# Doing prey work with your own dog



## Emilio Rodriguez

I'm against it in general. I find that when I play with prey I kick into helper mode. This means I start to do things to make the dog feel it's stronger and that makes the dogs come out aggressively. That's the right way to do it anyways if you're going to be doing bitework through prey. I like stable but strong dogs that possess strong defense and some social aggression, so this is the dog I own. When I do this work with my dog the line where I'm the all powerful master starts to get blurred. I'm used to nipping dominant behavior from my dogs in the bud. So now that I got the dog stronger to the point I'm feeling it, I must make him subordinate again. It's messed up and even if it were to work out the value of developing a dog through prey is questionable.

The helper's job is to always make the dog win even in play. A helper that likes feeling in control of the dog is not doing the dog any good.


----------



## Matthew Grubb

I look at it this way.... the items you are using are prey items... you're toys that you let the dog have when you see fit. No harm no foul.


----------



## Kyle Sprag

Emilio Rodriguez said:


> I'm against it in general. I find that when I play with prey I kick into helper mode. This means I start to do things to make the dog feel it's stronger and that makes the dogs come out aggressively. That's the right way to do it anyways if you're going to be doing bitework through prey. I like stable but strong dogs that possess strong defense and some social aggression, so this is the dog I own. When I do this work with my dog the line where I'm the all powerful master starts to get blurred. I'm used to nipping dominant behavior from my dogs in the bud. So now that I got the dog stronger to the point I'm feeling it, I must make him subordinate again. It's messed up and even if it were to work out the value of developing a dog through prey is questionable.
> 
> The helper's job is to always make the dog win even in play. A helper that likes feeling in control of the dog is not doing the dog any good.


All depends on the dog and the tasks you are asking him/her to do. If you need to feel like the "all powerfull master" then you missed the boat; even more with a strong dog that you are not going to dominate.


----------



## Emilio Rodriguez

Kyle Sprag said:


> If you need to feel like the "all powerfull master" then you missed the boat;


I don't need to feel it. I must feel it or rather it should be said that if a question enters my mind about my position then I'm already in the wrong place. Dominant dogs.. they have their uses. But for a personal dog why would I want to butt heads with one. Did you ever own one? Then you know how nasty it is to live with one.


----------



## Emilio Rodriguez

Matthew Grubb said:


> I look at it this way.... the items you are using are prey items... you're toys that you let the dog have when you see fit. No harm no foul.


Have you ever had a dog that played too hard? That you felt the dog was overpowering you and out of control? To bring this kind of dog down a notch in order to play with it is useless. It's better to develop the same drive unto a real decoy.


----------



## Alyssa Myracle

We're talking about making prey, not defense, right?


Yes, I have a dog that plays "too hard".

So, I don't make prey unless I feel like putting up with it. If I'm not ready to get scratched, knocked into and generally mauled, I'll play fetch. If I want to play tug, well, thats the price of admission.

If she gets down right ornery, or gets carried away and nips me intentionally, then game over. You go to your crate, and I'm gonna watch TV with your tug in my lap where you can see it. (Hey, I have to be the bigger bitch, right?  )


For a guy that talks a lot about "discrimination" and "discernment", you have little faith in the dogs ability to see the difference between playing tug with the handler, and kicking the crap out of the helper.


----------



## James Downey

Emilio Rodriguez said:


> I'm against it in general. I find that when I play with prey I kick into helper mode. This means I start to do things to make the dog feel it's stronger and that makes the dogs come out aggressively. That's the right way to do it anyways if you're going to be doing bitework through prey. I like stable but strong dogs that possess strong defense and some social aggression, so this is the dog I own. When I do this work with my dog the line where I'm the all powerful master starts to get blurred. I'm used to nipping dominant behavior from my dogs in the bud. So now that I got the dog stronger to the point I'm feeling it, I must make him subordinate again. It's messed up and even if it were to work out the value of developing a dog through prey is questionable.
> 
> The helper's job is to always make the dog win even in play. A helper that likes feeling in control of the dog is not doing the dog any good.


 
Once again more lessons from the all great one on how to do bitework.

Your just rambling...just more jibba jabber.


----------



## Bob Scott

James Downey said:


> Once again more lessons from the all great one on how to do bitework.
> 
> Your just rambling...just more jibba jabber.


Disagree without insulting criticism!:evil: 
This is how arguements get started.


----------



## James Larkey

Emilio Rodriguez said:


> Matthew Grubb said:
> 
> 
> 
> I look at it this way.... the items you are using are prey items... you're toys that you let the dog have when you see fit. No harm no foul.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever had a dog that played too hard? That you felt the dog was overpowering you and out of control? To bring this kind of dog down a notch in order to play with it is useless. It's better to develop the same drive unto a real decoy.
Click to expand...

Matthew is correct. There is no harm in working your own dog in prey. If the dog plays too hard and has over the top drive, prey work will not 'bring him down a notch' as you stated. Prey work still serves as a great tool to train focus while in a high state of drive as well as maintain that focused drive. 

I have met and worked with a police k9 instructor who also works his own dogs in prey and performs much of the foundation for bitework himself. He works SERIOUS dogs. Probably too much dog for most. His dogs know the difference between a game that he controls and biting the bad guy. 

I like how Alyssa said it....


Alyssa Myracle said:


> For a guy that talks a lot about "discrimination" and "discernment", you have little faith in the dogs ability to see the difference between playing tug with the handler, and kicking the crap out of the helper.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

> I like stable but strong dogs that possess strong defense and some social aggression, so this is the dog I own.


Why do you like strong defense?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

This is another "beginner question" posed in the form of a statement.

Quote: I'm against it in general. I find that when I play with prey I kick into helper mode. This means I start to do things to make the dog feel it's stronger and that makes the dogs come out aggressively.

So here he is saying that he thinks that if the dog thinks he is winning, that he will be less of a man in the dogs eyes. So here we have one of three things to consider, he has man eating dogs, or he is doing the work incorrectly, or that he has read something somewhere and has posed his question in the form of a statement, so that we do not see him for the tard he is. I am on ignore, so he cannot see what I am writing, but my vote is for the TARD.

Here is another example of too much reading and not enough experience.

Quote: I like stable but strong dogs that possess strong defense and some social aggression, so this is the dog I own. When I do this work with my dog the line where I'm the all powerful master starts to get blurred.

Just with the few examples of dogs that he has shown, his definitions are completely ****ed.

Plus the all powerful thing just goes along with the massive sense of insecurity that he is feeling. Old breed dogs are really good about picking up on people that are scared of them, and this is more likely where it is coming from than playing with his dog.

So here is the statement that shows he is not at the head of the table.

QUOTE: I'm used to nipping dominant behavior from my dogs in the bud. So now that I got the dog stronger to the point I'm feeling it, I must make him subordinate again. It's messed up and even if it were to work out the value of developing a dog through prey is questionable.

Dominant insecure dogs do a lot of pushing to see where they are at. They are annoying dogs and do the type of work we saw on the porch. He is scared of his dogs and "puts them in their place" to the point where they have backed him off a few times.

Loser. He has no entertainment value, and is getting information he doesn't deserve here. **** him. I say he gets the boot for no other reason than "cause" : )


----------



## Emilio Rodriguez

I don't understand your question Mike.


Alyssa Myracle said:


> We're talking about making prey, not defense, right?


Defense has it's roots in prey. If you're building the dog properly through prey defense will start to develop. When I say defense this is simply to differentiate it from prey where it's just a game. The dog starts developing serious powerful emotions about the game like the desire to dominate. The helper can direct these drives unto himself because he is there to lose, not control the dog. The owner shouldn't do this.

If you're just playing with the dog then it doesn't matter. But if you're playing with the intention of some of what you're doing to carry over to bitework that's where the problem comes in. With me as I stated from the beginning, even when playing tug of war for example just for fun, I can't help entering in helper mode. So I can't play.

With regards to your quip about discernment. One of the results of drive building is that when the dog is worked intensely it overrides some of his common sense. We do want the dog's desire to engage a human to override things like the sense of danger/self preservation to ensure that dog will go through anything. The more intensely agitated the dog is in prey or in defense the more discernment suffers. Think of the dog that chases a moving car and bites the tire getting run over in the process.


----------



## Alyssa Myracle

Emilio Rodriguez said:


> One of the results of drive building is that when the dog is worked intensely it overrides some of his common sense. We do want the dog's desire to engage a human to override things like the sense of danger/self preservation to ensure that dog will go through anything. The more intensely agitated the dog is in prey or in defense the more discernment suffers. Think of the dog that chases a moving car and bites the tire getting run over in the process.


I guess you and I are on opposite poles in this regard.

I pick my dogs, and I work my dogs, with the sole intent of having a dog that is capable of thinking and controlling itself even in high drive. That is my main intent when I do prey work with my dog (along with promoting a good strike and a bite quality)- to teach the dog self-control when in a state of high drive.

I do not want my dog's desire to override it's own good sense. 

What we train for is to teach the dog that despite fear or apprehension, or an underlying concern for it's own safety, it can still fight and win- because we never teach it that losing is a possibility.
We don't simply run out there and create hectic, out of control dogs with too much drive and no self-control. Well, I say "we", but what I mean is, trainers who know what they hell they're doing.


----------



## todd pavlus

I might be a beginner like Jeff said, but in regards to this OP, isn't basic obediance based around the prey drive, the desire to chase and catch the ball, tug or whatever. How can he say he can't do prey work without turning into helper mode. Does he want start driving the dog or giving stick hits while playing tug in prey mode. Letting the dog win is about building the dogs confidence, I don't think that by letting dog win while playing tug with you is really teaching the dog that he can dominate you. If so you might have other holes somewhere in your training. I must be the retarded beginner because this seems like another thread with obvious answers, with his replies trying to stir the pot. It's going to turn into another prey vs. defense thread.


----------



## David Frost

Alyssa Myracle said:


> We don't simply run out there and create hectic, out of control dogs with too much drive and no self-control. Well, I say "we", but what I mean is, trainers who know what they hell they're doing.


Herein lies a difference in the trainers that want to produce a controllable dog vs. a dog that is put in the junk yard from closing until opening. While both may have a purpose, they are certainly different animals.

DFrost


----------



## Emilio Rodriguez

There isn't supposed to be any control in the initial steps of bite development which is what play/prey training is. This is why the out is most commonly taught after the bite is good. The control also doesn't come from the the helper it comes from the handler. Jumping to conclusions as usual..

If it came down to it David and whoever else is in your camp I would wager our work with the dog is not that different. It couldn't be if the objective is to produce a strong working dog. The problem as I see it is this "horse with blinders on" mentality that precludes you from seeing the big picture that a person is trying to convey with a few words in a post. It's like you're set before you even start that you know what kind of dog I like to own or what kind of dog I would produce. The truth is you have no idea. I posted a few vids here and there of isolated situations to discuss a particular point and you never fail to take it out of context.


----------



## Michael Santana

QUOTE : Defense has it's roots in prey. If you're building the dog properly through prey defense will start to develop. 

Ummm, No, If your working your dog "properly" in prey, than thats all it is... prey.

QUOTE: When I say defense this is simply to differentiate it from prey where it's just a game. The dog starts developing serious powerful emotions about the game like the desire to dominate.

If your dog thinks its a game, than it really isn't "defense" 

My 2 cents


----------



## Alyssa Myracle

Emilio Rodriguez said:


> There isn't supposed to be any control in the initial steps of bite development which is what play/prey training is. This is why the out is most commonly taught after the bite is good. The control also doesn't come from the the helper it comes from the handler. Jumping to conclusions as usual..


Yes, and no.

We start the control work at home, in our own prey work with the dog.
With the helper, we save the control work for after the bite quality is solid.
BUT, the foundation is already there from our work at home, we just transition that same work onto the helper once the dog is mature in their training.


Jumping to conclusions as usual? I have like, 300 posts on this forum. I'd wager it'd be pretty hard to develop a stereotype of my posts after so short a time.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

Don't you think the "context" matters? Not so much as to distinguish _who is _a threat, but instead, _when there is _a threat. Assessing the situation, and not so much the person. I think control is important, but a clear head with a low threshold for defense isn't improbable to have. A helper who has worked a dog many times, can still initially be able to greet the dog in a friendly manner, before defense is turned on. Maybe not the greatest example, but sort of like this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NjJDLcrg_BE


----------



## Mike Di Rago

Prey drive is satisfied by catching, killing and eating. Defense is satisfied by using an aggresive behaviour to dominate (this includes making the threat flee ). Both are seperate and one doesn't lead to the other.
Basic understanding of the drives is necessary to set up training programs.
But that is just my opinion.

Mike


----------



## David Frost

Emilio Rodriguez said:


> There isn't supposed to be any control in the initial steps of bite development which is what play/prey training is. This is why the out is most commonly taught after the bite is good. The control also doesn't come from the the helper it comes from the handler. Jumping to conclusions as usual..
> 
> If it came down to it David and whoever else is in your camp I would wager our work with the dog is not that different. It couldn't be if the objective is to produce a strong working dog. The problem as I see it is this "horse with blinders on" mentality that precludes you from seeing the big picture that a person is trying to convey with a few words in a post. It's like you're set before you even start that you know what kind of dog I like to own or what kind of dog I would produce. The truth is you have no idea. I posted a few vids here and there of isolated situations to discuss a particular point and you never fail to take it out of context.


I had to check back and see that I was the only David that has posted in this thread. You'd have to point out what vids I've "never failed" to take out of context. I don't recall making too many comments about your vids. I don't doubt you want to produce strong working dogs. We just have differing perspectives of what constitutes a strong working dog. From your posts, you like a dog that decides too many things on it's own. I don't have that luxury. I can't however remember ever saying you were wrong. Just because I disagree doesn't make you wrong or, for that matter, me right. An acceptable defense in court is not; "the dog did it." Our standards don't change, they are in print. Each dog measures up to those standards or it doesn't work. Regardless of the terminology, stated terminal objectives such as; the dog will not engage unless commanded by the handler. EXEMPTION: The dog will engage, without command, if the handler is physically attacked. {and} Upon command, the dog will pursue, engage and hold until commanded to release by the handler. These are absolutes. They give us very little wiggle room. In my years as a trainer, I've learned to accept there are differences in opinions. I enjoy discussing those differences. While I've been a particpant in many spirited discussions, relative dog training, you'd be hard pressed finding a post where I've said a dog trainer is wrong. I've also learned not to take someone's disagreement with me, personally. That really accomplishes little and of course it shuts down any meaningful discussion.

DFrost


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

Mike Di Rago said:


> Basic understanding of the drives is necessary to set up training programs.


It's also important when trying to have a discussion on the WWW that includes drives. Even if people don't agree with the definitions, it makes things much easier if we all use the same definitions for the same behaviors, or at least close to it. 

And I agree with the poster who said


> No, If your working your dog "properly" in prey, than thats all it is... prey


There are also other ways to build prey then just playing tug, like flirt pole, fetch, etc. I find in many cases chasing something does more to build the drive then actual biting it.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

_"Defense has it's roots in prey."_

I don't think anyone here understood what that meant, or would agree. My comment was meant to imply that social aggression or defensive behavior isn't quite the same as a challenging game of rough play. If the dog's that serious and your bond together that weak, take it to a helper. But I see nothing wrong with developing bitework (targeting, gripping) with a strong game of tug and a lot of slapping around, when the dog enjoys a challenging game.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

> I like stable but strong dogs that possess strong defense and some social aggression, so this is the dog I own.





> Why do you like strong defense?





> I don't understand your question Mike.


I thought it was pretty straight forward. I'll try again.

We can all agree that defense is the fear response of a dog when he feels threatened, correct?

So, what makes you choose a dog that has a strong sense of fear, or is quick to have a fear based reaction, while working?

Perhaps the reason you are having trouble is your choice of dog. A dog that is flying into defense when the handler is doing prey work with him doesn't sound like that great of a dog to me.


----------



## Emilio Rodriguez

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> We can all agree that defense is the fear response of a dog when he feels threatened, correct?
> 
> So, what makes you choose a dog that has a strong sense of fear, or is quick to have a fear based reaction, while working?


It can be but this is not what I'm talking about here. To understand my perspective here's a something I wrote about prey and defense in bitework. BTW I'm not having trouble with my dog and I'm not looking for a solution. This thread is just an observation. I knew this for a long time before but just now felt like talking about it.


Emilio Rodriguez said:


> Everyone knows that prey is when the dog is triggered by movement and defense is when the dog feels threatened. But when it comes to what I try to achieve with a dog I'm training to be a man stopper it's a very interesting and complicated topic.
> 
> First prey drive is not necessarily a game. Prey comes from a natural behavior in canines and is related to hunting. At times a canine can be going after dangerous prey. This kind of prey is taken seriously. It is taken seriously because the canine knows that it can be hurt by the prey. Taking this back to dogs it means that it's possible for pressure/stress to be acting on the dog as it is engaging it's prey object and that the dog may have the genetic tools to deal with it. With a good strong dog this translates into intensity in the bite and a desire to finish the fight/kill the prey to put an end to the pressure. This is the mindset I want to put into a dog I'm developing for man work.
> 
> I achieve this by firstly targeting the dog to the man not the equipment. The whole man becomes the prey not the sleeve or the suit. I present just the right amount of threat/pressure to create the right balance in the dog from the start. I also want the perception of threat/defense to be the switch that throws the dog into this mode. Meaning the dog learns to perceive pressure/threat as nothing more than a reason to go into forward aggression.
> 
> Prey and defense can be looked at as a sliding scale, pure defense and possibly avoidance in one end and pure prey where the dog feels no pressure at all in the other end as it would be if the dog was chasing a rabbit. The dog knows the rabbit can't hurt it. Although to a degree a dog has to maintain its wits because as it chases it still must be aware of certain factors, it doesn't want to run into a tree because it knows that it will get hurt.
> 
> Defense ----------------------------------------I----------- Prey
> 
> A good dog IMO is capable genetically of doing a few things; 1. Perceiving a man (a large being) as a prey object. Not just a man's arm or leg, but also the whole persona or individual that's animating the body. 2. Be capable of maintaining itself in at the point of balance between prey and defense that I like to see as it's working.
> 
> Some people will say that a dog that engages a person and comes in with a degree of defense in the first place has more stresses acting on it and thus his threshold in the fight will be lower because even more pressure will be added in the fight. I think that with a good dog this is not the case. If a person is wearing protective gear sure they don't feel pain and can take their time and put even more pressure on the dog. In real life and when working properly in protective gear what happens is that when a good dog bites it will be overwhelming to the person. There will be no more fight in the person than what the dog can handle and the dog will relax in its bitework because it's unloading winning and feeling comfortable where as a moment before he engaged he was feeling more threat. When the dog knows this it gives him even more incentive to bite.
> 
> As the dog is working if more pressure is added than what the dog is capable of dealing with, and this can happen with ANY dog (think a crow bar to the head), the scale starts sliding over to the defense side.
> 
> Defense ----------------------------I------------------------ Prey
> 
> Defense --------------I-------------------------------------- Prey
> 
> Defense ----I------------------------------------------------ Prey
> 
> What starts to happen is the dog is realizing that what it's doing is not affecting his adversary and his desire to engage is starting to lessen at the very same time his defense drive is becoming more pronounced. At a certain point the dog will switch from forward aggression to saying "keep away from me or I'll bite." Once the level of pressure increases even more the dog will go into full avoidance and try to escape if possible.
> 
> Being on the leash or tied out the dog feels that it can't escape so its only recourse is to show aggression and drive the threat off. Some dogs of a certain genetic potential can be very strong like this and very difficult to make back down even though they're working only in defense. This kind of dog does not have desire to go out and look for a fight. It's lacking in the prey drive necessary for this work. But his motivation for defense can be equally applied to an enclosed area like a back yard or a house and thus made useful. Anyone thinking that I'm talking about a dog that you could go in his area and make a threatening gesture to make it run away are thinking about a different dog.
> 
> With other dogs and defense drive you're getting into the last stand sort of thing. Like what you see in a nature documentary where a killer whale is about to grab a tiny seal that is pinned against the rocky shoreline and as a last resort the seal turns around and takes a lunge at the killer whale. That is a last ditch natural strategy and not something we count on in bitework. Although it may sometimes be a strategy to bring out a dog that is not really weak but just needs to discover its own strength.
> 
> The best dog is one that is strong in prey and defense in the terms I described. But there are still other factors..


David, putting things in context would be to say this: I train police service dogs. We purchase all our dogs as trained, semi trained, green, young adults, or adults. Our K9 handlers are never required to develop a dog in bitework by doing prey work with their own dog.


----------



## Erik Berg

Emilio, don´t see the problem, if you as a handler controll when and how to play the game of tug, what bad will that do? There are many that do the basics with a sleeve on themselves, bite,out and guard, if the dog knows this very well you just translate that routine to a strange decoy when ready, then you can increase the seriousness if needed but the dogs know the routines of the game very well.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

I don't agree with your model. You can have a dog that shows a lot of prey and little defense, and a dog that shows a lot of defense and little prey. That fits your model. But; a dog that can exhibit strong defense AND strong prey, is not the equal of a dog that has NO prey or defensive behaviors.


----------



## Jenn Schoonbrood

I feel that there is a certain element of assumption here that defense is necessary for a dog to be committed to the bite (I hesitate to use the term "serious" as it has been synonimized somehow with "defensive" and even "civil" but I digress...)

I feel that defensive traits were sought in extremely prey-driven but otherwise weak dogs, to create the illusion of the fight drive that exists in certain lines of dogs. In other words, there was no other way to get those weak but playfully prey-driven dogs to look like they functioned in a committed manner.

Truly strong dogs are often so high threshold and so unlikely to trend towards defensive behaviour, that it's almost doubtful their "breaking point" or "line to cross" to elicit a defensive behaviour exists. In other words, a truly strong dog does not NEED defense to remain committed to the fight.

And, as has been said hundreds of times before, a dog hurts just as much when biting in prey-based fight as he does in any other drive.


----------



## David Frost

Emilio Rodriguez said:


> .David, putting things in context would be to say this: I train police service dogs. We purchase all our dogs as trained, semi trained, green, young adults, or adults. Our K9 handlers are never required to develop a dog in bitework by doing prey work with their own dog.


I'm not exactly sure what context you mean. You personally? I do purchase all our dogs; green/adults (preferably 24 months). The handlers are an integral part of the training. Unless it's a repeat handler, the dog and the handler are both learning at the same time. They don't do anything on their own (if they want to remain in the program) during initial training. Perhaps I'm fully understanding what you are asking.

DFrost


----------



## Emilio Rodriguez

In other words David, do you or do you not believe that to develop a serious biting dog it the handler/owner should work the dog in prey? I believe that the handler shouldn't work his own dog in prey unless it's something arbitrary like for SCH. If you do believe that a handler should work their own dog in prey do you have your K9 handlers do it? You may say that they don't have enough experience to do it right. Suppose they did have enough experience would you have them do the foundation bitework with their own dogs?


----------



## David Frost

Emilio Rodriguez said:


> Suppose they did have enough experience would you have them do the foundation bitework with their own dogs?


No.

Edited for clarification; Other than holding onto the leash, using verbal/physical praise etc...... NO!

DFrost


----------



## Emilio Rodriguez

The next question is why not? Is it simply that another man can do a better job? Or do you believe that it would affect the relationship between the handler and the dog? I know the answers for my purposes, I just want to know what you think.


----------



## David Frost

Emilio Rodriguez said:


> The next question is why not?


It's not a game. Bitework is not all prey. 

DFrost


----------



## Emilio Rodriguez

Then we're on the same page. Thanks.


----------



## Josh Smith

James Larkey said:


> I have met and worked with a police k9 instructor who also works his own dogs in prey and performs much of the foundation for bitework himself. He works SERIOUS dogs. Probably too much dog for most. His dogs know the difference between a game that he controls and biting the bad guy.



I have been reading Jerry Bradshaw's book "Controlled Aggression" and notice most of the drive building exercises involve a helper. How would the instructor mentioned above work his dogs? Bradshaw's methods and terminology all seem excellent and I know that you must work with a helper at some point I am just wanting to find different techniques for when a decoy isn't available.


----------



## David Frost

Emilio Rodriguez said:


> Then we're on the same page. Thanks.


I don't hardly think so. However, since PPD's aren't my forte, I'll leave you to your methods.

DFrost


----------



## Michael Santana

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> I thought it was pretty straight forward. I'll try again.
> 
> We can all agree that defense is the fear response of a dog when he feels threatened, correct?
> 
> So, what makes you choose a dog that has a strong sense of fear, or is quick to have a fear based reaction, while working?
> 
> Perhaps the reason you are having trouble is your choice of dog. A dog that is flying into defense when the handler is doing prey work with him doesn't sound like that great of a dog to me.


Couldn't agree with you more. 

Emilio, I'm having a hard time following you here. What exactly do you want? It seems like your posting a thread, then arguing, or "picking" at what everyone else is posting.


----------



## Emilio Rodriguez

David Frost said:


> I don't hardly think so. However, since PPD's aren't my forte, I'll leave you to your methods.
> 
> DFrost


Smug response, you might as well leave my threads alone too while you're at it.


----------



## James Larkey

Josh Smith said:


> James Larkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have met and worked with a police k9 instructor who also works his own dogs in prey and performs much of the foundation for bitework himself. He works SERIOUS dogs. Probably too much dog for most. His dogs know the difference between a game that he controls and biting the bad guy.
> 
> 
> 
> I have been reading Jerry Bradshaw's book "Controlled Aggression" and notice most of the drive building exercises involve a helper. How would the instructor mentioned above work his dogs? Bradshaw's methods and terminology all seem excellent and I know that you must work with a helper at some point I am just wanting to find different techniques for when a decoy isn't available.
Click to expand...

He would play a structured game of tug, that as others have already pointed out, can teach the foundation for many behaviors such as focus, control, targeting, gripping, etc, as well as channel that focused drive into obedience. Obedience=The Game. The Game=Obedience. They become one and the same in the dogs mind. It could involve a ball on a string or a bite tug. The game also eliminates conflict between the handler and dog when played properly. 

He would also work his dogs on a backtie with any number of prey items. Flirt pole with a rag. Burlap sack. Tugs. Bite Pillows or Wedges. Sleeve. They are all prey items, it is all prey work, and it is all about chasing/winning the prey. _It is about playing OUR game._ It is NOT about about fighting and defeating the man, which, is what the dog will eventually learn in formal bitework with a helper.


----------



## Jim Nash

It is tough to have a discussion when the person starting it seems to have a different deffinition of the terms used then most of the others . 

Emilio , I'm another of the people here that is not following you through most of what you're saying . 

I will stick to responding to the little I think I'm understanding and that is in response to the handler playing tug in a prey mode with his or hers own dog . 

A correct dog should easily be able to determine what is play(prey) and what is manwork . If it can't the handler has done something wrong . If the dog is going into defence or is starting to aggress on the handler then either the handler is kicking the crap out of the dog (not playing or presenting the tug in prey) or if that's not the case then the handler is lacking in other areas like OB or just daily handling of the dog causing the dog to feel it is now the top dog not the handler . JMO based on dogs I've trained that have done manwork for real and seeing those same dogs know when something is just a game(playing tug with your dog in this case) because the two look very different and the dog should easily be able to tell the difference .


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

It is hard to follow the ramblings of a goofball. Someone who is serious about getting his point across will try and define at least somewhat accurately what he is taking about. 

He is quite sure he is right, and goes on to show us in his videos what an idiot he is, and then cannot understand why we are looking at him like he is a dumbass.

Defense has it's roots in prey..........................Really ???? Really ????


----------



## David Frost

Emilio Rodriguez said:


> Smug response, you might as well leave my threads alone too while you're at it.


It's my understanding I'm permitted to post logical thought, opinions, training methods and whether or not I agree with someone. I'll do that in any thread that interests me. Your threads interest me in the sense a bad accident does. Ya just have to wonder how in the world something can become so twisted. None-the-less, should I feel the need to post in one of your threads, I shall. Thank you for your permission to dismiss them though, it was kind of you to offer.

I wanted to edit this. It is indeed difficult to convey emotions etc when one uses the internet. I didn't intend for my response to come off sounding "smug". What I was trying to convey was disdain.


DFrost


----------



## Emilio Rodriguez

Jim Nash said:


> A correct dog should easily be able to determine what is play(prey) and what is manwork . If it can't the handler has done something wrong . If the dog is going into defence or is starting to aggress on the handler then either the handler is kicking the crap out of the dog (not playing or presenting the tug in prey) or if that's not the case then the handler is lacking in other areas like OB or just daily handling of the dog causing the dog to feel it is now the top dog not the handler . JMO based on dogs I've trained that have done manwork for real and seeing those same dogs know when something is just a game(playing tug with your dog in this case) because the two look very different and the dog should easily be able to tell the difference .


I don't know how to make it any simpler. You have a dog and you start to play tug of war with it. Me I'm goal oriented so I start to kick into helper mode and doing things to make the dog intensify his efforts to win the tug by shaking, pulling harder whatever. It's not even a matter of me making it happen but just allowing it, if the dog is strong this will come out on its own. The dog is getting more excited and more intense shaking harder and growling. At one point it gets too intense. So you have to bring it down a notch. What have you done? What was the objective of playing in the first place? In bitework we don't want to show the dog that the helper can control it. On the contrary we want the dog to become all powerful.

When I start playing tug of war with my dog that's what the game becomes. Me shutting down the dog once it gets too intense defeats any kind of purpose or benefit that playing with it may have had in the first place.. capiche? Hence the old old adage not to play tug of war with a strong dog.

All of you can surmise all you want that the dog is unstable this that.. It doesn't have to be unstable or stupid just strong.

BTW fishing+hunting=









http://www.freedivingspearfishing.com/gallery/data/500/2008_03_16_-_La_Santa_Fe_01.JPG


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

> At one point it gets too intense. So you have to bring it down a notch. What have you done?


Why do you have to bring it down a notch? Unless you are doing something wrong as a helper.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

> Defense has it's roots in prey..........................Really ???? Really ????


Yes. Really. WTF Jeff, don't you know anything? Jeez.


----------



## Emilio Rodriguez

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> Why do you have to bring it down a notch? Unless you are doing something wrong as a helper.


Because the dog is getting too strong and serious into the game. As its handler/owner I can't take the final step and allow the dog to win completely by dominating me.

It may be hard to understand because most of the time we're busy trying to build up our dogs. Some dogs are just strong and don't benefit from this. On the contrary the relationship between the handler and the dog suffers. Dogs that are not strong don't benefit because the handler/owner can't properly transmit to the the dog that it won. Once the game gets serious the owner can't allow the dog to dominate it. For some people prey training is just a game and seriousness comes later. I don't do it that way when I'm developing a dog. Everything is together from the start. This is not to say that there is excessive pressure on the dog. But whatever pressure it is capable of handling is there from the beginning.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

So lets get this straight, first you spear the shark then you give it a little tickle so it can come and go.

I had to work with a guy that believes exactly what emillio the mighty duck man believes. He was a PP guy as well and produced dogs that would work on him, but they ran from anyone else. Not to say that emillio the mighty duck man himself, produces these kinds of dogs, we have only the two shitters to choose from, but one can speculate.

Strong dogs that he worked as a handler bit him quite often, I think it was a sickness that he had believing that that was appropriate.


----------



## Jim Nash

From reading some of your posts it's seems you just want to skip a basic part of building dogs to commit to doing battle with a human being and that's starting from prey where it's very comfortable and building the dogs confidence in increments teach it that it can still when even though it may feel uncomfortable . 

I'm sure folks have tried to describe this to you in the past .

What you are doing is nothing new others have just learned that this doesn't produce as confident a dog as one whose confidence is developed without pushing the dog into defence right away .

It sounds like from what I've read from your statements on this forum that you think you have discovered something new . You haven't , others have been there before and moved on .


----------



## Emilio Rodriguez

David Frost said:


> It's my understanding I'm permitted to post logical thought, opinions, training methods and whether or not I agree with someone. I'll do that in any thread that interests me. Your threads interest me in the sense a bad accident does. Ya just have to wonder how in the world something can become so twisted. None-the-less, should I feel the need to post in one of your threads, I shall. Thank you for your permission to dismiss them though, it was kind of you to offer.
> 
> I wanted to edit this. It is indeed difficult to convey emotions etc when one uses the internet. I didn't intend for my response to come off sounding "smug". What I was trying to convey was disdain.
> 
> 
> DFrost


Careful.. you're slipping.. gonna' lose your rep as the "cool" one.


----------



## susan tuck

Emilio Rodriguez said:


> Because the dog is getting too strong and serious into the game. As its handler/owner I can't take the final step and allow the dog to win completely by dominating me.


I'm not getting it either. So the scenario is you are playing tug with your dog and this happens? Maybe if you describe what the dog is doing that you think is "too strong and serious", as well as describing exactly what you are doing so that someone might be able to figure this out? 

I know many, many very accomplished helpers/decoys who are also handler/trainers and bring up their own dogs. They do not have a problem in maintaining their own dog in prey drive when playing, it's not that difficult. As a matter of fact, it's usually a new persons inability to read a dog correctly as well as not understanding what will put a dog into defense. Putting your own dog into defense causes conflict between handler and dog.

To echo what others are saying, your statement "defense has it's roots in prey" and other things that you sometimes say just don't make even a little sense.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

_"Because the dog is getting too strong and serious into the game."_

_You're getting too serious_ with the dog, if you're putting it into defense. And, that's _not working in prey._ It will do nothing for your relationship with the dog. I would personally leave helper work to helpers, in regards to my own dog, except when helping other handlers.

Similarly, I once created a possessiveness for the toy in a young dog that I wish I had not. Not the same as working in defense, but it really made a gap in the dog/handler bond for obedience work.

Working your own dog in defense, I think you'd compromise the dog's willingness toward the handler. The behavior pretense you're projecting is going to affect affect the dog's behavior toward you, no matter how weak/strong you may think the dog is.

Preywork to me, is geared toward developing motorskills and grip commitment, than adjusting attitudes. And, perfectly fine for dog/handler interaction. Sure, I make it rough, but make 'em feel good about their performance too. I roar loud and boisterous congratulations to them, pat them hard on their sides, and they know it's all for fun. Like bootcamp training before going to war, a soldier learns the skills he'll have to employ and gains the physical conditioning, before being tossed into live enemy fire.


----------



## Al Curbow

Emilio,
If you have to "build" your dog, you have the wrong dog


----------



## Emilio Rodriguez

Jeez Al, I thought you were "building" drive and focus LOL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2K-JGufWHYY

Frankly if you're engaged in that stuff, as well as anyone else who comes from that background, it's understandable why you don't have a clue of what I'm talking about.

Daryl, you sort of have the right idea. Just get out of your head the idea that something was done wrong and/or that the dog was put in "defense". Some dogs are just strong and enjoy the fight, they get serious on their very own.


----------



## Dwyras Brown

Emilio, I'm not as good a trainer as some here, but just say I take what your are saying at face value and read nothing into it. Its just you playing tug with your dog and the dog decides he really wants the tug more than you do. If the dog goes into defensive drive and wants to kick your but that bad, then the dog is obviously not as discerning as you have stated in the past. That is a dog/accident waiting to happen.

Having a dog that likes to work in defense, means that you have a fourlegged loaded gun. He's basically a walking time bomb. Just my opinion.


----------



## Julie Ann Alvarez

I just want to go out on a limb here and say there are some posts that are worth reading and some that are not. 

I kept reading thinking it would get better and then there were sharks.... WTF? 

Julie


----------



## Gerry Grimwood

Julie Ann Alvarez said:


> I kept reading thinking it would get better and then there were sharks.... WTF?
> 
> Julie


I think the sharks are there to let everyone know he is a force to be reckoned with, after all it takes alot of guts to spear a baby fish from a distance, your average joe just can't do that .


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

> Careful.. you're slipping.. gonna' lose your rep as the "cool" one.


Knock off the attitude.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

> As its handler/owner I can't take the final step and allow the dog to win completely by dominating me.


Why not?


----------



## Ian Forbes

I've laughed a lot reading this thread..:lol: 

I think the confusion is being caused by some 'different' interpretations of certain terms. Maybe I can help out with the definitions:

Prey = asking a higher being for assistance.
Defence = debarrier that goes around deyard.

Glad to be of help.........:-\" :-\"


----------



## Julie Blanding

Ian Forbes said:


> I've laughed a lot reading this thread..:lol:
> 
> I think the confusion is being caused by some 'different' interpretations of certain terms. Maybe I can help out with the definitions:
> 
> Prey = asking a higher being for assistance.
> Defence = debarrier that goes around deyard.
> 
> Glad to be of help.........:-\" :-\"


waahhhaaaahaaa That was awesome.
attack = something you use to hang an object on the wall


----------



## David Frost

Emilio Rodriguez said:


> Careful.. you're slipping.. gonna' lose your rep as the "cool" one.


Chuckle, chuckle.

DFrost


----------



## Al Curbow

Emilio,
That's just motivational obedience with a puppy, LOL


----------



## Al Curbow

Emilio,
I have a question for you. In the Flinks video where you thought he was bringing to much pressure on the young dog, what did you see in that dog?


----------



## Dan Long

When my dog gets intense while playing tug, and he is trying to win, I let him win. I want him to win and I want him to be intense. He can be acting aggressive, growling, trying to dominate, whatever he wants. I'll let go, he takes the tug, shakes it around a bit, and if he wants to keep playing, he has to bring it back. I do that with my dog all the time. He's not getting in defense, he's having fun. I keep control by having him bring me the tug, let it go, and then we start over. If he doesn't do that, the game stops. Lots of pumping him up and praise while he's tugging, lots of praise when he releases the tug to me to start again. They are quick to learn that it's more fun to play tug than to carry it around by themselves. You are in control, not the dog, but the dog can be himself and get pretty tuned up while he's playing. I have a pretty defensive dog. I've never had him go into real defense while playing tug. Maybe it's just a matter of setting boundries and expectations when you do something like this. It doesn't always have to be about the handler going into helper mode or the dog being allowed to take it too far. If your dog is going into defense while you are playing with him you are doing something wrong.


----------



## Emilio Rodriguez

Dan, you have the right idea, that is what I was talking about (there is no defense). Thing is I don't believe that as it translates to bitework letting the dog walk off with the tug is winning. This is equivalent to slipping the sleeve or suit which I don't don't like to do. I don't like to promote the behavior in the dog that once it manages to pull something off the decoy the dog can turn his back on him. I don't even like the dog pulling in bitework, I like it pushing forward, rebiting deeper and shaking.

What does all this have to do with playing tug with my dog? As I said before when I play with my dog I can see the desire in him to take the game further and the desire in me to act as a helper. I can't do this, because as you said boundaries need to be set and I don't like setting boundaries like that in bitework, so I might as well not play tug at all. BTW my dog will not bring the tug to me to start the game over. Strong rotts are not usually natural retrievers.


----------



## Michelle Reusser

James Larkey said:


> He would play a structured game of tug, that as others have already pointed out, can teach the foundation for many behaviors such as focus, control, targeting, gripping, etc, as well as channel that focused drive into obedience. Obedience=The Game. The Game=Obedience. They become one and the same in the dogs mind. It could involve a ball on a string or a bite tug. The game also eliminates conflict between the handler and dog when played properly.
> 
> He would also work his dogs on a backtie with any number of prey items. Flirt pole with a rag. Burlap sack. Tugs. Bite Pillows or Wedges. Sleeve. They are all prey items, it is all prey work, and it is all about chasing/winning the prey. _It is about playing OUR game._ It is NOT about about fighting and defeating the man, which, is what the dog will eventually learn in formal bitework with a helper.


This is EXACTLY how my dog was brought up. It is all a game and he always wins. The dog will become more serious about the work in maturity. We didn't worry or even think about seriousness until about 2 yrs old. Then he was bringing it himself.


----------



## Emilio Rodriguez

Possibly barking would have come easier if he wasn't so prey oriented.


----------



## Michelle Reusser

Sooo prey oriented? That is why my dog doesn't bark much? If you knew my dog or lived with him you'd know he really isn't a prey slut. I questioned whether he had enough prey to make a good enough sport dog in the past. I chalk his lack of barking up to high threshholds to stimuli. The dog doesn't feel the need to bark at a decoy acting silly on the field, other dogs or a cat outside the fence. He only tends to bark when he is more defensive, on the table, when someone stares at him through the crate/kennel, when people stand out in front of my house at night,when they shouldn't be there. The bark had to be taught as a game for it to come in prey. Bark=decoy comes closer=you will get a bite. 

I would say my dog doesn't bark much, because not much sets him off, puts him on alert or makes him feel defensive. He doesn't bark when he is excited like some dogs do, he whines when he is excited. 2 barks, 1 to get my attention, more of a baying bark/howl=your home come let me out of the kennel or barks standing at the back door for me to come out or let him in. The other is a grumbly bark when he wants to drive something away and he's usually running at it as he does that, cat in the backyard, my neighbor who he hates on the side of her house, a stranger in my neighbors yard, my pest control guy, the mailman, meter reader guy or tabled doing some defense work at night. 

The snarly growl bark is the only one that comes natural to my dog, the rythmic prey one we all see in Sch is not, so how you come to the conclusion that working him in prey is the problem....all I can say is the only way to get more barking would be if he was more insecure/sensetive and felt threatened by more stuff. I kinda like him the way he is, no nusance barking and I know he is secure in himself and suroundings. Nothing I hate more than to see some nervbag dog barking at a plastic bag rolling down the street, when my dog would simply trot up to it to check it out. Unknowns are to be checked out as possible threats not chased as a prey item or barked at defensivly.


----------



## Emilio Rodriguez

First of all no one said there's a problem.

Everything you said fits with my line of thought. If you want to know my thoughts on this within the context of protection work we can discuss it elsewhere because here it's only going to get shit upon.

Regards


----------



## Michael Santana

Emilio Rodriguez said:


> .


 









Emilio, 
This lady is man handling a tiger! your little shark dosen't have shit on him!


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Emilio,

The typical training scenario is building certain things in the dog through prey work. You state that you are uncomfortable with the handler doing the prey work because ultimately with your dog you will assume the role of helper and the dog will forget who he is tugging with and it will all escalate to defense/fight? You also state that your dog would not return with the tug to re-engage the fight because its not a natural retriever. I didn't think this really had anything to do with it. I thought it was more the dog wanting to take the fight to the helper? My bouv isn't a natural retriever at all and she has shown the desire to circle back to re-engage the game, both with me and someone else. I think one could do prey with their own dog if they knew how to do it RIGHT. It sounds like you train differently because you want a different finished product but I'm curious how you BUILD the dog in prey for the foundation work if you don't slip the sleeve or the suit. How is the dog allowed to win. I understand in your defense training he makes the bad guy retreat but how does he win in prey?

Terrasita


----------



## Emilio Rodriguez

I don't need to build the dog in prey for the equipment. The dog is already in intense prey after the whole man. By the time it gets to biting it doesn't matter to the dog whether it bites the man, the rag or the suit, it just wants to bite.


Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I understand in your defense training he makes the bad guy retreat but how does he win in prey?


You don't understand the training based on your question but if we were to concentrate on the question of how the dog wins once biting takes place; I slip the rag a few times at the very beginning but to differentiate from what others seem to be doing that's the end of the session right there, the dog has had relief and the decoy runs away hurt. The dog then goes directly on to the sleeve and suit which I will also slip the very first few times. After that no more slipping the equipment. The decoy acts in different ways to let the dog know it's winning depending at which stage of the game the dog is at; yelling in pain, screaming at the handler to get the dog off, going to the knees, going limp, falling to the ground, at some point attempting aggressive action and when the dog counters even more aggressively abort the aggressive action etc. Here's a thread I started about this with little input http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f16/whats-your-preferred-way-let-dog-win-9781/ Here's another with more interesting answers http://www.protectiondogtrainingclub.com/forum/showthread.php?t=29 The dog is always outed after that.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Okay, so you do minimal prey/equipment work with slipping, etc. Then onto the man/suit and retreat, physical dominance, screaming, whatever. So now that I started at the beginning of this, there were a couple of threads on the Balabanov "game" and how the dogs became so frustrated they bit the handler. Then a buddy of mine was describing working her dog with a tug where he somehow lost his head and bruised her shoulder. So you're saying rather than initiate the game and end up correcting the dog, you'd rather only see the dog engaged by a helper with the rules he is going to encounter in true bite work? It seems that the answer to what was a broad question centers around what type of dog you are working and how much the handler work affects the real work with the helper. Do you think your personal dog won't distinguish between games that you control vs. man work and again sport vs ?????

I don't know, seems like you would have to know the training progression/steps from start to finish for the different protection functions. Seems like there are some baby things the dog learns from foundation tug work that will transfer to the broader work with the helper. But the helper work will ultimately replace it. It seems that there are different training systems and the answers are specific to that individual's training system and how he defines certain terms. The question was posed as a black and white type of situation when really it seems like the answer is "it depends."

Terrasita


----------



## Matthew Grubb

Emilio…. What you are doing is similar to what we do with a couple of real minor tweaks about how we end the session. At the stage you are describing the dog is way beyond the stage where most people would be doing prey building work with their dog. Unless it was just playful, non defensive tug work aimed at building drive or reinforcing outs.


----------



## Erik Berg

I suppose it must be even harder for a dog to show some concern of the handlers wishes when working with a decoy, if the handler feels the dog dominates him when biting/playing with a tug and don´t respect that the play is controlled by the handler.


----------



## Emilio Rodriguez

Actually it's the contrary. What prompted me to start this thread was a play session with my dog which I've had for about 3 months. The dog has strong drive but he's also very sensitive to me. I just have to say the let go command very quietly and he lets go, when on the decoy or playing tug. I don't even want to apply this in my game with him. What's the point? Excite the dog just to out him.. it's discouraging to the dog. There's no clear purpose in it. Those of you who think "It's just a game, what's he talking about?" Maybe you have 70lb mals that once on the tug you can swing around. This is a 110lb dog who's clear headed but likes to express himself when on the bite, throwing his whole body into shaking the bite. I'm 6ft 220lb and if I have trouble staying in the game then some of you boys and girls for sure won't do any better. Even if I could easily control the biting game that's not what it's about to me, the dog should always be winning. I like to play with my dogs but sometimes it's better to find another activity to do together.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

So in your tug game with the dog, there is no way to communicate a win so you don't play with him? In your bite work, you don't excite him and then out him. Do you not train an out or release for your personal protection dogs? It seems that if you are training a dog in anything, you are defining the rules of engagement and under what circumstances he gets to win. The dog is not a free agent. Its not a life of no rules. You have a dog that will release with a whispered out---awesome. Yet you are worried about discouraging him because he is so powerful you can't hold on wants he starts throwing his body into it and engages in shaking behavior.You can't match him physically once he gets in to ultimate drive, so why go there and save it for the decoy? In the protection training that you do, how much is he beating up the decoy with his body while he's on the bite. Seems like you either are going to out him or slip, depending on your stage of training. I guess the big question is to ask what is your finished product once you have trained the dog through all scenarios. I keep trying to envision what you ultimately train the dog to do and rather than try to analogize to the sport context, I thought its better to ask. Some of the guys out at the Dog House are training PSA and the trainer was explaining to me that he does all the grip/bite training on the sleeve and then once the dog has it, they go to the suit which is what I was referring to in my earlier post regarding building certain things through prey work [not building prey, necessarily].

Terrasita


----------



## Emilio Rodriguez

Terrasita, you're getting too deep into analyzing everything. All it is is that control and the out comes from handler side. You wouldn't want your dog responding to an out from the bad guy right? The dog is always trained with the premise that control and limits come from the rear.

It's true that when training some tough experienced dogs the decoy can assist with some corrections to fix a specific problem, and the dog can and will realize that corrections are coming from the decoy, but this is at a point where the dog has too much drive for the work, not during foundation work. Remember we're talking about real work here, not sport work. The dog must feel invincible against the decoy. The line between prey play and bitework gets fuzzy and I don't like that.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Yeah, my tendency towards over-analyzing things is huge [Bob, quit laughing]. However, we started with the premise as to whether one should or should not do prey work with their own dog. You seemed to have been describing your own personal dog who appeared at first could go into over drive and you implied that if you went into helper mode you would be setting up a dog that didn't ultimately respect his handler, because you were going to allow him to win. All bite work is for the dog to win. Somehow you seemed to imply that control from the handler in the handler/dog tug work could discourage the dog and somehow carry over to his bite work with the helper and the idea that he is supposed to win. Thus, if he can't win with you, he might not believe that he can win with the helper??? [Do we really want a dog to ever think that he has the ultimate win over his handler; especially a dog as strong as you describe?]

From there we got your personal dog that will out on the dime with a whisper but once in overdrive, he's too much dog so why excite him only to have to shut him down because you really can't match him physically. So once again we have a black and white question with changing hypothetical dogs/situations and ultimately the answer is "it depends." If control and the out comes from the handler, whats wrong with prey work with the handler and implemented controls. Why wouldn't that be a foundation for the control for the bite work with the helper instead of discouragement or jeopardizing the dog's drive. If its matching the dog physically, I see the point. There was no way in the world I could play tug with our male bouvier. Like the rott and other breeds that are bred to work cattle, they throw their whole body into. In playing weight, Thor was 80 lbs but its the intensity behind it, not so much the weight. 

I agree that the line between prey/play and bite work is a continum which means that you, the handler need to know what you are doing and like Jeff said somewhere, make sure your training helper shows you the works and watches you do it before you embark upon it on your own. 

It appeared at first that it was an issue of a dog vamping up and the handler not wanting to shut him down with discipline. Now that I understand that its a dog that has the control and an awesome out and just the problem of the handler matching the dog physically, I see your point. It seemed like a general question of whether the handler should engage in prey work with the dog instead of leaving all this to the decoy. If the premise is that its a dog with all the controls and the handler can't physcially engage the dog, then sure the answer is no, leave it to the more physically able decoy.

Terrasita


----------



## Emilio Rodriguez

You're off mark. It's much simpler that all that and I even have trouble following everything you wrote. Sounds like you're approaching it all from a completely theoretical position. When you are actually doing it it's as clear as daylight and would only not be clear to someone who has never seen it, from the play end or from the bitework end.

What's most ridiculous is the underlying assumption that there's a problem, as if someone wouldn't want to discuss something just for the hell of it but only if they were having a problem and trying to mask it with intricate hypothetical questions. I have a disdain for doing purely prey bitework, I have a disdain for the handler/owner doing bitework with their own dog because this is where it's most obvious that it's all prey. In the context of producing a protection dog there are many reasons not to do it like that. In this thread I focused on one such reason with a particular dog because it came up. If someone recognizes what I'm talking about and can apply it to their relationship with their dog then great. Once the discussion enters the twilight zone there's not point in me participating so I hope you understand me not responding further to your line of thought.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Ohhhh, so now I understand, you just wanted to get across your disdain for handle's working their dogs in prey and for prey work in general. Okay, I got it now.

Terrasita


----------



## Matthew Grubb

Emilio Rodriguez said:


> It's true that when training some tough experienced dogs the decoy can assist with some corrections to fix a specific problem, and the dog can and will realize that corrections are coming from the decoy,.


I'm not a fan of decoy corrections at all. I don't want the dog respecting the decoy . See we are not that different after all!


----------



## Emilio Rodriguez

I never said we were different. A good dog can be taken in different directions. You guys put emphasis on training the dog to hunt bad guys. I train the dog to keep bad guys away. There are some areas of overlap and a really good dog can do both. I can achieve a lot using the dog's drives as far as hunting man, been doing it a long time and the work is clear cut once you have a dog with good potential. What fascinates me is the stuff that's hard or next to impossible to train which is discrimination and the strength of character to act against a man meaning to do you or your property harm. This I can only promote gently through real experiences for the dog or experiences I set up that are very close to real.

I don't understand one thing Matthew, why did you see just now that we're talking about the same things? Did none of my words before, even in this thread, strike a familiar chord?


----------



## Matthew Grubb

It wasn’t till late in the thread that I was able to figure out where you were with the dog’s training.


----------



## Lee Robinson

It would depend on if you are introducing conflict or not...and by "conflict" I am referring to the DOG'S perceptions of conflict.

If there is no conflict, then there is no defense...and the prey work can be done by the owner to teach things like proper bite technique. If the dog percieves conflict, then you will be introducing entry level defense work...which will either cause 1. the dog to work in a surpressed manner, or 2. the dog to challenge the owner. Neither of these are desireable effects...and therefore "conflict" should only be used IMO when the dog is working a non-handling decoy (aka...fighting partner or bad guy/aggitator).


----------

