# defining training relevance



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

maybe this is not the forum to throw this out but it's been bugging me and maybe some of the experienced "thinker" (read OC) type trainers can shed some intelligent opinions on my train of thought

training in general...what are we really trying to shape and develop when we train a WORKING dog ?
...the whole reason i'm asking is due to the dingo experience that took me a couple years to muddle thru
- couda just agreed with the cops who classified him dangerous for the bites and agreed he shoulda been put down; my ego got in the way (i can fix anything syndrome) plus i liked the little bastard, so i start a long D/C program
- course he's no "working dog" .... NO working DNA there at ALL .... but was he a weak nerved fear biter ?? i never saw that
- all the DNA he inherited was to have NOTHING to do with people and ZERO dependence on people ... except maybe as an indirect food source
- so now he's living with one, and has to depend on one, build trust, etc etc ......that part was not hard.....just took time and a lot of strict control of the environment around him during the process
- anyway, did he have prey drive, hunt drive, and a few other traits we want to see when we develop a working dog ??? HELL yes, and he was VERY good at INDEPENDENTLY solving problems compared to any other dog i trained, but i didn't ever see what i would have called "weak nerves" in the process
- did i back him into corners and pressure him to evaluate defensive drive ? not really, but i did tie him out on a harness a few times and got the clear impression he would have tried to kill me if he had no other option. since he was being evaluated for potential as a safe pet, i saw no reason to go that far
- dingo sanctuary reps had advised me he was beyond the safe socialization window but not automatically hopeless 
- learning OB ? lightning fast whenever there was somethin in it for him, so that was a piece of cake

- but the big issue that always gets raised when evaluating a WORKING dog - defensive drive, fight drive.....etc., when a lot of "old pros" are so quick to label a dog a shitter cause they can "run em off"..... then you hear "weak nerves" yada yada....the you hear they gotta be born with it or not, and it's a matter of breeding
- then you have the Hugos who can just "see it" and "know it" 
- then you step back and realize that the basic fight/flight reaction ALWAYS favors the smart dog who only stays and fights when there is a damn good reason, which is a difficult scenario to reproduce in domestic bred dogs, working stock, herding stock, guardian stock or any stock .... but we generally we want the (confident ?) fighters so we try to "breed it in" anyway
- and we don't evaluate in a real world scenario, and have to wait for some level of maturity to be sure it's there

This is where it gets hard for me....
it seems like good breeders of hard working dogs are trying to somehow trying to BREED a trait that any canine, when left alone and away from people, would never be advantageous for them, and always be a liability and shorten their life cycle. of course this never happens in the wild and wild dogs are never trained in protection, so maybe it's completely apples and oranges 

...BUT, if you accept the premise that to stay and fight is NOT a natural instinct, and therefore depends almost entirely on the skill and expertise of the TRAINER to develop and hone into a reliable response that can be counted on in a working situation, I have started to feel that breeders don't play as big a part in developing a working dog that they are generally given credit for
- and that if we want to develop better lines of working dogs it depends WAY more on the nurture than the nature, and maybe that has a lot to do with how a shitter for one becomes a super dog for someone else
- OR, that a Spike is a bad seed that would never have lasted long on his own, but in the hands of a great trainer can be controlled and developed into a great dog working for a human to use to their advantage ?

too much thinking here ? has this dingo experience screwed up my thought process on training in general ?
i'd like your thoughts, and believe me, i have NO agenda or opinions that i am looking for anyone to agree with me about, and if this is not appropriate for a working dog forum, i'll "get it" if i get no responses at all


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

rick smith said:


> This is where it gets hard for me....
> it seems like good breeders of hard working dogs are trying to somehow trying to BREED a trait that any canine, when left alone and away from people, would never be advantageous for them, and always be a liability and shorten their life cycle. of course this never happens in the wild and wild dogs are never trained in protection, so maybe it's completely apples and oranges


Ummm yes, apples and oranges. Do you really think I can go out and catch a coyote and turn him into a search dog...or FR dog, even if I am a GREAT traininer? 

Let's say you are a great trainer. Do you really think your Dingo would work out for a search dog or a FR dog? Even "if" by some chance it had "good nerves".?

I could care less about if the traits bred into my working dog would kill him in the wild. He no wild. I just don't get where you are going with this.


----------



## Randy Allen (Apr 18, 2008)

A nature/nurture question perhaps?

?


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I don't believe even the best trainer can make a silk purse out of a sows ear. The best that can be done is making it look like a silk purse. Even a sows ear will figure out after am hubndered reps that it is a game and since he always wins, he will play. Under real life stree, they will always be a sow's ear.

What makes a dog stand and fight against all odds? That is breeding. Dogs that have been selectively bred that lack survival instinct. What makes a dog choose flight rather than fight? Survival instinct makes them flee when the chips are down. Without that survival instinct, a strong dog will stay in the fight. There are other traits that come into play, but, as long as they choose flight, they still have survival instinct.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

re: "Do you really think I can go out and catch a coyote and turn him into a search dog...or FR dog, even if I am a GREAT traininer?" 

- *NO i doubt you could, and never mentioned or even hinted that i could or would ever want to try, so why throw that into the game ??

re: "Let's say you are a great trainer. Do you really think your Dingo would work out for a search dog or a FR dog? Even "if" by some chance it had "good nerves".?"

- actually the potential as a search dog IS there, but u have of course already assumed he wouldn't have the "nerves" for it, plus there would be a whole lot of political reasons why they won't ever be evaluated as potential search dogs, or any type of working dog, which would also be obvious if you had given your response any thought except for the typical "nerve issue" for why a dog couldn't do a real job

"I could care less about if the traits bred into my working dog would kill him in the wild. He no wild." 
- actually had very little to do with what i posted and menosaythatyoodid

re "I just don't get where you are going with this."

- not surprising, since i was also clear i WASN'T "going anywhere" with it except to get insight from people who felt it was worth discussing
.... also why i stated my "target responders" 
there are always those few who are interested in anything canine, when it relates to trained behaviors

otoh, now that i think about it, if they could develop an immunity to cane toads there WOULD be a job waiting that would pay well


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

deselecting for survival instinct would make sense, but my first reaction to reading that was (and not just cause i live in japan) .... select for kamikaze instinct ??  duty over life 
... very anthropomorhic but wth, the real deal guys were definitely thinking along those lines, so maybe that is the answer.....
do you breed ?
that is very interesting to me but raises more Q's as to how to recognize it specifically and directly ... or keep it indirect by selecting absolute lack of fear and absolute love of OB since u would prob need both for working reliability ?


----------



## Janet Merrill (May 19, 2009)

I think your question is very interesting.....nature vs nuture....hmmm ..you are talking about survival instinct and whether it is smart to stand and fight or have the sense enough to know when to retreat, correct? In what we do, which is disaster training we have this trait we call self preservation....for example we have dogs that will literally jump out windows without a look back and then we have the dogs that seem to know when to stop short. Most of these dogs are trained similarly and it seems it is the raw ingredient, the genetics of the dog that seems to make the difference. I have one dog that comes back from training with never a ding and another that always has a scrape or minor injury, both Mals. I was facinated last weekend to watch two 6 months old half sibs on the rubble, one flying with abandon the other equally confident but every foot was placed efficiently and securely. Two very different ways of working on the rubble .... it will be interesting to follow them and see how they develop and how their working styles evolve and if one is more injury prone than the other. Neither of these pups had much rubble experience or any training, what we were seeing was how they initially responded to that new environment and coped, so I would guess what their genetics dictated. Does this seem applicable to your question?


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

rick smith said:


> deselecting for survival instinct would make sense, but my first reaction to reading that was (and not just cause i live in japan) .... select for kamikaze instinct ??  duty over life
> ... very anthropomorhic but wth, the real deal guys were definitely thinking along those lines, so maybe that is the answer.....
> do you breed ?
> that is very interesting to me but raises more Q's as to how to recognize it specifically and directly ... or keep it indirect by selecting absolute lack of fear and absolute love of OB since u would prob need both for working reliability ?


Rick, it is a complex question involving many overlapping traits and one crucial instinct. By staying in the fight rather than fleeing, I do not mean to say the dog will be kamikasi like. I have had dogs with that nature and while they are not the ideal big game dog because they tend to be shortlived, they are the ideal dog to breed. A smart dog will stay in the fight but will "stick and jab" so to speak.....but they won't ever cut-n run. I have had many dogs that will see the job through and when it is over, they need multiple drain tubes and stitches and time off for broken ribs to heal. They were way overmatched but stuck where a dog with stronger survival instinct would have backed out of the fracass. To a good dog, I get the feeling, watching some of these battles, it is a need to dominate it's world. To conquer against all odds. I often wonder how many dogs would take getting hooked and tossed 8 feet in the air and jump back in the fight rather than fleeing. 

Here is another thought I have experienced. Dogs are not dumb. When you have a dog with a good working ethic and that understands he is working with you, you have to hold up your end or you can sour the dog. If a dog is badly injured, he will take it wilingly as long as you kill the offending animal. That is a win in his mind. If the dog is beat down several times and gets away, the dog will lose faith in you as a partner and quit doing his part.
If you have ever been bird hunting and watched a dog hunt his heart out only to have you miss your shot, you will see some looks from dogs of utter distain.

In regards to bitework, I think you would see dogs react totally differently if at a critical point, the handler finished the fight with the decoy as the dog was held back. Suddenly the handler has become a partner with a common cause rather than a dead weight encouraging him to attack but holding him back like a dad weight.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Rick, you are wrong when it comes to nurture in strong dogs! It has bearing on the biddability but not the will to stay and fight! Strong dogs like Spike and similar offspring "have that will to fight in them". Training is not required even when they mature for this. You challenge them or hurt them, they want to hurt you. Maybe you need to get one and just leave it be until it's a year and half old. Seeing is believing and I once thought it was bull shit but it is not!

They are missing a gene, the flight one!


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

rick smith said:


> - actually the potential as a search dog IS there, but u have of course already assumed he wouldn't have the "nerves" for it, plus there would be a whole lot of political reasons why they won't ever be evaluated as potential search dogs, or any type of working dog, which would also be obvious if you had given your response any thought except for the typical "nerve issue" for why a dog couldn't do a real job


I made no such assumption about the dingo's nerves. I just put them in quotes because you did in your op.

Do you REALLY think that a dingo, the one you were talking about, would make a good search dog? I have seen plenty of dogs with solid nerves that could never be a search dog....no matter how much nurturing. A nice husky with great nerves, prey dive enough to catch mice like a mofo, does not a search dog make. No matter how it is nurtured.

Did you read the article on the Korean dogs donated to th LAPD? Brought up to be search dogs (nurtured) but still not successful.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Is your dingo a hybrid?


----------



## Randy Allen (Apr 18, 2008)

I think giving too small a context to the word nurture is missing alot about what the word really encompasses.
Even if as Rick says, one were to leave a dog alone for a year and a half, that in of itself it is a decision on ones part to nurture some part for a wanted result.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Randy Allen said:


> I think giving too small a context to the word nurture is missing alot about what the word really encompasses.
> Even if as Rick says, one were to leave a dog alone for a year and a half, that in of itself it is a decision on ones part to nurture some part for a wanted result.


Is it really nurturing if you leave it alone, sounds quite sterile to me!


----------



## Adi Ibrahimbegovic (Nov 21, 2008)

I think the OP is over analyzing this, "food for thought", what if, wouldn't be nice.... theoretically this and that...

Yes, wild dingo dogs have the prey drive to catch food in the wild. a dog has got to eat something, to put something under the tooth.

It's got defense drive to, to fight when required.

But, all that is in the wild, completely and utterly independent of a human. It is pure nature, in pure sense of the word.

The catch is to "work for a human" or with a human., something we and the dog can benefit from. That's where it gets dicey for the OP thought process.

Best trainer this and that, whatever... can't do that in the first generation, because first generation has nothing to fall back on, their experience with humans being non existent to that point.

Now, if that dingo was somewhat domesticated and it had offspring with another somewhat domesticated dingo, then we choose from the litter pups with traits we can do something with, cull the rest. Same with their puppies, and puppies of their puppies etc... 

Now, we have something to work with.

Back in the "old days" from what I understand, the farmer Tom had the "nature and nurture" process closely linked with herding dogs that gave us working dogs of today.

This dog is lazy and is not herding sheep. Or it's gripping to much bothering the flock, or not protecting from wolves, or is being stubborn and independent of the shepherd etc... etc...

The second dog does the job, this dog is good.

Honey, give the second dog some food, water and shelter and bring the first dog behind the barn. And get my shotgun.

That's the "nature selection" part. The nurture comes after that for the second dog.

You can't just expect a wild dingo dog to be a working dog "instantly", this instantly meaning a year, 2 years even 3 years, no matter what the training experience you got.

Too many variables and unpredictability to be consistent and predictable in KNOWING or having a fairly good guess as what the dog will do, it simply isn't there YET. It takes a few generations.

Now, can that dog become a fairly, decently stable at some tasks, doing some things that have been taught, even become a pretty ok to live with pet - yes, possible, but never with the utmost certainty of lupus canis familiaris. It still stays lupus canis (with a few upgrades), never becoming "familiaris" in the name.

That takes a few generations.

All this IMO, I have a few hours to kill,generaly dislike what if and theoretical, deep thinking discussions, but I gave it a shot.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

_A smart dog will stay in the fight but will "stick and jab" so to speak.....but they won't ever cut-n run._

An even smarter dog will get his ass back in the yard and quit dancing with angry horned bulls when I say so!!

I don't give a damn in the long term about "nurture", since it doesn't apply to breeding, and while there are many "kinds" of working talent for many styles of training, each individually valued characteristic is_ very heritable _indeed. I'm won't coddle any affection seeking dogs, either. I might give a scratch once in a great while, but I'm not petitioned for it. Our working or playing activities together should be all the attention they need.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

OP quote "did i back him into corners and pressure him to evaluate defensive drive ? not really, but i did tie him out on a harness a few times and got the clear impression he would have tried to kill me if he had no other option."

Much like Hugo's video?
You again are talking about defensive situations where running is not an option. Most animals will fight when fleeing is no longer an option and death is more certain. The dog got the response it wanted out of you when it put on the show it was gonna kill you. This is all irrelevant to a dog "wanting to fight" when fleeing is a option to save Himself from injury. You never tested the dingo! You viewed the show and left it at that, not much different than what HA was telling you in the other thread!


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: ..BUT, if you accept the premise that to stay and fight is NOT a natural instinct,

I don't. You cannot "add" an instinct. It has to be in there to begin with.


----------



## Randy Allen (Apr 18, 2008)

Timothy,
Sorry to have mixed up your name with Rick.
Nay, I'm not suggesting that would be a good plan, but it is a plan for a percieved or desired result.
It would still be nurturing from the controler of the environment. ergo....it would still be considered nurturing.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Randy Allen said:


> Timothy,
> Sorry to have mixed up your name with Rick.
> Nay, I'm not suggesting that would be a good plan, but it is a plan for a percieved or desired result.
> It would still be nurturing from the controler of the environment. ergo....it would still be considered nurturing.


I don't understand! By doing nothing, what are you nurturing. If I have a lab and say I'm nurturing his fight drive by doing nothing does it make it true? Same goes for a DS. One has it genetically or it does not. In the words of Hugho, very simple!
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?word=nurturing


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

thanks for the comments....given me q lot to think about (for me that's not always good)
but one quick response :
re: "OP quote "did i back him into corners and pressure him to evaluate defensive drive ? not really, but i did tie him out on a harness a few times and got the clear impression he would have tried to kill me if he had no other option." <snip> "The dog got the response it wanted out of you when it put on the show it was gonna kill you

you are making a bad assumption here .... this dog had done ALL it's biting while being tethered at the original owners home.....this poor sucker was "on display" so to speak...."come on over and see my unique dog" complex from an idiot who could not have taught a toy poodle to beg for food !!
- i had seen NOTHING of this dog except a few posed pics when it came and of course i wanted to see how it acted when tethered.....
- i hardly gave any EC and made NO posturing threats.....i simply closed the distance and the dog did NOTHING - no vocals (dingos CAN bark and often do), not even piloerection. it went to the end of the tether, backed up and stayed there, always standing but not leaning, rotating to meet me head on as i circled . it did not strain and NOBODY was on the lead; completely tied out and NO agitation.... when i did sneak in a little EC it was already looking at me - not real "icey" or whacked out, just alert and focused .... i wanted to know how this dog had been allowed to bite people and saw that right away...end of that phase of the eval. i was not evaluating any drive and i had no reason to do so, and imo it would have been borderline ABUSE to have gone further
...but yes, i am making a WAG (wild assed guess) it would have tried to kill me if it had a chance, and yes "kill" is WAY overstated  but it WASN'T trying to chase me away like some backyard bully guarding their nylabone, and there was NO way it wanted human contact AT ALL when tethered !!!


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Randy Allen said:


> It would still be nurturing from the controler of the environment. ergo....it would still be considered nurturing.


Randy, please tell me how you would do a controlled experiment on this premise if you consider doing nothing would be nurturing? How would you go about making a controlled group if doing nothing would not suffice for the control?


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

rick smith said:


> but it WASN'T trying to chase me away like some backyard bully guarding their nylabone, and there was NO way it wanted human contact AT ALL when tethered !!!


who unteathered him?


----------



## Randy Allen (Apr 18, 2008)

That is the premise Timothy.
Whatever one does enre to how the dog grows into it's environment is the the definition of nurturing, for good or bad.
Those of us that have definitive ends seen for any one dog, do our best to nurture whatever attributes that paticular dog brings to the table whether it's guarding, a sport venue, hunting, ob, SAR or just laying on the couch while watching tv.
While sometimes it may be misguided or sometimes just plain silly, we all do our best to nurture what is important to us.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Randy Allen said:


> Those of us that have definitive ends seen for any one dog, do our best to nurture whatever attributes that paticular dog brings to the table whether it's guarding, a sport venue, hunting, ob, SAR or just laying on the couch while watching tv.
> While sometimes it may be misguided or sometimes just plain silly, we all do our best to nurture what is important to us.


MMMmmm, that is the way it normally is Randy. I don't handle the pups until they are on their feet. After that I go out and handle the really solid pups maybe a minute a day. The weaker the pup, the longer I handle it and the more often I do it. I consider these dogs pets. Solid dogs need very little of anything because nothing wigs them out. Example. When I went to the Nationals in Oh, I took a 10 mo old that had never been around people much. He had been out in the woods. The other was a two year old, that had the same exposure. Took them to the natinals where there were a lot of people, dogs and activity. No one there would have believed neither dog had exposure to anything . They acted liked they owned the place. The older one hiked his leg on several people he was so comfortable. That is the difference I see in good dogs and weak dogs. People don't raise their dogs that way as a norm so they never actually understand that a really strong dog needs very little nurture so, rather than let them come along like a normal dog, they screw with it constantly. Luckily, a strong dog can over come the owners perceived help and the owner ends up thinking he made the dog what it is without realizing it was just a really strong dog to start with. in contrast, the environment plays a huge role with weak dogs.


----------



## Randy Allen (Apr 18, 2008)

That's the point Don.
Wheather you do nothing with one pup and handle the next one, it's still the nurturing you feel that one dog needs to develope to the best it can be....according to your vision.

It can be likened to being stuck between two choices.
At first glance one would think it's either this or that, when in fact doing nothing is another choice that can be made; making it at the least three choices to be made.
Whatever is done or not done means something. It's still the nurturing you feel the dog needs.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Randy Allen said:


> That's the point Don.
> Wheather you do nothing with one pup and handle the next one, it's still the nurturing you feel that one dog needs to develope to the best it can be....according to your vision.
> 
> It can be likened to being stuck between two choices.
> ...


I too have a problem with smoking banana peels!


----------



## Randy Allen (Apr 18, 2008)

I slip on them once in awhile, but I smoke something more enjoyable! lol


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Randy Allen said:


> I slip on them once in awhile, but I smoke something more enjoyable! lol


smoking pole don't get you high  also I'd suspect it's not enjoyable


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Ok Randy, how many dogs have you raised ? How many litters have you bred ? How many dogs have you trained to title in something ??

Hard to swallow the opinion of one who does not train. You should clarify before each time you post that you have no/very little experience.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Randy Allen said:


> That is the premise Timothy.
> Whatever one does enre to how the dog grows into it's environment is the the definition of nurturing, for good or bad.
> Those of us that have definitive ends seen for any one dog, do our best to nurture whatever attributes that paticular dog brings to the table whether it's guarding, a sport venue, hunting, ob, SAR or just laying on the couch while watching tv.
> While sometimes it may be misguided or sometimes just plain silly, we all do our best to nurture what is important to us.


For sure Randy, we nurture what we like. No one is arguing that training doesn't make a difference at all. This is very important with mediocre dogs, that in reality, a lot of us have. 

It IS very difficult to "un-nurture" genetics though. An example could be the fact that people have told you it is pretty hard to ruin a great dog for its genetic purpose. A mediocre dog...could be ruined with bad training, or could be okay with good training.

Also... you can't nurture a gsd into being a champion sled dog, you can't nurture a Siberian Husky into an impressive detection dog, you can't nurture a lab and turn it into Don's best hog dog. So...when it comes to working dogs, I would say genetics are pretty darned important.


----------



## Randy Allen (Apr 18, 2008)

And no one is trying to say otherwise Jennifer.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

So I'm wondering how many people have had dogs that they really didn't do *anything* with for several years with and then just dusted them off on the way towards the podium? 

I kinda got me one of those (minus the whole go to the podium thing...:lol. We did obedience, of course, in the interim. And while he's done okay over the last year in PSA, well, there are times the lack of experience and foundation as a pup and younger dog shows, even though genetically he should have it. I guess think about it this way...I couldn't start him in bite sport until he was three years old. If a relatively serious trainer trains twice a week fifty weeks a year, that's about THREE HUNDRED exposures that my dog missed. Even more if he was with a really gung ho trainer who trains in protection nearly every day. He's doing fine, but he'll never be as good as he likely could have been. :-| Genetics, especially in something as complex as behavior, always acts on environment. They are not a black box. On a lighter note, I can't wait to move somewhere I don't have to drive two hours each way to train! :-D


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Had a dog Fida Van Joefarm who didn't even know her name at 1 year old. Probably out of the kennel a handful of times and when I started training her the ability was all there and a eager learner who caught on quick. She was buck wild, knocked my front teeth out and had to be corrected just to get her to stop. Never on the podium but produced a really nice litter, Bruiser's mom. Bruiser's brothers were started on bite work and ended up the same. I'm sure there is slight genetic differences but it was genetics not nurture, especially cause some first timers had pups with same results! Bruiser was 6th pick out of 8 males. Jeff O looked at the 8th pick who had little training with a first timer as well.
A video at 2 years http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9iQskiV1z4I


Maren Bell Jones said:


> So I'm wondering how many people have had dogs that they really didn't do *anything* with for several years with and then just dusted them off on the way towards the podium?
> 
> I kinda got me one of those (minus the whole go to the podium thing...:lol. We did obedience, of course, in the interim. And while he's done okay over the last year in PSA, well, there are times the lack of experience and foundation as a pup and younger dog shows, even though genetically he should have it. I guess think about it this way...I couldn't start him in bite sport until he was three years old. If a relatively serious trainer trains twice a week fifty weeks a year, that's about THREE HUNDRED exposures that my dog missed. Even more if he was with a really gung ho trainer who trains in protection nearly every day. He's doing fine, but he'll never be as good as he likely could have been. :-| Genetics, especially in something as complex as behavior, always acts on environment. They are not a black box. On a lighter note, I can't wait to move somewhere I don't have to drive two hours each way to train! :-D


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

She's a nice female for sure and not being worked until you got her should not (in theory) affect how she produces, of course. I don't mean to get down on my dog too much cause he's a fine dog for my purposes, but would be even better to see him at his full potential. I just suspect it'd be fairly uncommon to pull a dog from a kennel or as a house dog at age three who never did much of anything besides maybe some manners obedience and just breeze to a 3 in their sport of choice as easily as working a pup since 8 weeks. Was curious if others have done so.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Randy Allen said:


> And no one is trying to say otherwise Jennifer.



Well, the OP was at least suggesting otherwise:

_...BUT, if you accept the premise that to stay and fight is NOT a natural instinct, and therefore depends almost entirely on the skill and expertise of the TRAINER to develop and hone into a reliable response that can be counted on in a working situation, I have started to feel that breeders don't play as big a part in developing a working dog that they are generally given credit for
- and that if we want to develop better lines of working dogs it depends WAY more on the nurture than the nature, and maybe that has a lot to do with how a shitter for one becomes a super dog for someone else...
_

and this:
_
- actually the potential as a search dog IS there, but u have of course already assumed he wouldn't have the "nerves" for it, plus there would be a whole lot of political reasons why they won't ever be evaluated as potential search dogs, or any type of working dog, which would also be obvious if you had given your response any thought except for the typical "nerve issue" for why a dog couldn't do a real job_


----------



## Randy Allen (Apr 18, 2008)

Sorry Jennifer, my oversight. 
If we are centered on that question only, then without a doubt one can not nurture or manufacture what is not there to begin with.
Why or how could that be in question?


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> She's a nice female for sure and not being worked until you got her should not (in theory) affect how she produces, of course. I don't mean to get down on my dog too much cause he's a fine dog for my purposes, but would be even better to see him at his full potential. I just suspect it'd be fairly uncommon to pull a dog from a kennel or as a house dog at age three who never did much of anything besides maybe some manners obedience and just breeze to a 3 in their sport of choice as easily as working a pup since 8 weeks. Was curious if others have done so.


I'm only using Bruiser as an example because it's whats on my mind. Raised in a house, almost 2, knows sit down and out(owner played fetch with sticks). He will have no problem at all doing SCH. You take a dog that retrieves naturally, bites full and hard, wants to interact and training goes extremely smooth with experienced people. Ivan and the guy who bought him asked for these videos and anybody who knows dogs can see it 1.no time wasted on grip work 2.no time wasted motivating 3. dog wants to interact(learn) 4. food drive http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXcbxVHAKEw 5. natural retrieves

That is why I said this is possibly the nicest dog I've ever had! Much different than Vitor but perfect for SCH.I think ring sometimes is a bit more challenging due to finding good decoys. I think there are dogs like this that you never hear about cause the owner never sells them or never knows there potential but Ivan told me before that if you give him a dog who bites good and retrieves naturally he can teach it the rest. Retrieving I think equates to him as the dog wanting interaction. Heeling is easy and when you are concentrating on one dog to compete nationally with I'm sure it goes quick with experienced people around you working the dog daily and bite work 3 to 4 times a week.The dog has to have a lot of will to keep going(drive for whatever work it is). That's total nature with a good dog and why some people find decent dogs at the pound,normal people can't handle it! 

The retrieves were definitely natural as the mother was the same. Could you ruin that? Sure but genetics usually overcome stupidity unless one is trying to teach the dog the opposite. I think maybe 3 years old is starting to push it a bit to get a level 3 in sport but I'd say it's possible with a good dog!. Take a Wibo at 3 with no training and I guarantee the fight is still there when challenged, that's nature!


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

The "fight or flight" in wild canids leans heavily in favor of flight. Even small injuries occurring in a fight could lead to an inability to hunt.
Serious dogs such as Spike (the example someone used) has been bred to eliminate that flight senario. 
Regardless of training, a dog without true fight will only be trained to a certain level before flight takes over.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Yeah, I know what you're saying. My dog is a nice dog and has a lot of positive attributes that I can see are definitely there genetically. No lack of drive and I hope to start showing him this summer (got his BH a few months ago, looking to do the PSA PDC and possibly the PSA 1 this summer or so). It's just trying stuff for the first time sometimes, I think I see more uncertainty of "is this okay?" than I would with a dog who had been raised to do it from the get go. May totally be my imagination though as I see other dogs in our club who have been trained in other sports (like Schutzhund) who are uncertain the first few times they try a new scenario on the suit or whatever. Probably mostly just too much of me thinking "what if?" I also don't mean for my dog to sound like he's a failure either, as I don't like when people talk up their dog like he would consume the decoy with fireballs from his eyes and bolts of lightning from his arse when it's really just a club level dog at best. :wink: So I don't talk up my dog too much probably cause his handler limits him more than anything. :-({|=


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> The "fight or flight" in wild canids leans heavily in favor of flight. Even small injuries occurring in a fight could lead to an inability to hunt.
> Serious dogs such as Spike (the example someone used) has been bred to eliminate that flight senario.
> Regardless of training, a dog without true fight will only be trained to a certain level before flight takes over.


I only know of Spike through video, of course. But I really doubt flight has been *completely* eliminated from serious dogs. I suspect that actually beating the snot out of a dog day in and day out "in training" AND not letting them win every time or nearly every time could make even very serious dogs finally say "eff it" and leave, if given the chance. Maybe not Spike and maybe not all "serious" dogs, but if they know they're going to lose every time, why not? It's arguably the smarter of the two options. *shrug*

I have seen dogs worked pretty seriously in defense a few times (table, pole, etc) and while it's not my cup of tea nor will I claim to be an expert in it, if that many dogs loved the fight for the sake of the fight from the get go, they wouldn't need to be tethered to the pole, table, deck, whatever, to prevent flight. We also wouldn't have to reward the dog with winning every single time. That all builds confidence in a dog that balances 10, 100, or 1,000 good outcomes with 1 bad outcome where we fought the bad guy and it wasn't fun, we maybe got hurt, and maybe we didn't even "win." Every dog to some extent is a product of their environment and training (or lack thereof). Just my still somewhat novice observation. ;-)


----------



## Chip Blasiole (Jun 7, 2006)

Interesting topic. I am trying to focus on what Don said about dogs that lack survival instinct, along with other desirable traits, making for the best dogs that stand and fight against all odds. There is something about that belief that makes sense, but aren't all organisms built with a basic survival instinct? There is something that makes sense about his statement, but also something that doesn't. How do you define/assess a lack of survival instinct? Maybe it needs to be better operationally defined. There is definitely something to be said about mammals that strive to survive and their capacity to fight and live another day. 
I guess if you are looking at a breed and individuals that will fight to the death, for example, to kill a hog, you have a way of assessing a lower degree of survival instinct vs. a high degree of prey/fight/whatever drive. 
This concept of a lack of survival instinct/drive also taps into the various protection sport venues, and Don has alluded to that fact. When the exercise becomes a repetitious, trained exercise, you are no longer selecting for instincts such as "survival instinct" or for that matter, any other instincts/drives that are indicative of a strong/aggressive dog. 
I would be interested in Jeff's and others comments re: this issue, since it seems that, while there are many great sport dogs, how many dogs from a working heritage will actually bite, for example, a stranger coming on someone's fenced property while the homeowner is away, and keep the person at bay? I know you could argue there is no need for such a dog, but I think that Don is making a different point that suggests that sport and other potentially misinformed motives for breeding are producing traits that are not part of many working breed's original character.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Chip Blasiole said:


> I would be interested in Jeff's and others comments re: this issue, since it seems that, while there are many great sport dogs, how many dogs from a working heritage will actually bite, for example, a stranger coming on someone's fenced property while the homeowner is away, and keep the person at bay? I know you could argue there is no need for such a dog, but I think that Don is making a different point that suggests that sport and other potentially misinformed motives for breeding are producing traits that are not part of many working breed's original character.


Chip, I assume you mean protection sports, right? I'm not sure how much I agree with the last bit as most (not all, of course) of our breeds we use for protection sport, from GSDs to Rottweilers, were herding dogs. There's not all that many folks who train in both these days, probably as it's really difficult to get the level of high prey drive needed for protection sport to balance with a dog being able to control his or her own drives enough to herd without physically hurting the stock. Then herding becomes a rather costly hobby... :-\" For example, two dogs in my former Schutzhund club (one that used to belong to me, one belonging to another club member) were not really super stars at Schutzhund, but both are doing well at herding because they don't have insane prey drives that override their brains. So I think in that sense, yes, we have changed the majority of German shepherds, Malinois, Dutchies, etc from their original character. Nothing quite like seeing a herding breed actually herd naturally with little training! Does anyone herd with their Dutchie? I haven't seen it yet in person, but I'd like to!


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Chip Blasiole said:


> Interesting topic. I am trying to focus on what Don said about dogs that lack survival instinct, along with other desirable traits, making for the best dogs that stand and fight against all odds. There is something about that belief that makes sense, but aren't all organisms built with a basic survival instinct? There is something that makes sense about his statement, but also something that doesn't. How do you define/assess a lack of survival instinct? Maybe it needs to be better operationally defined. There is definitely something to be said about mammals that strive to survive and their capacity to fight and live another day.
> I guess if you are looking at a breed and individuals that will fight to the death, for example, to kill a hog, you have a way of assessing a lower degree of survival instinct vs. a high degree of prey/fight/whatever drive.
> This concept of a lack of survival instinct/drive also taps into the various protection sport venues, and Don has alluded to that fact. When the exercise becomes a repetitious, trained exercise, you are no longer selecting for instincts such as "survival instinct" or for that matter, any other instincts/drives that are indicative of a strong/aggressive dog.
> I would be interested in Jeff's and others comments re: this issue, since it seems that, while there are many great sport dogs, how many dogs from a working heritage will actually bite, for example, a stranger coming on someone's fenced property while the homeowner is away, and keep the person at bay? I know you could argue there is no need for such a dog, but I think that Don is making a different point that suggests that sport and other potentially misinformed motives for breeding are producing traits that are not part of many working breed's original character.


I'll comment as it relates to Police Service Dogs ( the type required to search and possibly apprehend[bite] a suspect ) . We need the traits Don speaks of in these dogs . It is better for us in Police work if the dog is needed to apprehend a suspect that it commits and goes straight in to bite and hold the suspect . It definately opens the dog up to getting hurt but if we had a dog that joisted with the suspect it allows for him or her to find exits of escape , access to weapons , etc . . These dogs would also be less likely to go into dark and or comfined places to apprehend a suspect also . 

This would also effect their search work when it comes to locating suspects . It would be less likely they would range out and search or go into confined or dark areas to search for suspects . Tracking would also be a problem because they have no desire to find and confront a potentially dangerous suspect . 

With that said even great PSDs have a survival instinct they will just take more punishment then other types of dogs before they get to that point . 

IMO , they have a reckless desire to find , confront and fight a dangerous adversary . Works great for police work but those traits would suck for other types of work like LSG . A dog like that would have a very short working life span .


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

i think it all boils down to selecting for confidence and focus....how much of those are genetic is subjective.

i understand the logic, but the more i think about the survival instinct being suppressed the less sense it makes as a breeding factor

i'm leaning towards - select the most confident dogs - which to me means totally NONreactive to any environmental or social stimulus yet still have the focus so they can learn the job they are being trained for and work with their handler
- if you need a fighter, a confident dog will fight if it has the tools and training to use em 

i'm kinda thinking that a confident dog maybe never gets to the survival limits of instinctual behavior, because when it does it will ALWAYS cut and run.....HARD wired to do that for centuries. maybe i'm wrong about this, but if it gets to the point where it actually thinks it's gonna die, i don't think it will kill itself
- a confident dog doesn't need much defensive drive because it never feels threatened.....a correctly trained psd will take a bullet or a baseball bat because it doesn't consider either a threat

herding instinct is all but gone and probably has little genetic effect for most types of working dogs from the herding groups (herders excluded of course)....obviously a PSD isn't trained to herd a suspect  herders don't hunt and catch their herd, working thru prey drive, they intimidate them and control their movement

train realistically rather than for sport and proof the hell out of it and you end up with a dog that will simply respond to behaviors they know under any circumstances

i know on this list rots get trashed a lot, and i'm sure there are a lot of pussies in the gene pool, but some of the most confident dogs i've been around were rots....speed is relative - don't need a mal to chase down a scumbag; not many can outrun any dog that really wants to catch em 

saw a young rot the other day with a lady who had no idea what kind of dog she had and was frustrated that she had no control over it. but all that dog wanted was to get out and DO something besides eat. in seconds that dog was downing and staying under distraction, and at one point some ankle biter ran into it from behind and was trying to grab its tail and snapping at his butt when he was down.....rot pup did not even flinch or even look back at it...impressed the hell out of me......now i'm trying to buy it 

as far as a hunting dog that tracks/catches and kills game, that's a field i know nothing about.....would the michael vick school of training apply in this case ? or is it more pack based as it would be in the wild ?


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Hugho say "Flight no exist in some dogs. Pitbull who is game is perfect example. He fight even when losing and never give up, never. All fighting pits in Mexico not "game", maybe one on a litter are this dog, only the special ones. These one are the ONE everybody look for in venues "no ever give up". Flight no enter mind, like strong dog Spike. Owner no change dog mind. Maybe why Dutch use pitbull at one time, don't know. "


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Even more relatable to people who have terriers that hunt *****. Plenty of stories of dogs that fight to death, literally. Even when escape is a option their drive to fight over powers their flight and self preservation.


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Yeah, there's always the story of some totally untrained and even mild mannered dog taking a bullet for their owner or defending their owner without training. And I do acknowledge that's out there. Even with dogs that will "fight to the death" (we may want to switch this a bit or it may get an interesting topic locked), they probably had enough previous experiences to know they could win. I'd suspect for most dogs that fight drive (oh God, here we go) probably has its motivation in wanting to win, not being a masochist and wanting the crap beaten out of it. A human example, but MMA fighters probably don't fight to be beaten, they fight to win. If all they ever do is lose and not in a good way, they'd probably rethink what they're doing. Probably not all dogs as I don't know all dogs, but beat a hard dog enough day in and day out AND don't let it win (which is the opposite of what we do in training by showing the dog lots of scenarios gradually and letting it win almost always) so it thinks the fight is futile is how you'd run even very strong dogs. 

Note: I noticed I said "most" and "probably" quite a few times in that above paragraph. I'm trying not to speak in absolutes for a reason. :smile:


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Yes winning = dominance = strong dog

Talking genetically strong not a reluctant leader who was empowered by his pet owner who thinks he's tough.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

I don't want to get the thread locked because of pitbull talk but the game dog may not always win but he will never quit. You could have a mma fighter lose to a oppent with more natural talent, faster, atheltic ability, etc. But the gamer never quits or leaves the fight. Dogs are the same, you may never know if a fighter is actually game if he steps in the ring and knocks out a guy in 30 seconds every time. That's a athletic but not necessarily a gamer when the chips are down. Heard a mma fighter say he likes beating guys up first so they voluntarily give them their back for a choke out cause they want it over.

Was Mike Tyson a gamer, I really can't say so. Most early fights were over rather quickly in his career but when he got older he didn't like losing in a match and wanted it over, ear biting, I think he even quit his last match! Maybe age or insanity, who knows in his case!

I have no experience in dog fights, just here say.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Holyfield was a gamer.


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

rick smith said:


> i think it all boils down to selecting for confidence and focus....how much of those are genetic is subjective.
> 
> i understand the logic, but the more i think about the survival instinct being suppressed the less sense it makes as a breeding factor
> 
> ...


I like to use the term confidence in these types of discussion also . But Rick you also have to look confidence in certain situations also . I know plenty of dogs that are very environmentally and socially confident . But put them in a fight or flight situation and they choose flight . 

I consider myself a good PSD trainer but from my experiance genetics trumps training everytime . If it isn't there to begin with my training isn't going to put it there . It's up to me to find it and bring it out of the dog .

I've helped select and train many PSDs in my 14 years on the K9 unit . There is a reason we use mainly GSDs , Mals and Dutchies . They are bred for having the types of behaviors we need for the work . 

Since it's tough finding PSD candidates we have looked at several other breeds and they just don't workout . Sure there may be that rare exception amongst other breeds that may have what it takes but again that's RARE . When testing other breeds you can see how the behaviors and characteristics they were originally bred for often get in the way of making them good PSDs . 

Having trained many PSDs I can guarantee you that we choose primarily GSDs , Mals and Dutchies ( working lines) for their genetics . They were bred for the type of work we do . If it was as simple as confidence and training we would be using all sorts of dogs for the work .


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Hear say LOL. In my last post not here say.
Holyfield was a gamer Will, I agree! Don Fry was a gamer but lost matches As well. My favorite.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqhKkyRvgjA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

You can't train thaws guys to have game/heart. It's just them!


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

I am going to hijack the thread for a minute. The two greatest gamers in a boxing match was the tragic Mancini vs Kim bout.(IMO) I remember being a little a kid and watching these two men beat the shit out of each other for fourteen rounds. Both were the epitome of Gamer. Unfortunately they would never be the same again.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

will fernandez said:


> I am going to hijack the thread for a minute. The two greatest gamers in a boxing match was the tragic Mancini vs Kim bout.(IMO) I remember being a little a kid and watching these two men beat the shit out of each other for fourteen rounds. Both were the epitome of Gamer. Unfortunately they would never be the same again.


They were taught that through nurture and from their boxing manager


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Timothy Stacy said:


> I don't want to get the thread locked because of pitbull talk but the game dog may not always win but he will never quit. You could have a mma fighter lose to a oppent with more natural talent, faster, atheltic ability, etc. But the gamer never quits or leaves the fight. Dogs are the same, you may never know if a fighter is actually game if he steps in the ring and knocks out a guy in 30 seconds every time. That's a athletic but not necessarily a gamer when the chips are down. Heard a mma fighter say he likes beating guys up first so they voluntarily give them their back for a choke out cause they want it over.
> 
> Was Mike Tyson a gamer, I really can't say so. Most early fights were over rather quickly in his career but when he got older he didn't like losing in a match and wanted it over, ear biting, I think he even quit his last match! Maybe age or insanity, who knows in his case!
> 
> I have no experience in dog fights, just here say.


I almost didn't want to bring up the MMA fighter thing because dog fighters like to use those as examples when pit dogs have no choice about whether they want to fight or not. Boxers, MMA fighters, martial artists, wrestlers, whatever all have the choice to step into the ring because it's their hobby, sport, or maybe livelihood, not life or death. Pit dogs do not. Dogs strapped to a defense table via a pole and collar only with zero chance of flight do not.

The motivation of a boxer or MMA fighter is to win, right? Nobody fights to get the crap beaten out of them, otherwise they're a pretty sick version of a masochist. The guys Will mentioned still thought they *could* win. But match guys with some ability against guys who still outclass them and can beat them badly every single time, that will do something to you, no matter how much you love to fight. I did a form of martial arts that used taekwondo as the foundation and other styles as you went up the ranks. When I was a black belt instructor, I didn't beat the crap out of the yellow belts, even though I could. But if I did beat the snot out of them to the point of embarrassment every sparring practice, even the ones out there who really love to spar would probably rethink the whole thing. I guess my point is that probably everyone, man or dog, likely has their breaking point of when they can be run. I like Jim's point:



> With that said even great PSDs have a survival instinct they will just take more punishment then other types of dogs before they get to that point .


You put strong genetics with excellent foundational training and that's less likely to happen.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Timothy Stacy said:


> Yes winning = dominance = strong dog
> 
> Talking genetically strong not a reluctant leader who was empowered by his pet owner who thinks he's tough.


Agreed. One thing I have never seen is a truly dominate dog that was unconfident. Just not the way it works. I find them the easiest dogs to work with if you understand them because you never have to worry about stuff like changing fields, loud noises crowds etc. The key is working "with" them. I may be the boss, but, they can do things I can't so I work more with a mutual repect, somewhat as an equal, and they will give you everything.

I made a reference to the handler interveneing at the end and subduing the bad guy. Dogs are basically pack oriented, but, are used solo in bitework training. After some thought, a police apprehension would be close to what I think would be the ideal situation as I picture it. Dog is put on the bad guy and subdues him. LE moves in and take the bad guy down and the dog is pulled back. I am curious I any KLE K9 people have noticed the difference in a new dog getting started and the differences they see after a few apprehensions when the dog realizes he is part of a pack and he plays his part.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Maren, I'm saying there are some dogs that would die over losing. They are one in a ?????
not just pits- but terriers, Dutch shepherds,GSD, etc. 
They are out there. To them revenge is like the sweetest joy next to getting putang. You hurt me and now I'll hurt you and its not over till the opponent gets away or they themselves die trying to win. They don't quit!

Terriers on small game is the best example, even injured they choose not to escape but engage again. No breaking point, winning or death are the only option and some die.
The percentage of these dogs is small but you are correct "most" "good" dogs have their breaking point but there are some "great" ones that don't.


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Agreed. One thing I have never seen is a truly dominate dog that was unconfident. Just not the way it works. I find them the easiest dogs to work with if you understand them because you never have to worry about stuff like changing fields, loud noises crowds etc. The key is working "with" them. I may be the boss, but, they can do things I can't so I work more with a mutual repect, somewhat as an equal, and they will give you everything.
> 
> I made a reference to the handler interveneing at the end and subduing the bad guy. Dogs are basically pack oriented, but, are used solo in bitework training. After some thought, a police apprehension would be close to what I think would be the ideal situation as I picture it. Dog is put on the bad guy and subdues him. LE moves in and take the bad guy down and the dog is pulled back. I am curious I any KLE K9 people have noticed the difference in a new dog getting started and the differences they see after a few apprehensions when the dog realizes he is part of a pack and he plays his part.



Most of the dogs I've worked and trained get stronger , not only their bitting but their search work gets more focussed and intense after their first few apprehensions and I'm sure the pack thing you mentioned is part of it . 

I've decoyed in a bitesuit in scenerios where the dog finds me along ways away from the handler . Even most of the stronger dogs get even stronger ( fight harder ) when the handler and or back up moves in . Even before they see them . The moment they hear them approaching they fight harder . It's very interesting to see . They gain confidence from the pack .

You mentioned earlier about hunting dogs even doing something similar and I agree . Had a Lab of mine leave my boat while duck hunting and go into my friends across the slew after I missed several shots and my friend made his . The dog knew where the work was .


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Don 

In my experience I have seen dogs that are so focused at the task at hand that they will not care who is around. Other dogs at the start will bite and hold while their eyes are darting around. These dogs through proper training and experience will settle down, become focused and stronger.

There are still dogs that will be very uncomfortable ( even in training) on the task but still do it. These are the ones that have been trained or nurtured into something they are not. 

I am dominant

I could be dominant if you show me the way

I pretend to be dominant.


----------



## Randy Allen (Apr 18, 2008)

Even dominate/strong dogs need to be nurtured properly to realize their potential and thereby value in our eyes.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Randy Allen said:


> Even dominate/strong dogs need to be nurtured properly to realize their potential and thereby value in our eyes.


No body is disputing that Randy. Just saying it isn't a necessity like it is with marginal dogs. With a good dog, you can leave them out in the yard for the first year or until they are old enough to start serious training and it will have no effect on them. They may even jump back at certain things they have never been around such as loud noises, but, they recover fast and move on. The recovery time of new pups in strange situations will tell you what you need to know about pups


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Jim Nash said:


> Most of the dogs I've worked and trained get stronger , not only their bitting but their search work gets more focussed and intense after their first few apprehensions and I'm sure the pack thing you mentioned is part of it .
> 
> I've decoyed in a bitesuit in scenerios where the dog finds me along ways away from the handler . Even most of the stronger dogs get even stronger ( fight harder ) when the handler and or back up moves in . Even before they see them . The moment they hear them approaching they fight harder . It's very interesting to see . They gain confidence from the pack .
> 
> You mentioned earlier about hunting dogs even doing something similar and I agree . Had a Lab of mine leave my boat while duck hunting and go into my friends across the slew after I missed several shots and my friend made his . The dog knew where the work was .


Dogs with good working ethics realize quickly when they are part of a team and they have their job.....and they will do it. Like with your duck hunting experience, if you sit back and let the dog carry the load alone, you will sour them. 

There is a lot of overlapping things to this discussion that are very closely related. Is survival instinct more closely related to good sense or fear? If survival instinct is inate and fear learned behavior, is a dog backing out of a no win situation really doing so out of fear? What is the driving force?


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Dogs with good working ethics realize quickly when they are part of a team and they have their job.....and they will do it. Like with your duck hunting experience, if you sit back and let the dog carry the load alone, you will sour them.
> 
> There is a lot of overlapping things to this discussion that are very closely related. Is survival instinct more closely related to good sense or fear? If survival instinct is inate and fear learned behavior, is a dog backing out of a no win situation really doing so out of fear? What is the driving force?


I agree on with all of this . On the pack behavior and over lapping issues .

These types of discussions suck over the internet . Doing so over drinks with more time is a much better forum to get ones thoughts and opinions communicated clearly .


----------



## Randy Allen (Apr 18, 2008)

Tis true Don,
While the 'stronger' dog (if I can be loose in terms) will 'seemingly' take less nurturing, but that nurturing whatever it does or does not encompass must be more directed and focused to their nature. 
There can be no wishy washy here or there, they already know what they're about.

The pack mentality(?) inherit with the dog is a biggie. It was touched on in another thread and thanks for iterating that here.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

> There is a lot of overlapping things to this discussion that are very closely related. Is survival instinct more closely related to good sense or fear? If survival instinct is inate and fear learned behavior, is a dog backing out of a no win situation really doing so out of fear? What is the driving force?


The above quote is why I am of the opinion that dogs that stick against superior odds is more a matter of breeding for less survival instinct when they have the option of fight of flight. Being something they have no contol over, they will flee if they have a strong survival instinct. What triggers the survival instinct? Possibly the learned behavior of fear? Being a learned behavior, fear can be over come only if the dog has little survival instinct. These are the dogs that don't cut-n-run. Just throwing some thoughts out there. So, where does nerve fit in. Possibly strong nerve facilitates the ability to over ride fear. Possibly fear isn't a factor in some dogs. Maybe the need to dominate is stronger than fear?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> I have seen dogs worked pretty seriously in defense a few times (table, pole, etc) and while it's not my cup of tea nor will I claim to be an expert in it, if that many dogs loved the fight for the sake of the fight from the get go, they wouldn't need to be tethered to the pole, table, deck, whatever, to prevent flight. We also wouldn't have to reward the dog with winning every single time. That all builds confidence in a dog that balances 10, 100, or 1,000 good outcomes with 1 bad outcome where we fought the bad guy and it wasn't fun, we maybe got hurt, and maybe we didn't even "win." Every dog to some extent is a product of their environment and training (or lack thereof). Just my still somewhat novice observation. ;-)


Are you sure the dogs that were tethered were in "defense", is it possible that any of the tethered dogs were in "fight"?

Do you think that tethering a dog is used to prevent flight, with most dogs and trainers, during bitework?


----------



## Maren Bell Jones (Jun 7, 2006)

Absolutely certain. PM sent.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Maren Bell Jones said:


> Chip, I assume you mean protection sports, right? I'm not sure how much I agree with the last bit as most (not all, of course) of our breeds we use for protection sport, from GSDs to Rottweilers, were herding dogs. There's not all that many folks who train in both these days, probably as it's really difficult to get the level of high prey drive needed for protection sport to balance with a dog being able to control his or her own drives enough to herd without physically hurting the stock. Then herding becomes a rather costly hobby... :-\" For example, two dogs in my former Schutzhund club (one that used to belong to me, one belonging to another club member) were not really super stars at Schutzhund, but both are doing well at herding because they don't have insane prey drives that override their brains. So I think in that sense, yes, we have changed the majority of German shepherds, Malinois, Dutchies, etc from their original character. Nothing quite like seeing a herding breed actually herd naturally with little training! Does anyone herd with their Dutchie? I haven't seen it yet in person, but I'd like to!


 
Looking at some of the comments, we have selected against flight. I've owned stock dogs that could choose flight in a given situation, but they choose fight. You see the gleam in their eye. They revel in it. They want to win and they exude that. The insane prey drive I think also cost you in the areas of innate territoriality and guard which folks always wan to associate with fear but I just don't see it that way. If you ever watched herding dogs in everyday work [not trials], you'll see the need for nerve strength and confidence. I differentiate between prey and object drive. One doesn't necessarily get you the other. One of the ways of looking at it for me is looking at what the LE guys require what the sport people want for flashy and looks. I still say good GSD ought to be able to do both Sch and herding. 

Terrasita


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> The above quote is why I am of the opinion that dogs that stick against superior odds is more a matter of breeding for less survival instinct when they have the option of fight of flight. Being something they have no contol over, they will flee if they have a strong survival instinct. What triggers the survival instinct? Possibly the learned behavior of fear? Being a learned behavior, fear can be over come only if the dog has little survival instinct. These are the dogs that don't cut-n-run. Just throwing some thoughts out there. So, where does nerve fit in. Possibly strong nerve facilitates the ability to over ride fear. Possibly fear isn't a factor in some dogs. Maybe the need to dominate is stronger than fear?


 
Don,

From a stock perspective, and usually cattle, I've had dogs that played it smart. For instance thinking of one, he was never going to get kicked---always guaged hooves nd the weighted foot. My bouvier always managed to hold her side yet open the door. To me playing it smart yet able to get control and win is part of the survival instinct. There was no flight but they were taking care of themselves if that makes sense. Of course I hated my GSDs [bred for sheep] on cattle. They had no sense of being out weighed or danger. Would meet a running mad cow head on. Crazy stuff I labeled suicidal. They weren't going to give ground for love or money. 


Terrasita


----------



## Randy Allen (Apr 18, 2008)

While I can see where your coming from on the 'perhaps lack(?)' of survival instinct. But how much do you think the pack mentality plays into the equation?
For instance, do you think that if same dog you spoke of was completely on it's own would carry on going back to the fight until the end?
I'm not talking about the breeds bred especially to that purpose, but dogs such as yours that I assume are hunted with in packs. 
How much of a roll does the pack mentality play in any one dogs actions or reactions as the case may be?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

the mma comparisons are somewhat relevant as too the fighting spirit, but also totally irrelevant. IT IS A SPORT...guys are not fighting to the death, if they were I doubt you would see so many guys giving up regardless of what was happening.

dogs can fight to win, they can also fight to fight. period, win or lose...live or die.

I saw an Art Parker vid of a hog dog jumping off of a 40-50 ft cliff, breaking both front legs and still engaging (gripping) the hog, dog was slung 20-25 ft after that..and still hobbled back in like the terminator at the end of the first movie..and got back in it...

animals aside...some dogs are fighters, with no regard for their own safety.....they win in training because we let them, because it fosters more positive experiences.

i have a huge problem with ricks questioning of genetics on the matter...
genetics is EVERYTHING when it comes to these traits.
nuture can help for sure....but a dog with genetically strong fight only needs to be engaged in a fight, it does not need to be trained to fight.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Don,
> 
> From a stock perspective, and usually cattle, I've had dogs that played it smart. For instance thinking of one, he was never going to get kicked---always guaged hooves nd the weighted foot. My bouvier always managed to hold her side yet open the door. To me playing it smart yet able to get control and win is part of the survival instinct. There was no flight but they were taking care of themselves if that makes sense. Of course I hated my GSDs [bred for sheep] on cattle. They had no sense of being out weighed or danger. Would meet a running mad cow head on. Crazy stuff I labeled suicidal. They weren't going to give ground for love or money.
> 
> ...


You have added another perspective to it Terrasita. The thinking dog that knows he has the advantage of speed and cunning. He obviously knows he is overmatched but he sticks and gets the job done. We have so many overlapping variable that the best we can do is guess the hows and whys. I think the best approach is to realise all the behaviors are as complex as what you see in people.MMA fighters, LE, firemen. All high risk jobs and are entered into for totally different reasons.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Randy Allen said:


> While I can see where your coming from on the 'perhaps lack(?)' of survival instinct. But how much do you think the pack mentality plays into the equation?
> For instance, do you think that if same dog you spoke of was completely on it's own would carry on going back to the fight until the end?
> I'm not talking about the breeds bred especially to that purpose, but dogs such as yours that I assume are hunted with in packs.
> How much of a roll does the pack mentality play in any one dogs actions or reactions as the case may be?


With most dogs, being part of a team makes a big difference. For some, a small percentage, it makes no difference. The dog I may have mentioned(don't remember) may have been Winchester. While his strong suit was really the genetics, he would tackle 300 lb hogs or bears by himself. That is not the makings of a great big game dog as he was layed up for extended periods after every hunt. At the same time, he was at the top of the heap when it came to game like dear, coyotes or anything he could realistically handle. He was a straight up kill dog. I have one in the yard right now that is pretty close to his equal and he is Winchesters son. Both were, and are, 68lb dogs. One of the toughest dogs I have had, used to hunt with Winchester and because he was 95lbs, could take Winchester down inside of 5 seconds. He tried keeping up with Winchester on a bad hog once and that one time cured him. Winchester came out without a scratch, while Higgins had to have one cheek lifted back in place and sewed back in, got hooked and tossed three time and throw 8 ' in the air back into the brush. He had drain tubes in his neck, his ribs, and his chest. He was still on the hog when I got there.....but it cured him for the rest of his life and he was a great dangerous game dog after that. He simply would not have lived long had he tried to do it like Winchester. I put Winchester down just before he was 14 and his attitude never changed.

I will tell a short story here about the Winchester dog. Winchester was always the king and he was getting up to about 9 or 10. I was roading him and three young dogs that came up along the way and were built to run by now. I was following in the truck and they were all running well together when Hunter, a big, tall, lanky Winchester offspring decided to have fun and make it a race. Winchester was much shorter and square built by comparison to these young dogs and was starting to show the wear and tear of his style of hunting. Well, the young dogs took off and they were flat picking them up and putting them down. Winchester gave it his best shot for a ways but these young dogs were just walking away from him. He stopped in the middle of this dirt road and just stared at them as the rounded a curve a good 150 yards away. I stopped the truck a ways behind him. He knew then he was no longer the king. He just stood there staring down the road but the others were out of sight. I was a bit choked up watching this scene play out. Winchester always had a high step like a Lippizan stallion. He turned his head finally and looked up at me while I sat there. I opened the truck door and he slowly shuffled back to the truck and climbed in. I mean he shuffled, the high stepping gait was gone. Once in the truck he didn't even want to put his head out the window. He just layed down with his head in my lap. I finally caught up with the other dogs and picked them up. Once they were secure, I put Winchester out by himself. His head was high, and the gait came back. He was never roaded with the other dogs again.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Randy Allen said:


> While I can see where your coming from on the 'perhaps lack(?)' of survival instinct. But how much do you think the pack mentality plays into the equation?
> For instance, do you think that if same dog you spoke of was completely on it's own would carry on going back to the fight until the end?
> I'm not talking about the breeds bred especially to that purpose, but dogs such as yours that I assume are hunted with in packs.
> How much of a roll does the pack mentality play in any one dogs actions or reactions as the case may be?


 
I had one dog that I felt defense of pack was stronger than defense of self.

T


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I had one dog that I felt defense of pack was stronger than defense of self.
> 
> T


was this dog ever directly threatened or attacked??

just asking...

my rule (good or bad) is a dog that will not protect itself, probably will not protect me...I NOW believe 90%+ of "protection" training is dog either fighting for itself/ or protecting itself for a perceived challenge or threat to itself...


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

There have been studies, and we have discussed this here, but, many dogs that would bail will stick and fight beyond what they would normally do if a close relative is in trouble. They will actually stay and protect even if they die. Im usd to wonder about what I was seeing when I had a dog hurt and down when hunting. The seriousness quickly went from working the animal, to intending to kill it.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

re: "i have a huge problem with ricks questioning of genetics on the matter...
genetics is EVERYTHING when it comes to these traits.
nuture can help for sure....but a dog with genetically strong fight only needs to be engaged in a fight, it does not need to be trained to fight."

first, my comments did NOT include anything connected to a pack of hunting dogs, regardless of what the game is...sorry if that wasn't clear, but imo hunting with dogs is an entirely different issue more connected to control rather than training

but you can absolutely train a dog to fight and win
- just depends on you training goals 
if you are thinking targeting sleeves, and about slipping a sleeve to win and carry around for awhile after calling game over ... sure that won't train em to "win", and it's not a fight, it's a bite
muzzle them and target for center mass hits and knock decoys down and you are fight training, and the more reps in different settings, the faster the "Ali "complex can be built up in the dog
have the decoy or helper really engage the dog and not just slap their thigh with a whip and you can build more fight 

don't want to go into where ring sports are unrealistic for protection, but of course this training cannot apply to a choreographed ring sport competition, and can be done even without having to put a dog in defense....

but this training will also build confidence in a fight and is not totally dependent on how much natural aggression the dog was born with


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

> but this training will also build confidence in a fight and is not totally dependent on how much natural aggression the dog was born with


I think we are talking apples and oranges here and it is creating confusion. Some of us are talking about dogs that need their confidence built up....others are talking about dogs that don't need the confidence built. That is the difference between genetics and training. As far as natural aggression, the strongest most confident dogs I have been around are not outwardly aggressive but very cool but will scare you when they decide aggression is needed to handle a situation.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

I also think you get a different dog triggered in what's real/instinctive vs. trained response in an artificial situation. I'm not talking about trained responses. I think the big different between Don and I and others is that we see the real/instinctive and for me it was with man and animal. I don't believe I should have to train a dog to protect me. He either has it or he doesn't and he ought to know when its needed. This has been my experience. 


Terrasita


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

re: "I don't believe I should have to train a dog to protect me. He either has it or he doesn't and he ought to know when its needed. This has been my experience. "
- now you are going full circle
throw training out the window .... u don't need to train a psd, just go out and find a resource guarder and put a badge on him 
sorry, but i'm talking about trained protection dog work, not guarding houses and back yards by naturally trained guarders 
- i've dealt with a lot of those ..... calm cool and collected - very confident; great OB .... just don't get in the way of their resource 
i'm thinking of two of the worst cases
a BT and gsd .... not ankle biters; one had to be killed.....neither were dogs who just snapped at people out of fear or weak nerves.....they attacked and fought and didn't back down 
and i can't count how many people have come to me with much lesser fuked up dogs who just said what you just wrote 

maybe you could line breed these dogs and get more of the same, so maybe resource guarding behavior is genetic and not a result of poor socialization :-(

- would a well trained protection dog fight to the death to protect its handler if they were being attacked ? probably.... purely based on genetics ? no way 

how do you explain the difference to an owner who passionately feels resource guarding IS protection ?? by defining what a trained conditioned response is 
- which is what i thought this forum was all about 
apples and oranges


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

I think you need to define resource guarding. But anyway it doesn't matter. Its semantics at best. If you have a business of selling dogs to people who think they have a need to be guarded then I guess you don't rely on instinct. I don't get into all the ppd stuff. On a general basis no need for it in my life. In my lifetime the 3-4 times the situation arose and the dog rose to the occasion, it didn't need training to see the need or to handle the situation. These were social dogs that went everywhere, were reliable, etc. Currently, this happens with livestock in certain situations. The guard/fight isn't trained. I think you can only train responses to a certain point. At some point it comes down to the dog's genetic character. They either have it or they don't. Part of this discussion has been genetics. I think there is a genetic component to several traits. Those that market dogs are able to train responses if the dog has certain drives/traits. They scenario train a dog. For what some people say they want, you need to be able to market that dog as trained to act in a certain way in a certain situation reliably. You sell a family a well trained protection dog in 2008. In 2015 a situation arises. Will the dog respond? Will the situation have to mimic his trained scenarios? 

However, really and truly, anyone serious can take a dog out with a bullet. I think the dog is a deterrent for only certain types. If they are serious, they can get past the dog. But really resource guarding has nothing to do with a dog that thinks to guard/defend/protect whatever you want to call it, his pack. As I understand resource guarding its the idiot that thinks he will bite the hand that feeds him over a toy, food, etc. Never had one and that's a pack issue in itself.

Terrasita


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

rick smith said:


> re: "I don't believe I should have to train a dog to protect me. He either has it or he doesn't and he ought to know when its needed. This has been my experience. "
> - now you are going full circle
> throw training out the window .... u don't need to train a psd, just go out and find a resource guarder and put a badge on him
> sorry, but i'm talking about trained protection dog work, not guarding houses and back yards by naturally trained guarders
> ...


I do not look at territorial or social active aggression as "resource guarding", and dogs with these traits that are strong dogs can be trained to "protect" a pack member..as well as what they do naturally.


----------



## Al Curbow (Mar 27, 2006)

It's 100% the dogs genetics.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Seems a lot of people spend a lot of time and money looking for just the right genetics in the parent stock so they can turn around and say. "Look at my training!!!" . Of course it becomes genetic if they can't get the job done.


----------



## Randy Allen (Apr 18, 2008)

I have to admit Don, the terror-ier group has me completely at a loss. For want of a better way to say it, they seem to have 'something' missing the rest of the canine population share. Can't quite put my finger on what 'it' might be, but they dun't have it.
For the rest though, I wonder if the pack instinct isn't being under rated. Raw basic instinct.

I remember a thread (with vids) on this site a few months(?) ago about a simenar given to a PSD dept. (in Canada I think) with dogs that had worked the street and at the time still working the street with their handlers.( Not green dogs) 
The scenerio was set up as the handler is arresting or questioning a perp, the perp starts a fight and takes the handler to the ground with the handler on the bottom. With all but one dog it worked out the same way, the dog attacked the person on the bottom......The handler! 
Poor training? Or deep seated instinct?

I think the pack instinct is one if not the biggest attribute we exploit.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Randy Allen said:


> I have to admit Don, the terror-ier group has me completely at a loss. For want of a better way to say it, they seem to have 'something' missing the rest of the canine population share. Can't quite put my finger on what 'it' might be, but they dun't have it.
> For the rest though, I wonder if the pack instinct isn't being under rated. Raw basic instinct.
> 
> I remember a thread (with vids) on this site a few months(?) ago about a simenar given to a PSD dept. (in Canada I think) with dogs that had worked the street and at the time still working the street with their handlers.( Not green dogs)
> ...


I think in terms of the scenario you mention, certain traits have been bred out by emphasizing and overloading on other traits for easier training. All but one dog knew his handler from the perp and could discern---training or did he have pack instinct? How many times have I read that a dog that naturally guards the obect doesn't make the the best trial dog. Then there is the idea that the dog that is really keen in the work, isn't the points dog. They don't want a dog that acts on instinct--just on commands and/or scenario training. This is why certain pack traits are non-existent.

Terrasita

Terrasita


----------



## Randy Allen (Apr 18, 2008)

This seminar wasn't with trial dogs. It was with working PSD's. 
In theory the dogs that possess the attributes and trained to those attributes that have been mentioned as valuable. 
Willingness for the fight, non-fear in the face of danger, and a self assuredness in action.


----------



## Randy Allen (Apr 18, 2008)

And importantly, what does it say about 'pack behavior'/instinct?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

I know it wasn't trial dogs. Considering the training philosophies and the dogs are coming out of the same gene pool, its the same thing. What it really says that there isn't selection FOR pack/instinct. We see the same in the livestock/herding world. I just had someone tell me he didn't believe that dogs had an instinctive sense of grouping and containing livestock after watching dogs running on prey drive only. Pretty scary considering the source. But if you don't value that trait and select for it, you won't keep it or have it. In the protection world, social aggreession is tolerated to the point of bite the hand that feeds you. I've met several very high prey/fight dogs. Yet they don't have innate territoriality or guard. I'm still baffled by the dog that doesn't know his handler from the perp and only goes by the person on the ground. Part of me knows that in training if you ever just set the dog up in training with the perp on the ground and the handler standing, he won't think it through or analyze it, he'll always go with what has happened before. That''s one mental type. There's another more analytical type that doesn't just do the react on expectation response. The more prey/reactivity, the less in analysis you get.

Terrasita


----------



## Randy Allen (Apr 18, 2008)

Aah,
Now I think we're getting to the nitty-gritty of just what was asked by the op and what almost everyone seems to be looking for.

Rather than more of this that or the other, it's balance that's the objective.
So genetics brings an amount of that to your door step.

What to do from there?
Every dog brings some square edges with it be it pup or fully mature. Where does enviroment fit?


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

What is training might need to be defined here. Training obviously won't make a silk purse out of a sows ear if the dog doesn't have the genetics. This being the reason people value specific crosses. So what is training do? It is largley a method of directing a dogs natural instincts to do things that we consider beneficial to us. In my mind, a dog that has no instincts would be a gross waste of time. Terrasita hit on something I agree with 100%. Dogs are not bred to be balanced at all today. They are bred to be easily trained with traits that bear no resemblance to being balanced. A wise man once told me that every time you train a dog to do something that is unnatural to his nature, you have to take away something that is natural. It is true. As I see it, in our quest for training perfection, we are losing everthing that makes up a good dog.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Randy Allen said:


> I have to admit Don, the terror-ier group has me completely at a loss. For want of a better way to say it, they seem to have 'something' missing the rest of the canine population share. Can't quite put my finger on what 'it' might be, but they dun't have it.
> For the rest though, I wonder if the pack instinct isn't being under rated. Raw basic instinct.


What a good terrier lacks is that not just anyone can train one successfully. You have to understand them. In a world where dogs are bred for trainability, the terrier's have a mind of their own. Training one can be likened to a good, hard fought game of chess, where the opponent(the dog) is a few moves ahead of you as often as you are ahead of him. I have heard several trainers that stuck it out say they learned more training a terrier than any other dog.....the rest never got em trained.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> What a good terrier lacks is that not just anyone can train one successfully. You have to understand them. In a world where dogs are bred for trainability, the terrier's have a mind of their own. Training one can be likened to a good, hard fought game of chess, where the opponent(the dog) is a few moves ahead of you as often as you are ahead of him. I have heard several trainers that stuck it out say they learned more training a terrier than any other dog.....the rest never got em trained.



The terrier group is what taught me that you can teach a dog anything if you can convince it it's having a good time. An unfair or heavy hand will get you bit or a flat dog. Not to much in between.
The small terriers were/are bred to go in a hole and do combat with a critter twice it's size. You can't train that in a dog and the good dogs aren't down there waiting for directions/commands. 
You can breed for a baying earth dog or you can breed for earth dogs that will dispatch the quarry. You may get some of both in a litter but your not going to successfully "train" a baying dog to dispatch in the ground any easier then your going to train a dispatch dog to bay. 
Did I say that I love the crazy little bassids!? Training them for most of the past 30-35 yrs has made training my GSDs a walk in the park. I'm old and I need the rest. :grin: :wink:


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

re: "A wise man once told me that every time you train a dog to do something that is unnatural to his nature, you have to take away something that is natural"
>>>thanks for the indirect compliment 
i have said the same thing for years, and to others in PM's on this forum and others. 

it is one of the first things i tell an owner when they come to me with their "problem" dog 
- that ALL OB and "training" is the way selfish humans try and teach a dog to do something they would probably not choose to do if they weren't living with humans....starting from where they should take a crap 
- most problems are "trained" by owners, and all dog owners are dog trainers 

but no matter what HUMANS have bred into ANY breed to make them do what we then consider "instinctive", and then expect to have those behaviors occur without training, is still wishful thinking in many cases, and still requires a clear training plan to further hone that instinct to our (selfish) liking

thank god canines are one of the most adaptable species on earth and can often do BOTH extremely well regardless of how inept the trainer is


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

re: "I have heard several trainers that stuck it out say they learned more training a terrier than any other dog.....the rest never got em trained."

fwiw, this statement would apply exactly in MANY cases if you switch the word terrier to either dolphin or baluga

the only difference in animals is MM's have a lot more grey matter and are much MUCH better chess players 
....(as in "why do it THIS way when my way is much quicker and gets the same results")


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

but no matter what HUMANS have bred into ANY breed to make them do what we then consider "instinctive", and then expect to have those behaviors occur without training, is still wishful thinking in many cases, and still requires a clear training plan to further hone that instinct to our (selfish) liking
[/QUOTE]

I think this may be true in most things we have dogs do based on command but so very untrue for others--particularly for the work that I do. When dogs have intervened and kept me from harm, I didn't train it. When a mistake of mine sent 6 sheep off and running in 9 acres, I certainly hadn't trained a 9 acre outrun and gather. When you take a herding dog into the stock pen for the first time and he gathers the sheep and fetches them to you---you didn't train that. When someone went to lift my 3 year old son over the fence and my less than 1 year old GSD hit the fence with all her might---I didn't train that. When a guy showed up at the farm that I took an instant dislike to and the GSD that I train but don't own goes on guard---I certainly didn't train that. We have LGDs that guard their livestock---its not trained. You can select for traits that aren't trained. You can reward and put commands on instinctive traits. But you didn't train that instinctive trait. People will tell you that dogs don't have the ability to discern and judgement. Well if you don't have the ability to recognize it and breed it out through selection to its opposite, then that's true. In my world you can train mechanics and behaviors that mimic instinctive traits but that's a dog that needs a handler that is always 100% correct and ultimately, it will always be a day late and a dollar short. We select breeds for traits they are known to and are reliable at exhibiting. That is what distinguishes the breeds. We have gotten away from true character and into drives. People don't live with their dogs. They live in kennels. You have to live witth a dog and take him outside of the den to know what's in him. Folks up the price on puppies saying they went through a puppy program which involves taking them out of the kennel and into social situations and demonstrating that they can be reliable around people and don't have environmental issues. What a crock. That should be a given and nothing special and it doesn't take a puppy program to know whether the puppy is people or environmentally sound. You should know that by 7 weeks if you raised that litter. We tolerate working dogs that will bite their owners and eat the family child. Back in the day if a certain breed couldn't know the difference between a baby/child and an aduldt and anything else, it was a cull. Therefore that breed was known for the trait being baby/child reliable. Not so much anymore. We've changed certain breeds of dogs to make them bite machines. So we get--its fast, its aggressive on command and it bites hard and long---end of story. 

Genetics and selection gives you a basis for which to train a lot of behaviors. If you don't have the genetics, then I think your training will lack reliability just as you say without training there is little to know reliability in instinctive behaviors.

Terrasita


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

LGD's...(and there is a huge number of breeds that supposedly fit this category)
in your world and in what you do, training in the sense i am referring to for protection work plays a very minimal part ... how well and how safe your dogs could handle the outside world might be another issue, but clearly most of your dogs learn from other dogs around them if they are true herders

the modern world has become more of an outside world, and most LGD's live there....that's where i live and work

but since they don't have a herd to manage and a space to protect, other issues often take over, and that's where socialization and training becomes essential, ESPECIALLY socialization....i don't consider that crap to make money by doing, and a pyrenees i take out still thinks the shopping arcade is a flock of sheep.....however this MATURE dog is getting better all the time - totally a socialization issue, and i don't give a crap what kind of genes she has - she has to live in a people world, not on a farm ... it is not an option 

not many people have the time and space to do what i'm assuming you do, if it's not on a hobby basis. so consider yourself very lucky, but imo,
the reality is that you are in the minority, and there are way more LGD's living in my world than yours and demand both socializing and training if their owners are responsible ... they don't have the option or luxury to cull or get another breed.

unfortunately for the dogs, i don't believe the genetics you look for and consider essential were even intended for the world most of these dogs now have to live in


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> but no matter what HUMANS have bred into ANY breed to make them do what we then consider "instinctive", and then expect to have those behaviors occur without training, is still wishful thinking in many cases, and still requires a clear training plan to further hone that instinct to our (selfish) liking


I think this may be true in most things we have dogs do based on command but so very untrue for others--particularly for the work that I do. When dogs have intervened and kept me from harm, I didn't train it. When a mistake of mine sent 6 sheep off and running in 9 acres, I certainly hadn't trained a 9 acre outrun and gather. When you take a herding dog into the stock pen for the first time and he gathers the sheep and fetches them to you---you didn't train that. When someone went to lift my 3 year old son over the fence and my less than 1 year old GSD hit the fence with all her might---I didn't train that. When a guy showed up at the farm that I took an instant dislike to and the GSD that I train but don't own goes on guard---I certainly didn't train that. We have LGDs that guard their livestock---its not trained. You can select for traits that aren't trained. You can reward and put commands on instinctive traits. But you didn't train that instinctive trait. People will tell you that dogs don't have the ability to discern and judgement. Well if you don't have the ability to recognize it and breed it out through selection to its opposite, then that's true. In my world you can train mechanics and behaviors that mimic instinctive traits but that's a dog that needs a handler that is always 100% correct and ultimately, it will always be a day late and a dollar short. We select breeds for traits they are known to and are reliable at exhibiting. That is what distinguishes the breeds. We have gotten away from true character and into drives. People don't live with their dogs. They live in kennels. You have to live witth a dog and take him outside of the den to know what's in him. Folks up the price on puppies saying they went through a puppy program which involves taking them out of the kennel and into social situations and demonstrating that they can be reliable around people and don't have environmental issues. What a crock. That should be a given and nothing special and it doesn't take a puppy program to know whether the puppy is people or environmentally sound. You should know that by 7 weeks if you raised that litter. We tolerate working dogs that will bite their owners and eat the family child. Back in the day if a certain breed couldn't know the difference between a baby/child and an aduldt and anything else, it was a cull. Therefore that breed was known for the trait being baby/child reliable. Not so much anymore. We've changed certain breeds of dogs to make them bite machines. So we get--its fast, its aggressive on command and it bites hard and long---end of story. 

Genetics and selection gives you a basis for which to train a lot of behaviors. If you don't have the genetics, then I think your training will lack reliability just as you say without training there is little to know reliability in instinctive behaviors.

Terrasita[/QUOTE]

Excellent post T.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

> unfortunately for the dogs, i don't believe the genetics you look for and consider essential were even intended for the world most of these dogs now have to live in


Rick, it has been my experience that well balanced dogs do fine in a peoples world and most without heavy socialization. Somewhere along the line, as T said, balance went out the window and breeding fr dogs that like to bite became the norm. Yes, when dogs are bred for many of the traits that are being bred for today....you better socialize them. My dogs are raised outdoors and get very little handling. When people want pups for, say... obedience, I pick them a pup that they can go from here to the Cow Place with 5000 people milling around with no effect on the dog.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

rick smith said:


> LGD's...(and there is a huge number of breeds that supposedly fit this category)
> in your world and in what you do, training in the sense i am referring to for protection work plays a very minimal part ... how well and how safe your dogs could handle the outside world might be another issue, but clearly most of your dogs learn from other dogs around them if they are true herders
> 
> 
> ...


 
First of all herding dogs don't just learn from other dogs. Often you don't even have another herding dog around. They aren't just mimicing the behaviors of other dogs they have seen do the work. This is what I mean by if you haven't done it, you can't understand all the nuances involved. That's some book regurgitation form of it. I never work two dogs together because I want them to be independent. The Pyrennes is the LGD I've seen the most of. They can be raised to handle society [handled by people, going to the vet, public situations, etc.] yet still perform as the LGD. If you are rehabbing dogs for pets that weren't selected or raised to be able to deal with their environment then, sure, you're going to try to use all your training saavy to ensure that they can function. Any behaviorist is trying to use whatever tool in his tool basket he can to overide certain genetics or genetic deficiencies and you can do that to a certain point. I took two Puppy Mill princesses that had only lived life in a 2 x 3 foot cage as far as I could tell and rehabbed them. One took 6 months. The other a year. The one that took a year I thought about putting down after 6 months. It was if she were autistic. I couldn't connect with her. Couldn't reach her. How did I do it----herding. Took her in the duck pen one day and after she worked them around the pen, she stood and looked at me with recognition. Same thing with the rescue BC for that matter. Ever try to rehab a true genetic spook? It didn't work with breeders who whelped them and raised them. All the nurturing and training in the world couldn't get them past it. At best they could somewhat exist in their home environment where they were born. When they tried to take them outside of it and in one case I can think of, place them in another home, the dogs went into feral fear mode and ran blind. 

The genetics I look for in a dog, particularly one breed were there and still are, over 100 years ago. The foundation dog was a herding dog. If you want to go primitive, dogs were selected for the genetic traits they exhibited that could be useful to man. Now, there was something IN them innately that they could even exist alongside of in relationship to man. If dog A was useful then you found dog B with the same usefulness to breed it to. In the puppies, you kept the ones that were useful and if they weren't, you culled. For the more successful breeding programs, this is still the system utilized today. Ask Tony what he "trains" and he''ll tell you they either have it or they don't. He puts it work and devleops it. 

My herding dogs are all house dogs and pets when they aren't performing that job. Most hobbyists haven't had a cow come after them and the dog or rams out to kill the dog to know whether the dog has genetic confidence and fight. This is why I work the dogs on farm stock---to know what's in them.
I look at puppies at ages 3, 5, 7 weeks for the environmental and people confidence that I want. In the breeds that I work with, having selected for that level of confidence they haven't disappointed in terms of livestock. The instinct is there and for the most part hasn't been bred out. Mostly confidence has either been bred out [makes for easier pets] or they've been bred so high on prey, the herding function is negatively affected. 

I tell people there are instinctual tools and then there are trained tools. I don't want a pet that isn't genetically confident. I select for it. I don't have the issues that people have to pay trainers to deal with. Sure we socialize and train dogs. If all you are doing is training for sit, down, don't pull on a lead and please don't potty in the house--that doesn't really have to do with instinct as Don alluded to. Although I will say some dogs are genetically clean and some aren't. You can train a dog to bite on command. However, there are dogs that know when to bite instinctively to protect their owners or the pack or breed it so high up on drives, its triggered by anything. If you want the dog to do something outside of instinct, as Don alluded to, you have to train it. When my son was born, I stopped taking in rescues. Why? For all the training in the world they have a window I don't know anything about either genetically or historically. Therefore, that made them unreliable to be around my kid. The last puppy out of a box someone gave me, had some sort of rage syndrome. That was the end of mixed breeds with unknown genetics. At age 12, I was a Humane Society volunteer. If it was broke, I brought it home to try to fix it. My mother refers to me as a dog psychiatrist. So yeah, I believe in fixing what you have, if you have to. But it sure is nice to breed and select desirable traits so you don't have to fix it or pay someone else to.

Terrasita


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Rick, you are in Japan and have been for some time yes ?


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

The reason I ask that is this;

The Japanese have no real history in working closely with dogs as such, not really. They don't have, well certainly not what I would describe as any kind of instinctive affinity with them, in short, have no idea or understanding about relating to them in general.

I worked there for a short time training horses, it kinda blew my brains, from their riders to their trainers to their vets. I also helped out a few folks with their dogs and was familiarised at least a little to the problems they experience in general with their animals.

I don't think you can really compare if that is largely the experience you are drawing on, you are probably experiencing what the worst of us experience on a more extreme scale.

Just my 2p.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

i understand and agree with what both of you are saying and i wish i could still spend my summers in kansas on my grandparents farm with all their angus and fish in their ponds rather than surf in SoCal. those were the best days of my life.
where i'm at now it's a different world and my dog world is spent working with problems, and of course i realize it's all a genetic problem based on poor breeding standards or none at all
- but in your situations it is a lot easier to say its genetics and only genetics and training is for makin a dog do things that aren't instinctual....sorta a purist point of view.....the vast majority of dogs will never have an opportunity to do what they were originally bred for and if you just blame the problems on bad genes - where do you go from that point ?
guess we forgot to try and breed urban dogs for urban environments (and don't bring up the "companion breeds" - they are the worst !!)

regarding bite "sports" ... a whole new very interesting thread since i feel there are way too many people into it for the "cool" factor, rather than using it with some relevance in preparing and breeding hard working protection dogs our screwed up urban societies now unfortunately depend on.
- its become too much about seeing how many can score a knockdown
- over here in japan, the SchH i've seen have just become a highly ritualized OB drill that includes biting

- and i see that on a common every day basis ... none of the local navy guys notice or care how well socialized my dog is around people or things he DOESN'T like, but as soon as i have him take a tug with all four feet off the ground they think he's a "cool" dog :-(((
- in fact to a lot of people, a well mannered confident dog is "boring", and i like it that way


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Rick,

A genetically sound, confident dog of some breeds that hasn't done the work of the original breed purpose for several generations can and does function in an urban environment and can do the original breed purpose work. If you select for the original breed purpose of some herding breeds, it is a companion dog that can pretty much deal in any environment. Part of that breed heritage was to be able to be reliable with the family children and other small animals even. At the very least you can select for confidence. Next, there's pack drive and trainability. Often I'm asked to either choose breeding pairs or pick a dog for a particular purpose. My elderly parents wanted a bouvier [don't ask me why], I picked the dog of the drive and energy level that was going to be able to hang out in the family room and watch TV. The puppy/dog had people affinity, no evironmental issues whatsoever. 20 people over for holidays---no big deal. Children, babies. No big deal. Urban family dog. I've been able to do alot with less than ideal genetics from a companion/pet point of view for other people. That's a whole different realm. But still, fear [which is usually the problem] has a continum with the ultimate point I call feral fear or the genetic spook. Good luck with that one. Genetics dictate what you can do or its limits. With all the training in the world, you are not going to turn a genetic spook into a protection dog. That type of dog will be able to function minimally socially if at all. A saavy behaviorist can get a lot accomplished in terms of coming up with something to make the rescue or shelter type a livable pet.

This past weekend a breeder brings out several puppies. There was a fear/flight component in every one of them in terms of livestock and that was with the livestock behind a fence. Only one I would say explore further. Most of them had instinct. All of them could function as a family pet/companion and even be developed for competitive obedience or agility. Within our herding club several of the breeds are represented. We have sport only and those that have working ranches/farm and sport. One of the ways that we distinguish is the jack of all trades dog that is also the family companion vs. the barn dog that is stock only. The barn dog that is stock only can function in that setting but not outside of it.

I agree with you about the protection sport aspect of it especilly with people who get their ego strokes and power through dogs. That is an ongoing urban problem in and of itself and in the sport world. The kinda dog I like has been referred to as "dull." I like a dog with analysis. They know when and can chill out otherwise. People tell me they don't like GSDs because they think too much. I don't want them to change GSDs. I want them to go to the reactivity over energized breed/dog that better suits them. 

Terrasita


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

T said
" When you take a herding dog into the stock pen for the first time and he gathers the sheep and fetches them to you---you didn't train that."
" When a guy showed up at the farm that I took an instant dislike to and the GSD that I train but don't own goes on guard---I certainly didn't train that."

Seems I recognize that dog. 
T came to Schutzhund club and selected Thunder from the get go as a very "balanced' dog and wanted to see him tested on stock.
Not the same thing with my younger GSD Trooper although he gathered naturally. His prey can be over the top and his aggression is easier tapped into although he's a big clown. He has some very good points but balance isn't at the top of his list.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Now you outed me. I wish I could clone him. I miss my vicarious GSD and you too of course. When are you coming out.


T


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

This next weekend is pretty well tied up but the following week is a go.
I'll send a pm.


----------

