# Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pulling



## Marcelo Villanueva

*Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pulling*

*Helper/Dog relationshiop:* Suspicion => Consequence => Aggression => Reward 

There have been a lot of posts lately on this forum regarding the following:

*1) Helper corrections and praise*
*2) Pulling *
*3) Targeting*
*4) Prey and Defense.*


In the IPO program to attain top honors, a dog is required to show aggression and power in all aspects of the work. Having been a training decoy for Ring dogs, I also believe that you can attain power and aggression in these programs as well.


Too often people believe that the only way to start a dog in bite work is through prey development with a Helper/Decoy. 


This is not the case.


I agree that Prey development IS important; however this development should not be associated with or occur with the Helper. This should be developed by the Handler; in doing so, the Handler is indeed preparing the dog for the Helper work. 


I am fortunate that, I do not have to pay my Helpers for rounds in bite work however if you are the unfortunate one who does have to pay to have a Helper develop your dog in bite work; if you the Handler lay the proper foundational prey work and obedience work (through prey development, distraction work, proofing and securing), to prepare your dog for the Helper you will attain the desired results quicker and with less money out of your pocket.


The bite work relationship between Helper/Decoy and dog should always be of suspicion and conflict, and the dog must think that the Helper/Decoy is more than a sparring partner that will always loose to the dog. The dog must understand that there are inherit dangers (consequence) if the dog is not working at its optimum level of aggression and suspicion. This will produce power in the work and will be exhibited through the barking and performance.


*1)* *Helper correction and praise*


The dog should never be put in a situation that the dog does not have a strong understanding of corrections and how to remove the corrections. This can only be accomplished by the Handler laying the proper foundation in obedience work, achieved in the beginning through motivation, play and reward through prey development, then through consequence (negative and positive consequences) as the dog exhibits the appropriate behaviors’ within its age and experience; introduction of distraction work, proofing and securing of exercises. How you do obedience, play and reward your puppy through prey development is how you develop a relationship with your dog. It’s this relationship that will also produce power in the work.


Corrections should never be compulsion based; meaning leading the dog into a position, or through physical manipulation make the dog do something. The dog must make the choice to follow the command (not the handler making them)…the dog must choose to comply. This is when the dog learns how to do an exercise. 


There are huge aspects to this training methodology that a handler needs to keep in mind including the dog’s intention and expression.

I highly recommend seeing and training with Lance Collins or Edgar Scherkl to understand this principle.


If your dog does not have this aspect of strong recognition of how to remove a correction or how to correct itself when it chooses not to comply to an obedience command; to move into the right behavior.... a Helper correcting a dog is not conducive to its training, in fact demeaning the handler dog relationship in many ways….to the point that the relationship between dog and Helper becomes improper…even to the extreme end…the Helper becomes a surrogate Handler who holds a higher position then the dogs’ actual Handler. 


Conversely, if the Helper praises the dog for doing something correctly; the proper Helper/Decoy relationship is greatly influenced. Again the Helper/Decoy begins to take on a surrogate Handler relationship, rather than producing suspicion and aggression.


*Edgar Scherkl on Obedience: correction, and compulsion and how a dog learns…*


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


Next:


*2) Pulling*
*3) Targeting *
*4) Prey and Defense*


Many world level competitors and judges in IPO value aggression and power in the work. 


It is the hall mark of IPO. 


How does a training Helper/Decoy have the proper relationship with a dog so that they are viewed suspiciously and with aggression?

It must start with a dog that has proper foundation and relationship with handler and dog. The dog must have developed prey drive and the dog should know how to act during engagement in prey.


Much easier to develop aggression if the dog is genetically balanced and mature; which is why I prefer to do it with a dog around 1 yr old, plus this time frame gives the Handler the opportunity to teach the puppy properly in prey development, obedience and develop the proper Handler/Dog relationship.


A Helper should never start a dog in prey, and a Helper who moves around tossing tugs and zigzagging around is (IMO) not developing the proper relationship between dog and Helper. 


A dog should initiate and not be reactive to prey movements.

When the Helper/Decoy is introduced to our dogs it is out of suspicion. I practice the method shown to me by Lance Collins; which has already been explained by Steve Burger. 


I hide in the woods or in an area that the dog is not expecting me and from there I invoke the dog to be suspicious. The dog barks and then I back away. There is NO bite. There is NO equipment involved in this stage of the training and I don’t come out invoking any type of prey movement and I don’t make any kind of prey noise.


Depending on the results I see this may occur a few times (without ANY bite reward and without any tugs, sleeves, etc).


The reason the Helper does not use equipment in the beginning is: if the equipment is brought out at the very beginning, then the relationship between dog and Helper is again (imo) compromised to the point that you are inherently teaching a dog to be equipment fixated to the point of ignoring the Helper/Decoy. The reward focus for the dog, transfers from scaring the person away to begging the person to give the toy.


After a few sessions and once the dog can handle the suspicion of the man and initiates the aggression to the level I think is suitable, then the Helper will reward the dog with a bite, usually a tug bite, but once this tug bite is given, usually (95%) of the time the very next time I’m out with the same dog, it is on the arm.


As a Helper I do not dance around. I do not waste my energy and I let the dog drive the work and initiate the work.


As a Helper, I teach the dog that there is negative consequence to not treating me as a threat, especially if I see the work turning more prey based and not balanced, to the point that I will have the dog hold the sleeve and have the Handler turn the dog’s back to the Helper, place the dog in a sit, and once the Handler says “out” I will stress the dog; thereby producing suspicion, conflict and aggression.


As the dog matures in this type of work, the aggression level will increase and so will the focus on the man.


Training this way is not for every dog; especially those dogs who are not genetically balanced in their drives. Especially if the dog has very little prey drive and leans more defensively.


If you do have a dog that can do this type of training....training this way requires a lot of control on the dog. 

This type of control cannot be done without firstly laying the proper foundation by the Handler through distraction work and teaching the dog how to remove corrections, otherwise as the dog gets stronger against the Helper, the dog will also get stronger against the Handler and either the Helper needs to step in and become the surrogate Handler or the Handler get’s bitten.


I’ve discussed the reason why pulling is very important. It’s a fighting technique that a Helper/Decoy should promote. No bite is harder and calmer, then when a dog decides to bite and pull, plus it is an effective way to stop/hinder a Helper/Decoy, and there are many examples of this documented on video with a dog on the sleeve as well as a suit.


Targeting? Well to be honest using these methods and having the Handler develop the prey drive…I’ve seen a lot less targeting issues, once the Helper is introduced. Our Handler dog teams teach our dogs through play how to come into a long bite using tugs held to the side of the handler, and some handlers hold it in front of them and perform catches, long before the dog ever sees a Helper/Decoy.


Once the dog meets the Helper it is the Helpers job to promote already learned behaviors’ (pulling and targeting), create suspicion and aggression.

Again I highly recommend seeing in a seminar or training with Lance Collins or Edgar Scherkl to understand these principles.


*Edgar Scherkl initial stages of protection work…*

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e5iRYZ_gVgs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NCCHW6WI5Y

Cheers,
Chello...


----------



## Mike Di Rago

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*

Marcelo,
Thank you for taking the time to post this.
Very clear and it sums up things I had been told many years ago by dogmen and it only reinforces my ideas about certain training techniques that are being promoted in certain venues that exclude the handler involvement,to promote the decoy in a way that is not ''normal'' to the dog's point of view.
Mike


----------



## Marcelo Villanueva

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*



Mike Di Rago said:


> Marcelo,
> Thank you for taking the time to post this.
> Very clear and it sums up things I had been told many years ago by dogmen and it only reinforces my ideas about certain training techniques that are being promoted in certain venues that exclude the handler involvement,to promote the decoy in a way that is not ''normal'' to the dog's point of view.
> Mike


Your welcome Mike. 

I spent years looking for this information myself. It was at the tip of my fingertips but never really could connect all the dots, until i started watching and training with a few "old" timers and learning the methodology, and seeing the results .

Enjoy your training Mike.

Cheers,
Chello...


----------



## Gerald Guay

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*

Reminds me of the way we were training our dogs in bitework in the early and mid 70's. We would start building suspicion by walking our dogs on lead downwind in a wooded area at night and we would come upon a "suspicious" person who acted strangely. The dog would "frighten" the stranger into flight. From there on there was a gradual build up. 

I may be wrong but it seems to me that the training decoys in FR do much more teaching and correcting than in IPO.


----------



## Joby Becker

*For ring dogs?*

how many Ringsport people use this type of prgression?


----------



## Geoff Empey

*Re: For ring dogs?*



Joby Becker said:


> how many Ringsport people use this type of prgression?


In the 100's of very successful Ring people I have had the pleasure to work with from France, USA, Canada, Mexico .... 


*NONE* ...

Not saying the technique that Marcelo describes is bad technique but it is a shutzhund technique.


----------



## Marcelo Villanueva

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*



Gerald Guay said:


> Reminds me of the way we were training our dogs in bitework in the early and mid 70's. We would start building suspicion by walking our dogs on lead downwind in a wooded area at night and we would come upon a "suspicious" person who acted strangely. The dog would "frighten" the stranger into flight. From there on there was a gradual build up.
> 
> I may be wrong but it seems to me that the training decoys in FR do much more teaching and correcting than in IPO.


 
The dogs of "old" were always referred to as serious, for very good reasons.

The big difference with the *SYSTEM* back in the "old" days to now, is the application of science to the obedience and less compulsion based training. The way they did protection is the way they did things in obedience ...this destroyed relationship between Handler and dogs, which produced no power in the obedience.

*NOTE: NO compulsion DOES NOT MEAN NO CORRECtiONS, or no stress.*

The scientific theories applied to obedience combined with the old methods of protection training is the bridge to attaining the power, aggression and seriousness in the overall program.

Cheers,
Chello...


----------



## Joby Becker

*Re: For ring dogs?*



Geoff Empey said:


> In the 100's of very successful Ring people I have had the pleasure to work with from France, USA, Canada, Mexico ....
> 
> 
> *NONE* ...
> 
> Not saying the technique that Marcelo describes is bad technique but it is a shutzhund technique.


Yeah seems like for ring the ideal is for the decoy NOT to be in the dogs head at all.

could be wrong here though, of course..


----------



## Marcelo Villanueva

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*



Marcelo Villanueva said:


> The dogs of "old" were always referred to as serious, for very good reasons.
> 
> The big difference with the *SYSTEM* back in the "old" days to now, is the application of science to the obedience and less compulsion based training. The way they did protection is the way they did things in obedience ...this destroyed relationship between Handler and dogs, which produced no power in the obedience.
> 
> *NOTE: NO compulsion DOES NOT MEAN NO CORRECtiONS, or no stress.*
> 
> The scientific theories applied to obedience combined with the old methods of protection training is the bridge to attaining the power, aggression and seriousness in the overall program.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chello...


 
Supporting article, that fits here as well...

http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f53/axel-van-der-borght-interview-verslijpe-mario-25613/

Cheers,
Chello...


----------



## Geoff Empey

*Re: For ring dogs?*



Joby Becker said:


> Yeah seems like for ring the ideal is for the decoy NOT to be in the dogs head at all.


In the beginning stages no .. So there is no reason to start a dog being wary of the helper, the helper is there to help the dog learn the exercises. I've said it before how can the dog learn when it is always in defense? 

By the time Ring 2 and Ring 3 comes around there is lots of pressure. Then the war starts in training, and it separates the big in the head dogs from the weaker dogs. Big threats with the stick and hard stick work, big big decoy presence, then the physical opposition from the decoy is way higher. In the beginning it is learning techniques and the exercises and building confidence in those exercises they are very technically demanding especially to go to R2 and above for the dog. 

Face it both sports are beautiful and require talented trainers and strong dogs to get to the top. The both have bite work, jumps and obedience but that is about as close as you could get to describing both the sports and what type of dog you'd select for either sport too. They are just way to different to compare otherwise. 

Happy Training!


----------



## Joby Becker

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*

Chello,

First of all, thanks for sharing all this information.

The basic philosophies that you are describing are great for certain goals.

Can you elaborate at all why you feel this methodology should/could be applied to training for Ring, where the decoys have a much further latitude of methods to use to steal points from the dog? seems like the dog realizing the decoy is a possible threat, and purposely promoting the aggression would have some major downsides for a ring dog...make it easier for skilled decoys to steal points and also make the training process much more difficult in some areas.

Again, very good stuff here, but how does it apply to Ring from a decoy standpoint, in related to the suspicion/aggression?


----------



## Marcelo Villanueva

*Re: For ring dogs?*



Geoff Empey said:


> In the beginning stages no .. So there is no reason to start a dog being wary of the helper, the helper is there to help the dog learn the exercises....


 
Geoff, until you recognize that it is NOT the Helper/Decoy's role to teach obedience, or HELP the dog learn the exercises, rather it is the Handler's job, you'll never use this information to find a way to produce the seriousness in the work.



Geoff Empey said:


> I've said it before how can the dog learn when it is always in defense? ....


Read the articles carefully. The dog is not always in defense. You are not always keeping the dog there.

I can't state it enough...Helpers and Decoys put too much on themselves. 

Helpers and Decoys do not teach Handler/Dog relationships nor do we teach clarity in the work....the Handlers do this.

Cheers,
Chello...


----------



## Marcelo Villanueva

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*



Joby Becker said:


> ... seems like the dog realizing the decoy is a possible threat, and purposely promoting the aggression would have some major downsides for a ring dog...make it easier for skilled decoys to steal points ...


 
Why would you think this?

I am not saying a dog is afraid of the Decoy; what i am saying is the dog needs to be suspicious and the dog needs to be aggressive.

Why would suspicion and aggression in a protection program translates to slowness, loss of points? No where is prey lacking, no where is forwardness lacking, in fact the conflict and power this type of training invokes is increased performance in the dog efforsts.

I will discuss later...when i have time but i would be interested in hearing people's ideas on how to do this? 

The beginning to learning is taking a step down the road on your own.

Cheers,
Chello...


----------



## Gerald Guay

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*

Marcello,

I have to agree with you that today's B training is superior to that of the past if used to teach the dog what he/she has to do, to motivate faster work ethic and to build the handler/dog relationship. 

I also prefer the oldschool C training for protection work and for training for the IPO field. 

As for FR I see some really good dog's with a ton of "sport type fighting drive" but not many dogs "serious" in the sense of having an edge. The later would be difficult to train and most decoys would refuse to do so. FR ring dogs in general appear to me to be more like very highly trained and successful Olympic amateur wrestlers, judokas, etc., fighting within certain emotional constraints as compared to the much more serious street fighter. For IPO I prefer the street fighter type. For FR there is no choice but to have a milder dog in the "having an edge" sense.


----------



## Joby Becker

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*



Marcelo Villanueva said:


> Why would you think this?
> 
> I am not saying a dog is afraid of the Decoy; what i am saying is the dog needs to be suspicious and the dog needs to be aggressive.
> 
> Why would suspicion and aggression in a protection program translates to slowness, loss of points? No where is prey lacking, no where is forwardness lacking, in fact the conflict and power this type of training invokes is increased performance in the dog efforsts.
> 
> I will discuss later...when i have time but i would be interested in hearing people's ideas on how to do this?
> 
> The beginning to learning is taking a step down the road on your own.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chello...


My experience is rather limited in Dogsports, Ring especially, having only been involved with the training of a few ring dogs. That is why I was asking the question.

My question really refers only to FR, since that is the only ringsport I have any exposure to, although I suppose it may have relevance in the other ringsports as well.

There are no extra points given for aggression, or displays of power over a decoy in FR, or viewing the decoy as a real threat...so what is the benefit? It seems that it would make the training more difficult in certain areas.

I was not referring in any way that there would be a loss of prey, or speed in the dog, or that he would be afraid of the decoy.

My point was that in FR, the decoys are using every trick they can to steal points from a dog, and that they have lots more latitude in attempting to do so, and the training for, and control during phase of "protection" is more complicated than in SCH I "think"...

How many FR trainers that you know of, use the type of progression you are recommending?


----------



## Joby Becker

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*



Joby Becker said:


> My experience is rather limited in Dogsports, Ring especially, having only been involved with the training of a few ring dogs. That is why I was asking the question.
> 
> My question really refers only to FR, since that is the only ringsport I have any exposure to, although I suppose it may have relevance in the other ringsports as well.
> 
> There are no extra points given for aggression, or displays of power over a decoy in FR, or viewing the decoy as a real threat...so what is the benefit? It seems that it would make the training more difficult in certain areas.
> 
> I was not referring in any way that there would be a loss of prey, or speed in the dog, or that he would be afraid of the decoy.
> 
> My point was that in FR, the decoys are using every trick they can to steal points from a dog, and that they have lots more latitude in attempting to do so, and the training for, and control during phase of "protection" is more complicated than in SCH I "think"...
> 
> How many FR trainers that you know of, use the type of progression you are recommending?


addition.. THIS IS THE EXACT PROGRESSION (in theory) that I use for my PP clientelle..and my personal dogs..so I *105% AGREE with it, regarding making a dog serious towards that helper/agitator*....regardless of Thomas'' previous junkyard and ghetto trainer refferences (which I am sure apply or dont to sport or non sport training,equally) depending on WHO does it..

the only question is regarding to ringsport...who does it??


----------



## Geoff Empey

*Re: For ring dogs?*

Thanks Marcelo but I do agree and disagree with this statement. 



Marcelo Villanueva said:


> Geoff, until you recognize that it is NOT the Helper/Decoy's role to teach obedience, or HELP the dog learn the exercises, rather it is the Handler's job, you'll never use this information to find a way to produce the seriousness in the work.
> 
> I can't state it enough...Helpers and Decoys put too much on themselves.
> 
> Helpers and Decoys do not teach Handler/Dog relationships nor do we teach clarity in the work....the Handlers do this.


First of all how are you defining "seriousness"? Seriousness for me is a dog who will bite for real and with intent. A dog like this is either socially aggressive or in defense. My dogs will engage the decoys with vehemence even ones holding a sleeve but they are sport dogs. My male he could be pushed to bite for real but I choose to not push him that way. His littermate is a PSD in Texas, another is a family guardian so I have no doubts he would go that way if I trained that way. I do not need it or even want it. It shows in his work that he is on the edge now, how he engages 'engage, fight and bite' is the least of my problems, LOL! So how are you defining _"Seriousness"_?

I do know it is the job of the handler to teach OB and is not where I was going so we understand each other. Yes the dog needs to be clear and that requires a strong basic OB foundation. Your comment about the handler teaching the dogs all the exercises well it shows your inexperience in the sport of French Ring. (Not meant as an insult, just an observation) 

The exercises need to be taught and then proofed by both handler and decoy so that it is clear on both ends for the dog's benefit. Sure you can show a dog to touch a basket and reward it with food or a ball as the beginning of the object guarde, and even show the dog's pictures of other exercises with a tug. But all the guarding exercises they have to be a triangle between decoy, dog and handler. There really isn't any other way. At trial distances the long field attacks there is to much distance for the handler to be even involved. Sure the out and recall the foundation has to be there and it is all OB but at 40m the handler can't do a thing it is up to the decoy. It can go from a walk in the park to a rodeo pretty darn quick! I'd love to see how a handler would teach the prisoner escort without the input of a decoy. Tell me how you would do that? 



> Read the articles carefully. The dog is not always in defense. You are not always keeping the dog there.


Yes I read the articles, I've trained enough with many trainers from both sports to understand how you guys approach it and appreciate how it works for your sport. Read as well what I said in a previous post there is no reason in Ring to put the dog there until R2 and above as that is when it gets much more serious. By then the dog will have shown its mettle in training if it is worthy or not to take that type of pressure. Until then you can show the dog pictures of what defense is without needing to go there in the foundation training. Those pictures in training are a whole other explanation so I won't try to explain them here. 

Happy training!


----------



## Marcelo Villanueva

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*



Joby Becker said:


> My experience is rather limited in Dogsports, Ring especially, having only been involved with the training of a few ring dogs. That is why I was asking the question.
> 
> My question really refers only to FR, since that is the only ringsport I have any exposure to, although I suppose it may have relevance in the other ringsports as well.


This is not a bad thing. If i can reflect... about 2 yrs ago the person i learned this from said, "...this will make change easier if you have less experience doing it a certain way.  Change is difficult and is harder if your foundation has been laid and done for a long time." 

Amazingly this applies to dogs as well.



Joby Becker said:


> There are no extra points given for aggression, or displays of power over a decoy in FR, or viewing the decoy as a real threat...so what is the benefit? It seems that it would make the training more difficult in certain areas.


If you are talking extra points...your right, however it's not just about the points, for some .

Yes it will be difficult to train this way because it puts the responsibility right back where it should be. The Handler/Dog relationship. 

It's difficult because the Helper/Decoy can't be the surrogate Handler anymore; instead the Helper/Decoy or Training Director has to ensure the Handler is trained intead of training the easiest part of the team (the dog).

Oddly enough, not only is this not the training for some Handler/Dog teams for qualities in the dog, but also because of the lack of acceptance of the team surrounding the dog.



Joby Becker said:


> I was not referring in any way that there would be a loss of prey, or speed in the dog, or that he would be afraid of the decoy.
> 
> My point was that in FR, the decoys are using every trick they can to steal points from a dog, and that they have lots more latitude in attempting to do so, and the training for, and control during phase of "protection" is more complicated than in SCH I "think"...


This does not sound like an issue with a dogs aggression or power in the work, or even anything to do with the dog at all; rather a problem with the team training the dog.



Joby Becker said:


> How many FR trainers that you know of, use the type of progression you are recommending?


Early in my expereince, i trained with FR guys who used some suspicion techniques. For example: Decoy runs away when the dog alerts. 

However the same training Decoy would do more playing tug, running like a rabbit to entice the dog to engage, indeed reward the dog with the highest toy reward, leaving the Handler to run the puppy away, for the Handler to take the highest reward the dogs "decoy friend" just gave it away from the dog, for the Handler to put the dog up. 

The puppy quickly recognized the Decoy was funner then the Handler and the Dog quickly learns to work for the Decoy. The dog isn't acting out of aggression against a foe...rather the dog is working for it's toy.

Cheers,
Chello...


----------



## Marcelo Villanueva

*Re: For ring dogs?*



Geoff Empey said:


> ...Seriousness for me is a dog who will bite for real and with intent.


I agree.



Geoff Empey said:


> ...A dog like this is either socially aggressive or in defense.


I disagree.



Geoff Empey said:


> ...My dogs will engage the decoys with vehemence even ones holding a sleeve but they are sport dogs. My male he could be pushed to bite for real but I choose to not push him that way. His littermate is a PSD in Texas, another is a family guardian so I have no doubts he would go that way if I trained that way. I do not need it or even want it. It shows in his work that he is on the edge now, how he engages 'engage, fight and bite' is the least of my problems


I am glad you are happy with your training.




Geoff Empey said:


> ...I do know it is the job of the handler to teach OB and is not where I was going so we understand each other. Yes the dog needs to be clear and that requires a strong basic OB foundation. Your comment about the handler teaching the dogs all the exercises well it shows your inexperience in the sport of French Ring. (Not meant as an insult, just an observation)


Really? As a decoy you teach a puppy/dog to bite a tug right? You teach a puppy/dog to bite the leg with a tug or leg sleeve right? 

Why are you doing this if you are the dog's decoy? It's not serious work. All you're doing is teaching targetting, prey bite development....right? You are not acting like a Decoy if the Decoy is doing this type of work...you are acting like a surrogate Handler, aren't you?

A dogs Decoy you should be it's Decoy, and the Handler should be the Handler and the dog should understand, that the Handler IS to be listened to, and the Decoy is a bad guy not to be trusted.

(no offence taken Geoff...i enjoy the exchange of ideas and will either solidify my beliefs or force me to question it).



Geoff Empey said:


> ...The exercises need to be taught and then proofed by both handler and decoy so that it is clear on both ends for the dog's benefit. Sure you can show a dog to touch a basket and reward it with food or a ball as the beginning of the object guarde, and even show the dog's pictures of other exercises with a tug. But all the guarding exercises they have to be a triangle between decoy, dog and handler. There really isn't any other way. At trial distances the long field attacks there is to much distance for the handler to be even involved. Sure the out and recall the foundation has to be there and it is all OB but at 40m the handler can't do a thing it is up to the decoy. It can go from a walk in the park to a rodeo pretty darn quick! I'd love to see how a handler would teach the prisoner escort without the input of a decoy. Tell me how you would do that?


You've given a lot of examples on how to train certain things, without a Decoy. How far have you taken these exercises before a Decoy gets involved? Have these exercises been proofed, secured under high distraction before the HIGHEST distraction (a Decoy, that cannot be trusted) is injected into the exercise? If you introduce a Helper or a Decoy before this happens, you will teach the dog to work against the Handler and the Helper/Decoy will have to step in, which compromises the relationship between Handler and Dog and changes the Helper/Decoy relationship as well. I believe a Helper/Decoy should be more a foe, rather then a surrogate Handler.



Geoff Empey said:


> ...Read as well what I said in a previous post there is no reason in Ring to put the dog there until R2 and above as that is when it gets much more serious.


If you see a reason for requiring it for a higher level, i don't understand why you wouldn't train for it once the dog is old enough. 

Foundation once instilled is a shadow that will haunt your dog. To change foundation is one of the most difficult things to change, not impossible but definitely will cause the dog more stress and pressure in order to change it.



Geoff Empey said:


> ... By then the dog will have shown its mettle in training if it is worthy or not to take that type of pressure. Until then you can show the dog pictures of what defense is without needing to go there in the foundation training. Those pictures in training are a whole other explanation so I won't try to explain them here.
> 
> Happy training!


How old is the dog when it achieves it's first title? I am not advocating this training for all dogs, some dogs will be able to handle this, some won't.

Cheers,
Chello...


----------



## Marcelo Villanueva

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*



Joby Becker said:


> Chello,
> 
> First of all, thanks for sharing all this information.


No problem. This information was freely given to me...so i'm paying it forward hopefully someone will tweak it a little bit to make it better, and will do the same and share it .




Joby Becker said:


> The basic philosophies that you are describing are great for certain goals.


I agree.



Joby Becker said:


> Can you elaborate at all why you feel this methodology should/could be applied to training for Ring


I'm not saying everyone SHOULD follow this methodology. 

I believe it can be applied. Why couldn't it be applied? Decoys can apply the same principles as IPO Helpers.



Joby Becker said:


> ...
> Again, very good stuff here, but how does it apply to Ring from a decoy standpoint, in related to the suspicion/aggression?


The same way it applies in IPO. The Decoy needs to be a Decoy that the dog views with suspicion and distrust who can be dangerous.

Cheers,
Chello...


----------



## Joby Becker

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*



Marcelo Villanueva said:


> Early in my expereince, i trained with FR guys who used some suspicion techniques. For example: Decoy runs away when the dog alerts.
> 
> However the same training Decoy would do more playing tug, running like a rabbit to entice the dog to engage, indeed reward the dog with the highest toy reward, leaving the Handler to run the puppy away, for the Handler to take the highest reward the dogs "decoy friend" just gave it away from the dog, for the Handler to put the dog up.
> 
> The puppy quickly recognized the Decoy was funner then the Handler and the Dog quickly learns to work for the Decoy. The dog isn't acting out of aggression against a foe...rather the dog is working for it's toy.
> 
> Cheers,
> Chello...


So this is quite different than the IPO application than you subscribe to then, in its entirity? which is applied with a sub to adult dog, that is just getting introduced to the sleeve in your current IPO system, with real aggression theory...no?

since many Ring techniques are taught to puppies, long before the seriousness or aggressiveness are taught, I think that the two sports differ, and that it is not as easy for the the handler to teach the "basics" like in IPO,..

do you agree with this excerpt, translated from Raiser, by Winkler?



> "Aggression Drive"
> 
> Aggression behaviour contains reactive aggression (defense) as well as active aggression (social aggression). With all the different theories that exist about aggression, there still is no conclusive proof available as to whether or not genuine spontaneous aggression exists. The three theories about where aggression comes from are:
> 
> Aggression is learned.
> Aggression is created by negative experiences.
> Aggression is inborn.
> 
> The truth is probably that aggression results from all three processes. Research is available to support all three theories. For our purposes however, we should concern ourselves less with where aggression comes from and more with what triggers it, what its goal is, and what its biological significance is. The triggers for reactive aggression (defense) was covered under the previous heading. So, lets deal with active aggression. It is always intraspecific, meaning social aggression, and is the result of competition over things (territory, food, mates, etc.). Intraspecific aggression is activated by rivals, and by anti-social behaviour.
> 
> The goal of the drive is to cause avoidance, submission, or worse of the rival. Biological significance is the even distribution of a species over available land to reduce the possibility of food shortages and epidemics as well as survival of a species and a pack by selecting the fittest animals for reproduction and as leaders. In species with a social hierarchy behaviours developed from the aggressive drive, which limit the negative results and guarantee the positive results of social aggression such as threatening, dominance, submission, and rituals of non-physical combat.
> 
> Aggression increases through maturation and practise. It can also be increased or decreased through training and through external influences, for example pain can be aggression stimulating. Other factors which affect aggressive behaviour are location and hormone levels. Two factors which affect aggression that a protection helper needs to be aware of are: personal acquaintance blocks aggression; and passive acceptance of a dog's aggression impresses a dog deeply and causes unsureness.
> 
> A negative side effect of aggression in dog training is that it greatly reduces the dog's learning ability.
> 
> Author's note: We all want to see our dogs work aggressively against the "bad guy," but we need to keep in mind that that is the final picture we want to see. Too often high quality dogs don't reach their potential because their owners want to see them aggressive right from the start, forgetting about the fact that the dog has to learn many intricate exercises before he can walk onto the competition field. So if possible teach the dog an exercise first, then make him perform it aggressively."


----------



## Marcelo Villanueva

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*



Joby Becker said:


> So this is quite different than the IPO application than you subscribe to then, in its entirity? which is applied with a sub to adult dog, that is just getting introduced to the sleeve in your current IPO system, with real aggression theory...no?


Yes it is very different then the way i work dogs.



Joby Becker said:


> since many Ring techniques are taught to puppies, long before the seriousness or aggressiveness are taught, I think that the two sports differ, and that it is not as easy for the the handler to teach the "basics" like in IPO,..


What's different? we teach our dogs complicated exercises in IPO without a HELPER. An example of this is the Transport. The Handler teaches it, before a Helper steps into the picture.

We have a system we follow. We have key exercises we must teach before we teach the next. One exercise leads to the next and in the process we teach the dog how to learn, because the teaching principles follows a systemic process that the dog can't help but learn quicker and learns how to learn .

Before our dogs meet a HELPER our dogs will be able to perform ALL these exercises during a single Handler/Dog training session in any sequence without conflict between Handler and Dog, in multiple sessions:



(the dog is in the highest drive we can put the dog in without a HELPER)

Sit with attention (maintain attention under high distraction, while it's favorite tug, ball, food, whatever the dog LOVES THE MOST, is being swung around by Handler and/or stranger; indeed even making contact with the dog with their favorite toy...enticing them to go for it, to break attention or the "sit"...intentionally setting them up for failure...and the dog must maintain a secured sit with attention. We even try to pull them out of the sit, and the dog must maintain the position until released by the handler),
OUT (must be able to OUT in ANY distraction we can think of, even on a tug the dog is biting and pulling on) and go automatically into a Bark, maintaining a clean and clear OUT,
Carry calmly a Tug, when commanded,
Hold Calmly a Tug on command and will not OUT the tug unless told too,
Given a "free/break" command engage (bite) the tug (toy) and go into a PULL, and maintain actively pulling until given another command.
The dog must be mentally mature enough to handle the conflict/fight with a Helper (generally anywhere between 12 and 15 months – the individual dog will dictate this)
When we do introduce the HELPER the dog already knows how to bite and what to do after they bite, knows how to OUT, Carry, and HOLD a Sleeve and will Sit with attention even when the HELPER is there. Usually we still have to correct the dog to comply to sit with attention; however the dog knows why they are being corrected, the dog knows how to remove the correction and the dogs eagerly comply and listen to their Handler.

From all the previous training, the dog knows how to remove corrections, and the HELPER can act like a HELPER, not a surrogate Handler.




Joby Becker said:


> do you agree with this excerpt, translated from Raiser, by Winkler?


some things i would like to identify in the article, which i would like to point out is a recurring theme amoungst World Class competitors. If you review the previous article i posted earlier entitled Axel van der borght interview verslijpe mario you'll see it's a belief that most World Level competitors believe, and practice, which are:


We all want to see our dogs work aggressively against the "bad guy," but we need to keep in mind that that is the final picture we want to see. 
owners want to see them aggressive right from the start, forgetting about the fact that the dog has to learn many intricate exercises before he can walk onto the competition field
A negative side effect of aggression in dog training is that it greatly reduces the dog's learning ability. {note: which is why a dog needs to know the exercise a certain level (under distraction) before the highest level of distraction - HELPER is introduced}.
we should concern ourselves less with where aggression comes from and more with what triggers it, what its goal is...
Cheers,
Chello...


----------



## Marcelo Villanueva

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*



Marcelo Villanueva said:


> We have a system we follow. We have key exercises we must teach before we teach the next. One exercise leads to the next and in the process we teach the dog how to learn, because the teaching principles follows a systemic process that the dog can't help but learn quicker and learns how to learn .
> 
> Before our dogs meet a HELPER our dogs will be able to perform ALL these exercises during a single Handler/Dog training session in any sequence without conflict between Handler and Dog, in multiple sessions:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (the dog is in the highest drive we can put the dog in without a HELPER)
> 
> Sit with attention (maintain attention under high distraction, while it's favorite tug, ball, food, whatever the dog LOVES THE MOST, is being swung around by Handler and/or stranger; indeed even making contact with the dog with their favorite toy...enticing them to go for it, to break attention or the "sit"...intentionally setting them up for failure...and the dog must maintain a secured sit with attention. We even try to pull them out of the sit, and the dog must maintain the position until released by the handler),
> OUT (must be able to OUT in ANY distraction we can think of, even on a tug the dog is biting and pulling on) and go automatically into a Bark, maintaining a clean and clear OUT,
> Carry calmly a Tug, when commanded,
> Hold Calmly a Tug on command and will not OUT the tug unless told too,
> Given a "free/break" command engage (bite) the tug (toy) and go into a PULL, and maintain actively pulling until given another command.
> The dog must be mentally mature enough to handle the conflict/fight with a Helper (generally anywhere between 12 and 15 months – the individual dog will dictate this)
> When we do introduce the HELPER the dog already knows how to bite and what to do after they bite, knows how to OUT, Carry, and HOLD a Sleeve and will Sit with attention even when the HELPER is there. Usually we still have to correct the dog to comply to sit with attention; however the dog knows why they are being corrected, the dog knows how to remove the correction and the dogs eagerly comply and listen to their Handler.
> 
> From all the previous training, the dog knows how to remove corrections, and the HELPER can act like a HELPER, not a surrogate Handler.


When this video was made the dog was not quite there yet, but almost...about a week away from meeting the Helper in the woods.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oE64RmoyU6g

Cheers,
Chello...


----------



## Geoff Empey

*Re: For ring dogs?*



Marcelo Villanueva said:


> Quote: Originally Posted by *Geoff Empey*
> _...A dog like this is either socially aggressive or in defense._
> 
> I disagree.


So what you do call the extreme version of this? I am speaking of extreme not just a deep bark that is switched back and forth. 



Marcelo Villanueva said:


> I am glad you are happy with your training.


I believe no trainer is truly happy. I am always tweaking things it is constantly evolving it doesn't stay still. So we always search for an advantage and ways to improve our training. 



Marcelo Villanueva said:


> You've given a lot of examples on how to train certain things, without a Decoy. How far have you taken these exercises before a Decoy gets involved?


As far as I possibly can by myself because I do not have access to a regular HA that actually can help me and my dog..



Marcelo Villanueva said:


> Have these exercises been proofed, secured under high distraction before the HIGHEST distraction (a Decoy, that cannot be trusted) is injected into the exercise? If you introduce a Helper or a Decoy before this happens, you will teach the dog to work against the Handler and the Helper/Decoy will have to step in, which compromises the relationship between Handler and Dog and changes the Helper/Decoy relationship as well.


There is no way you can proof these exercises without testing them in a trial scenario with a strange decoy. Both the handler and the dog, their training gets tested and you sink or you swim. At least with a test decoy there is some simple ground rules where you can look for holes in the training without having to break the dog which is the trial decoys job. Testing is a very important thing that shouldn't be left to chance. Luck is what you make. 



Marcelo Villanueva said:


> Really? As a decoy you teach a puppy/dog to bite a tug right? You teach a puppy/dog to bite the leg with a tug or leg sleeve right?


Yes .. 



Marcelo Villanueva said:


> Why are you doing this if you are the dog's decoy? It's not serious work. All you're doing is teaching targetting, prey bite development....right? You are not acting like a Decoy if the Decoy is doing this type of work...you are acting like a surrogate Handler, aren't you?


First of all this is puppy work, second the handler is on the other end of the leash pumping and priming the animal. There is more than just targeting involved here grips, pushing, counters, trial picture, building the exercises it is so much more than 'not serious'. It's age appropriate work. 



Marcelo Villanueva said:


> A dogs Decoy you should be it's Decoy, and the Handler should be the Handler and the dog should understand, that the Handler IS to be listened to, and the Decoy is a bad guy not to be trusted.


Sure a handler needs to be listened to and the training decoy is to be respected and the trial decoy to be decimated before he decimates you! LOL! 



Marcelo Villanueva said:


> I believe a Helper/Decoy should be more a foe, rather then a surrogate Handler.


A trial decoy by all means it is his/her job to find holes in your dogs training and your overall training. A training decoy it is his/her job to prevent that from happening. 

I want my training decoy to push the dog further than in trial in some instances but to be malleable to what the dog needs at whatever stage the training is at or at whatever moment things change. i.e if we are working on the dog to go up we have the training decoy use 2 sticks, with the 2 sticks the decoy can call the dog to center chest mass, get under the dog and sweep the dog away from the dog's chosen target. Timed right with a dog going 50kmh the dog has a ride down the field. The dog has to gather itself turn and reengage in a retour d'esquive. The same move is presented this time if the dog learned something instead of targeting the collarbone or center mass the dog bites the inside bicep or whatever else it can get when the decoy pushes with the sticks. Then the dog gets reinforced by both the handler and the pressure is tempered by decoy for the dog doing the right thing. That's what is being malleable to what the dog needs at that particular instance in time. (as an example) The handler can not do that he is only there for part the ride. You are hard pressed to teach bite technique in a sport like French Ring without some sort of learning relationship with the handler/dog and the decoy as a training team. It shouldn't be just an adversarial situation, there has to be something deeper than that old school IPO decoy/dog relationship. 



Marcelo Villanueva said:


> If you see a reason for requiring it for a higher level, i don't understand why you wouldn't train for it once the dog is old enough.


We do, but it is introduced in a different way than an old school IPO mentality as you describe. 



Marcelo Villanueva said:


> Foundation once instilled is a shadow that will haunt your dog. To change foundation is one of the most difficult things to change, not impossible but definitely will cause the dog more stress and pressure in order to change it.


Yes I agree and again it is about those pictures presented to the dog. Dogs do not generalize you can introduce the gun or the stick 2 ways. One is direct and the dog runs or accepts it. Even if the dog accepts it, when will the straw break the camels back? It's never a matter of how, but a matter of when. Unless you have a 1 in 500 pup. Everybody sees the videos of the back tied 12 week old puppy with the wood being laid down across it with the pup holding on to the rag for dear life. Sure all the internet impressionable go "ohhhh ahhhhhh". But where are these puppies when they are 2-3 years old? What titles did they get? You never see them again because off camera these dogs quite possibly are broken ... in the end, by the training. 

Or secondly you introduce the stick through play, and present those same pictures without the pressure and violence. By the time the dog is trial ready for a Brevet the dog needs to be 12 mos old and by the time it depending on trial availability and trainer seriousness Ring 3 maybe 2.5-3 years old there is plenty of time to push the opposition without breaking the training and the dog. The training is an investment in the dog. 

I'd like to link you all to an article written in 1991 by Jean Michel Moreau he is a Frenchman that immigrated to the USA and shared his knowledge about the sport throughout. A lot of what he has written covers what I have been communicating and covers the relationship between the training decoy and dog. http://www.canadianringsport.com/moreau.pdf 

Happy training!


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

*Re: For ring dogs?*



Geoff Empey said:


> I'd like to link you all to an article written in 1991 by Jean Michel Moreau he is a Frenchman that immigrated to the USA and shared his knowledge about the sport throughout. A lot of what he has written covers what I have been communicating and covers the relationship between the training decoy and dog. http://www.canadianringsport.com/moreau.pdf
> Happy training!


That's probably the best overview of ring philosophy I've seen. As the mom of a jazz trumpet play, I could relate to the comparison to improvisation. The analogy to martial arts is also a good one.

T


----------



## Jason Davis

*Re: For ring dogs?*



Joby Becker said:


> how many Ringsport people use this type of prgression?


None of the successful people. This method would make a pretty crappy ring dog.


----------



## Mike Di Rago

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*

An important element also is what each handler is looking for. I still like to think that Schutzhund and French Ring were first developed as tools for breed worthiness,but over time,the sport aspect and results took over.So through training and conditioning much can and is covered up,but this is the problem that comes with the activity,regardless of the sport.Conditioning can hide the true nature.
There are point dogs which do very well in the sport and there are dogs that don't do as well point wise but that like to bring the fight to the decoy. When watching the two it is obvious which is which.
The argument that top Ring dogs don't get trained this way holds water if the ultimate goal is to get top rank. But to see the true value of the dog is something else and of personal preference I guess .Whether at a Schutzhund trial or a French Ring trial,my favorite dogs are not always the top scores. 
I have seen top FR3 dogs that play the game well but that don't have that extra drive to take it past the the threat level put on it. The Ring decoy's role is to make the team lose points,I think all agree on this.The esquives are pretty open but the level of pressure put on the dog (even at Ring3) is predetermined and cannot be pushed farther than a certain level.
I really enjoy this discussion but I think that we must agree on the fact that people here are looking for different things and different final objectives.
Mike


----------



## Daniel Lybbert

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*



> The esquives are pretty open but the level of pressure put on the dog (even at Ring3) is predetermined and cannot be pushed farther than a certain level.


I disagree with this. At ring 3 the world is a decoys oyster. We can pretty much do what we want. 

What difference is there if the dog is so preyed out that it just bites the hell out of the guy then is happy to come back for a tug. Or a dog that is so into fighting a guy that he bites the hell out of them and then the handler has to go get his dog cuz he wont come back. 
The decoy still gets bit like crazy. Just that one dog passes and the other dog doesnt. 

Dont get me wrong I like dogs with a bit of venom in their blood. It is the kind of dogs I think bring real work. But with that comes lots of other battles. Over all sports are about scoring points. If your dog is an aligator but cant pass a brevet it doesnt mean much.


----------



## Mike Di Rago

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*

Daniel.
You are right in saying that ''overall sports are about scoring points'' and keeping them I guess,and that was what I was trying to get across. These sports were intended to be tests of breed worthiness but now have become sport activities.Nothing wrong with that as long as we keep things in perspective.I respect this and the people that work hard at getting these results.Just not what I like,that's all. 
And to say that the preyed out dog will out and return happily with no problem and that the dog that is so into the fight will need to be picked off by the handler is over simplistic.Both dogs if left to overload in training and uncorrected will have outing problems.

Mike


----------



## Geoff Empey

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*



Daniel Lybbert said:


> Dont get me wrong I like dogs with a bit of venom in their blood. It is the kind of dogs I think bring real work. But with that comes lots of other battles. Over all sports are about scoring points.


Always try to pick your battles, both in training and with the dog you pick. Some dogs are just battles and wear you out. 



Daniel Lybbert said:


> At ring 3 the world is a decoys oyster. We can pretty much do what we want.


That I have to agree with! After seeing the last decoy evaluation of you I had to chuckle especially with your response. What was it? He wanted more aggression from you or something like that? And you saying now that is a judge I want at my next trial! Or sumthin' like that. :lol: 



Mike Di Rago said:


> The argument that top Ring dogs don't get trained this way holds water if the ultimate goal is to get top rank. But to see the true value of the dog is something else and of personal preference I guess .Whether at a Schutzhund trial or a French Ring trial,my favorite dogs are not always the top scores.


I do agree with you scores are not everything in measuring the 'true value' of a dog. There is many other things that we have to look at especially from a breeding point of view. Points .. Hmmmm .. Every one wants to win and do well for sure. The way I look at it some of my most successful trials is where as a handler k9 team we crashed and burned with pointage but gained something else. Pointage is something that we aspire too and train for and sometimes it is the trainer that takes the dog to where it is in that regard. It is never a crappy trainer with a good dog that gets the points as it takes 2 to tango. 



Mike Di Rago said:


> I have seen top FR3 dogs that play the game well but that don't have that extra drive to take it past the the threat level put on it.


I have also seen R3 dogs that will eat your face if you bring it to them. Though there seems to be less and less of those. 



Mike Di Rago said:


> I really enjoy this discussion but I think that we must agree on the fact that people here are looking for different things and different final objectives.


Yeah I enjoy the intelligent dialog myself. I think we have to agree that with a Ring dog the decoy suspicion thing is a suspect technique to try to build a national or world level Ring dog. It is a different path that needs to be taken. There is no real bad technique .. just different sports.


----------



## Steve Estrada

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*

Just a side note to this thread that I have enjoyed all the comments that were well thought out, kind of like a tennis match. What I appreciated the most was the consideration given each other, none of my equipment is bigger than yours. I'm not familiar with some of these sports but the applicablity in training could serve many in many ways. It's about thoughts & continued learning, at least that's why I'm here. Kudos to all & thanks. 8)


----------



## Kevin Cyr

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*



Steve Estrada said:


> Just a side note to this thread that I have enjoyed all the comments that were well thought out, kind of like a tennis match. What I appreciated the most was the consideration given each other, none of my equipment is bigger than yours. I'm not familiar with some of these sports but the applicablity in training could serve many in many ways. It's about thoughts & continued learning, at least that's why I'm here. Kudos to all & thanks. 8)


+1 and a bag a chips


----------



## Faisal Khan

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*

Good stuff but at the end of the day a person who accomplished something in the said venues always weighs heavier than a person who is based more on just theory.


----------



## Doug Zaga

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*



Faisal Khan said:


> Good stuff but at the end of the day a person who accomplished something in the said venues always weighs heavier than a person who is based more on just theory.


 
I assume there are a few or many theories that were a part of accomplishing "something" ??? and of course the dog :grin:


----------



## Steve Burger

*Re: For ring dogs?*



Geoff Empey said:


> In the beginning stages no .. So there is no reason to start a dog being wary of the helper, the helper is there to help the dog learn the exercises. I've said it before how can the dog learn when it is always in defense?
> !


 I am certainly no Lance Collins or Elmer Mannes in my understanding of the work, reading dogs, drives, temperament,etc. However, with my relative limited understanding I will put out my interpretation of what I see. Since I am not a helper I don't believe I have quite the insight as Chello. However I have been privy to watch this process played out many, many times, and have listened to the theory behind it a number of times. I think with 8 years of exposure I am starting to understand, at least I hope. 

In our system the dog does not stay in defense. From the very outset when the dogs defense drive is tapped into it learns to become active in the process. As Chello explained it the dog reacts, hopefully with barking to the lack of sureness/fear arousal. This barking becomes an active response to its fear and results in power over the decoy. The dog barks, the decoy runs away. This builds confidence in the dog. From the very beginning in our teaching the dog as a young puppy is taught to be active. The active barking, even in obedience rewards, gets the dog the tug and in protection foundation work as a puppy creates the movement of the tug. The same thing gets carried over in the protection work. The dog senses something is wrong, he barks, the decoy runs away, the dog begins to see his barking has power. This is carried over after a few sessions to the helper becoming prey. The helper gives the dog the tug as reward for becoming active. The dog then graduates to the sleeve. We are not seeking for the dog to be working in defense. The dog should be switching drives, from defense to fight to prey depending on the exercise. Basically fight drive is the middle ground between prey and defense. Most IPO training systems probably work the dog fully in prey drive. What appears to be fight drive is often frustrated prey drive. This lacks the power of fight drive, though unless you see a lot of both in the same dog it can be hard to differentiate. Lance explains it that the dog that is working in prey is only giving you about 60% of the power it possesses. Kind of like an 8 cylinder car running on 4 or 6 cylinders. If all you have driven is a 6 cylinder car you may not know what it might be like if it was running on all 8 cylinders. 

As far as the appropriateness for ring I have nothing to offer. As far as some of the responses I cannot offer anything there as well. Many IPO trainers do not have the knowledge level required to bring out this kind of performance in the dogs. Hell, I can see even with our own helpers, who have a fair amount of experience in working dogs in our system, if Lance is away for several weeks on a job, things can go downhill.


----------



## Gerald Guay

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*

Nice post Steve,

We must also not forget that prey trained dogs will bark at the blind using a "flushing bark" (trying to activate the prey into action). To some people this Flushing Bark is not as impressive as the more serious bark of the dogs who want to fight and dominate the helper. I personnaly do not find the "fear based bark" as impressive (depends on the amount of fear I guess).

Getting back to the orignal question of the decoy teaching the dog through obedience I think I may be of the same mindset as Mike D.. 

I personnaly don't want my dogs to be submissive to the decoy and I don't want them on the ring field in too much defence either. I want my dogs to want to DOMINATE and OVERPOWER the decoy, to fight the helper (not the cloth he is wearing) at all times and I feel that too much OB input from the decoy will diminish this desired domination over the decoy. Dogs not wanting or trained inadvertently not to dominate the decoy become prey prostitutes. I feel we have to find way to train our dogs with as little corrections as possible from the helpers In order to have dogs that can sport or work at 100% of their potential. Our recalls will probably suffer but I don't care about the points. My view.

Just my H.O.


----------



## Steve Burger

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*

After I re-read my post from last night I wanted to clarify that when I say middle ground I meant fight drive is different from prey and defense, if I remember the theory correctly with elements of both. The graph Lance presents in his powerpoint discussion (I think taken from Raiser's work) shows the defense, prey and fight drives. It shows the escalation of each, and approximation of the response time, etc. I am not sure if I can post a just the graph, as I am not overly computer savvy and the graph is contained in a very large file. I will try to mess with it. Steve Estrada has the file I sent him maybe he would be successful at posting just the graph from the work week catalog.


----------



## Gerald Guay

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*

Interesting Steve, I'd love to see it.


----------



## Steve Estrada

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*

Normally I could but my puter died an early death & working from iPad 
stinks ](*,) maybe this coming week when I get another.


----------



## Marcelo Villanueva

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*

Here is what I know guys...

I have been a training decoy for Ring dogs, I am a Helper for all kinds of IPO dogs and continue to put IPO dogs on suit (to proof the IPO dog's work). 

I trained the traditional way everyone else has while I was in a suit. I taught esquieves, the dead leg princples, object guard, how to transition from legs to upper body, center body bites, countering, etc....while being a training decoy for Ring dogs. 

Yes it works..the traditional method works, but I recognize it for what it is. The dog is fighting the Decoy for the toy or (worst) the dog recognizes the Decoy as the toy and is fighting the Handler for the Decoy (which produces control issues ...directly related to Handler/Dog relationship).

I transitioned to IPO; again traditional method of training...prey, prey, prey. Same things happening...

Then about 2 yrs ago...I met and trained with Elmar Mannes; then I met Lance Collins in his seminar. I wasn't even going to go to a Lance Collins seminar until i read that Elmar was one of Lance Collins mentor. I knew i had to meet Lance Collins. My world changed completely after training with Lance Collins...

Top world level competitors (not just Elmar Mannes, not just Lance Collins) are echoing:


Handlers need to take a bigger role in traiing their dogs
dogs should work with aggression and power against the Helper/Decoy, and have control
do NOT work the dogs with a Helper until they are ready/mature enough (some even go so far as identify an age of 12 mths; for very good reason, already mentioned in my previous posts)
I know.. believe me I know, having been on both sides of this methodology... I now get what I was lacking in ALL (bite work, obedience and even tracking) aspects of the work. We have power and control. We do not have to sacrifice one for the other.

Bite work is bite work. Obedience is obedience. 

The dog doesn't know it's competing in Ring or IPO; when you view the scope of what the IPO dog is doing, what the Ring dog is doing, there is very little that separates the programs conceptually for the dog; except the dogs intention in the work, which is directly influenced by how we train them. Either the dog is fighting for the toy, or the dog is fighting to beat a Helper/Decoy.

I do not advocate training a PUPPY bite work against a Helper or Decoy before the dog is mature enough to be able to deal with this stress (12mths usually). 

In fact I believe it's very detrimental to achieving the power and seriousness for all the reasons I’ve already stated, in previous posts.

Ultimately we all have to be happy with our results and comfortable with the way we training. I am now very happy with the results I’m seeing  in all the dogs trained in this method, and best of all...Handlers are the Handlers for their puppies/dogs, doing the training of their own dogs and the dogs listen to them (even in protection work), while maintaining the power in all aspects of the work.

I too have enjoyed the civility of this thread immensely! You guys have been polite and for that I thank you. Exchange is always positive whether you agree or not in the method. 

Steve, can you send me that file from Lance Collins? Please PM me your email address and I’ll flip you an email.

Cheers,
Chello…


----------



## Geoff Empey

*Re: For ring dogs?*



Steve Burger said:


> I am certainly no Lance Collins or Elmer Mannes in my understanding of the work, reading dogs, drives, temperament,etc. However, with my relative limited understanding I will put out my interpretation of what I see. Since I am not a helper I don't believe I have quite the insight as Chello. However I have been privy to watch this process played out many, many times, and have listened to the theory behind it a number of times. I think with 8 years of exposure I am starting to understand, at least I hope.


Hey Steve I can totally relate. It took me like 2.5-3 years before I started to understand my sport. I am no expert either after 6 years of it, I am constantly learning and pushing ahead and willing to learn from many teachers. It is a fun journey. 



Steve Burger said:


> In our system the dog does not stay in defense. From the very outset when the dogs defense drive is tapped into it learns to become active in the process.


Thanks for clarifying that I was under the understanding to believe that there was no room for error when the dog was in a learning phase. 



Steve Burger said:


> As Chello explained it the dog reacts, hopefully with barking to the lack of sureness/fear arousal. This barking becomes an active response to its fear and results in power over the decoy. The dog barks, the decoy runs away. This builds confidence in the dog.


Sure that works bringing the dog back and forth between those drives of prey and defense. In Ring we help the dog build confidence by never putting in situations where it can't win in training, such as my example of the 2 sticks. 



Steve Burger said:


> As far as the appropriateness for ring I have nothing to offer. As far as some of the responses I cannot offer anything there as well. Many IPO trainers do not have the knowledge level required to bring out this kind of performance in the dogs. Hell, I can see even with our own helpers, who have a fair amount of experience in working dogs in our system, if Lance is away for several weeks on a job, things can go downhill.


Just want to say that you guys and gals are very lucky to have a TD like Lance. In the dog world unfortunately there isn't enough of people like Lance to go around. I have had many of my IPO friends do seminars with him as well as trial under him. I have nothing but the utmost respect. 

I've been very lucky to work the past 2 seasons with a fellow from France. I have learned more in the past 2 years than all the 6 years I have been doing the sport. Unfortunate for me he has moved quite a distance away from me. 



Gerald Guay said:


> Getting back to the orignal question of the decoy teaching the dog through obedience I think I may be of the same mindset as Mike D..
> 
> I personnaly don't want my dogs to be submissive to the decoy and I don't want them on the ring field in too much defence either. I want my dogs to want to DOMINATE and OVERPOWER the decoy, to fight the helper (not the cloth he is wearing) at all times and I feel that too much OB input from the decoy will diminish this desired domination over the decoy. Dogs not wanting or trained inadvertently not to dominate the decoy become prey prostitutes. I feel we have to find way to train our dogs with as little corrections as possible from the helpers In order to have dogs that can sport or work at 100% of their potential. Our recalls will probably suffer but I don't care about the points. My view.


Both you and Mike have seen both my dogs in training and trial. I do believe that both my dogs bring the fight and it was and is a double edged sword. You do know my retired female has an amazing amount of drive to engage the decoy. If she got esquived or blocked she just got pissed and came back harder. Same thing if she got hurt on her entry or got a stick in the face she'd scream and want HA blood. 

I do agree that we/I need to minimize the corrections for my dog from the decoy. It is conflicting and should only be enough so the dog can learn those techniques. 

When you use the martial arts analogy. You'd never put a white belt against a black belt and it takes time to get a black belt. Still I am of the opinion with our sport the high end techniques of the decoy movement counters etc need to be taught by the helper, there really is no other ways around it. I've seen uber high scoring kick arse KNPV dogs made to look silly with a French Ring HA not because the dog wasn't a good dog but he was never taught how to counter. That just doesn't come out of a whelping box it needs to be passed on from teacher to student. 

Hope to see you guys soon!


----------



## Nicole Stark

*Re: Elements to bite work: Prey Develop => Helper Corrections => Aggression => Pullin*



Marcelo Villanueva said:


> Here is what I know guys...
> 
> I do not advocate training a PUPPY bite work against a Helper or Decoy before the dog is mature enough to be able to deal with this stress (12mths usually).
> 
> In fact I believe it's very detrimental to achieving the power and seriousness for all the reasons I’ve already stated, in previous posts.
> Cheers,
> Chello…


Chello, I never asked you but where are you located? My experience with Lance has been fairly limited, nevertheless he left quite an impression upon me and is one of the people I cited in another thread about great seminars for being responsible for profoundly changing the way I approach and/or view training principles. 

Joel Monroe was another.


----------



## Steve Burger

*Re: For ring dogs?*



Geoff Empey said:


> Hey Steve I can totally relate. It took me like 2.5-3 years before I started to understand my sport. I am no expert either after 6 years of it, I am constantly learning and pushing ahead and willing to learn from many teachers. It is a fun journey.
> !


 After 9 years I think I understand the sport. I am talking about it all being relative. These guys can read a dog and instantly react. The level of insight is profound. Some of them can even relay the information to others. You are right I do not think there are very many around. I think in most situations someone learns something and then they "call it good". If this becomes generational then you have crap. I witnessed this at a club I was at in Germany. It was obviously a very well established club. I was absolutely shocked at how poor the training was. I was there with a friend who was kind of taking care of me while I was there. Her helper was also there. He was really good, and I asked him about it. He just kind of shrugged and said "we just use their field". I was still curious about this and asked Lance when I got back. He said it was his experience that in many clubs in Germany the information is passed from father to son without much outside exposure and could be training methods that many would consider to have been obsolete for decades. 

On the other end of the spectrum, I was privy awhile back to a late night/early morning discussion between LC and Jogi Zank about doing video's or writing books. Both of them agreed that they are reluctant to do this because in 3 or 4 years the material might be obsolete to them. 

LC was kind of explaining something to some of our members. It was brought up because a member who has 20 years of experience and a few sch3 titled dogs under her belt was having a bit of difficulty reading her dogs aggression and got chewed up a few weeks ago was asking some questions. He said for one thing not being a helper puts one at a distinct disadvantage. He also said it is kind of like looking at one of those 3-d puzzles. Once you get it it becomes clear. It is somewhat clear to me, but nothing compared to these guys with 30 years or more in the sport. Certainly my ability to explain things is also lacking.


----------

