# Define toughness



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

How do you define "toughness"?

Go......


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

The dog that works his pads to blood but still wants to continue.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Ok what about mentally


----------



## Misty Wegner (May 22, 2015)

I would say working through the pain and distraction of bleeding paws would be quite mental, lol


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

So 'toughness' physically, is different than toughness mentally? Does that even happen in dogs? The separation?


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

This is the question I am wondering about.
By toughness (mentally) I refer to a dog that is resistant to "shut down" due to mental/emotional pressures. I hadn't thought about environmental pressures.


----------



## Misty Wegner (May 22, 2015)

This is an intriguing question.. I've seen 'tough' dogs that can weather the pain of a chain cutting into their necks while jumping and lunging, and yet, not have the mental 'toughness' to focus enough to use that energy productively...now, is that due to their environment and lack of teaching how to learn?

I have seen dogs who are physical wimps!! The slightest hair pull and they are all up and tied in a knot. My boy was one whom I thought might be a physical wimp because of his reaction getting burrs out of his coat.. That fear was quickly dispelled by him working his butt off on a search after shifting his patella out of place and tearing some muscle while working on a mission. He was lame lame for a couple of weeks after that, but he never quite that day, and his focus and drive to do his job kept him from showing any consistent signs he was injured (he would occasionally lift a back paw but we were in sticker country and I figured he stepped on one of those evil beasties. He would go back to work without a limp, although in hindsight, I think I might have noticed a change in gait, but the terrain was rugged and so I made allowances...my bad).

I've seen dogs with the drive and ability to learn and perform a job, but as soon as their was emotional pressure that they could not handle, they shut down...no coaxing or persuasion could help them overcome their fear, or at least focus on something else.

So, I guess mental toughness has it's tendrils in the physical, mental and emotional state of the dog. For a working dog especially, to me, toughness would be the ability to push through the demands and discomforts their given job and life puts on them, and still perform. Some of this might come with maturity and training, and some dogs just have that grit in their DNA and seem to always have it on hand.

If we look at the dogs on the street, that survive hunger, cold, rejection, etc.. that is a form of toughness as well.. But whether or not they are resilient enough to be placed in a home once they are rehabbed would be another side of toughness that could be explored...Whether they have the ability to compartmentalize, to adapt, to lay defenses down that they have acquired to survive, etc...

Very interesting question....


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Impenetrable to influences and incapable of being deviated from the task or end goal.

I'm leaving out enough for you to fill in what might fit… or not.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Nicole are you suggesting I want to debate and prove wrong?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Toughness to what? My present GSD Trooper can tun to much if i even use talk hars to him but he was a solid dog in his bite work.

Even went to the dark side a couple of time in bite work and that's one of the reasons I quit bite work with him. 

Otherwise hes a big clown but having that soft dog (with me) drives me crazy. 

My other GSD Thunder was solid as a rock mentally and physically. 

If I got stupid with him he just waited me out with a look that told me "Get it out of your system you old fart and we can get back to training". 

He took what the decoy/helper gave him and gladly returned it. 

I saw the same thing with herding stock with him. He was put in a pen with a billy goat that had punked a number of so called herding dogs just by stomping his front hooves on the ground. 

Thunder just slowly walked uo to the Billy face to face and the Billy goat backed down.

Same on cattle. He could walk them down and move them even after they did a little pawing at the ground and shaking their heads. 

No bite but he would get things moving. 

Same dog was a natural with small kids. He tolerated just about anything from a kid. 

To ME. that's toughness!


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Excellent thanks Bob, that is what I am looking for peoples definition of toughness. I havn't wrapped my head around what it is yet so am currently shopping for opinions. 

Did Thunder ever sire any litters?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Never did. 

I had him x- rayed at 2 yrs old and he was Moderately Displastic although his hips never bothered him until old age.

Fact is he was a very smooth, athletic jumper.

My vet said he thought it was more authritis then the HD.

I would have LOVED to have a pup out of him but it was probably meant to be because at 9 he was diagnosed with EPI and that can be a genetic issue. 

Almost 80% of dogs with EPI are GSDs. 

If His hips would have been good I probably would have and that probably would have move the EPI into another generation. 

Then again I don't recall ever seeing a bitch that was worthy of him. :grin: :wink:


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

i've been reading with interest and most comments imply it's mostly genetic.

what percentage of toughness do you think is genetic vs. trained ?

of course you've already had your definitions but something made you rethink it and decide to start a thread about it

(i think it's much more dependent on training)


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Yes that's an interesting sub question Rick


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

sorry, thought it would be part of the main question 
- whether the dog sired litters would seem more like a sub-question 

for example : 
- Bob's example of tolerance to kids. (he didn't say, but i assumed this was a natural trait)
- i think this can be trained more often than simply being genetic

my example :
- my dog is very tolerant to kids as well as cats/kittens that get in his face too, but he was anything BUT tolerant when i got him. he was anti-social to humans and had killed 2 cats, so the genetics had to be modified thru a LOT of training and as i recall there were shut downs when i was training that problem

you wrote : "By toughness (mentally) I refer to a dog that is resistant to "shut down" due to mental/emotional pressures"
- not sure how this relates to toughness ? most dogs can be shut down. most will recover and bounce back (but i don't want to go off on a tangent about whether shutting a dog down is a good or bad thing)

but overall i consider toughness a trained behavior and could go into detail with examples about why i feel that way if it interests you

lastly, if a redirected bite or handler aggression is given as an example of toughness i would probably disagree unless i saw the complete incident from start to finish.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

- when stated as a one word Q it's fairly general with many answers….

but an easy answer if you are talking about people. the ultimate example of toughness is a Navy SEAL. 
defined as : the ability to endure extreme physical and mental stresses but maintain a clear head to execute the assigned task while remaining flexibile to adapt to a rapid change requiring a totally different approach to execute the same task. a person who has learned that when the mind and body seem totally exhausted, the “tank” is still half full with a fire in the gut to provide the fuel, who has been conditioned to ignore any level of pain that would otherwise affect performance.
- ABSOLUTELY, the “toughness" had a genetic foundation, but it could never have been developed without extremely high levels of (tough) training. 

- to some extent i think this can apply equally to dogs
- best example that comes to my mind is the traditional KNPV style of pre-PSD training emphasizing lots of physical compulsion and pressure 

regardless, when we apply the concept to dogs we still use subjective human based examples and the analogy is anthropomorphic.

examples posted seems to bear this out; at least the way i read them 

for me, no matter what the job will be, toughness has to be conditioned and developed thru training that will be required for the intended job

the dog needs to be toughened to handle both the training and the future job, and that goes beyond the "drive" the dog brought to the table

and of course the degree of "toughness" is very relative ... on a sliding scale


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Rick I agree that most dogs can be trained to be kid tolerant but if that dog is genetically unstable or came with aggression issues I wouldn't want to expose it to children without close supervision.. 

I also think genetics can be worked with, at least somewhat controlled but I don't believe they can be truly modified.

Without knowing the dog's background it can often be hard to determine if the issue is genetic or learned. 

Only so much can be done if the dog's issues are truly genetics.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Bob, i don't wanna get too far off from the toughness question, but since you commented

but in terms of "kid tolerance", i supervise ANY dog i'm with around kids...even fun loving face licking toy poodles, laid back labs or balanced gsd's.
so for me, supervision is a constant requirement of responsible dog ownership around kids. i have PERSONALLY dealt with dog problems from owners who thought their dogs were fine with kids
- size or breed is not a factor for me, and even social dogs can scare the crap out of a kid if it is left to its own devices. doesn't have to involve a bite, growl or any other form of aggression. that's why i HATE 'social butterfly" dogs and tried to explain why in another thread awhile back

i gave an example of my current dog. 
fact : the dog was NOT social to humans and killed cats. it changed thru training and the genetics were there when i got . had nothing to do with learned beahaviors and it wasn't "bred" by human breeders
- could have justified killing it. chose not to. it changed through hard work and patience, not my training skills. in my opinion, it could have been done by anyone....or simply "managed' and kept isolated

i'd rather get back to toughness


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Handler aggression is weakness IMO unless the dog is poorly corrected and the relationship is shite.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Sarah Platts said:


> So 'toughness' physically, is different than toughness mentally? Does that even happen in dogs? The separation?


Yes! 

Why do dogs get run? i.e from the threat of a stick, gunfire, pom poms a man with a beard, yelling, someone in clown mask, etc etc etc. 

Some dogs turn tail and blow out their anal glands while others go toward the threat. 

That's mental toughness that has nothing to do with physical conformation.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Nicole Stark said:


> Impenetrable to influences and incapable of being deviated from the task or end goal.


Yup in my last Ring 3 we failed miserably due to me losing 60+ points due to handling errors, he bit on the stop attack and was slow to out in many spots. But he always bit, all the other dogs in the trial at Level 3 and some in level 2 where the stick barrage was not as intense. Did not by being held off the bite. It may be 'some' training techniques but it is also mental genetic toughness to have the dog push through that threat as well.


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

Geoff Empey said:


> Yes!
> 
> Why do dogs get run? i.e from the threat of a stick, gunfire, pom poms a man with a beard, yelling, someone in clown mask, etc etc etc.
> 
> That's mental toughness that has nothing to do with physical conformation.


I'm still thinking on this. Is the run away more to weak genetics or nature's hardwire survival instinct? A dog constantly running into the threat is soon dead whereas the one who runs away lives to survive another day. That being said, humans have genetically manipulated dogs to select individuals who seem to focus less on personal survival ( a berserker mindset) and more on getting into the fight.

What about dogs that are 'tough' but are handler sensitive where a sharp word can be overwhelming?


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Sarah this is what got me thinking about it


----------



## sefi sahar (Dec 15, 2011)

Geoff Empey said:


> Nicole Stark said:
> 
> 
> > Impenetrable to influences and incapable of being deviated from the task or end goal.
> ...


good to see you back here again Geoff!
sorry to hear about your trial but it sounds like you figured it out so i am sure you will get it better and pass next time.
much sucsses!


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

"I'm still thinking on this. Is the run away more to weak genetics or nature's hardwire survival instinct? A dog constantly running into the threat is soon dead whereas the one who runs away lives to survive another day." 
— i don’t think this example is necessarily a toughness issue. of course most would consider wolves, coyotes, lions, leopards, etc as “tuff” , but many wild canids run into threats to test a more powerful predator or even a more powerful food source to probe weakness. it’s a learning curve
— even feral cats who are in MANY ways “tuffer” than feral dogs will spook/run from a small child 
— so i think toughness needs to be measured differently for wild, feral and domestic animals
— in terms of domestic, it’s the HUMAN handler who requires the animal to learn what is a threat. wild and domestic animals usually view ANY new stimulus as threatening until proven otherwise. case in point : all i had to do was convince my dog it didn’t need to hunt cats as a food source and they weren’t competing with his food source either. a harsh word will work today if/when it's needed because he works for me now and doesn't need to be independent and hunt on his own. simple


"That being said, humans have genetically manipulated dogs to select individuals who seem to focus less on personal survival ( a berserker mindset) and more on getting into the fight."
— maybe, but that seems extreme. for me, it’s more like WE require THEM to preserve US and forget about their self preservation

"What about dogs that are 'tough' but are handler sensitive where a sharp word can be overwhelming?"
— so why do you think they are tough in the first place ? you don’t agree tough needs to be learned and taught ?
— can’t a “tough” word simply be a strong verbal expression that a dog has learned will have a consequnce if not heeded ?. to me that example tells me more about the bond than an example of “tuffness”. it’s the basis for any learned behavior that a handler wants to eventually control verbally 

the Russian experiment with foxes always sticks in my mind. they were quickly domesticated to respond socially to humans and quickly went feral again. wish they would do the same with domestic dogs. we might learn more from that since we have no intention of domesticating foxes ;-)

when we talk about domestic dog toughness i see it as a result of a lot of training layered over a dog with some basic drive, resilience and motivation to learn from their handler. the more tuffness required for the job, the more it’s trained to handle pressure.
- as is the case for a PSD, you need to lay on the pressure soon so you won’t waste resources on a dog who can’t cut the mustard when needed.
- for a family pet, you can work with it forever until you succeed or you can give up; which happens a lot too ;-)
- for a competition dog, i doubt you would want to spend much time if it consistently runs away from rattle cans or whip noise and only bites when forced to do so. bad match and waste of training time even tho it might eventually come around. competition people have time constraints too


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

correction to above (for anyone wading thru it)

"wild and domestic animals....."
should be wild and FERAL 
 sorry


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

regardless of how you choose to word the definition and give examples and/or anecdotes (me included)

i can only see toughness being defined one of three ways
1. a genetic trait that comes with the dog
2. a combination of both training and dna
3. a trained behavior achieved by gradually layering pressure (that the dog perceives as pressure) to achieve a level of toughness that satisfies the handler/owner

my choice is obvious and i don't like #2 because it is a given (necessary but insufficient) and doesn't further the discussion  

i'm certainly open to other definitions .... go !


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Geoff Empey said:


> Yup in my last Ring 3 we failed miserably due to me losing 60+ points due to handling errors, he bit on the stop attack and was slow to out in many spots. But he always bit, all the other dogs in the trial at Level 3 and some in level 2 where the stick barrage was not as intense. Did not by being held off the bite. It may be 'some' training techniques but it is also mental genetic toughness to have the dog push through that threat as well.


Hey Geoff! Nice to see you here again. Hope all is well out your way.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

rick smith said:


> regardless of how you choose to word the definition and give examples and/or anecdotes (me included)
> 
> i can only see toughness being defined one of three ways
> 1. a genetic trait that comes with the dog
> ...



My biggest issue would be with #3. 

I agree that "gradually layering on pressure" builds to the level of the dog's genetic ability to handle stress/pressure but I also believe that the weak dog will break under stress MUCH quicker. 

Matt, I would add to your assessment that a handler aggressive dog is weakness but how the dog handles that can make a huge difference IMO.

I think a dog can be handler aggressive because of weak nerves (fear biter) OR be the real deal and lacking in what you say mentioned about poor handling and relationship.

My JRT was one nasty little bassid when physicaly corrected him. 

He turned into a chain saw with a blade at both ends.

Once I figured out his triggers he was never a problem.

Excellent baying dog in the ground though. 

I never viewed him as a "tough" dog.

My male Border Terrier was a sweetheart with all people AND dogs yet I retired him from the earth work because of his unwillingness to back down when in the ground. 

Also very handler soft as the breed is prone to be.

After his second Raccoon kill in the ground I retired him. 

He took way to much punishment and I believe he would have died in the ground rather then quit. 

He was a tough dog!


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Loads of cool info, thanks 

The reason the "soft dog/handler sensitive" re: toughness has piqued my interest is that both Rosie and Indie appear "soft" but are actually very "tough". They are handler sensitive but have instant recovery and it's all forgotten about. I was wondering if this could be defined as toughness or if it is something else.


----------



## Misty Wegner (May 22, 2015)

Matt Vandart said:


> Loads of cool info, thanks
> 
> The reason the "soft dog/handler sensitive" re: toughness has piqued my interest is that both Rosie and Indie appear "soft" but are actually very "tough". They are handler sensitive but have instant recovery and it's all forgotten about. I was wondering if this could be defined as toughness or if it is something else.


I think Resilient would be a better word, although, per the definition of tough, it is accurate word. 

I would definitely say "2" of the three choices. Yes, it is obvious, however, just genetics doesn't explain well enough, imho, those dogs that seem environmentally overwhelmed but are able to be trained 'out of it.' It definitely isn't all training, for why would soooo many dogs be washed from the military and LE. Yes, some dogs probably could make it through the training with the extra time that the kennels and departments don't have to give the dog, but most are washed because they are not solid enough in some way to endure the pressures, gradual or otherwise, to be presented.

Training is essential though. Even a very stable 'tough' dog can be put in over his head and develop a phobia or defensive reaction that generates problematic results. I guess for dog handling, tough and balanced, resilient and clear headed are all descriptive words for what we see and admire and need in a dog. If we can start with a more genetically inclined dog to achieve this and then add training to seal the deal, it is much easier and more efficient.


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

Misty Wegner said:


> I think Resilient would be a better word, although, per the definition of tough, it is accurate word.


I like this as even tough dogs can be overwhelmed. But it's how they bounce back that lends to the idea of 'toughness'


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Me too.

From an engineering point of view, lead is a tough material.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Misty
the only reason i made 3 categories is because a lot of examples being giving did not discuss training and therefore implied the dog was tough genetically, or that it might have become tougher on its own
- and because it's human nature to categorize definitions

- of course you can never ignore genetics since it will always be a factor and of course any dog can be broken or shut down if the handler chooses to do so. 
- in "the old days" it was VERY common to require a handler to shut down a high drive dominant type working dog to establish handler control. often just involved hanging it up to take its breath away. for many of today's trainers that would appear barbaric or abusive. times change

for me, resilience is a by-product of pressure training done correctly. a good handler in my opinion can certainly help improve on this trait and should not think it is simply genetic. 
- again, for me, EVERY time a dog is corrected it needs to be built up again quickly and praised. many if not all handlers fail to do this often enuff. and i am not just talking pet owners. seen it with mwd handlers too :-(
- the actually issue of "shutting down" is also highly subjective (in my opinion again) and means different things to different people. if you really look at a correction, ANY correction has a level of "shut down" 

of course if you have nothing to build on, training is useless. it's humans who make the determination if the dogs has what it takes. but all training is based on repetitions. so i naturally think this applies to toughness too. and it seem logical it would come from pressure. do this enough and you can build on whatever toughness was there to begin with

since the OP was asking for a definition, this is how i defined it. to only relate anecdotes about things my dog has done might be interesting or boring, but it begs the question if you are trying to define the word. examples should support the definition, not BE the definition

but that's just me. ymmv


----------



## Misty Wegner (May 22, 2015)

Well I agree training is essential and very important. But I would have to say that genetics factor in more than I would hope. 

When I think of why we do tests when we pick out a puppy, it explains upfront that we are looking for inbred characteristics we can then accentuate and develop. We don't tend to grab any pup out of any liter when looking for a dog for a certain job. Same goes for dogs being pulled out of rescue or pound. We look for certain traits already established in their genetic makeup. 

That being said, education and training can definitely make dogs that might otherwise not amount to much, better. However, a 'naturally' jittery dog that spooks at most things will never make the grade for a service dog where reliability is a necessity no matter how much training.. 

Anecdotally, I see my boy who is naturally more hyper and shy than my girl. Training has made him exceptionally competent and confident in ways he would never have been on his own. But he still isn't as confident as my girl who took less training in certain areas but still has that genetic makeup of resiliency and toughness. Both are handler sensitive appropriately, but don't flinch in gun fire, will cross most anything and work through tons of distractions. But Trailing, if something odd is in the street my girl looks at it once, if that and moves by it. My boy might require reassurance and keeps checking it out. He gets back to work and let's it go once by it, but the difference is obvious between the two.. He has been trained extensively around a ton of stuff, it is just his genetic makeup.. Not all humans are navy seals, nor could they be no matter how good the training.. 

I know no one is disagreeing about the genetic side, I just wanted to elaborate a bit more since the question was posed. As to what qualifies toughness... For me, it is the dog that has resiliency, clear headed in pressure, adapts to the pressure be it physical, mental or emotional, and comes back for more because his handler asked it of him. Quick recovery when shaken and the ability to be distracted by a concern and then reassert back on track to first command...


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Matt Vandart said:


> Loads of cool info, thanks
> 
> The reason the "soft dog/handler sensitive" re: toughness has piqued my interest is that both Rosie and Indie appear "soft" but are actually very "tough". They are handler sensitive but have instant recovery and it's all forgotten about. I was wondering if this could be defined as toughness or if it is something else.



I think that "instant recovery" definitely can put the handler soft dog in the tough class "WITH THE RIGHT HANDLER"

This is one of the reasons I don't put Trooper in the tough class.

He does come back fairly easy but the handle soft dog is "FOR ME" a brick wall and yes, that's "MY" flaw.

He's an excellent, obedient pet.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Matt and Bob
re: these two posts :

Loads of cool info, thanks 
The reason the "soft dog/handler sensitive" re: toughness has piqued my interest is that both Rosie and Indie appear "soft" but are actually very "tough". They are handler sensitive but have instant recovery and it's all forgotten about. I was wondering if this could be defined as toughness or if it is something else.

I think that "instant recovery" definitely can put the handler soft dog in the tough class "WITH THE RIGHT HANDLER"
This is one of the reasons I don't put Trooper in the tough class.
He does come back fairly easy but the handle soft dog is "FOR ME" a brick wall and yes, that's "MY" flaw.
He's an excellent, obedient pet.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

sorry, but i'm not getting how these descriptions relate to toughness.
can you give specific examples of this handler sensitivity ?

- i'm assuming you are either talking about a dog who reacts to a lead correction and redirects on the handler with some level of aggression, or one who quickly drops out of drive when corrected verbally 
- are either close to being accurate ???


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

....because for me, hard and soft only relate to reaction to corrections and recovery time


----------



## Chip Blasiole (Jun 7, 2006)

I think you are asking the wrong question in that the question is too narrow and doesn't take into consideration the various traits that contribute to a good working dog. Plus, I think you are thinking about the question too much from a human point of view. For example, a dog can have very good handler hardness and still be run. A dog can have extreme prey and possessiveness and still be run. A dog can have genetic defense that is very strong and hardwired to bite a threat rather than to defensively posture and can still be run. Gameness, mainly common in bully breeds comes closest to toughness in my mind. With gameness, a dog will not quit at a task, whether it is fighting or pulling weight. But that is a trait that is usually limited to certain breeds. IMO, you have to look at a variety of traits and their thresholds and see what the whole package is for a specific dog. Toughness oversimplifies things. For example, some dogs can be very weak but have a high threshold for flight, which doesn't make a lot of sense. Some dogs can be fairly strong in some areas but have a low threshold for flight.


----------



## Misty Wegner (May 22, 2015)

You bring up some good points Chip.. For me, the resiliency is the part that makes the tough, tough... 

For instance, a dog that has all the fight, drive, tenacity and gets run may run out of wisdom.. The fact it can adapt and not run the next time it is put in a similar situation shows the resiliency and toughness.. Dogs that have been shot or stabbed but don't shirk the next time they are in same position is toughness and resiliency. 

I do think we all have an idea of what we consider tough and it runs pretty parallel, albeit via a human perspective..


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

the question was "how do you define toughness ?"

for me the Q was too general not too narrow 

i gave an example of a human, but i feel a lot of that def could be applied to dogs. my point was that i feel it can and should be developed and strengthened if it is an important trait for the owner. the dog doesn't care one way or the other. as soon a dog is considered a "working dog", it's the owner/handler that determines what is required and no longer the dog's decision. that's when dna stops and training takes over

Misty also gave a very complete example

but neither of these defs will ever be seen since no dog is perfect 

gameness and resiliency both seem applicable 

regardless, we'll always use a lot human traits to describe dog behaviors and i think it's worth trying to come up with a definition
- or maybe it's like trying to discuss "drive" //lol//


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

one thing i have learned from this thread is that i know believe toughness can be highly dependent on the situation : whether the dog is acting on its own or when it is acting under the direct control of its handler 

(iow : the pressure is coming strictly from the environment around the dog that it is dealing with on its own, or whether the pressure is coming directly from its handler; when it is required to perform a (handler directed) task

- the 'perfect' dog would act/react the same in both situations


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Rick when I talk about toughness with my terriers I vue it the same way the bully folks do. 

When I was doing earth work with my dogs I saw many, many Game/tough dogs in the ground.

Some were soft (not many) and some very hard in the ground but most all were game, or in this context they were tough dogs in doing what they were bred for regardless of how soft they were in the home.

Mu GSD Trooper was also raised with marker training so no pyhsical corrections in sport training.

At the same time I never had an issue with a scruff or firm voice in teaching house manners.

The level of those corrections depended on the individual dog of course and even mild corrections would crush Trooper.

Even with never been pressed into a really stressful situation I still "believe" Trooper is in no way a tough dog IMO.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Tx for the clarification Bob

this is what confused me since i didn't know what you meant by "dark side" .... "Even went to the dark side a couple of time in bite work and that's one of the reasons I quit bite work with him."

so the situations with the bassids in the ground meant they were no longer capable of following commands and had to be physically pulled out ?
- i can certainly see the gameness side, i just don't see the clear headed part. but i'm sure the dog was clear about what it was doing //lol//

which is one reason i now feel the toughness issue has a lot to do whether or not the dog is working on its own or for a handler's commands


----------



## Misty Wegner (May 22, 2015)

rick smith said:


> one thing i have learned from this thread is that i know believe toughness can be highly dependent on the situation : whether the dog is acting on its own or when it is acting under the direct control of its handler
> 
> (iow : the pressure is coming strictly from the environment around the dog that it is dealing with on its own, or whether the pressure is coming directly from its handler; when it is required to perform a (handler directed) task
> 
> - the 'perfect' dog would act/react the same in both situations


I would agree with this... Especially considering how a 'tough' domesticated dog might not survive well on its own on the streets... A different type of toughness... And vice versa, a street dog might be tough enough to survive and even thrive on the streets, but cannot handle the pressure of a working human relationship and job.

The perfect mix between the two is the dog resilient enough to bounce back and keep the edge and drive needed to adapt and not just survive, but thrive in the environment they are placed in...


----------



## Kirsten Fitzgerald (May 23, 2014)

So maybe just an ability to respond effectively to conditions and prioritize rather than avoid them?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Rick said 
"so the situations with the bassids in the ground meant they were no longer capable of following commands and had to be physically pulled out ?"

VERY few terrierworkers required their dogs to be called out. 

The dogs were most often always dug out.

My JRT was one of the very few that could be called out but he was a baying dog in the ground.

Both my Border terriers were warriors in the ground and didn't come out till either dug to OR they finished off the quarry in the ground. 

They were the reason I went to the JRTs after retiring my Borders early. To willing to take a serious beating and keep going. 

BOTH breeds were correct in how they worked but the group I hunted with, unlike some earth dog hunters, didn't get of on thier dogs getting tore up thus most hunted with JRTs.

To explain that I need to tell about the difference.

The JRT was/is a Southern GB earth dog where the hunters with the red coats and horses hunted with hounds as a "sport".

The fox would go to ground and the terriers were put in to flush the dog out for the hounds to finish off.

The dog fox in GB can be twice the size of the American fox and they play hell in lambing season.

Norther GB is sheep country and VERY rocky and many caverns in the grund so digging or flushing wasn't an option. 

It was out of necessity, not sport that the fox was killed. 

The Border terrier was a Northern breed as is the Patterdale, Lakeland terrier, Bedlington terrier, Fells terrier and many of the other earth working terriers. 

Borders are MUCH more level headed then the JRTS and will ignore a lot of pressure for oother dog but pushed to far and the lion comes out. 

The Borders were also kenneled WITH the hound packs so not being able to get along with dozens of 60 lb hounds woudn't serve them well but in the ground the rules change. 

They were bred for specific jobs.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Good description Bob.

Interestingly Rosie is soft to verbal correction and all but oblivious to physical correction (like her bloody mother)
With Verbal she look like the sky is gonna fall in, but only when you actually factually mean it. With Physical you could smash her repeatedly with a pinch and no fcks are given. 
Indie I have no idea what his physical correction response is cos I have never had to do it. Verbal correction he just listens, says "sorry" and continues with as much drive as before, mostly because he only has one level of drive and that is MAXPOWAH, lol. 
Rosies drive doesn't diminish either but I do have to tell her its ok, once she knows we're cool she's back on it, that's re: verbal she really doesn't notice physical at all really or if she does she doesn't show any reaction including stopping what she is doing "wrong".


----------



## Jim Duncan (Jan 19, 2009)

I think some posts confuse "drive" with "toughness." Especially, when talking about mental toughness. I also think a dog that can not focus under stress may just be too hectic, lack impulse and not able to "cap." It may simply not be clear headed or trained well enough for the task in front of it. I think that may be more of the issue than "mental toughness?" 

You can take a highly reactive dog or even a hectic dog and redirect it and put it on task and it can work very well. 

Honestly, I have never thought about mental toughness when it comes to working dogs. I view dogs through drives, resiliency, stamina and desire to work. Resiliency and the ability to cope with adverse conditions, corrections, environment and bounce back instantly is a function of "hardness" IMHO. I would say that a sufficiently hard and resilient dog would also be a tough dog, mentally and physically.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Glad to see some names joining in on the forum for this thread!! I do hope to see more from those of you who recently resurfaced. 

Matt, there's some things I've wanted to offer on this topic but I won't. What I said when I gave my response was specifically about a my mastiff. As Chip said I never gave the definition of toughness a second thought until you asked the question. 

This thread is a good closing point for me, if only to offer some final words about a dog I no longer have. So maybe with this study of what toughness is, that is a good place for my journey to end. If I never say another word about her, I guess I'll be satisfied with that just fine.

_Impenetrable to influences and incapable of being deviated from the task or end goal - Willow._

Good contributions on this topic folks!! Whether or not this is something that can be defined, it's still nice to see the diversity in view points.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Jim said
"
You can take a highly reactive dog or even a hectic dog and redirect it and put it on task and it can work very well"

Jim that would describe the two Mals I had for a short time. 

Workers on the field but environmentally unsound when not "on task". 

Not my kind of dog since all my dogs, be they competition, show or just pets are always expected to be sound temperamentally.


----------



## Jim Duncan (Jan 19, 2009)

Bob Scott said:


> Jim said
> "
> You can take a highly reactive dog or even a hectic dog and redirect it and put it on task and it can work very well"
> 
> ...


Hey Bob, environmentally unsound when not working is another issue for me. I agree that a sound, strong temperament is paramount. Drive can override nerve strength and thresholds when working, which is fine for a sport dog. Then you have the environmentally sound dogs, high drive, low threshold for aggression that have trouble containing themselves when working. The dogs that get so spun up that they become reactive or too hectic to work because the drive component is kicking in so hard. These dogs need to be handled and worked differently. Some are very "tough" dogs that live to track, work and fight. It is a matter of getting their head clear so they function reliably and safely around people and in all environments. 

Stress was mentioned as a trigger earlier in the thread. Stress can be environmental and / or handler induced, and this can occur simultaneously. We often put dogs in situations designed to induce environmental stress, then we add decoys and prolonged engagements, then the handler comes in. Depending on the dog and handler, their relationship and the exercise, this may be the tipping point in the exercise. When something is out of kilter, high drive + high fight reactive dog, overly stimulated and the training becomes exciting.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

> When something is out of kilter, high drive + high fight reactive dog, overly stimulated and the training becomes exciting.


You just described Rosie's mother. I would personally describe her as very tough myself but total PIA, well she was, not so much anymore.

Nicole, the reason I asked is someone suggested to me that was what you are saying. I didn't think you were passive aggressive like that so i thought I would ask.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Matt Vandart said:


> You just described Rosie's mother. I would personally describe her as very tough myself but total PIA, well she was, not so much anymore.
> 
> Nicole, the reason I asked is someone suggested to me that was what you are saying. I didn't think you were passive aggressive like that so i thought I would ask.



Other then the toughness that also describes Trooper, even with praise.

Anyth8iing other then a calm "god dog" he thinks the party has started with any "happy" praise or a pat on the side, 

At 10+ he's always been this goofy clown yet both his parents were as serious as a hear attack. 

Both parents, with different maitings produced some nice pups. 

This was a first time breeding with the two and his breeder even said, in spite of papers looking good it just didn't work as he expected. Go figure! :lol:

This was also the first pup in many yrs that I didn't personally pick out myself. 

I wanted a male and there were only two males, one of which the breeder kept.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Matt Vandart said:


> Nicole, the reason I asked is someone suggested to me that was what you are saying. I didn't think you were passive aggressive like that so i thought I would ask.


Given the circumstances there is no passivity in what or how I have been feeling. Aggressive, certainly but under normal circumstances I have no use of for bullshit game playing that invites purpose in passive aggressive behaviors or anything that borders on being anything other than real.

I said I didn't feel up to contributing further than I did because my dog is dead. How much clearer than that can a person get about their reasons for not wanting to contribute more?

Whoever the someone was that suggested my motivation behind responding as I did was wrong. I hope they read this and consider how they form opinions and judgements about people or situations in the future.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Thank you Nicole, I didn't take it as PA myself and said so, sorry if it has upset you at all. I took it as it was written.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Matt, I want to give you something else to consider since this has become a little more personal to me now. I want to offer a different word, that perhaps in the context of working dogs, makes the attempt of defining toughness unnecessary. After all, at the end of the day is it not role-related specific excellence that sums up an otherwise intangible quality many may otherwise attempt label as toughness - amongst other things?

The word is aretḗ. Perhaps you are already familiar with this word?

Below are some excerpts from "Machiavelli and Moral Change" to help clarify my purpose in bringing this up and putting it into slightly better context:

Virtus refers, rather, to the qualities and character traits…found… It is indeed the possession of the particular virtues such as courage, temperance… The etymological point here is that Machiavelli's concept of the virtu like its Latin antecedent, refers not to qualities or characteristics of human beings as such but to those qualities displayed by vidi [men] in filling their respective roles. Virtu like virtus, is a role-related concept…

A better, if rather more awkward, translation of aretḗ would be 'role-related specific excellence'. Aretḗ is that quality or set of qualities which enables one to fill a particular role and to discharge its duties. From this a second point follows: aretḗ does not and cannot refer to the excellence (moral or otherwise) of man qua man but of the man qua role-bearer in relation to other role-bearers. Thirdly, aretḗ need not denote specifically human qualities at all. The aretḗ of a sword, for example, is its sharpness; the aretḗ of a racehorse, its speed; the aretḗ of a guard-dog, its ferocity and loyalty to its master. 

Thus Odysseus' faithful dog Argos exhibits canine aretḗ by remaining fiercely loyal, by recognizing his returning master, despite his disguise, and by staying alive long enough to welcome him home before dying, his duty done, from a combination of delight, relief, and old age.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Very interesting indeed. I wonder if toughness is in fact undefinable and as such useless to try.


----------



## Jim Duncan (Jan 19, 2009)

Matt Vandart said:


> Handler aggression is weakness IMO unless the dog is poorly corrected and the relationship is shite.


I do not necessarily agree with this. Handler aggression can be caused by several things or be the reaction to several things. While some handler aggressive dogs may have an underlying weakness or insecurity, not all HA dogs do. 

Some may simply be tough dogs or reactive dogs that don't like to be corrected or told what to do. You can have an excellent relationship with one of these dogs, build a bond, trust, and get along really well. Respect can be an issue with some dogs and though they trust the handler, love the handler and are bonded with the handler, they may not respect the handler. 

Sometimes, you have to change the training up and try different things to get dogs like this to work with out conflict. I'm seen some pretty tough handler aggressive dogs over the years and many were simply very strong, very tough and reactive when they were stimulated and didn't get their way. Some can become good working dogs, some never do.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

it's not all that important to me about how you define toughness, even in the abstract.

but if you don't think the most important aspect of toughness is that it can and should be built up thru proper training, i see no sense in talking about it.
- if you are talking about a dog who truly WORKS for a living, what it brings to the table is only the starting point.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

That's a given but not necessarily _the_ most important aspect. It is one component and it is no doubt important. I contend that if the natural character/fundamentals are not there to begin with, training will fail to bring to fruition the ability to successfully achieve a desired end state.

What the dog naturally brings in the most fundamental aspects is an undeniable factor that precedes all other considerations such as training. Differently said, without the required working character, the option to encapsulate and increase the potency of those qualities through training cannot exist. 

Without that starting point there is otherwise no logical trajectory, nor reason for which training should be applied. It is an anchor for all other essentials to become intertwined with. If it didn't matter and if it wasn't the primary consideration, the selection process would not be required. Using the logic that training is "the most important aspect", then any dog could be trained to do the job. This is false.

I am framing the context of my response strictly in a job oriented capacity where selection and training are both necessary in order to create a finished product that can properly execute the required task/job. 

In effect we are discussing the same critical components; however, my chosen emphasis is on what precedes training, as this is what enables a trainer to mould the dog according to the requirements of the job. Factors such as handler sensitivity is irrelevant to me, that is until such point it negatively influences how the dog performs his or her task. This is said with the assumption that critical thinking and good judgment has been applied with sufficient attention to detail in every aspect of the training.

Then if we were honest with ourselves, the answer to the question about the dogs suitability for the job becomes self evident i.e. the dog is lacking capacity to execute the task as needed or required and no longer mets my expectations of being properly suited for the job. End of story.


----------



## Geoff Empey (Jan 8, 2008)

Sarah Platts said:


> I'm still thinking on this. Is the run away more to weak genetics or nature's hardwire survival instinct? A dog constantly running into the threat is soon dead whereas the one who runs away lives to survive another day. That being said, humans have genetically manipulated dogs to select individuals who seem to focus less on personal survival ( a berserker mindset) and more on getting into the fight.
> 
> What about dogs that are 'tough' but are handler sensitive where a sharp word can be overwhelming?


Could be just biddable or just knows the place in the pack. 

For me the running is just weak genetics, and there 'may' even be a small training component in it. But it mostly just shows crap genetics.

As for the type of dog I'd like to engage a crack head that is threatening my family. I'll take the one that will keep engaging the threat, if it gets killed. well at least it would give me time to get my family out of harms way.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Nicole Stark said:


> That's a given but not necessarily _the_ most important aspect. It is one component and it is no doubt important. I contend that if the natural character/fundamentals are not there to begin with, training will fail to bring to fruition the ability to successfully achieve a desired end state.
> 
> What the dog naturally brings in the most fundamental aspects is an undeniable factor that precedes all other considerations such as training. Differently said, without the required working character, the option to encapsulate and increase the potency of those qualities through training cannot exist.
> 
> ...


I like this


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Nicole
re : "That's a given but not necessarily the most important aspect........."

curious. was this post in response to one of my posts ?


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

This would be one reason to at least understand what "toughness" would be/mean/defined as:








[/url][/IMG]


----------



## Misty Wegner (May 22, 2015)

The pic doesn't pull up Matt


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

Misty, I double clicked on the pic and it came up for me. That was using my desktop. A smart phone could be different.

For me, I like my dogs somewhere around a 6-7, and depending on the hunt drive an 8.

Sarah


----------



## Jim Duncan (Jan 19, 2009)

Matt Vandart said:


> This would be one reason to at least understand what "toughness" would be/mean/defined as:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This is an interesting diagram, but lacks one leg of the triangle. When I test, evaluate and select working dogs I use a drive triangle as a basis for my evaluation. However, prey and defense are only two components of a drive triangle. Sociableness is the third leg of the triangle. Here we find other drives like pack drive and social drive. These are also necessary and beneficial for a good working partner. 

I'd love to know where the original article came from. Right above the diagram there are references to Marko Cellerand, an excellent GSD with great conformation and work ethic. A very good producer of GSD's and left his mark on the breed.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

i could see the pic enlarged.
interesting, but would also like to know the ref source.

- why do the numbers go up and then down as they get higher ?
- what type of dog is this chart trying to describe as being "desirable" ?
- an example of how you used it regarding toughness ?

could be wrong and often am, but i doubt it's used for evaluating guide dogs, catch dogs or SAR prospects


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Matt Vandart said:


> I like this


Dito on Nicole's post. 

I don't believe dog can be developed beyond it's genetic potential. 

It may look great but it's not what you see, it's what the dog can do under pressure and gradually adding to that pressure will either bring out the beast, create a fear biter or run the dog if it has that option. 

This is where Matt's comment about the dog staying in the fight is spot on.

No matter the level of training, if pushed beyond it's genetic threshold that dog will fold. 

As mentioned there would be no reason to breed for dogs that can handle the stress if it could all be trained.

It's why the top level trainers and handlers will search far and wide for that combo that has proven to produce the top dogs.......... and that is still not a given that the pup will be that dog even with top level training.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Nicole. i don’t know what post you were referring to, but if it was one of mine, here’s why i feel training is WAY more important than genetics. and for Matt, i still don't understand how that triangle can define toughness or if you now think it might not be worth defining

i TOTALLY GET IT that genetics is important

here’s some examples :
1. take a dog that Mike Suttle has evaluated as having the potential he needs for the customers he deals with. but he for whatever reason agrees to sell it to a young couple who have little dog experience but want a stong dog to be their home protector/PPD. the dog becomes a dangerous unguided missile in their household and it’s a disaster.
— of course you all will QUICKLY say that’s too extreme and it would never happen that way 
maybe you are correct, but that’s not the point. the point is ALL about training over genetics. that same dog trained by Navy SEALS or other special operators will probably perform quite well and do the job they need

2. ok, now i’ll scale it WAY down and make it more ‘real world’  Matt (responsibly) breeds a litter, and does all the right things (feeding, exposure, socialization, etc) to get them to qualified owners and in a proper home. but the first owner who gets it decides in a few months the dog has “issues” he can’t deal with. 
- but a short vid is posted and an experienced trainer says it wasn’t socialized ?? nothing from the owner, but we are informed the owner rejected it. new owner gets it and is as happy as a clam. same dog, same genetic potential but different TRAINING

3. or, you take a dog that a LE agency buys from a reputable vender. 3 months in they decide it won’t make the cut. K9 gets returned and it’s sold again and it gets certified. this happens too. same dog, same dna, same genetic potential but different training applied

4. of course there are MANY other examples in between these and that’s the case for most dogs in the real world. once the dog gets connected to an owner/handler or trainer, it’s ALL about training and that’s all that matters. if the evaluation wasn’t spot on it doesn’t matter any more and reality takes over

hell yes, we ALL evaluate ANY dog before we buy it and try the best we can to get one with great genetics. some look for color and biddability, some use a sliding scale based on prey or defensive drives. many roads to Rome 
* but a dog is not a harley that you can take the heads off and check the engine b4 u buy it, and the younger they get sold, the more of a crap shoot it is. Nicole….i’m sure both dogs you got gave you surprises after you started working with them and they matured. and you dealt with them thru training rather than let the dog do whatever it wanted to and you just stood back and watched. you learned what you could control and what you couldn’t control. you might have hit a few brick walls and decided “management” was the best approach for that issue at that point. i don’t blame people for doing that…..it’s the reality we all have to face sometimes.

but when people say things like “you can’t overcome the genetic POTENTIAL”, “a weak dog will fold (or run) under pressure”, “no sense training a dog that doesn’t have the genetics to ‘do the job’ “, etc etc …..all they are doing is stating a truism that we all know about anyway.

what is important is how we train the dog we get. nobody is a fortune teller. any trait discussed will eventually be debated in terms of genetics vs training or nature vs nurture, and they all spill over into how to evaluate a dog’s potential

- it’s what happens when the rubber meets the road that is much more important to me, and that’s why i prefer to discuss training problems, or new advancements in training systems, or other related issues

super strong genetics or super weak genetics are the opposite ends of the spectrum and easy to see. most dogs fall somewhere in between and i strongly feel it will be the training that makes them move in one direction or the other, and they WILL move one way or the other based on the type of training it receives

last but not least
ALL my posting assumes that training is no more than CONTROL OF THE DOG TO DO WHAT WE WANT IT TO DO AND NOT DO, and that can be complex or extremely simple (like the example of a truck dog that Bob has referred to many times). 
- it's all training to me. SAR, sport, LE or PPD.......and even if it is only 'trained' not to crap in the house


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

The diagram doesn't define toughness Rick, it begs the question "what is toughness" as it's the only trait in all three desirable numbers n the scale.

The pup of mine you are referring to above, it wasn't training in the strict sense, it was weak handler issue.


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

rick smith said:


> -we are informed the owner rejected it. new owner gets it and is as happy as a clam. same dog, same genetic potential but different TRAINING
> 
> or, you take a dog that a LE agency buys from a reputable vender. 3 months in they decide it won’t make the cut. K9 gets returned and it’s sold again and it gets certified. this happens too. same dog, same dna, same genetic potential but different training applied


I don't see this exactly as training but more of a change of expectations. The owner/agency is doing something with the _expectation_ of certain things. It would be someone wanting a dog just like their last one, or behaved just like their last one. An agency having an _expectation_ of the dog at a certain level. The second owners/agency could get a dog _exactly meeting their expectations._

When I bought my youngest, Hoss, the breeder told me that no hunter would have taken that pup as their first choice. However, the pup keeps exceeding my expectations to the point that I have to exert myself to keep up because he's almost to much dog in my current situation.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

The best world class trainer on the planet can only do so much if the dog doesn't have the correct genetics to go the distance with that training. 

Yes, BOTH are critical but the old saying "You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear" stands well for my comments about only doing so much if the genes aren't there. 

From my work with earth dogs I can tell many stories I've personally seen with terriers you couldn't force down a natural earth empty or other wise.

The well bred working terrier(genetics) needs little training if at all before they start diving down any and every hole it can fit into.

"IF" any training is involved it's the dog learning on it's own that no scent means not worth bothering with.

Yes, it's terriers but this is, to me what defines toughness in the dog.

With training alone it wont happen. 


I've also had show line terriers that you couldn't get to chase a mouse if you put it on a flirt pole. 

These dogs were bred for cookie cutter looks and no more.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

re : "The well bred working terrier(genetics) needs little training if at all before they start diving down any and every hole it can fit into."

i can see how you can breed a dog to do this. cull the weak and keep the ones who hunt instinctually. indeed; not much training involved if that's what you need. but in the real world we aren't hunters anymore and there is little need for this so we make it a semi-sport since the dog won't be hunting 24/7
- there are many other classes of hunting dogs who require little training. the owner simply breeds for hunt drive and doesn't need much more control, so the training (control) requirements decrease significantly. the tough will survive and it will be easy to see which individuals should be the breeders

- LE K9's who will track and engage on a passive or active suspect, under any circumstance AND still remain under the control of a handler are trained, not bred. domestic dogs are no longer man hunting predators. they require training because they work for men (and women)
- sport dogs in protection related sports also require training, regardless of their breeding. the higher the level of competition, the more required.
- Narc/EDD K9's, no matter how sensitive their nose is and how much drive they have, still need lots of training before they can perform their jobs safely and efficiently under the control of their handler

the many statements about how a dog needs the correct genetics to do the job or it will fail, run, or simply be a weak nerve bag shitter are TRUISMS. none of these examples show me that training is not the determining factor for success or failure on the job

i'll use a cliche too : "half full or half empty"...take your pick on what perspective you use. i choose to view genetics as a starting point because i have seen how training can overcome genetic weaknesses. not the extreme weakness that many have cited, but the normal weaknesses that are present in most dogs since i rarely have seen the perfect dog with the perfect genetics that required little training to do the jobs i have described above.

- i think the same perspective also applies to pet dogs, who occupy most of our homes 

- the younger the dog, the harder to predict whether all the right combinations of genetics are there, and i think that's the main reason we keep refining our methods of evaluation and so far, no one system stands out above the others. and for the same reasons, that's why we continue to develop new training methods

so i'll agree to disagree ;-)


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

my perspective is different primarily because i define 'training' in very simple terms. which i provided. i use the KISS principle. for me training doesn't require some degree from a school or years of membership in a club. for me it happens WHENEVER a human is trying to control a dog

i view it this way. if you have a dog, you're the trainer for that dog even if you get help from others that might be more qualified.
- sure, if you graduate from Lackland or Tom Rose, or anyplace else you should have more dog handling skills than an average person. but if you're primarily self taught, like Matt, you're still a trainer. and if you're a nobody and buy a dog from a PetSmart, you're still a trainer for that dog 
- even if it's a truck dog....it's the human who trains it to get in or out and not try and jump out when you're moving, etc. no genetics for knowing how to ride in a truck 
- if you have a dog you are training it whether you're doing it consciously or subconsciously. it's learning from you and YOU are trying to control it the way you want it to act

***you are manipulating the GENETICS the way YOU want to***

over time, for better or worse, hunting breeds whose owners did NOT want them to hunt changed the genetics of the breed and many purists don't like to see that happen because it wasn't what the "original" genetics brought to the table

- success or failure is always a subjective opinion of the owner. the dog never knows or cares
- if you can't control it the way you want, you'll probably stop training it or in some extreme cases get it to someone else. 
- A not extreme example : when Bob stopped bitework with one of his dogs. no more ScHh training but still kept the dog for other reasons he liked. more extreme : the owner of Matt's dog who couldn't control it - dog is given up

- whether you trained it to its "genetic potential" or whether you feel the genetics prevented it from doing what you wanted is also VERY subjective.....and will vary in a HUGE way from dog to dog and handler to handler

oversimplified ? maybe  i like things broken down to a simple concept and that's how i view training.....always present when there is interaction between dogs/people and of primary importance compared to the importance of the genetics it came with

i'm sure my definition of training differs from how most people view it ....not a problem 
- don't wanna start a thread on the definition, but i've always been curious what people think training really means

i'm sure somewhere in the future we will be able to get a dna readout on "behavior" and "drive" genes for any dog....problem solved ? maybe, or maybe it will be as useful as a pedigree //LOL//


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I agree to disagree!


----------



## Sarah Platts (Jan 12, 2010)

I've been doing some more thinking. Does 'toughness' belong to a certain type of breed? Or is 'toughness' a human construct based on human needs and not canine? Is 'toughness' based on the breed's original bred intent or the job humans want it to do? Are there tough Poodles? Are there tough Saint Bernards? Is it based on pain tolerance? Or the ability to take repeated abuse and pain and still get the job done? 

Is there a sliding scale of escalation for 'toughness' where the dog starts on one point and gradually work up or down the scale as the situation progresses? Or do they have to start off at the top? Can a dog be tough in the field but a wimp at home? 

Is an LGD tough because it will go against larger predators but fail to not engage humans at the same level? Can 'toughness' be based on the venue of use or as a general breed characteristic?

I can see why the question keeps Matt up at night.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

re : "I can see why the question keeps Matt up at night. "
...doubt that's the case 

probably much more concerned about his wife, and hope the lack of news means it's all good


----------

