> 
> As for USPCA, I've been a member, off and on for 40 years. There are things about the organization with which I both agree and disagree. I've never taken a back seat when I disagree, and have voiced my disagreement, along with a fix on each occasion. The membership drives the rules.
> 
> Basically, their certification is a test of basic skills as any certification should be. Blind targets in drugs and explosives.
> 
> In PSD you know what your going to do, only the order of the bite work is a surprise, because you draw that just before you start your turn. The box search, is also blind, unlike some sport where the decoy is always in the last blind (if I'm not mistaken.) Explosives certifiction has changed in the past 2 years. Drugs hasn't. USPCA does post their certification requirements, Just go to the website and you can read them.
> 
> I think all of the organizations will do enough to ensure they cover those items recommended by the USC and are agreeable to the membership.
> 
> DFrost


David , I do agree . A PSD that has been properly trained for the street should not have a problem with a USPCA cert or any of the other PSD certifying agencies in the United States . 

I think Dave Colborn may have misunderstood me in another discussion that K9 handlers were having trouble certifying in the USPCA . That's not the case . In the USPCA Regional Patrol Dog cert usually out of the around 80 K9 teams that take it in our region ( Reg. 18 ) only about 5-10 teams fail to certify . Most of the 80 K9 teams usually approach it as a cert and not a competition . At the National level Cert/competition where you need more points to obtain it and the judging is tougher the failure rate is slightly higher out of the around 100 K9's participating but the vast majority still pass . 

I agree with Dave Colborn that I would like to see the cert changed to a more realistic scenerio based cert and have brought it up in conversation amongst USPCA members . I was the Region 18 Treasurer at one time . Usually the hard chargers are all for it but the average member is not to interested in it . I even tried to sell it for some of our other members who are more into the competition suggesting we have a seperate competition type cert based on unknown realistic scenerios . Most weren't interested . 

I would like to see the bar raised in certifications but like everywhere else these days things are more likely to be made easier then more difficult . 

I will say the USPCA as a PSD certification does a descent job of setting a minimum standard of control for a PSD . But it is far from being a high level certification for PSDs . I don't think one of those exists in the U.S. .


----------



## Dave Colborn

The tactical take off was adapted for use with police work because sometimes there's a crowd of officers around the suspect after the bite occurs. Because everyone is moving around it's sometimes safer for those officers to have the handler have physical control of the dog when he releases the bite. But occasionally it's advantageous for a handler to call the dog off from a distance. Problem is some handlers don't see the need for the verbal out, especially from a distance. They simply don't understand the issue. 


Not sure why you mentioned _"tactical lift offs"_ but as an aside, I find it hilarious that people refer to taking the dog off a bite by using his collar to lift him, depriving him of air so that he releases the bite as _"tactical." _ There's nothing tactical about it. In fact it requires the handler to leave cover and concealment go to where the bite is occurring and use at least one hand, to grab the dog's collar. This happens BEFORE the suspect has been searched. It's a JOKE that people call this _"tactical."_ I first heard this described as "taking the dog off strong" or "… off hard." I think those terms are much more appropriate and descriptive. __________________


I may be the Lone Ranger on this but I don't think it's "tactical" for a handler to leave a position of cover/concealment, approach a crook that his dog is biting while he's holding his gun in one hand and grabbing the dog's collar with the other. (I've seen this on TV done with the leash in one hand and a flashlight in the other)! I think that the "tactical" way to do this would be to stay behind cover/concealment and call the dog off the bite with a verbal command. 

I don't get it, Lou. Just what is your stance on the lift off? Is it a better tactical choice in some situations or not? Yes or no, please.


----------



## Geoff Empey

Lou Castle said:


> You'll see this time after time if you go out to train with LEO's. It's another sign of poorly trained decoys that are the rule rather than the exception in LE. They initially learned to take bites on the arm and many of them never learn to properly use the suit. Sometimes they're not interested in learning more. Sometimes it's because there's no one to teach them. Sometimes they're just not agile enough. Sometimes it's a combination of these. Sometimes they do want to learn and they do, and then they transfer to another assignment.


I totally get that Lou, I'm not LE or even play one on TV but I could see the apathy with the majority for sure. Especially if they get apathy from above as they say **** flows downhill. I sucks when you are at the bottom that proverbial hill! 

To bad really, as the suit is a great tool for training PSDs not just to be used in Ringsport. There is so many techniques that a good decoy can show the dogs. As I am sure the ones who do use it to it's full potential know already.


----------



## Guest

Dave Colborn said:


> The tactical take off was adapted for use with police work because sometimes there's a crowd of officers around the suspect after the bite occurs. Because everyone is moving around it's sometimes safer for those officers to have the handler have physical control of the dog when he releases the bite. But occasionally it's advantageous for a handler to call the dog off from a distance. Problem is some handlers don't see the need for the verbal out, especially from a distance. They simply don't understand the issue.
> 
> 
> Not sure why you mentioned _"tactical lift offs"_ but as an aside, I find it hilarious that people refer to taking the dog off a bite by using his collar to lift him, depriving him of air so that he releases the bite as _"tactical." _There's nothing tactical about it. In fact it requires the handler to leave cover and concealment go to where the bite is occurring and use at least one hand, to grab the dog's collar. This happens BEFORE the suspect has been searched. It's a JOKE that people call this _"tactical."_ I first heard this described as "taking the dog off strong" or "… off hard." I think those terms are much more appropriate and descriptive. __________________
> 
> 
> I may be the Lone Ranger on this but I don't think it's "tactical" for a handler to leave a position of cover/concealment, approach a crook that his dog is biting while he's holding his gun in one hand and grabbing the dog's collar with the other. (I've seen this on TV done with the leash in one hand and a flashlight in the other)! I think that the "tactical" way to do this would be to stay behind cover/concealment and call the dog off the bite with a verbal command.
> 
> I don't get it, Lou. Just what is your stance on the lift off? Is it a better tactical choice in some situations or not? Yes or no, please.


Lift off is lift off, NOT TACTICAL...


----------



## David Frost

Dave Colborn said:


> I may be the Lone Ranger on this but I don't think it's "tactical" for a handler to leave a position of cover/concealment, approach a crook that his dog is biting while he's holding his gun in one hand and grabbing the dog's collar with the other.
> .


A situation such as you described is poor gun handling at best. While I agree leaving a position of cover/concealment can be bad tactics, it probably isn't if there are 5 officer around the subject on the ground. 

While not particularly a fan of the "tactical out", I still say it is needed sometimes. Some dogs, regardless of training, develop "situational deafness". Ok they aren't really deaf because of the situation. They are pissed, and in pure fight and don't care what the handler says, is gonna fight. In that situation, you have to remove the dog. Call it what you want. It's not all fun and games sometimes. Sometimes there is a lot of a emotion in the air, if you will. Drug dogs miss, track dogs sometimes lose the track, and sometimes certified PSD won't release the bite. Perfection isn't required in any program. 

DFrost


----------



## Dave Colborn

Jim Nash said:


> David , I do agree . A PSD that has been properly trained for the street should not have a problem with a USPCA cert or any of the other PSD certifying agencies in the United States .
> 
> I think Dave Colborn may have misunderstood me in another discussion that K9 handlers were having trouble certifying in the USPCA . That's not the case . In the USPCA Regional Patrol Dog cert usually out of the around 80 K9 teams that take it in our region ( Reg. 18 ) only about 5-10 teams fail to certify . Most of the 80 K9 teams usually approach it as a cert and not a competition . At the National level Cert/competition where you need more points to obtain it and the judging is tougher the failure rate is slightly higher out of the around 100 K9's participating but the vast majority still pass .
> 
> I agree with Dave Colborn that I would like to see the cert changed to a more realistic scenerio based cert and have brought it up in conversation amongst USPCA members . I was the Region 18 Treasurer at one time . Usually the hard chargers are all for it but the average member is not to interested in it . I even tried to sell it for some of our other members who are more into the competition suggesting we have a seperate competition type cert based on unknown realistic scenerios . Most weren't interested .
> 
> I would like to see the bar raised in certifications but like everywhere else these days things are more likely to be made easier then more difficult .
> 
> I will say the USPCA as a PSD certification does a descent job of setting a minimum standard of control for a PSD . But it is far from being a high level certification for PSDs . I don't think one of those exists in the U.S. .



Thank you both Jim and David F. for your opinions. I value both your experience and opinion.

I agree that an effective team on the street will most likely pass a cert. What I am saying is that a dog that passes a cert is not always an effective team on the street.


----------



## Dave Colborn

David Frost said:


> A situation such as you described is poor gun handling at best. While I agree leaving a position of cover/concealment can be bad tactics, it probably isn't if there are 5 officer around the subject on the ground.
> 
> While not particularly a fan of the "tactical out", I still say it is needed sometimes. Some dogs, regardless of training, develop "situational deafness". Ok they aren't really deaf because of the situation. They are pissed, and in pure fight and don't care what the handler says, is gonna fight. In that situation, you have to remove the dog. Call it what you want. It's not all fun and games sometimes. Sometimes there is a lot of a emotion in the air, if you will. Drug dogs miss, track dogs sometimes lose the track, and sometimes certified PSD won't release the bite. Perfection isn't required in any program.
> 
> DFrost



Just to clarify this,



> I may be the Lone Ranger on this but I don't think it's "tactical" for a handler to leave a position of cover/concealment, approach a crook that his dog is biting while he's holding his gun in one hand and grabbing the dog's collar with the other.


Is Lou's statement, not mine. 

I think the lift off, tactical lift off, hard out, whatever you call it is a valuable tool for the reasons you stated, David. To be employed when there is a tactical advantage to using that method.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

QUOTE : Quote:
I may be the Lone Ranger on this but I don't think it's "tactical" for a handler to leave a position of cover/concealment, approach a crook that his dog is biting while he's holding his gun in one hand and grabbing the dog's collar with the other.
Is Lou's statement, not mine. 

I think the lift off, tactical lift off, hard out, whatever you call it is a valuable tool for the reasons you stated, David. To be employed when there is a tactical advantage to using that method.


Just hit the guy in the side of the head with a sap and call it a day. Man things got bass ackwards quick.


----------



## Jim Nash

David Frost said:


> A situation such as you described is poor gun handling at best. While I agree leaving a position of cover/concealment can be bad tactics, it probably isn't if there are 5 officer around the subject on the ground.
> 
> While not particularly a fan of the "tactical out", I still say it is needed sometimes. Some dogs, regardless of training, develop "situational deafness". Ok they aren't really deaf because of the situation. They are pissed, and in pure fight and don't care what the handler says, is gonna fight. In that situation, you have to remove the dog. Call it what you want. It's not all fun and games sometimes. Sometimes there is a lot of a emotion in the air, if you will. Drug dogs miss, track dogs sometimes lose the track, and sometimes certified PSD won't release the bite. Perfection isn't required in any program.
> 
> DFrost


Careful David admitting you are not perfect on the internet is a dangerous thing . You should imply that you are and when somebody points out no one is perfect point out you never actually said you were perfect . Imply , imply , imply , deny , deny , deny . That's the recipe to be an internet expert .


----------



## David Frost

Chuckle, chuckle. One of these days, I'll get the hang of this internet thingy. 

DFrost


----------



## Lou Castle

David Frost said:


> A situation such as you described is poor gun handling at best. While I agree leaving a position of cover/concealment can be bad tactics, it probably isn't if there are 5 officer around the subject on the ground.


David I think that in most cases there's no reason for the "5 officers" to have left their positions of cover and concealment while the dog is still fighting the suspect. But once they have, the handler has no choice but to move in to handle the situation. I bet if you ask the 5 why they left cover, they would not have a logical and reasonable answer. Most would admit, perhaps after a bit of prodding, that they "just lost it." 



David Frost said:


> While not particularly a fan of the "tactical out", I still say it is needed sometimes.


Definitely. You can't leave those "5 officers" hanging out there. But I think that, outside of training, it's a "catch−up" movement. There is occasionally a use for it but I also think that they're very rare.


----------



## David Frost

Lou Castle said:


> David I think that in most cases there's no reason for the "5 officers" to have left their positions of cover and concealment
> 
> Definitely. You can't leave those "5 officers" hanging out there. But I think that, outside of training, it's a "catch−up" movement. There is occasionally a use for it but I also think that they're very rare.


I agree, in most cases there isn't a reason, none-the-less, it happens more often than not. 

Call it what you will, but again, it's what actually happens. In the past 30 years we haven't gotten officers to stay out of a potential area of running a track. Not to jump the bad guy is behind that on the list of things canine handlers don't want officers to do, ha ha.

Lou, you know as well as I do, we train, train train, then we react to the situation wheter it's the way we practiced it or not. 

DFrost


----------



## will fernandez

David Frost said:


> I agree, in most cases there isn't a reason, none-the-less, it happens more often than not.
> 
> Call it what you will, but again, it's what actually happens. In the past 30 years we haven't gotten officers to stay out of a potential area of running a track. Not to jump the bad guy is behind that on the list of things canine handlers don't want officers to do, ha ha.
> 
> Lou, you know as well as I do, we train, train train, then we react to the situation wheter it's the way we practiced it or not.
> 
> DFrost


Aint that the truth


----------



## David Frost

Dave Colborn said:


> .
> 
> I agree that an effective team on the street will most likely pass a cert. What I am saying is that a dog that passes a cert is not always an effective team on the street.


I can't disagree with what you say. I do believe though, a dog that passes a certification of some kind, is more likely to be an effective team on the street. 

DFrost


----------



## Lou Castle

David Frost said:


> Call it what you will, but again, it's what actually happens. In the past 30 years we haven't gotten officers to stay out of a potential area of running a track. Not to jump the bad guy is behind that on the list of things canine handlers don't want officers to do, ha ha.
> 
> Lou, you know as well as I do, we train, train train, then we react to the situation wheter it's the way we practiced it or not.
> 
> DFrost


John Paul Jones is aboard his frigate, the _Bonhomme Richard _ engaging in one of the bloodiest naval engagements ever fought, the Battle of Flamborough Head. The fight has been raging for hours. Many of his men are dead or dying. The flagship _Richard _is burning and sinking. The British commander sends word that he will accept Jones' surrender. Jones replies with the immortal words, "I have not yet begun to fight!" 

Down on the deck, a wounded crewman observes, "There's always 10% that doesn't get the word!" 

It's easier to get people to do the right thing, not break perimeters, stay off the potential area of a track, not run to see the apprehension, etc., on a smaller department but there's "always that 10%." Through constant training, education, pleading and threatening you can probably get that down to 5%, and so some deployments go just as they should. But if you don't have the support that originates from the very top, you can't do a thing. And even when you get that support, there's the rookie who loses his mind. 

I think there's a difference between someone who walks along a potential track and someone who leaves cover and concealment when he should not. The latter is a serious breach of officer safety and I place a lot of emphasis on that. If you are constantly on top of the officers it minimizes how often they do the wrong thing. If the handler loudly warns the officers to stay behind cover at the moment the incident is unfolding, it helps.


----------



## David Frost

Nothing to disagree with at all. We still have to work in that real world.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Lou Castle said:


> I don't think this Dave, I know it. As kid my family had two dogs, neither with any training beyond a little bit of OB, that would allow guests into the house but not let them out. If they tried to leave they were greeted with aggression. One of them would not let a certain family member leave unless someone else took the dog away. And those were just pets.
> 
> As a police K−9 trainer I've seen it with dogs that passed my stake out test and some others as well. Fight drive is much rarer today than in dogs that were available for police use when I got started. The shift in breeding has been away from it and towards prey drive. Breeding in this is aimed more towards sport work and prey drive gives a much more intense−looking dog.



Lou. When you were a kid, that didn't happen. It's good that you bring revisionist history into the mix, but it just didn't happen. The dogs learned a behavior.

To believe that an adult dog doesn't have training is putting blinders on. Really "just a little OB". Once they are out of the womb, everything is training and learning and reacting to the environment based on the dog. Those dogs in your youth were built up, just like every almost every other pet dog in the world that has bad habits. They didn't come out of the womb and just back someone into the corner. Doesn't happen. It's bad genetics and a learned bad behavior. They were defensive shitters and if you would have said boo, they would have blown their anal glands and run a great distance away. You remember it different because you were shorter at the time and it seemed different. You were scared, therefore they were in control and seemed strong. It sounds like one backed you into a corner and wouldn't let you leave. I am sorry that you had to have another family member put it away. Must have been traumatic. That explains a lot though. Stake another defensive shitter out and sit in front of it in a lawn chair until it quits barking. Ignore it. Feed it hot dogs when it's quiet until the anxiety goes away for both of you. The world will be a better place.

As a police K-9 trainer, I guess the adult dogs you staked out were not exposed to the world at all. You got them out of a lab, a sterile environment. Sure, there are some dogs that have a stronger drive to show fight in response to threat instead of flight, and I agree with that. But it is all part of the defensive side of the dog that you can make stronger by working the dog properly. That was what you were looking at when you were testing all these dogs. Without a doubt. 

There are so many things that you say that are just wrong. "Dogs have an agenda" "Dogs will naturally detain a man" it is apparent that you don't understand dog training as well as you type you do. Ever heard of anthropomorphism. They are dogs. That's all.

You make statements that are misleading, or I or others have already stated, and then you make them your own, just like your disdain and laughter mentioned OVER a year ago in a different thread for a tactical lift off, that you then supported in this thread, and then went against. Your written word seems to shift, which only means that you'll just shift your opinion to your other opinion to suit your mood. 

I don't want you to think I missed any of your points. Some of them are too ludicrous to address and i have limited time.


----------



## Lou Castle

Dave Colborn said:


> Lou. When you were a kid, that didn't happen.


There's no polite way to say this. The fact that you think that you know more about my childhood than I do is at once, ignorant and stupid. You are wrong so many times in JUST THIS POST that it's hilarious. I've completely lost what little respect I once had for you. It's interesting that here on a forum that's supposed to be about dog training, many, if not most of your attacks, have been NOT against my comments about dog training, rather they've been personal attacks on me. That's typical of someone who can't win an argument based on what the discussion is about. And so they turn it into an attack on the other person. Since you've done this, I've seen fit to turn it back onto you. Apologies to the readers who may actually be looking for dog training information. 



Dave Colborn said:


> It's good that you bring revisionist history into the mix , but it just didn't happen. The dogs learned a behavior.


Face it Dave you don't know squat about the situation, you're just making assumptions, one after the other because you have been cornered and simply can't stand being shown to be wrong. Nonetheless I'll do so again and again in this response. 



Dave Colborn said:


> To believe that an adult dog doesn't have training is putting blinders on. Really "just a little OB". Once they are out of the womb, everything is training and learning and reacting to the environment based on the dog. Those dogs in your youth were built up, just like every almost every other pet dog in the world that has bad habits.


Nope Dave you're guessing about the training that these dogs received. Like every dog, they learned quite a bit all by themselves, but no one abused them, no one taught them a thing about defending the home and no one taught them a thing about biting. Neither of them were breeds that are normally considered to be protective or aggressive. 



Dave Colborn said:


> They didn't come out of the womb and just back someone into the corner. Doesn't happen. It's bad genetics and a learned bad behavior.


Odd, but I don't recall saying ANYTHING about a dog backing someone into a corner. This is some fantasy that you've created in your pathetic little efforts to be right. Sorry, won't work. 



Dave Colborn said:


> They were defensive shitters and if you would have said boo, they would have blown their anal glands and run a great distance away.


Oddly when the family member tried to leave in spite of what the dog wanted, he was hospitalized with serious wounds. Not nips on his hands as your "shitters" would inflict. So much for your theories and assumptions. 



Dave Colborn said:


> You remember it different because you were shorter at the time and it seemed different. You were scared


I was scared? I did not know that! Yaknow it sounds like you were there. But somehow I don't think so! It sounds as if you think I was the one that the dog would not let out of the house. As usual, you're wrong; this time on both counts. 



Dave Colborn said:


> It sounds like one backed you into a corner and wouldn't let you leave.


Really? Perhaps you should read once again what I wrote. Here it is again. _"As a kid my family had two dogs, neither with any training beyond a little bit of OB, that would allow *guests *into the house but not let them out. If they tried to leave they were greeted with aggression. One of them would not let *a certain family member *leave unless someone else took the dog away."_ 

Can you show me where it says that I was the "family member?" Can you show me where it says anything about "backing me (or anyone) into a corner." More assumptions. More stupidity. More ignorance. All of it on you. 



Dave Colborn said:


> I am sorry that you had to have another family member put it away.


I sincerely appreciate the sympathy Dave but AGAIN you're wrong. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Must have been traumatic.


Nope, no trauma. Didn't happen. But thanks anyway. I appreciate the empathy, false though it probably is. ROFL. 



Dave Colborn said:


> That explains a lot though.


It's obvious that you've based quite a bit on your assumptions. Now that they've been shown to be false, everything based on them is WRONG. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Stake another defensive shitter out and sit in front of it in a lawn chair until it quits barking. Ignore it. Feed it hot dogs when it's quiet until the anxiety goes away for both of you. The world will be a better place.


No idea what this means. It sounds as if you think that's what we did in efforts to fix this issue. It wasn't. AGAIN, you're wrong. 



Dave Colborn said:


> As a police K-9 trainer, I guess the adult dogs you staked out were not exposed to the world at all. You got them out of a lab, a sterile environment.


WRONG AGAIN Dave. The dogs I tested had been imported into the US by various vendors for the purpose of becoming police dogs. Many of them had sport degrees of various levels. All of them had received training in OB and bitework. Some had scentwork on top of that. Most of them were two years old, some of them a bit older. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Sure, there are some dogs that have a stronger drive to show fight in response to threat instead of flight, and I agree with that. But it is all part of the defensive side of the dog that you can make stronger by working the dog properly. That was what you were looking at when you were testing all these dogs. Without a doubt.


WRONG AGAIN Dave. The dogs that I rejected had little or not fight drive. The dogs that I selected had pronounced levels of it. It's interesting that instead of just being able to realize that there's more than one opinion on the selection, training and working of PSD's, you go to this place. 



Dave Colborn said:


> There are so many things that you say that are just wrong.


Let's look at the examples you cite and see which one of us is WRONG. Can you guess who it will be? 

You mentioned that I said, _"Dogs have an agenda"_ Actually to be accurate, something that does not seem to concern you too much I said, _"They also have their own agenda."_ 

Anyone who denies this is an idiot. But let's just say that somehow you missed my meaning, so I'll explain for your edification: just a few lightweight examples, you don't seem able to grasp much more than that. We want dogs who will not tear up the house if left alone. We want dogs that will sit when we say sit. We want dogs that will track a human being. None of these things are a natural part of a dog's makeup. They are instinctive animals and due to that, *have their own agendas. *They want to chew and MUST BE TAUGHT that our baseboards are not acceptable chew toys. They MUST BE TAUGHT that when we say "sit" even if they're on the trail of a rabbit, they must put their butt on the ground. Dogs track things that are of interest to them; cats, bunnies, squirrels. They MUST BE TAUGHT to track a human to the exclusion of these things. Some might prefer to say that "their drives must be channeled" into doing the things that we want and into not doing the things that we don't want. Either way, if we don't train them they'll do things that are of interest to them. THAT'S what it means to say "that dogs have their own agenda." Was that basic enough for you Dave? 

I've said, _"Dogs will naturally detain a man"_ 

Seen it and shown it to too many people to bother explaining it to you. I'm sorry that your experience is so limited that you've never seen it. 



Dave Colborn said:


> it is apparent that you don't understand dog training as well as you type you do.


I bet that not one of the people who called on me for the 50+ seminars that I've done would agree with you Dave. I wonder, how many seminars have you been asked to do? How many seminars has DAVE COLBURN been called up for? Not seminars where your employer brings you along, but just YOU, all by yourself? How many seminars where there are numerous other speakers have you done? I think that your answers may tell us something about my understanding of dog training when compared to yours. More than likely you'll run and hide from these questions because you know that they'll expose you for what you are. I'm sure it's not escaped many of the readers these are not the first questions that you've hidden from. They are numerous. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Ever heard of anthropomorphism.


Yep. I avoid it whenever possible. I've attributed NOT ONE HUMAN characteristic to a dog. It's merely a way of communicating here that they are different from humans and that they are driven by different instincts. Since you are insinuating that I've done this, please show us those statements. 



Dave Colborn said:


> You make statements that are misleading


EVERY TIME that you've pointed out what you think are my misleading statements, I've shown you to be wrong! 



Dave Colborn said:


> just like your disdain and laughter mentioned OVER a year ago in a different thread for a tactical lift off, that you then supported in this thread, and then went against.


WRONG AGAIN Dave. I've never supported the "tactical lift off" beyond talking about it as a necessary evil. In a world where cops kept their cool and remained behind cover it would almost never be used. 



Dave Colborn said:


> Your written word seems to shift


WRONG AGAIN, Dave. What shifts is your ability (and/or perhaps your desire) to comprehend. Sometimes it's horrible and sometimes it's barely acceptable. I've yet to see it working at a high level in our exchanges. 



Dave Colborn said:


> I don't want you to think I missed any of your points. Some of them are too ludicrous to address and i have limited time.


Thanks for yet another post in which I've REPEATEDLY shown you to be WRONG. You make assumption after assumption about things you know absolutely nothing about (your statements about the dogs I had as a kid are a perfect example) and then based on those assumptions, you jump to conclusions. In the end it's your credibility that's shown to be deficient.


----------



## Dave Colborn

> Lou said,
> 
> 
> 
> _"As a kid my family had two dogs, neither with any training beyond a little bit of OB, that would allow *guests *into the house but not let them out. If they tried to leave they were greeted with aggression. One of them would not let *a certain family member *leave unless someone else took the dog away."_
> 
> 
> 
> When you said "a certain family member", I am sure it was a statement used to misdirect the forum away from some hurt you received as a child. I shouldn't have played off of that, it obviously hurt you from the language in the rest of the post. Also illustrated by the ROFL, when you are so obviously not ROFL.
> 
> You brought up your youth and your pet dogs. I just told you what happened since you brought anecdotal unsupportable evidence to this argument. Talk to any trainer on here that deals with some dog folks, and I am sure they are used to having to do this. Telling someone that their perceptions of what happened are wrong.
Click to expand...




> Oddly when the family member tried to leave in spite of what the dog wanted, he was hospitalized with serious wounds. Not nips on his hands as your "shitters" would inflict. So much for your theories and assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> This is what nervy shitters, dogs with fear aggression issues, do when they get comfortable in an area, say, such as a home. They can get stronger and stronger if improperly handled. You can probably approach almost any trainer who teaches in the US and they understand this concept. They may deal with behavioral issues such as this regularly.
Click to expand...




> Quote:
> Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn*
> _You think a dog will detain a human, and that this is instinctual?_
> 
> 
> 
> Lou said this
> 
> 
> 
> As a police K−9 trainer I've seen it with dogs that passed my stake out test and some others as well. Fight drive is much rarer today than in dogs that were available for police use when I got started. The shift in breeding has been away from it and towards prey drive. Breeding in this is aimed more towards sport work and prey drive gives a much more intense−looking dog. __________________
> Regards,
> 
> Lou Castle, Los Angeles, CA
> [email protected]
> www.loucastle.com
> 
> 
> 
> Lou. If the dog had been imported to the US and you tested it and it had the below levels of training, how do you support the above statement that a dog will instinctively detain someone?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WRONG AGAIN Dave. The dogs I tested had been imported into the US by various vendors for the purpose of becoming police dogs. Many of them had sport degrees of various levels. All of them had received training in OB and bitework. Some had scentwork on top of that. Most of them were two years old, some of them a bit older.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 Quote:



> Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn*
> _ They (your nervy pet dogs) didn't come out of the womb and just back someone into the corner. Doesn't happen. It's bad genetics and a learned bad behavior._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> POSTED BY LOU: Odd, but I don't recall saying ANYTHING about a dog backing someone into a corner. This is some fantasy that you've created in your pathetic little efforts to be right. Sorry, won't work.
> 
> 
> 
> No lou. You said detain. I substituted backed into a corner. Sorry big fella. You state that dogs will naturally detain. Doesn't happen without training and reaction to their environment. You use an anecdotal pet dog story from when you were younger to support it.
Click to expand...

 Quote:




> WRONG AGAIN Dave. I've never supported the "tactical lift off" beyond talking about it as a necessary evil. In a world where cops kept their cool and remained behind cover it would almost never be used.
> 
> 
> 
> Lou, you do support it, then. You say it would almost never be used. Which means that it would be used sometimes. Therefore it has to be trained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lou. All we have to go off of is what you SAY on this forum, in regards to the arguments. You changed what you said. It's clear. Don't support lift off, do support lift off, to back to not supporting again. All illustrated in this arguement, although now you DON't support it again in one sentence and do in the next. The thing with this is, it's a great tool, and because you are so defensive in this argument, you can't even concede this point. Sometimes cops have to go hands on with guys. It happens, you know that. Having the mouth of a dog on one arm starting the process of control and then using the K9 handler and dog on one arm while someone else gains control is not horrible. It is simply a technique. If you never use it, it's still good to have trained into the dog.
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]


> I bet that not one of the people who called on me for the 50+ seminars that I've done would agree with you Dave. I wonder, how many seminars have you been asked to do? How many seminars has DAVE COLBURN been called up for? Not seminars where your employer brings you along, but just YOU, all by yourself? How many seminars where there are numerous other speakers have you done? More than likely you'll run and hide from these questions because you know that they'll expose you for what you are. I'm sure it's not escaped many of the readers these are not the first questions that you've hidden from. They are numerous.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe anyone at your seminars would not agree with me Lou. That's the neat thing about being right and being comfortable with it. I can stand on my own and support my views without having to call for support, which you have done here. We are having an argument on the internet, Lou. You don't have to throw more unprovable opinion from your "seminars" on here. Stand on your own two feet. Debate this yourself.
> 
> Lou. I have never been called to do one seminar, unless I have forgotten. I have taught at several as an assistant and helped a bunch of guys with simple stuff from obedience to bitework to tracking day to day, working training dogs and selling dog equipiment. Cops and sport folks. I enjoy dogs so I talk about them, and if I am good at something I do it. I have learned a bunch from guys in similar situations. Also good trainers and handlers. I learn at seminars while selling equipment and I learn here. You may not believe this, but I enjoy a good debate, too. I am capable of teaching, and one day if I stick around long enough, I'll teach my own, maybe in the name of my employer, maybe not I am sure I will though. I only consider myself fair at some of this compared to some really good trainers. You just aren't in my category of good trainers at all. That's my prerogative.
> 
> The seminar is to teach or train, not say, "Look at me, I am Lou Castle". Focus on the guys Lou, your day of working is done. It's them that have to go out and do it now.
Click to expand...




> Lou said
> 
> 
> 
> I think that your answers may tell us something about my understanding of dog training when compared to yours.
> 
> 
> 
> This is the most definitive statement you have made about you, Lou. My answers about how many seminars I have done have nothing to do with how good of a trainer I am or you are. How good we are is how good we are. Same with our understanding of training.
> 
> In short, that argument, since you imply I am a horrible trainer on one hand only implies you are better than a horrible trainer at best.You should raise the bar of your perception of yourself. The shame of it is, you shouldn't feel the need to compare yourself to me in the first place. Stand on your own two feet, Lou.
Click to expand...

Let's go back to the idea of doing some of what we talk about on video lou. I can do it, can you? I do it every day. Short of doing that, there is no real supportable argument from your end. In person. I am still the same guy. Humble, willing to help and learn.

Maybe a topic with some video responses.


----------



## David Frost

Folks just get tired of the me/you bull shit. Aagree/disagree about technique, methods, types of dogs etc but the next negative comment about personal conduct/exploits etc will lock this thread. 

DFrost


----------



## Jim Nash

Before this gets locked I'd like to second Dave's request to see Lou's work on video . For years I have heard from Lou about his exploits as a handler , trainer and of the astounding successes he has had using the ecollar in training thousands of dogs . I would love to see it in action and how he actually does it .


----------



## Joby Becker

Howard Gaines III said:


> For those who have a foundation in stuffed animals, this one isn't for you...:twisted:​
> You often see dogs or puppies giving typewriter bites or pop off bites on the sleeve or bite suit. This can be seen in some "seasoned" dogs as well. The other thing is when the eyes are closed and the ears drop back.


Hey Howard,

you mention ears laying back as being a bad thing...do you mean in conjunction with having the eyes closed only? I have been watching dogs working more closely since reading this, and every dog I saw lately layed its ears back while biting, but none closed there eyes...

I can see what you are talking about for sure, just not sure if the ears fit the profile you have layed out...

here is video off youtube of young dog being worked (not by us).
The song is fitting for this topic...and dogs ears are back..

http://www.youtube.com/user/Smackk9#p/u/97/KPIAkUuKspM


----------



## Lou Castle

Dave Colborn said:


> When you said "a certain family member", I am sure it was a statement used to misdirect the forum away from some hurt you received as a child.


Another assumption Dave. AGAIN, you're wrong.



Dave Colborn said:


> I shouldn't have played off of that, it obviously hurt you from the language in the rest of the post.


Another assumption Dave. AGAIN, you're wrong.



Dave Colborn said:


> You brought up your youth and your pet dogs. I just told you what happened since you brought anecdotal unsupportable evidence to this argument.


Another assumption Dave. AGAIN, you're wrong.



Dave Colborn said:


> This is what nervy shitters, dogs with fear aggression issues, do when they get comfortable in an area, say, such as a home. They can get stronger and stronger if improperly handled.


Another assumption Dave. AGAIN, you're wrong.



Dave Colborn said:


> Lou. If the dog had been imported to the US and you tested it and it had the below levels of training, how do you support the above statement that a dog will instinctively detain someone?


There's nothing in the stake out test that will cue a dog back into his training. And so I get his instinctive response. To give you some idea, I've tested a couple of highly titled sport dogs that everyone thought would pass with flying colors. They showed unacceptable weakness at the first sign of a threat.



Dave Colborn said:


> You said detain. I substituted backed into a corner.


They're not the same. Not even close.



Dave Colborn said:


> You state that dogs will naturally detain.


WRONG again, Dave. I said that I had two dogs as a kid that would do this and that *SOME * some dogs will do it naturally.



Dave Colborn said:


> Doesn't happen without training and reaction to their environment.


It does happen. I've seen it. I've described it. You're not required to agree. Based on what you've written, you would not recognize it if you saw it right in front of you.



Dave Colborn said:


> You use an anecdotal pet dog story from when you were younger to support it.


Yes, and? Take a look through this, or any, forum and you'll see lots of anecdotal evidence. Suddenly ... it's not acceptable. LOL.



Dave Colborn said:


> Lou. All we have to go off of is what you SAY on this forum, in regards to the arguments.


That's the case with most people here Dave. Of course if you were truly interested, you could ask some of the people that I've worked with. But that's obviously too much trouble and besides, you'd be shown to be wrong.



Dave Colborn said:


> You changed what you said. It's clear. Don't support lift off, do support lift off, to back to not supporting again. All illustrated in this arguement, although now you DON't support it again in one sentence and do in the next. The thing with this is, it's a great tool, and because you are so defensive in this argument, you can't even concede this point.


No Dave. Again you're wrong. I've never supported it except as a fall-back when things turn to sh!t, except for a very rare situation where the suspect can't hold still and you don't want a rebite in case the dog gets hit or kicked as he leaves the bite. At best, except as a training tool, it's a necessary evil that keeps dumb police officers who leave cover from getting bit. It's been transformed into "the way it's done" when trainers or handlers are unable to get and/or keep a consistent clean verbal out.



Dave Colborn said:


> Sometimes cops have to go hands on with guys. It happens, you know that.


The times when you MUST go hands on (after a bite has occurred) are relatively rare. Usually it's when other cops (other than the handler) have forgotten their training (if they ever received such training) to stay behind cover and order the suspect to move toward them. Watch some reality cop shows on TV and you see this all the time. Over and over you'll see an officer make a felony stop and then walk up on the car with his gun pointed at the driver when he should stay behind his doors and order the suspect out of his car. Such crappy tactics are commonplace in many areas.

USUALLY when this becomes necessary what has happened is that the back−up officers get excited and rush in. They don't realize, or they forget, that just because a dog is biting someone he may still be fully capable of using a knife or a gun. FAR BETTER for them to stay back and let the K−9 handler give the suspect orders to show his hands and stop fighting the dog. AFTER those commands have been given, the K−9 handler should out the dog, call him away from the suspect and THEN, when the suspect's hands are shown to be empty and he's in as safe a position as we can get at this point, they can approach and take him into custody. Of course there are going to be suspects who can't or won't comply. In those circumstances it may be necessary to go hands−on. But those situations are in the minority.

I've often said that if you paint something black or cammo and call it "tactical" lots of people will buy it (or buy into it). Sticking the word "tactical" on something doesn't make it so. In this case it's usually anything but a use of good tactics. As I've said, it's usually a "fall back." Sometimes for the safety of the suspect or cops who−do−dumb−things, handlers have to get in there and grab their dog's collars. It's something that one should have in the bag of tricks but it's not how things should be done all the time. Unfortunately some poor trainers are unable to get and keep a clean verbal out. And so they've conned the handlers they train into thinking that this is how it should be done all the time. Some handlers have even convinced themselves.



Dave Colborn said:


> Having the mouth of a dog on one arm starting the process of control and then using the K9 handler and dog on one arm while someone else gains control is not horrible. It is simply a technique. If you never use it, it's still good to have trained into the dog.


As I've said AT LEAST TWICE before, it's a *"necessary evil."* Please note the use of the word "necessary." If you can find someplace that I've said that anyone should not train this please show it to us. Like my other requests for you to show places where you misstated what I've said, you'll pretend that this was never asked for.



Dave Colborn said:


> Maybe anyone at your seminars would not agree with me Lou.


You're welcome to talk to them.



Dave Colborn said:


> That's the neat thing about being right and being comfortable with it. I can stand on my own and support my views without having to call for support , which you have done here.


Dave if I were to say, "I doubt that you have ever trained a good dog." all you'd have here is the ability to repeat your allegation that you have. You might provide some video but how would anyone know that you'd done that work? How would anyone know that the real trainer, who had done the work, was not standing just outside the frame? How would anyone know that you had not edited the video to show only the good work? Your method might have failed over and over and only worked once, and that's what you show us. And so I invite people who doubt my experience to talk to people who have seen it firsthand. That's going to be a much more telling experience than watching a video. If I were to show a video I have no doubt that those accusations would be leveled and then I'd be asked for references. I once got into such a discussion with someone here and when I alleged (to show the problem with this) that he'd not trained his own dog, that he had perhaps purchased him with a title and all he had done was repeat that title, all he could do was to repeat, (to the effect), "Yes, I did." FAR BETTER to talk to people who have seen the work.



Dave Colborn said:


> We are having an argument on the internet, Lou. You don't have to throw more unprovable opinion from your "seminars" on here. Stand on your own two feet. Debate this yourself.


There are testimonials on my website from people who have seen it Dave. Many of those folks have given permission to be contacted by doubters. When applying for a job it's a standard practice, heck it's almost required, to supply references from people who know the applicant. While I'm not looking for work here, it's still one of the best ways to tell if someone is telling the truth. BTW someone stated that most of those references were from pet owners, he was wrong but the thread was locked before I could supply the numbers. The letters from pet owners makes up only about 61% of those testimonials. The rest, more than 1/3 are from working dog handlers of one type or another.



Dave Colborn said:


> Lou. I have never been called to do one seminar


If you were half the trainer you think you are, you'd have been called on for many of them. I've done 50 (with three more scheduled for this year). I've done them in 19 states and three foreign countries. Several of them repeated at seminars that are done annually. That speaks to my knowledge of training dogs and my ability to impart that knowledge to others. It's just as important to be able to train the handlers as it is to be able to train their dogs.



Dave Colborn said:


> I have taught at several as an assistant and helped a bunch of guys with simple stuff from obedience to bitework to tracking day to day, working training dogs and selling dog equipiment. Cops and sport folks. I enjoy dogs so I talk about them, and if I am good at something I do it. I have learned a bunch from guys in similar situations. Also good trainers and handlers.


Thanks for filling us in. In golf you'd be called a duffer (without any of the negative connotations that contains). Please don't get the impression that I'm saying that there's anything wrong with being at this stage in a career. ALL trainers were there at one point. But to use a duffer's knowledge and experience and then tell someone who's seen something dozens of times, that it does not happen, is ludicrous.



Dave Colborn said:


> You may not believe this, but I enjoy a good debate too


Perhaps you do. But so far, you've not engaged in much "good debate" with me. Instead of sticking to the subject you turn our discussion into personal attacks. You make assumptions and then base conclusions on them. Usually they're wrong and then, so are your conclusions. Excuse me, but I don't consider that to be "a good debate."



Dave Colborn said:


> I only consider myself fair at some of this compared to some really good trainers. You just aren't in my category of good trainers at all. That's my prerogative.


And back to the personal attack! ROFL. Dave this isn't about whether you think that I'm a good trainer or not. Try reading the title of the thread. THAT is what the discussion is about. If you disagree with something that I've said, please feel free to state your case. We can go back and forth like that for as long as you like. We'll probably never change the other's mind but THAT sort of exchange would constitute the "good debate" that you claim that you "enjoy." Calling me names is a fail of epic proportions.

Earlier I wrote,


> I think that your answers may tell us something about my understanding of dog training when compared to yours.





Dave Colborn said:


> My answers about how many seminars I have done have nothing to do with how good of a trainer I am or you are.


If you were half the trainer that you'd like us to believe that you are Dave you'd have at least a couple of seminars in your resume. Word of how good your work is would have spread far and wide and you'd be in demand to teach others what you know. Instead ......



Dave Colborn said:


> In short, that argument, since you imply I am a horrible trainer on one hand only implies you are better than a horrible trainer at best.


Dave I don't think that I've implied that you're a horrible trainer. I KNOW that I've not said anything of the kind. So let me clarify. I'd guess that *You're NOT a horrible trainer.* I can't say one way or the other because I've not seen any of your work and I've not spoken to anyone who has. Based on something you'd say I might comment on your knowledge of that particular subject but that certainly does not totally reflect on your skill as a trainer. I'd just say that we disagree on some things. YOU have turned that into something vaguely imitating a debate; but it consists mostly of you making personal attacks and commenting on the quality of work that you've never seen! I think that speak volumes about your perception of yourself. You seem to be mostly trying to tear me down, rather than make a cogent argument about the topic. That sort of attack might work in high school, but it's just another fail here.



Dave Colborn said:


> Let's go back to the idea of doing some of what we talk about on video lou. I can do it, can you? I do it every day.


Dave do you understand the meaning of the word "retired?" While I still do a bit of work with LE you'll never see any video of it. Such video (and it's rare) that gets shot of my work is not retained. It's reviewed to show the handlers what happened and then it's taped over. Retained videos can be subpoenaed into court during lawsuits and no matter how good the work is, it's never going to be perfect. Those imperfections can be used against an officer, shown over and over in slow motion, frame−by−frame to influence a jury that something untoward happened.

If your ONLY acceptable standard is video, you'll never be persuaded, and I really could not care less. I'm not here to convince everyone. Only those with open minds and you certainly don't fit that description.



Dave Colborn said:


> Short of doing that, there is no real supportable argument from your end.


I think that references from people who have seen the work, start to finish, is far more reliable than a couple of minutes of video. Videos show us only the briefest glance into what happened during the very short time that the camera was turned on. You know when that happens and you are prepared for it. You can also edit out the mistakes, the failures and the times when the dog simply didn't cooperate. OTOH the word of someone who's watched me train for hours on end, at a seminar, holds much more water. They can tell you of the things that a video won't show.



Dave Colborn said:


> In person. I am still the same guy. Humble, willing to help and learn.


Perhaps you are Dave. But you haven't shown that guy in our exchanges.


----------



## Lou Castle

David Frost said:


> Folks just get tired of the me/you bull shit. Aagree/disagree about technique, methods, types of dogs etc but the next negative comment about personal conduct/exploits etc will lock this thread.
> 
> DFrost


David I hate discussions that get personal too. But I think that locking threads that go that way merely encourages people who engage in those sorts of attacks. I think that often their goal is to interfere with the flow of information that they don't like, that they didn't think of and where they're being shown repeatedly to be wrong.

I think that if moderators truly wanted to stop such behavior they'd look at who started such arguments and who keeps them up after being told to stop by a moderator. I think the only thing that stops this is to warn the offenders and then ban or at least suspend them if they continue, even if it's in other threads. Otherwise you just let them win.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Lou Castle said:


> ... I think that if moderators truly wanted to stop such behavior they'd look at who started such arguments and who keeps them up after being told to stop by a moderator. I think the only thing that stops this is to warn the offenders and then ban or at least suspend them if they continue, even if it's in other threads. Otherwise you just let them win.



I think that the temp ban list makes it clear that the mods "truly want to stop such behavior."

AND threads that devolve into this ridiculous crap will be closed.

This thread is done for if there's another personal-attack post, and the poster will indeed suffer consequences.

Also, while moderating advice about "who started it" is duly noted, it's not really appreciated when it's tossed into the middle of a thread. 

](*,)

Regards,
All the mods and admin



*
And back to "Bad Bites Start..."*


----------



## Bart Karmich

My dog pops off. What does that mean? I never put pressure on him for defense. We've only ever played tug off lead. He doesn't cry or run away. Usually he comes running back to re-bite. I don't think I'm rushing him, we've been playing tug for 12 months now. I should be able to get a little rough. He pops off because his grip isn't firm enough to hold his 80+ pounds when I swing him around. He flew off like a loose helicopter blade last night. He ran back and re-bit. I let him win. After that his drive was really weak. He didn't want to get tossed off again so he'd rather not bite hard enough to get swung around. I finished the session with a fun chase/bite game that gets his drive up without tugging.

I'm pretty sure he'd rather go mark some flowers than play with a rough decoy. Is he a sissy or just a wise opportunist?

How would you train this dog Howard, or anyone?

PS I'm not trying to make him something he's not. You can say he's a weak shitter or whatever but I know what he is and isn't and I'm not claiming anything. He is what he is. He's not gonna be at your next trial, but he'll be at my house when I get home.


----------



## Jim Nash

Lou , I'll agree there are limitations to videos but there are also limitations to another's on line references to what they consider good training . It's been seen on this forum time and time again .You can see a detailed description of something in writting by a member here and when they supply a video later it turns out to be completely different then what one might have pictured . Even with video's limitations I think it would just offer one more piece of the puzzle when you descripe some of the training you do and as it pertains to this thread it would be bitework . I know there are people willing to help video and post video of you at work especially you at work at some of the many SAR seminars you do . Not sure why it's such a big deal .


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Connie Sutherland said:


> ..., and the poster will indeed suffer consequences.
> ](*,)
> 
> Regards,
> All the mods and admin
> 
> *And back to "Bad Bites Start..."*


 I've suffered enough...can't get a word in...feeling hurt....unloved...:-({|=8-[


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Bart popping off the bite ISN'T always a bad thing. What if there was tooth damage you didn't see? What if the dog's tongue was caught between the sleeve and the tooth? Lots to think about.

I tested a dog that would bite and pop off. In and out...this dog was NOT feeling warm and fuzzy about bite work...and none was going to be extended to it. Most may agree, bites should be firm, full, and with some degree of a willingness by the dog to do it. A dog which enjoys this venue will be a blast to work with, one that tucks tail and runs or makes a half a$$ attempt is a waste...JMHO.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Howard Gaines III said:


> I've suffered enough...can't get a word in...feeling hurt....unloved...:-({|=8-[


Sorry to help derail your thread Howard. Hope your new dog works well! The news today was, well, great!!!!!


----------



## Lou Castle

Jim Nash said:


> Not sure why it's such a big deal .


Recently I've been asked for video of my method of training the out. Since my out is for police dogs and I've already stated ample reasons not to show such work, that's covered. Another request has been for a video of a dog that's naturally detaining someone. Since my own dog that did this is gone and I no longer tests dogs for LE with any regularity (and when I do test for LE such a dog is pretty rare) that's not likely to happen. 

I have no idea how showing something from a SAR seminar would be responsive of either of those requests. I'm not teaching the out and I'm not testing dogs there. 

And finally it's not even a "little deal" to me. I don't see any reason to go to the trouble.


----------



## Jim Nash

Lou Castle said:


> Recently I've been asked for video of my method of training the out. Since my out is for police dogs and I've already stated ample reasons not to show such work, that's covered. Another request has been for a video of a dog that's naturally detaining someone. Since my own dog that did this is gone and I no longer tests dogs for LE with any regularity (and when I do test for LE such a dog is pretty rare) that's not likely to happen.
> 
> I have no idea how showing something from a SAR seminar would be responsive of either of those requests. I'm not teaching the out and I'm not testing dogs there.
> 
> And finally it's not even a "little deal" to me. I don't see any reason to go to the trouble.


Obviously I would prefer to see video of you training bitework since bitting is the subject of this discussion but would settle for video you training at a SAR seminar to get a better picture of how you train things .I understand why you are so hesitant though . Hopefully some day someone in attendance at one of your seminars will supply us with a vid .


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Dave Colborn said:


> Sorry to help derail your thread Howard. Hope your new dog works well! The news today was, well, great!!!!!


 Dave...thanks! Now to remember how to train a German Shepherd...:mrgreen::twisted:


----------



## Dave Colborn

Howard Gaines III said:


> Dave...thanks! Now to remember how to train a German Shepherd...:mrgreen::twisted:


Keep the collar on the end it was on when I saw you. If she doesn't take hot dogs, try putting them next to the other end of the dog...

I'd like to see a vid when you get her up to speed. She is a tough little lady.


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Diced or full length? :---)
What if she bites me when FORCED fed from the wrong end...money back for a shitter???!!!!:-&


----------



## Dave Colborn

Howard Gaines III said:


> Diced or full length? :---)
> What if she bites me when FORCED fed from the wrong end...money back for a shitter???!!!!:-&


My suggestion is toss a hot dog up, let it land on the ground. When the hot dog goes inside the dog, put the collar on that end. Not fool proof, but I think it just might work.


----------



## Joby Becker

Howard Gaines III said:


> Dave...thanks! Now to remember how to train a German Shepherd...:mrgreen::twisted:


that is funny right there...


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: 
My dog pops off. What does that mean? I never put pressure on him for defense. We've only ever played tug off lead. He doesn't cry or run away. Usually he comes running back to re-bite. I don't think I'm rushing him, we've been playing tug for 12 months now. I should be able to get a little rough. He pops off because his grip isn't firm enough to hold his 80+ pounds when I swing him around. He flew off like a loose helicopter blade last night. He ran back and re-bit. I let him win. After that his drive was really weak. He didn't want to get tossed off again so he'd rather not bite hard enough to get swung around. I finished the session with a fun chase/bite game that gets his drive up without tugging.

I tried to read this thread, but Lou does me in with his posts. I have no idea what or where this post came about, but it reads like you have no idea how to play with a dog, read a dog, or work a dog. 

Get someone else that knows what they are doing to help you with your dog before you **** it up beyond repair. If the dog lets go, and you don't think you are putting any pressure on the dog, your answer is right there. You have popped the dog off due to not knowing what to do.


----------



## Geoff Empey

Dave Colborn said:


> Keep the collar on the end it was on when I saw you. If she doesn't take hot dogs, try putting them next to the other end of the dog...
> 
> I'd like to see a vid when you get her up to speed. She is a tough little lady.


Is this Howard's new attack dog?? You never know with Howard I tell ya! Very scary if it is .. :---):razz:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zf8xdbipdTQ


----------



## Bart Karmich

You're always tough on ignorants Jeff, but I assume because you took the time to reply you actually want to help. Let me try to clarify. I wrote that my dog popped off. I responded to the three reasons Howard suggested this happens. First, I never used pressure for defense. The dog has only ever played with his handler. I didn't mean that he never felt pressure, but that he'd never been screwed up by a decoy terrorizing him the way Howard suggested as his first reason for the problem. Second, his response to more vigorous tug is not crying or running away so I don't think his genetic character is as weak as Howard's second reason, although I'm not claiming he's rambo the special forces dog either. His willingness to come back and rebite is evidence he's not a complete sissy. Third, I suggested that I'd been playing tug for 12 months and trying to bring his confidence up, doing the foundation work that Howard suggested would be a third cause for the problem if it was neglected. I popped the dog off because his grip wasn't firm enough to hold on when I swung him. Usually it is, but this time he popped off. It sucked because it killed his drive and I did what I could to bring his confidence back up. Because you wrote that it was due to my not knowing what to do, do you have a suggestion? Are you the someone else I can get to help me? How much time are you willing to put into a dog after you've decided that it's an unworthy shitter?





Jeff Oehlsen said:


> I tried to read this thread, but Lou does me in with his posts. I have no idea what or where this post came about, but it reads like you have no idea how to play with a dog, read a dog, or work a dog.
> 
> Get someone else that knows what they are doing to help you with your dog before you **** it up beyond repair. If the dog lets go, and you don't think you are putting any pressure on the dog, your answer is right there. You have popped the dog off due to not knowing what to do.


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Geoff!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I knew it was you slinking around the bushes after hours...
Thank goodnes the sheep are safe! Folks around here don't take to spoiled ewes! =;:wink:

Now for the truth...the stuffed dog got stolen, the barking dog alarm got pi$$ed on by either the Bouv or me, so the newbie is a GSD from Tarheel K-9, Gilla v. Zunderland. Call name &#$*! =D>

Now the other dog...it's in counseling for this video dig!!!:lol:


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Bart posting on a lighter note...thank you Geoff!:-o8-[

IF you did something that might set the dog back, give it time and no real pressure, the dog might bounce back rather than bounce off as it's done!

*If it's genetics*...then accept it and live with it or move on. We all have done things to dogs in our past that TODAY we wish we could fix. Truth is: you learn by doing. 

Sometimes your mistake has VERY lasting damages, other times it just makes you take even smaller pieces to introduce them to the dog, rather than mega steps. Some folks have GREAT dogs, but most of use just want dogs that are great in our life!


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Dave Colborn said:


> My suggestion is toss a hot dog up, let it land on the ground. When the hot dog goes inside the dog, put the collar on that end. Not fool proof, but I think it just might work.


WELL that idea sucks! Went to the beach and tried it in a new location....
Threw the hotdog up in the air and it never came down...ba$tard seagulls ate it! 
Left the hotdogs on the ground and threw the dog up, seagulls spit her out...#-o

Going back to stuffed animals with barking sounds!!!](*,)


----------



## Dave Colborn

Howard Gaines III said:


> WELL that idea sucks! Went to the beach and tried it in a new location....
> Threw the hotdog up in the air and it never came down...ba$tard seagulls ate it!
> Left the hotdogs on the ground and threw the dog up, seagulls spit her out...#-o
> 
> Going back to stuffed animals with barking sounds!!!](*,)


I'd like to see video of the rooster doing the B & H. As I mentioned on the phone, if his pursuit speed is good, we can use him as a green rooster. See if you can get him hunting PVC.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote: You're always tough on ignorants Jeff, but I assume because you took the time to reply you actually want to help. Let me try to clarify. I wrote that my dog popped off. I responded to the three reasons Howard suggested this happens. First, I never used pressure for defense. The dog has only ever played with his handler. I didn't mean that he never felt pressure, but that he'd never been screwed up by a decoy terrorizing him the way Howard suggested as his first reason for the problem. Second, his response to more vigorous tug is not crying or running away so I don't think his genetic character is as weak as Howard's second reason, although I'm not claiming he's rambo the special forces dog either. His willingness to come back and rebite is evidence he's not a complete sissy. Third, I suggested that I'd been playing tug for 12 months and trying to bring his confidence up, doing the foundation work that Howard suggested would be a third cause for the problem if it was neglected. I popped the dog off because his grip wasn't firm enough to hold on when I swung him. Usually it is, but this time he popped off. It sucked because it killed his drive and I did what I could to bring his confidence back up. Because you wrote that it was due to my not knowing what to do, do you have a suggestion? Are you the someone else I can get to help me? How much time are you willing to put into a dog after you've decided that it's an unworthy shitter?

Are you the only person that has worked this dog ?

2 You do know that the dog determines if he is in defense, and not you right ?

3 Why did you pop the dog off, and why was he not biting as hard as he usually does ? (probably connected with your whole "I" was not working him in defense theory, or you have established dominance in a way that the dog misreads your "roughness" and is not sure if he is supposed to be doing what he is doing. )

4 I do not waste time with a dog that will not work with the decoy. I have had a couple of dogs over the years that would not really play tug with me. 1 would work with the decoy, nothing special, but I did not get him to do anything with other than hang out with me, so he was a pet. I got him and was not working dogs. The other was a real nice female, and she just wanted me to scrub her head. Got to get a decoy, got to learn how to work a dog with the understanding that what YOU think has **** all to do with what is going on in the dogs head.

5 If you work for 12 months, and the dog pops off, you have not built shit. The dog is not on a backtie, so you cannot use frustration or anything to get the dog to want the tug more.

6 Do you have a club ? Try to find one if not.


----------



## Geoff Empey

Howard Gaines III said:


> Geoff!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I knew it was you slinking around the bushes after hours...
> Thank goodnes the sheep are safe! Folks around here don't take to spoiled ewes! =;:wink:
> 
> Now for the truth...the stuffed dog got stolen, the barking dog alarm got pi$$ed on by either the Bouv or me, so the newbie is a GSD from Tarheel K-9, Gilla v. Zunderland. Call name &#$*! =D>
> 
> Now the other dog...it's in counseling for this video dig!!!:lol:


It's ok Howard I now understand the confusion you experience in placing the hotdog in the right end. :-$ Try Dave's explanation I think that advice is pretty sound. :smile:


----------



## Bart Karmich

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Are you the only person that has worked this dog ?
> 
> 2 You do know that the dog determines if he is in defense, and not you right ?
> 
> 3 Why did you pop the dog off, and why was he not biting as hard as he usually does ? (probably connected with your whole "I" was not working him in defense theory, or you have established dominance in a way that the dog misreads your "roughness" and is not sure if he is supposed to be doing what he is doing. )
> 
> 4 I do not waste time with a dog that will not work with the decoy. I have had a couple of dogs over the years that would not really play tug with me. 1 would work with the decoy, nothing special, but I did not get him to do anything with other than hang out with me, so he was a pet. I got him and was not working dogs. The other was a real nice female, and she just wanted me to scrub her head. Got to get a decoy, got to learn how to work a dog with the understanding that what YOU think has **** all to do with what is going on in the dogs head.
> 
> 5 If you work for 12 months, and the dog pops off, you have not built shit. The dog is not on a backtie, so you cannot use frustration or anything to get the dog to want the tug more.
> 
> 6 Do you have a club ? Try to find one if not.


Yes. Basically I am the only one who has worked with the dog. He's a little over a year old now and I am trying to get working with others. Right now, the dog won't have anything to do with people at the clubs even playing with him. He's not 'nervy,' but very social. He's just not engaging in games with them yet.

I don't think the dog feels threatened by my play at all. However, I think you're right that I have established dominance in a way that the dog misreads my "roughness" and is not sure if he is supposed to be doing what he is doing. I don't think he reads the roughness as a threat or punishment, but he's just unsure how rough he can be in return. Do you have any ideas on how to teach him he can be rough?

I have tried backtying or having my wife post up and hold the dog on a harness. I know what you mean by building desire with frustration, but it's not working. My dog just looks at me like, "I can't get it because I'm on this line." Even if it's something he really wants (more than a tug, like say a cat or a bunny) he is going to sit down and look at me to release him. I think I can figure out how to get him to work on a back tie with small steps, but it's not like a simple thing that I could have just done, not with this dog.

Clubs and decoys can be helpful but not everyone has the patience to work with a dog that doesn't look willing. Of course they have to start but they don't always do that right away. Now you might ask why bother? Well, he's my pet and I want to do sports with him for fun. If I needed to win, I'd have to get another dog. But I noticed that people who want to compete often go through dogs very quickly because there is always a better dog, always one more promising. Maybe I settled on a dog that is too near the borderline but as a puppy I couldn't tell that and now I don't want to discard my pet. Maybe I'm a bleeding heart but he's like my son and karate or soccer or whatever, it's just a game we can play together.


----------

