# Equipment Focus



## matt wiggins (Jul 14, 2009)

Me again ;-)

I've just been involved in a thread on another forum regarding quality of bites in a service dog.....it quickly progressed to discussing equipment focus.

I'm always suprised at how many security/police dogs I see that whilst in training the Decoy could safely slip the sleeve/suit as a reward.

I recently prepared two dogs for police work overseas and by the time they left, whilst still displaying full hard crushing grips if you were to slip them a sleeve whilst training they would have spat it right out and promptly send me to hospital in a bad way.

I trained these dog as best I could and tried to make it as realistic as possible.

How safe is your psd when training? is there a line you think shouldnt be crossed to keep things safe?

All input appreciated,

Matt


----------



## Pete Stevens (Dec 16, 2010)

I think what we do is dangerous anyway. Its only a matter of time better you get bit. There are safety factors we should always do but its usually gonna happen sooner or later. We atually train the same way you mentioned in your post. If you slip a sleeve with one of our dogs, that was bad move for you! As far as a line I won't cross, well, I'm sure I've already crossed a few and been lucky.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Balancing safety with realistic training is always a walk on a tightrope. I'm with Pete, you slip a sleeve and you better have a hidden one under it. 

DFrost


----------



## Neal Wallis (Apr 6, 2009)

*Hidden Bite Suits*

Hi,
What brands of Hidden Suits do you use and your experiances, likes and dislikes with them.

Thanks for the input!
Neal


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

*Re: Hidden Bite Suits*

What annoys me even more than slipping suit or sleeve. Is the amount of LEO in the US that use a hard sleeve for training.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

*Re: Hidden Bite Suits*



will fernandez said:


> What annoys me even more than slipping suit or sleeve. Is the amount of LEO in the US that use a hard sleeve for training.



I have to admit, "slipping a suit" is a new one on me. I guess your reason for disliking the hard sleeve, which we don't use, is the same as why I dislike sleeves with bite bars. I want the dog to be able to feel forearm when he bites a sleeve.

DFrost


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

*Re: Hidden Bite Suits*

Anything that resembles a schutzhund sleeve


----------



## manny rose (Jun 3, 2010)

If dog is properly wired for man work and trained right w/ hidden work civil ag. And muzzle work slipping means nothing more than good job buddy! If the dog is trained properly he will see man as his prey and know he is looking for man and focusing on man not sleeve or suit....of course vary sometimes slip and also sometime slip and rebite hidden but slipping sleeve doe not mean as much as some of you guys seem to think! If dog is trained right and you selection on dog is right then it really means squat...if anything the slip is a marker in bitework as i said to mean what you were doing you did it well and good boy...now if decoy or helper re agresses dog shpuld pop off sleeve and re engage, if not than look back on your training or your dogs genetics.. But slipping has very little side effects to real man work...its in our heads...slipping is for sport dogs! Just my thoughts on it!


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

manny rose said:


> If the dog is trained properly he will see man as his prey and know he is looking for man and focusing on man not sleeve or suit....!


That's exactly the point I'm making. I've seen too often when the sleeve was slipped, the decoy runs away or stands up and watch or walks to another spot and the dog continues to play with the sleeve. That is certainly not a good thing. The only thing I've ever said was; if you slip the sleeve, you better have an alternative means of protection. Otherwise you're about to become an IOD. ha ha.

DFrost


----------



## Bob Vaughan (Oct 28, 2011)

Anyone see a connection between equipment focus and the drift to sport training in police dogs? Not having any knowledge of how US police dog training has evolved over the last 10 years or so I wonder if the problem of equipment focus has become more noticeable with the increasing adoption of sport training. In the past we always had a few dogs that tended to focus on the pad post bite but it seems to have become more of an issue with the introduction of 'sport-ish' training.

I always tended to teach both the biting and search to contact exercises in a mainly 'defence' driven mindset which allows for a quick remedy if the dog decided that the 'pad/sleeve' was more of a threat than myself!. Not classical thinking perhaps, and the 'sport' approach to bark holds and outing was usually much prettier to watch. 

I definitely favor the softer pad that allows the dog to feel the arm within. 

Back to 'old school versus modern school ' I wonder?


Bob


----------



## Phil Dodson (Apr 4, 2006)

David you still using the 23C sleeve?


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I do, but they are harder and harder to get. ha ha

DFrost


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Bob Vaughan said:


> Anyone see a connection between equipment focus and the drift to sport training in police dogs? Not having any knowledge of how US police dog training has evolved over the last 10 years or so I wonder if the problem of equipment focus has become more noticeable with the increasing adoption of sport training. In the past we always had a few dogs that tended to focus on the pad post bite but it seems to have become more of an issue with the introduction of 'sport-ish' training.
> 
> I always tended to teach both the biting and search to contact exercises in a mainly 'defence' driven mindset which allows for a quick remedy if the dog decided that the 'pad/sleeve' was more of a threat than myself!. Not classical thinking perhaps, and the 'sport' approach to bark holds and outing was usually much prettier to watch.
> 
> ...


 
On my small unit in GA we train in a sporty way to introduce and teach behaviors. However, when it comes down to the patrol deployment it is done at the highest level possible.

As far as defence for biting and searches.....I think we may have different kinds of policedogs. Our dogs come out of the box at top speed. Their desire to fill there mouths through prey drives lets them work in a much better manner than a dog that has to be reminded to work. No bark and hold in my city. Strictly find and bite.

I like to consider myself a modern trainer.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

will fernandez said:


> As far as defence for biting and searches.....I think we may have different kinds of policedogs. Our dogs come out of the box at top speed. Their desire to fill there mouths through prey drives lets them work in a much better manner than a dog that has to be reminded to work. No bark and hold in my city. Strictly find and bite.
> 
> I like to consider myself a modern trainer.


I totally agree with you. To me, defense is not a good thing. I don't consider my modern or for that matter an antique. I do use what works for me. 

DFrost


----------



## matt wiggins (Jul 14, 2009)

I also totally agree.....too many people use defense as a way to make the dog focus on the man, this type of training usually ends up in weak chewy grips and a dog who's not in the right mental place during the fight. All my dogs are initially taught on the usual equipment you would see in schutzhund.....this allows me to teach/reward full calm and truly crushing grips before I move on to coverts and suits etc.


----------



## Mark Oliver (Nov 10, 2011)

matt wiggins said:


> I also totally agree.....too many people use defense as a way to make the dog focus on the man, this type of training usually ends up in weak chewy grips and a dog who's not in the right mental place during the fight. All my dogs are initially taught on the usual equipment you would see in schutzhund.....this allows me to teach/reward full calm and truly crushing grips before I move on to coverts and suits etc.


What about this formula though guys?

Prey+Defense+Genetics= Fight Drive

The topic of equipment and muzzle balance has been a serious topic in my training circles for about 3 or 4 years now. It is good to see other leo's are trying to sort it out too.

We came up with a formula similar to what you are saying Matt re: starting out on the usual equipment. A young dog works up to a sleeve. As soon as he is confident there we go right to the suit. Once confident there and assuming he is mature enough, the suit dissapears too and we start tieing the dog out with the handler to do what I'll call a stalking drill.

A decoy placed previous to the dog being tied out pops out of the brush and begins slowly closing in on the dog. We use prey and defense doing it. Side to side closing in or quick forward advancement towards the dog. We give ground when the dog uses defense, building his confidence. We also end it in prey drive when the decoy turns tail and runs for his life.

After a few or several of these sessions, depending on the dog, we put the dog in muzzle and repeat the drill. It ends with the decoy getting all the way to the dog, doing a quick spin (prey) and the dog being allowed to punch him in the shoulder blade. The decoy cries out in pain and runs off. From there will build on run downs.

This has worked very well for several dogs in our area.

Mark


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Mark Oliver said:


> What about this formula though guys?
> 
> Prey+Defense+Genetics= Fight Drive
> 
> ...


The only problem I have with the formula is the defense. I've always said, prey carries them to the subject, it's fight that makes them stay there. Defense, in my mind, gives them the option of staying or leaving. I believe it's a weakness. 

I say that knowing that discussions in terminology are rarely agreed upon, ha ha. Defense is just one of those terms that, in my opinion, came from sport. 

DFrost


----------



## matt wiggins (Jul 14, 2009)

Also I believe fight drive comes more from the experience of winning/hurting/punishing a decoy or real crim rather than from defense training itself.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

David Frost said:


> The only problem I have with the formula is the defense. I've always said, prey carries them to the subject, it's fight that makes them stay there. Defense, in my mind, gives them the option of staying or leaving. I believe it's a weakness.
> 
> I say that knowing that discussions in terminology are rarely agreed upon, ha ha. Defense is just one of those terms that, in my opinion, came from sport.
> 
> DFrost



I agree it does give them the option of staying or leaving. That option is inherent in every dog out there. Every dog. They can stay or go, and it's your training and testing that get the ones that don't bail on you when you need them. But, they can still go. 

Nice to know as a handler you are about to be left high and dry by body posture, growling, etc, in my opinion, prior to it happening, than to learn what the flight part of defense is after the fact. Knowledge is power, and dogs are not infallible.


----------



## Mark Oliver (Nov 10, 2011)

David Frost said:


> The only problem I have with the formula is the defense. I've always said, prey carries them to the subject, it's fight that makes them stay there. Defense, in my mind, gives them the option of staying or leaving. I believe it's a weakness.
> 
> I say that knowing that discussions in terminology are rarely agreed upon, ha ha. Defense is just one of those terms that, in my opinion, came from sport.
> 
> DFrost


We are on the same page re: defense is where they choose to stay or go. Fight or flight right? Whoa, say that 10 times fast. Fight is the key word. I don't want to get into one of those "deep" conversations where nobody learns anything so let me put it another way.

A cop on the beat spots a guy with a warrant. The guy with the warrant flees. The cop chases and catches the prey. The only problem is the prey decides to fight back now. A cop is prepared by training to expect this scenario. Where does that leave a dog only trained in prey drive?

Maybe they genetically understand prey fights back sometimes? I'm not sure of that.

Mark


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

matt wiggins said:


> Also I believe fight drive comes more from the experience of winning/hurting/punishing a decoy or real crim rather than from defense training itself.


 
What I do not like about defense training it's all based on the dog wanting the pressure to turn off. I (the dog) act as if I am big and bad, and the boogie man turns into casper the friendly ghost. there is a thresh hold in the dog somewhere that if that if the fight goes to long or becomes to much, they may believe fleeing is the better option. 

Also, I watched some videos of trainers whom are heralded as the best defensive dog trainers...it looks to me as over time, the dogs become less. They are very impressive when they are two by the time they are 5....Not much dog left.

I am sure there are very special dogs out there that can do it. But that's another thing. You have to sift through dogs to find the dog that fits the training.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Mark Oliver said:


> We are on the same page re: defense is where they choose to stay or go. Fight or flight right? Whoa, say that 10 times fast. Fight is the key word. I don't want to get into one of those "deep" conversations where nobody learns anything so let me put it another way.
> 
> A cop on the beat spots a guy with a warrant. The guy with the warrant flees. The cop chases and catches the prey. The only problem is the prey decides to fight back now. A cop is prepared by training to expect this scenario. Where does that leave a dog only trained in prey drive?
> 
> ...



So you are saying that a dog needs to be trained to handle a fight? They may genetically have the ability to fight, but it has to be brought out correctly, or the other side of defense kicks in and they flee?

This I agree with.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

James Downey said:


> What I do not like about defense training it's all based on the dog wanting the pressure to turn off. I (the dog) act as if I am big and bad, and the boogie man turns into casper the friendly ghost. there is a thresh hold in the dog somewhere that if that if the fight goes to long or becomes to much, they may believe fleeing is the better option.
> 
> Also, I watched some videos of trainers whom are heralded as the best defensive dog trainers...it looks to me as over time, the dogs become less. They are very impressive when they are two by the time they are 5....Not much dog left.
> 
> I am sure there are very special dogs out there that can do it. But that's another thing. You have to sift through dogs to find the dog that fits the training.


What I like about teaching a dog to turn pressure off is that it teaches him how to dominate with by fighting. What determines how you train a dog whether more in prey or defense is where they work more comfortably. Dogs with a mix of prey and defense are great, but you may have one higher in prey or defense and still have to work it.

Most dogs have defensive reactions. It has only to do with how they perceive the training, not the training itself. I am not talking about a table and flanking, either. Dogs can react to frontal body pressure as defensive. Therefore, you HAVE to show your dog what he's going to see, police or sport, and teach him that if there is a little fight, the wins and it goes back to prey where he can dominate. Drive channeling. Threat = defensive reaction from dog (fight) = a win in prey for the dog. How much threat you bring is the trainer's job. Bringing too much too quickly can slow the dogs progress in learning or ruin it.


----------



## Mark Oliver (Nov 10, 2011)

David Frost said:


> I say that knowing that discussions in terminology are rarely agreed upon, ha ha. Defense is just one of those terms that, in my opinion, came from sport.
> 
> DFrost


You hit the nail on the head re: terminology being a problem a lot of the time. And yes sport definitions and no equipment proponents are a mile a part it seems on "fight" and "defense" meanings. Sometimes I wish we could just reset the world of dog training so everyone starts over on the same page.

James, I hear you on risking damage to a dog. I've written on that topic of being very careful with it. If you don't understand "avoidance" you shouldn't touch this training.

Defense work to me is giving a dog confidence that they can put an opponent into "avoidance". A dog understands "avoidance" genetically, no doubt about it. There is power in that for a dog if he causes it on an opponent.

Here is a dutch shepherd that I trained this way. Notice though at this stage of his training he was going into a prey bow. No stress at all. He was only 12 months in this video. He is 3 now and kickass. He see's equipment only about 10% of the time during training these days. He was street bite successful on his first chance. He hadn't seen equipment in months prior to it.

http://youtu.be/eDd6JkKiZLM

I guess what I need help understanding is how we can get to fight drive using only prey drive and equipment. To me equipment fighting is just a rough game of tug for a dog.

Thank's for making me exercise my brain so early in the morning guys![-X

Mark O.


----------



## Mark Oliver (Nov 10, 2011)

Dave C. we were posting while I was writing one too. Yea, looks like we have similar views.

Mark


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

I prefer the least amount of stimulation prior to the bite. Then build the pressure while the dog is on the bite. Here is where I like to add and decrease the pressure. Starts off fun for the dog, builds to where the dog may start to get chewy or noisy and then let him win before he breaks. I want to be the sparring partner to build the dog each and every time we meet.

However, what I dont like to see is a dog that I have to get into his ass before the bite. I do not want to whip, hit or act like a fuktard in the suit to get a reaction.


----------



## Bob Vaughan (Oct 28, 2011)

Clearly the 'defence' -v- 'prey' argument seems to generate the same polarized views in the States as it does the UK. My own personal view is that the whole concept of 'drive theory' tends to oversimplify the dog training process and yet complicate it at the same time. The idea that the dog can only exist in one state of mind or another, in police terms, is somewhat limiting as we would probably all agree. Over the last few years ' drive ' theory has tended to become the normal language of both sport or service dog trainers, although in the UK prior to about 2002, the usual police thinking tended along the ' will it or wont it bite?', ' has it got enough?', 'will it stand it's ground?' ...................'will it do the job?'. The idea that a dog could easily be defined by one drive or another was not our collective experience, you only have to look at the difficulties in transitioning the dog from training to operational life. They clearly benefit from greater experience.

In short, if I'm honest then, I'm not at all sure how much 'drive theory' really explains whats actually going on in the dogs mind.

Just by way of explanation of our bark and hold searching indication, we have no choice but to teach the 'no contact' exercise, its the default criteria. In reality, a large number of bites occur in this situation ie the offender often assault's the dog and continues to try to escape, so although we have to teach the 'stand off and bark' indication its often quite quickly compromised by operational experience.


Bob


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Bob Vaughan said:


> In short, if I'm honest then, I'm not at all sure how much 'drive theory' really explains whats actually going on in the dogs mind.
> 
> Bob


Which takes us back to, "will the dog do it or not". In the end that is the important question. We can try to define all the behaviors as we train. We can discuss training techniques. We don't know the extent of our success until the dog is faced with an actual deployment and gets knocked around by someone that really doesn't care if the dog is injured, they just want to get away. 

As for the b/h discussion, there are those that will tell you if your dog isn't doing it properly, you're not training correctly. I'm not one of those. Whether I can train a dog to do it correctly or not is not an issue with me. I won't do it. To me, and there is no convincing me otherwise, it's a safety issue for the officer and it (b/h) causes more incidental dog bites on a subject than a dog trained in find and bite. 

DFrost


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

will fernandez said:


> I prefer the least amount of stimulation prior to the bite. Then build the pressure while the dog is on the bite. Here is where I like to add and decrease the pressure. Starts off fun for the dog, builds to where the dog may start to get chewy or noisy and then let him win before he breaks. I want to be the sparring partner to build the dog each and every time we meet.
> 
> However, what I dont like to see is a dog that I have to get into his ass before the bite. I do not want to whip, hit or act like a fuktard in the suit to get a reaction.


I agree with most of this. 


Initially there may be some stimulation to kick a dog (puppy) into prey or into defense. This should go away quickly as a cue to bite so you can get to a dog that will actually bite someone passively, laying down, under a tarp, etc..


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Bob Vaughan said:


> Clearly the 'defence' -v- 'prey' argument seems to generate the same polarized views in the States as it does the UK. My own personal view is that the whole concept of 'drive theory' tends to oversimplify the dog training process and yet complicate it at the same time. The idea that the dog can only exist in one state of mind or another, in police terms, is somewhat limiting as we would probably all agree. Over the last few years ' drive ' theory has tended to become the normal language of both sport or service dog trainers, although in the UK prior to about 2002, the usual police thinking tended along the ' will it or wont it bite?', ' has it got enough?', 'will it stand it's ground?' ...................'will it do the job?'. The idea that a dog could easily be defined by one drive or another was not our collective experience, you only have to look at the difficulties in transitioning the dog from training to operational life. They clearly benefit from greater experience.
> 
> In short, if I'm honest then, I'm not at all sure how much 'drive theory' really explains whats actually going on in the dogs mind.
> 
> ...


Bob. I think drive theory helps a great deal in bringing a dog up and throughout his life. Your end result is a dog that will bite someone who they get pointed at with any number of variables. Knowing how to read the dog does give you a basis to train dogs that work differently is invaluable. 

When you had problems with transitioning from training to operational, how did you address it? Did you approach it systematically or just guess until you came up with something that worked? Could your ideas that you came up with overlaid with drive theory to see if it is a mirror image? Can you describe drive theory that you know?


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

David F. 

Do you agree that all dogs have the option of staying in a fight or leaving the fight? 

Do you just buy dogs that have been trained to the point of staying in the fight? 

Have you brought a young dog up and led him to being strong enough to stay in a fight? If so, how?


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> David F.
> 
> Do you agree that all dogs have the option of staying in a fight or leaving the fight?
> 
> ...



I don't believe, with proper training, with the right dog, the option of flight is something that is considered. I do believe most dogs could be hurt enough to make them leave the fight. I've seen varying degrees of this in actual deployment. It's ranged from a dog being severely injured, dropping the bite and then reengaging, to being severely injured, disengage and leave. This is not something I would expect in training because we aren't going to intentionally injure a dog in training. 

I buy dogs that will hit a sleeve and display the potential of what I'm attempting to train. Generally at this level it's all prey. I'm not always right, on the selection, but am on most occasions. 

If, by young, you mean less than 18 months, no. I've never hidden the fact that puppies bore me, I think they are a crap shoot and I really don't like messing with them, ha ha.


DFrost


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

David Frost said:


> I don't believe, with proper training, with the right dog, the option of flight is something that is considered. I do believe most dogs could be hurt enough to make them leave the fight. I've seen varying degrees of this in actual deployment. It's ranged from a dog being severely injured, dropping the bite and then reengaging, to being severely injured, disengage and leave. This is not something I would expect in training because we aren't going to intentionally injure a dog in training.
> 
> I buy dogs that will hit a sleeve and display the potential of what I'm attempting to train. Generally at this level it's all prey. I'm not always right, on the selection, but am on most occasions.
> 
> ...


OK. They "hit" a sleeve when you test them. Then they will stay in a fight when they are older. Two very different things. How do you get from point A to point B? Or do you just suspect the dog is strong enough and he proves you right in some cases.


----------



## Christopher Smith (Jun 20, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> What I like about teaching a dog to turn pressure off is that it teaches him how to dominate with by fighting. What determines how you train a dog whether more in prey or defense is where they work more comfortably. Dogs with a mix of prey and defense are great, but you may have one higher in prey or defense and still have to work it.
> 
> Most dogs have defensive reactions. It has only to do with how they perceive the training, not the training itself. I am not talking about a table and flanking, either. Dogs can react to frontal body pressure as defensive. Therefore, you HAVE to show your dog what he's going to see, police or sport, and teach him that if there is a little fight, the wins and it goes back to prey where he can dominate. Drive channeling. Threat = defensive reaction from dog (fight) = a win in prey for the dog. How much threat you bring is the trainer's job. Bringing too much too quickly can slow the dogs progress in learning or ruin it.


 Dave that is the best post about protection I have read on this forum. I hope people really take the time to try to understand it. 

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Christopher Smith said:


> Dave that is the best post about protection I have read on this forum. I hope people really take the time to try to understand it.
> 
> Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk



Thanks for the kind words. I haven't been called the "best" at anything in a while, and it felt good.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> They "hit" a sleeve when you test them. Then they will stay in a fight when they are older. Two very different things. How do you get from point A to point B? Or do you just suspect the dog is strong enough and he proves you right in some cases.


Point A, would not be hitting the sleeve. Point A would be the selection. Hitting a sleeve is just part of that process. It's not "age" that defines the point from which they hit and which they stay in the fight. That is accomplished through training. I believe properly designed training is a confidence building exercise. At some point, and it's usually, a hold your breath moment, the dog will have to earn his keep. For me, a dog that runs once, is done as a patrol dog. Either the trauma is so great or the nerve so weak, that it would be of no further use in that capacity. A dog may be knocked off the bite 15 times, but as long as he continues to reengage (in an actual deployment), it's ok in my book.

DFrost


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

David Frost said:


> Point A, would not be hitting the sleeve. Point A would be the selection. Hitting a sleeve is just part of that process. It's not "age" that defines the point from which they hit and which they stay in the fight. That is accomplished through training. I believe properly designed training is a confidence building exercise. At some point, and it's usually, a hold your breath moment, the dog will have to earn his keep. For me, a dog that runs once, is done as a patrol dog. Either the trauma is so great or the nerve so weak, that it would be of no further use in that capacity. A dog may be knocked off the bite 15 times, but as long as he continues to reengage (in an actual deployment), it's ok in my book.
> 
> DFrost



You really talk around answers well. Must be your years in court. 

So, you recognize that your dogs are systematically deconditioned to as close to what they'll see in a fight that they'll see, without hurting them. Through thoughtful training, designed not to push the dog to where he'll be unsuccessful. Seems that you are acknowledging that dogs at your point A can be run off a bite and have to have confidence built. So conversely, if you didn't build their confidence, then they could show fear. So you are agreeing that dogs have a choice at some point in their lives to fight or flee when confronted with a threat. You could put enough pressure on them in the beginning to make them flee, but instead, you teach them to be strong. 

Seems like that equates to a defensive reaction to threat can still be fight or flight. Sport generated term or not, it's the dogs idea, not ours. 

Glad we see eye to eye, and....

Thank God for all the european *sport trainers* producing the genetics for police dogs they do!!! I'd like to thank the dutch especially for my last working dog in the military, Joep. He had some environmental issues, but he was a tough/good dog when the chips were down and he taught me a lot about a lot.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> You really talk around answers well. Must be your years in court.
> 
> So, you recognize that your dogs are systematically deconditioned to as close to what they'll see in a fight that they'll see, without hurting them. Through thoughtful training, designed not to push the dog to where he'll be unsuccessful. Seems that you are acknowledging that dogs at your point A can be run off a bite and have to have confidence built. So conversely, if you didn't build their confidence, then they could show fear. So you are agreeing that dogs have a choice at some point in their lives to fight or flee when confronted with a threat. You could put enough pressure on them in the beginning to make them flee, but instead, you teach them to be strong.
> 
> ...


"Through thoughtful training, designed not to push the dog to where he'll be unsuccessful."

Not sure where you get that. I actually try to put enough pressure on a dog to be unsuccessful. Granted, I don't break legs or stab them knives

"Seems that you are acknowledging that dogs at your point A can be run off a bite and have to have confidence built."

I believe that any dog, at the point A I stated, could be run off. It's why we train. They usually don't know how to down or climb the ladder obstacle either when I buy them, but they learn. 

"So you are agreeing that dogs have a choice at some point in their lives to fight or flee when confronted with a threat. You could put enough pressure on them in the beginning to make them flee,"

At some point, a dog has to be trained. I was answering your question on a trained dog. While in-service training continues through out the dog's working life, there is a point where he is ready to go to work. It seems as if you are trying to compare a dog "in training" and a working dog. A dog in training is not a working dog, yet.

Lastly, you said; "You really talk around answers well. Must be your years in court."

I am very good in court. I'm good because I'm factual and not trying to use smoke and mirrors. I give specific answers in court. I don't know how much experience you have in court, but b.s just doesn't work. I answered your question. You may have wanted a yes/no answer, but it wasn't a yes/no question. 

I too am glad Europeans are producing such great dogs. It's sure helped fill the void in this country. The last 4 dogs I've purchased though were U.S. Bred. Alligators they aren't. Good PSD's they are. 

DFrost


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

matt wiggins said:


> Also I believe fight drive comes more from the experience of winning/hurting/punishing a decoy or real crim rather than from defense training itself.


did you just say "punishing the decoy"???


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> did you just say "punishing the decoy"???



Ha ha, I sure never used the term punish. ha ha I could see that ending up in a trial transcript somewhere. ha ha

DFrost


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

I began reading this thread yesterday morning and just shook my head! David C. You are the voice of reason here. 
When I hear many officers talk about this and then read threads like this it is no wonder why I've witnessed so many F'd up Police dogs!

Police dog should never win, they should be in full "killer combat drive" at all times when biting! HAhahahahahaha never ever slip a police dog any material, it makes a real dog less real LMAO!


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

David Frost, it seems you have very little experience brining young dogs up and building them progressively! Reading some of your posts tells me you have little knowledge of the processes of bitework. If I were you I'd stick with buying them trained


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Thank you. Your suggestions are very meaningful to me.

DFrost


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Timothy Stacy said:


> I began reading this thread yesterday morning and just shook my head! David C. You are the voice of reason here.
> When I hear many officers talk about this and then read threads like this it is no wonder why I've witnessed so many F'd up Police dogs!
> 
> Police dog should never win, they should be in full "killer combat drive" at all times when biting! HAhahahahahaha never ever slip a police dog any material, it makes a real dog less real LMAO!


I have seen quite a few NICE police dogs. Some with issues, but basically nice. Some bad dogs and handlers too. I'd like to help them all attain a higher level of skill. I have handled the same thing and worse in the Army. Nice dogs, with some issues. I didn't have a choice and sometimes didn't even know an issue was an issue. Hind sight and experience help with 20/20. My goal isn't to make David Frost look bad, although with my level of sarcasm it may appear that way. Training can be rough, and supporting your own views even more. This banter between he and I could be heard in a lot of training sessions around the US Army, I don't know about elsewhere, but it's just banter. It may seem impolite to some, but it's just how men talk occasionally. Words. I really just want to see what he's got to add to what I know, that's all. 

I disagree with him on several things, and took it to PMs with him, because the appearance is that I may be trying to make him look bad, which is not the case. Part of why I took it to PM is because I'd like to influence his training positively, to help dogs and handlers. In a PM it may be easier to get to what I am saying with less sarcasm, or not, we'll see.

He readily admits he is arrogant. Truth is all I expect in someone for me to have the start of respect for them. Not blind following, but to at least acknowledge some respect. I would bet a lot of his "airedales" will bite, find dope and bombs. I'd like to drink coffee with him someday, and argue about dogs. He'll probably interject that he doesn't drink coffee or something now, and that's just him.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

David Frost said:


> Thank you. Your suggestions are very meaningful to me.
> 
> DFrost


Chuckle chuckle - 
Well your misconceptions on this thread and others are obvious when it comes to bite work. It's understandable knowing your back ground in the early Airforce K9 program  Try reading a bit more here.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> I'd like to drink coffee with him someday, and argue about dogs. He'll probably interject that he doesn't drink coffee or something now, and that's just him.



Actually, I do drink coffee until about 9:30, then it'd Diet Coke. I'm a teetotaler with alcohol. I'm obnoxious enough sober.

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Timothy Stacy said:


> Chuckle chuckle -
> Well your misconceptions on this thread and others are obvious when it comes to bite work. It's understandable knowing your back ground in the early Airforce K9 program  Try reading a bit more here.


Once again, thank you. Your experience means a lot to me.

DFrost


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

What am i missing, is this the answer to a question on some other thread???




Dave Colborn said:


> I have seen quite a few NICE police dogs. Some with issues, but basically nice. Some bad dogs and handlers too. I'd like to help them all attain a higher level of skill. I have handled the same thing and worse in the Army. Nice dogs, with some issues. I didn't have a choice and sometimes didn't even know an issue was an issue. Hind sight and experience help with 20/20. My goal isn't to make David Frost look bad, although with my level of sarcasm it may appear that way. Training can be rough, and supporting your own views even more. This banter between he and I could be heard in a lot of training sessions around the US Army, I don't know about elsewhere, but it's just banter. It may seem impolite to some, but it's just how men talk occasionally. Words. I really just want to see what he's got to add to what I know, that's all.
> 
> I disagree with him on several things, and took it to PMs with him, because the appearance is that I may be trying to make him look bad, which is not the case. Part of why I took it to PM is because I'd like to influence his training positively, to help dogs and handlers. In a PM it may be easier to get to what I am saying with less sarcasm, or not, we'll see.
> 
> He readily admits he is arrogant. Truth is all I expect in someone for me to have the start of respect for them. Not blind following, but to at least acknowledge some respect. I would bet a lot of his "airedales" will bite, find dope and bombs. I'd like to drink coffee with him someday, and argue about dogs. He'll probably interject that he doesn't drink coffee or something now, and that's just him.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I was told by someone on here that they did not believe a dog would want to "punish the decoy"...I thought that was odd...

As a guy that has worked with PP dogs. and focused on that type of stuff for many years...I am glad to say that I totally agree with Dave C's, post about perception of the dog and "defense" training...(or not "defense" training), and it was THE BEST post on this board 

I know that in the basic realm of PP dogs, the way that many people train the dogs, will be "defense" training, depending on the trainers, and depending on the dogs, and with a smaller percentage of them it is developing "fight", I see why lots of people bash on PP, many people involved in training dogs, cannot tell the difference, and will even take a good solid dog, and try to push him into defense, for some type of reason or another...

After hanging more with sport people, I still do my own thing, and one of my goals in training has always been to teach a dog to love "punishing" me, rather than slipping into defense, which usually shows bad things in dogs...

I no longer like the term defense...or the display of defense in a dog, the way many people see it. I think if the training and dog is good, much of what is called defense, is promotion of fight, and if the dogs are lesser and the training is lesser, it will be defense...if that makes sense...

Way to go DAVE C. !!!


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

I understand you Joby. And I do believe what you explained is what most PSD trainers think of.... myself included when we/I hear defense training.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

David Frost said:


> Once again, thank you. Your experience means a lot to me.
> 
> DFrost


Experience and understanding are two different things and completely seperate of one another. One can have experience and not understand, as in your case. Or one can lack 40 years of experience but still understand ! It's a learning process but not everybody wants to learn. Some want to "pretend" to know it all and want to teach based on years of poor experience that taught them little. Close minded people never learn more, in fact they are unwilling to learn! 
Seriously, I understand why you lack understanding when you just purchase trained dogs, that is very understandable. There are a lot of people on here with experience and understanding, you just need to read more and reopen the door you closed decades ago


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> I was told by someone on here that they did not believe a dog would want to "punish the decoy"...I thought that was odd...
> 
> As a guy that has worked with PP dogs. and focused on that type of stuff for many years...I am glad to say that I totally agree with Dave C's, post about perception of the dog and "defense" training...(or not "defense" training), and it was THE BEST post on this board
> 
> ...


Thanks Joby. I understand what you are saying. Perception of what defense is is exactly why terms have to be discussed. I like defense being defined as a reaction to threat (flight or fight). That takes some of the negative connotations of pain and flanking out of the mix. We may be doing similar things and calling it by a different name. Dogs are dogs. It's not brain science or rocket surgery.


----------



## Lisa Radcliffe (Jun 9, 2011)

Timothy Stacy said:


> Experience and understanding are two different things and completely seperate of one another. One can have experience and not understand, as in your case. Or one can lack 40 years of experience but still understand ! It's a learning process but not everybody wants to learn. Some want to "pretend" to know it all and want to teach based on years of poor experience that taught them little. Close minded people never learn more, in fact they are unwilling to learn!
> Seriously, I understand why you lack understanding when you just purchase trained dogs, that is very understandable. There are a lot of people on here with experience and understanding, you just need to read more and reopen the door you closed decades ago


Nice post! makes me think of the first sport club I joined- I left after 6 months. They still have not accomplished much but they have 36 years of experience.......


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

will fernandez said:


> I understand you Joby. And I do believe what you explained is what most PSD trainers think of.... myself included when we/I hear defense training.


I say that and I'm an ass. ha ha. No problem though, I know it's because of a personal agenda. I'll probably survive the humiliation. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Timothy Stacy said:


> Experience and understanding are two different things and completely seperate of one another. )


Exactly. That's why I put so much credence your advice and take your admonishments to heart. Thank you again.

DFrost


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Its only cause I am not as crusty.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

will fernandez said:


> Its only cause I am not as crusty.


Yeah, I do admit to being an ass sometimes. But that isn't likely to change either. 

chuckle, chuckle, snort.

DFrost


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *will fernandez*  
_I understand you Joby. And I do believe what you explained is what most PSD trainers think of.... myself included when we/I hear defense training._

I say that and I'm an ass. ha ha. No problem though, I know it's because of a personal agenda. I'll probably survive the humiliation. 

DFrost
__________________
DFrost

How many of you believe in psycho-kenesis?
Raise my hand.


It's good to know you feel that way about defense training, but I missed where you said that? could you point it out with a post #?


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Look at posts 14 and 17. I didn't look for any more than that. 


DFrost


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

David.

I read what you wrote vs what Joby wrote. I don't think you are in the ball park with what he wrote. You don't like defense in a police dog. You call it a sport term. He is acknowledging it is there and has to be worked. Worked well, it causes the dog to kick into fight, which is part of defense. Worked incorrectly and the dog shows fear, which is also part of defense.

My stance is defense is in most dogs, sport or police work. How you use it as a trainer makes the dog good or bad, if he is genetically capable of doing well. Bad training can make the genetically dog not work well. This is why I am agreeing with Joby and not you. 

I can't imagine you'd think anyone would have a personal agenda on here:-o. You'll have to ask Mr. Stacy and see what he says.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> David.
> 
> I read what you wrote vs what Joby wrote. I don't think you are in the ball park with what he wrote. .


Joby said: I no longer like the term defense...or the display of defense in a dog, the way many people see it. I think if the training and dog is good, much of what is called defense, is promotion of fight, and if the dogs are lesser and the training is lesser, it will be defense...if that makes sense...

I said: "The only problem I have with the formula is the defense. I've always said, prey carries them to the subject, it's fight that makes them stay there. Defense, in my mind, gives them the option of staying or leaving. I believe it's a weakness. "

Perhaps different words, but I sure think I'm agreeing with him. 

DFrost


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

David Frost said:


> Joby said: I no longer like the term defense...or the display of defense in a dog, the way many people see it. I think if the training and dog is good, much of what is called defense, is promotion of fight, and if the dogs are lesser and the training is lesser, it will be defense...if that makes sense...
> 
> I said: "The only problem I have with the formula is the defense. I've always said, prey carries them to the subject, it's fight that makes them stay there. Defense, in my mind, gives them the option of staying or leaving. I believe it's a weakness. "
> 
> ...



Wow. When you cut and paste it, it does look awfully similar.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> Wow. When you cut and paste it, it does look awfully similar.



Two things:

1. It is cut and paste, my words as they appeared early in the discussion.

2. Sometimes a person looking for a reason to disagree reads what they want to see.

It's kind of like one person that really didn't want to be part of the discussion, just wanted to be disruptive, credited me with words that were never said. Agendas block discourse. I think between you and I though, we had a pretty decent discussion, despite some noise from the peanut gallery.

DFrost


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

David Frost said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1. It is cut and paste, my words as they appeared early in the discussion.
> 
> ...


I think in the end, what you have shown me is that I don't agree with you or Joby. I think you two may have different ideas about defense, but they look similar, as I said when you put them next to one another. I can't write well enough to articulate the differences in what you are writing, so I'll stick with how I feel about it.

Defense is in the dog, no matter how a trainer approaches the dog. like or dislike it, it is there. Knowing that it is there and to be careful of pushing the dog into avoidance or even close to avoidance is our job. It would probably look similar with all three of us actually working a dog, agree on the term or not, as far as not pushing the dog so far as to cause a problem for the dog.

I do agree it's not a bad discussion at all.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

I think active and reactive may have to be thrown into the mix

.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

will fernandez said:


> I think active and reactive may have to be thrown into the mix
> 
> .


ha ha, you're just trying to cause trouble now. chuckle, chuckle. 

I'm just kidding, I've heard those terms used. In fact, may have, on occasion, used them. It's kind of like when I talk about the term "response". When I'm in a conversation with dog handlers I use the term "alert". I teach the proper term is "response". Sometimes I just say; damn I don't like to see that/or damn I really like that. 

DFrost


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> David.
> 
> I read what you wrote vs what Joby wrote. I don't think you are in the ball park with what he wrote. You don't like defense in a police dog. You call it a sport term. He is acknowledging it is there and has to be worked. Worked well, it causes the dog to kick into fight, which is part of defense. Worked incorrectly and the dog shows fear, which is also part of defense.
> 
> ...


I think what the problem is the initial reaction to the threat. What I think David F. wants to see is the dog not showing a defensive reaction to the initial threat but rather the stimulation of Prey drive (or at least that is what I want to see). The dog once on the bite can then be worked in defense/fight. If I see a defensive reaction at the start(hackles/backing up) I may pass on the dog and look for one that fits my profile.

As a police trainer it is not time or cost effective to build a dog. Much easier for all involved to get what you want from the start. I am sure it is the same with most european sport trainers that are at the top of the game. They are not wasting their time with mediocrity. They look for what they want and will pass on anything less.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

will fernandez said:


> I think what the problem is the initial reaction to the threat. What I think David F. wants to see is the dog not showing a defensive reaction to the initial threat but rather the stimulation of Prey drive (or at least that is what I want to see). The dog once on the bite can then be worked in defense/fight. If I see a defensive reaction at the start(hackles/backing up) I may pass on the dog and look for one that fits my profile.
> 
> As a police trainer it is not time or cost effective to build a dog. Much easier for all involved to get what you want from the start. I am sure it is the same with most european sport trainers that are at the top of the game. They are not wasting their time with mediocrity. They look for what they want and will pass on anything less.


Will. Here is how I want a training session generally to go to prep for deployment in regards to defense. I want the dog to raise his avoidance threshold (take more pressure), and lower his defense threshold (Barking willingness to bite with no stimulation). Those are two of my goals in a session when working a police dog. I don't want someone to have to show a threat to the dog. I want him to bring it to someone, on verbal command. To me, a barking growling dog leans towards defense IE a defensive reaction, and a drooling dog staring at a guy straining to breathe leans towards prey. I'll take either and mold it towards what I want if the dog has ability. I haven't seen a whole lot of dogs green that display defense like I want in a finished dog. 

I would agree with passing on a dog hackling up and backing up unless it is a single purpose detector dog. 

I also agree you have to be willing to train the dog after you test it. Should be able to make a good pick of a dog that learns quickly and progresses to a street worthy dog. Picking what you are willing to train as David suggested. A dog that give the picture that he WILL be able to do the work in the end, not do it at time of selection. 

Mediocre is subjective based on what you've seen. A lot of mediocre dogs make great police dogs, in my opinion. Some extremes of dog have no business on leash in a police situation and with some handlers.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> Will. Here is how I want a training session generally to go to prep for deployment in regards to defense. I want the dog to raise his avoidance threshold (take more pressure), and lower his defense threshold (Barking willingness to bite with no stimulation). Those are two of my goals in a session when working a police dog. I don't want someone to have to show a threat to the dog. I want him to bring it to someone, on verbal command. To me, a barking growling dog leans towards defense IE a defensive reaction, and a drooling dog staring at a guy straining to breathe leans towards prey. I'll take either and mold it towards what I want if the dog has ability. I haven't seen a whole lot of dogs green that display defense like I want in a finished dog.


I agree...I am sure if we (including David and Tim) were to test 100 dogs we would come to the same conclusion about their ability at least 75 percent of the time.





Dave Colborn said:


> I also agree you have to be willing to train the dog after you test it. Should be able to make a good pick of a dog that learns quickly and progresses to a street worthy dog. Picking what you are willing to train as David suggested. A dog that give the picture that he WILL be able to do the work in the end, not do it at time of selection.


For sure...And what I meant about build a dog was one that is somewhat weak and with more time invested may or may not make the cut. Need the greatest potential for success




Dave Colborn said:


> Mediocre is subjective based on what you've seen. A lot of mediocre dogs make great police dogs, in my opinion. Some extremes of dog have no business on leash in a police situation and with some handlers.


Only thing I would change is the great to good. I would save great for the truly exceptional ones. I agree about the extremes.

And as a plus I learned how to do that Lou Castle thing with the quotes.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

will fernandez said:


> And as a plus I learned how to do that Lou Castle thing with the quotes.



You can find a lot of information about showing quotes HERE in my quoting protocol. He inspired me to learn how to do the HERE thing. God bless his soul.

FYI I don't really have a quoting protocol.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

David Frost said:


> I've always said, prey carries them to the subject, it's fight that makes them stay there. Defense, in my mind, gives them the option of staying or leaving. I believe it's a weakness. "
> DFrost


So if the criminal attacks the dog while it's coming toward him, is the criminal prey or does that change a bit in the dogs mind David? He(the dog) is not in the "fight" yet but is possibly made uncomfortable at this point!
1. What changes in the dogs mind? Is he still in prey?
2. Since it sounds like you work 100% in prey and criminals running away it is not suprising why I once watched a police dog run into a blind with a new helper and bark twice and he left (flight 100%)! Guess he was never put in a uncomfortable position before or maybe they just did s bunch of prey bites while screaming in pain while the dog is biting! Which brings up another point of training, like when the police dog on video bit the guy with the leather jacket and the guy had no reaction which intimidated the dog. I bet if that guy fell and on the ground and screamed that dog would have looked great!
Quote Blank " the most intimidating thing you can do to some dogs is look them in the eye and do nothing, no reaction"
This goes for on the bite or before the bite, especially when a dog shows a lot of aggression (teeth, growling). 

Defense is nothing more than getting the dog to push through frontal pressure at varying degrees that Get stronger and stronger as the dog gets stronger! If a dog dogs hair is up and showing teeth it is too much too fast or the dog may be weak.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

So what if nothing changes in the dogs mind when the criminal comes towards it. Is it defense? Or maybe the dog does not change drives until the pressure is tactile...


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

will fernandez said:


> So what if nothing changes in the dogs mind when the criminal comes towards it. Is it defense? Or maybe the dog does not change drives until the pressure is tactile...


Why not just wait and see the one time you really need it


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

will fernandez said:


> So what if nothing changes in the dogs mind when the criminal comes towards it. Is it defense? Or maybe the dog does not change drives until the pressure is tactile...


Then why will many dogs slow down or flight when they see this but will hammer a guy if running away?
Some dogs, the good ones don't care but not all dogs are that great so they need to be made stronger by a good helper!
I wouldn't expect David to understand this be cause he is "the end user" and really has no hand in building young dogs.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Some dogs are flyers other dogs aren't. I would expect that a GOOD dog that only has seen send aways would hammer the criminal the first time it experiences a frontal attack. Now on the second or third he may slow down.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Timothy Stacy said:


> Then why will many dogs slow down or flight when they see this but will hammer a guy if running away?


Most lack conditioning, that I have seen, with the occasional weak unsalvageable dog mixed in there. Come running at my boxer, and he seems to pick up speed. He is in the fight prior to getting there, in my opinion. Think about defense (fight) making a dog increase speed. Is this possible? But, traditionally prey gets them there. And conditioning. And taxi's. Dogs love taxi rides.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Yes he is the end user. But he still has to build the dog to what he expects is truly the finished product.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

will fernandez said:


> Some dogs are flyers other dogs aren't. I would expect that a GOOD dog that only has seen send aways would hammer the criminal the first time it experiences a frontal attack. Now on the second or third he may slow down.


This would be contrary to what I have seen. Dogs are conditioned response animals. If they aren't conditioned to it, you may be unpleasantly surprised.

But, Will, when you do bites in training, what do you see in those situations on a longer send in the front in say a building vs. a runaway bite in a building?


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

I have watched many dogs slow or swerve on a face attack with a new helper and a twice on a helper who was brand new who gave the dog a very odd picture!
I wonder if a good percentage of KNPV dogs are "helped through face attacks? I'd bet a majority are!
As subtle as it is, it's help!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbnxTFDKASw&feature=youtube_gdata_player


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Definitely have to make sure the dog can stand the pressure of a frontal attack. But if you continue to do run aways and throw a frontal once in blue moon the picture is pretty. At least from what I have seen.

Is it any different than KNPV training a young dog. When the decoy charges the dog and stops..the dog is released and the decoy backs up to catch the dog on the bicep? (or maybe I contradicted myself)


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

will fernandez said:


> Yes he is the end user. But he still has to build the dog to what he expects is truly the finished product.


Yes I know! Does he still use the method of throwing a half dollar coin at the dog? Chuckle chuckle, snort!


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

will fernandez said:


> Some dogs are flyers other dogs aren't. I would expect that a GOOD dog that only has seen send aways would hammer the criminal the first time it experiences a frontal attack. Now on the second or third he may slow down.


I would certainly hope that by the time the dog is on the street, he's "been attacked" on more than one occasion. If not, training is certainly faulty. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Timothy Stacy said:


> Yes I know! Does he still use the method of throwing a half dollar coin at the dog? Chuckle chuckle, snort!


Yes I do. The same one I've had since the 60's as a matter of fact. I also use a throw chain. I also have 6 1900 Dogtras. 
chuckle, chuckle snort, cough. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

will fernandez said:


> Yes he is the end user. But he still has to build the dog to what he expects is truly the finished product.


Exactly correct. I've never hidden that fact. I don't like puppies, they bore me. I don't buy trained dogs. In fact i said that in this discussion (some folks hate facts it distracts their tirades). I buy in today's terms what is called a "green" dog. They generally have some ob, and are hitting a sleeve. The last one I bought had that, plus is hitting 3 odors (explosives) in a basic search. There is a bit of building between hitting a sleeve and working the street. 

DFrost


----------



## Aaron Rice (Jun 12, 2010)

Tim I think k9s handling frontal pressure is a whole new topic I would say
98 % of handlers have never handled a real working dog. 

I have seen real dogs before that will not slow even after having several hundred bites in thief lives. 

The lack of knowledge in how to start frontal pressure. Saying most police don't even know how to play tug with thirty own dog. 

To the op its not about what equipment is being used but how its is being used. I have seen dogs trained on a sleeve that will light any one up with out equipment


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Exactly! I love when guys act like giving bites on a SCH sleeve will diminish their dogs "realness" some how! Sounds like their are some underlying issues if that's the case!


Aaron Rice said:


> Tim I think k9s handling frontal pressure is a whole new topic I would say
> 98 % of handlers have never handled a real working dog.
> 
> I have seen real dogs before that will not slow even after having several hundred bites in thief lives.
> ...


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

will fernandez said:


> I think what the problem is the initial reaction to the threat. What I think David F. wants to see is the dog not showing a defensive reaction to the initial threat but rather the stimulation of Prey drive (or at least that is what I want to see). The dog once on the bite can then be worked in defense/fight. If I see a defensive reaction at the start(hackles/backing up) I may pass on the dog and look for one that fits my profile.
> 
> As a police trainer it is not time or cost effective to build a dog. .


Careful there are those that don't like thought out answer such as that. Pretty much what I've said from the beginning. I said at the beginning of this discussion I saw defense as a bad thing in a dog. I still see it that way. Just as you have stated. 

I wish I had 2 years to train a dog, then train on occasion, then train real hard for the "big show". 

DFrost


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

I have no problem with allowing my dog to bite a hard sleeve. But to use one exclusively is a huge mistake.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

David Frost said:


> I wish I had 2 years to train a dog, then train on occasion, then train real hard for the "big show".
> 
> DFrost



You have your whole life ahead of you to move towards this wish. I have a pit bull you'd like!!!


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

David Frost said:


> Exactly correct. I've never hidden that fact. I don't like puppies, they bore me. I don't buy trained dogs. In fact i said that in this discussion (some folks hate facts it distracts their tirades). I buy in today's terms what is called a "green" dog. They generally have some ob, and are hitting a sleeve. The last one I bought had that, plus is hitting 3 odors (explosives) in a basic search. There is a bit of building between hitting a sleeve and working the street.
> 
> DFrost


Chuckle chuckle! Call it green, I call that Past the point of started!
Whenever you want to get a pup and raise it, I'd be interested to see what you can do with it! chuck, chuckle, snort, FART! 
Hopefully your k9 program isn't like the Chicago Public School education system  Many On the school board think things are just fine  Snicker snicker


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Aaron Rice said:


> Tim I think k9s handling frontal pressure is a whole new topic I would say
> 98 % of handlers have never handled a real working dog.
> 
> I have seen real dogs before that will not slow even after having several hundred bites in thief lives.
> ...


I definitely dont play tug with thirty's dog.


----------



## Aaron Rice (Jun 12, 2010)

Originally Posted by will fernandez I think what the problem is the initial reaction to the threat. What I think David F. wants to see is the dog not showing a defensive reaction to the initial threat but rather the stimulation of Prey drive (or at least that is what I want to see). The dog once on the bite can then be worked in defense/fight. If I see a defensive reaction at the start(hackles/backing up) I may pass on the dog and look for one that fits my profile.

As a police trainer it is not time or cost effective to build a dog. .



David Frost said:


> Careful there are those that don't like thought out answer such as that. Pretty much what I've said from the beginning. I said at the beginning of this discussion I saw defense as a bad thing in a dog. I still see it that way. Just as you have stated.
> 
> I wish I had 2 years to train a dog, then train on occasion, then train real hard for the "big show".
> 
> DFrost


I really don't get this mentality. People keep contradicting themselves. 

Defense and prey are both need in balance with each other. 

As a police dog trainer is it cost effective to screw up a dog by agitating then giving a flee attack?


----------



## Aaron Rice (Jun 12, 2010)

will fernandez said:


> I definitely dont play tug with thirty's dog.


Their own dogs...


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> You have your whole life ahead of you to move towards this wish. I have a pit bull you'd like!!!


Ya know, when you've lived more life than ya have left, somethings just don't matter. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Timothy Stacy said:


> Chuckle chuckle! Call it green, I call that Past the point of started!
> Whenever you want to get a pup and raise it, I'd be interested to see what you can do with it! chuck, chuckle, snort, FART!
> Hopefully your k9 program isn't like the Chicago Public School education system  Many On the school board think things are just fine  Snicker snicker


I don't even live in Chicago. I don't know what part of "don't want anything to do with puppies" you don't understand, but were you educated in the Chicago school system. The term "green" isn't mine. It's the current term for that type of dog. My antique self remembers when green meant no training. That isn't the case today. They can call it what they want. I call it started. Don't know if the official term. 

But once again, thank you for your insight. I'm sure you experience in police service dogs will be of great benefit to me. I look forward to our discussions. You truly are a real shift of wit. Or something like that.

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Aaron Rice says: "As a police dog trainer is it cost effective to screw up a dog by agitating then giving a flee attack?"

As a police dog trainer, it isn't cost effective to screw a dog up at any stage of training. So I guess the answer to your question would be no. Is it your understanding that is all we do is (your words) "flee attack".



DFrost


----------



## Aaron Rice (Jun 12, 2010)

David Frost said:


> Aaron Rice says: "As a police dog trainer is it cost effective to screw up a dog by agitating then giving a flee attack?"
> 
> As a police dog trainer, it isn't cost effective to screw a dog up at any stage of training. So I guess the answer to your question would be no. Is it your understanding that is all we do is (your words) "flee attack".
> 
> ...


I just call it like I see it. I would take a lot of "sport dogs" over police trained dogs. 

My point is so many police "train" their own dogs but they need to stick to their day job. Just buy a trained dog and work with a trainer not just other officers. 

To many good dogs get messed up. I've seen it happen way to often.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Of coarse you don't want a dog for yourself either! That would mean your training would be transparent if you were to show videos. wink wink
If I were you I'd shelter your training too. I have a feeling your standard for a good dog is much less than mine :-\"
Yeah, tell us how you make your subordinates find that half dollar after you throw it. LOL I bet they really look up to you [-( . Talk about a power trip!
Seems your feathers are ruffled Mr. Frost LMAO or maybe your underwear is a bit too tight. :grin:


David Frost said:


> I don't even live in Chicago. I don't know what part of "don't want anything to do with puppies" you don't understand, but were you educated in the Chicago school system. The term "green" isn't mine. It's the current term for that type of dog. My antique self remembers when green meant no training. That isn't the case today. They can call it what they want. I call it started. Don't know if the official term.
> 
> But once again, thank you for your insight. I'm sure you experience in police service dogs will be of great benefit to me. I look forward to our discussions. You truly are a real shift of wit. Or something like that.
> 
> DFrost


----------



## Aaron Rice (Jun 12, 2010)

I'm guessing that last post was to me???? Oh Wait I couldnt keep up Cuz I was out training not sitting at my computer all day...


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Aaron Rice said:


> People keep contradicting themselves.


Yep, and David will go along with anything as long as he thinks it's his idea. =D>


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Timothy Stacy said:


> Of coarse you don't want a dog for yourself either! That would mean your training would be transparent if you were to show videos. wink wink
> If I were you I'd shelter your training too. I have a feeling your standard for a good dog is much less than mine :-\"
> Yeah, tell us how you make your subordinates find that half dollar after you throw it. LOL I bet they really look up to you [-( . Talk about a power trip!
> Seems your feathers are ruffled Mr. Frost LMAO or maybe your underwear is a bit too tight. :grin:


Once again, thank you for your insight. Your level of first hand experience in police service dogs and your expressed concern to help me, is certainly something that causes me to give it the consideration it deserves. As for videos, I'd be embarrassed to be seen screaming like a girl (guffaw) over a dog bite. I'll leave that to the professionals. 

DFrost


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

wannabe mod here;

OK knock it off you two!!!





how did i go???


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

You have to have a signature on your post, or you can't be a mod. It's a forum rule.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

David Frost said:


> Once again, thank you for your insight. Your level of first hand experience in police service dogs and your expressed concern to help me, is certainly something that causes me to give it the consideration it deserves. As for videos, I'd be embarrassed to be seen screaming like a girl (guffaw) over a dog bite. I'll leave that to the professionals.
> 
> DFrost


Anytime you need help just ask. I'm just not impressed by your perception of self greatness nor your training methods. However I must chuckle at your treatment of subordinates, just sucks for you not being used to someone like me telling you the way it is 
chuckle chuckle snort cough fart oops


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Timothy Stacy said:


> Anytime you need help just ask. I'm just not impressed by your perception of self greatness nor your training methods. However I must chuckle at your treatment of subordinates, just sucks for you not being used to someone like me telling you the way it is
> chuckle chuckle snort cough fart oops


Thank you for taking the time to point out my faults. I assure you, I'll either improve or get out of the business in a year and 4 months. I hope to someday measure up to your standards. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> wannabe mod here;
> 
> OK knock it off you two!!!
> 
> ...


Knock what off? He's only trying to help. I appreciate his concern.

DFrost


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Its the back and forth off topic banter, i will not say it again.


how was that guys,


sig in progress.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> Its the back and forth off topic banter, i will not say it again.
> 
> 
> how was that guys,
> ...


But I'm flattered that he takes such an interest. How can that be wrong?
chuckle, chuckle. 

DFrost


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> Its the back and forth off topic banter, i will not say it again.
> 
> 
> how was that guys,
> ...



I would go with "The words of a fool can raise my hands" Sort of a combo. Then find your inner internet and become your own mod persona. Bob Scott is a competetive body builder in real life and David Frost is the president of a small country in the middle east. Connie Sutherland is a mortician. You can be who you want o be in this new job...

Good luck. Take my advice, don't take my advice. Also a good signature.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

David Frost said:


> Yeah, I do admit to being an ass
> DFrost


He explains himself better than I can!

I just figured him out through past posts and built a profile of him, he's obviously pissed off hahaha!


----------



## Mark Oliver (Nov 10, 2011)

Last I knew this was a dog training forum? I've been up and down this thread a few times. What if most police dog trainers and handlers define "defense" the way they were taught by anyone who "thinks" they can bring it out of a dog while wearing a sleeve or suit?

One of many things I am grateful for in my police dog training career is I hardly know jack about dog sports.

If someone raises a bitework dog, using all of the good sport equipment out there, can noone see that a decoy will never truly be able to put a dog into defense? They have thousands of pictures in their head telling them that everything they bite with a decoy, is a prey item. Who really believes you can change that by suddenly challenging them for the opportunity to bite the suit?

I understand prey guarding if that popped into your head. It is not defense of themselves.

In police dog training, why is it so hard for so many people to not reference what two dominant wolves would do when they confront each other over whatever subject they decide to confront each other over? The subject quickly becomes a side item until the wolf with the strongest forwardness of prey, the strongest defense of himself and the best genetics wins because he is best equipped to fight.

It is not a hard formula.

Mark O.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Mark Oliver said:


> Last I knew this was a dog training forum? I've been up and down this thread a few times. What if most police dog trainers and handlers define "defense" the way they were taught by anyone who "thinks" they can bring it out of a dog while wearing a sleeve or suit?
> 
> One of many things I am grateful for in my police dog training career is I hardly know jack about dog sports.
> 
> ...


You should start by defining defense in your terms. Then explain what isn't a hard formula. My definition is in the thread. one, two, three, GO. What's yours?


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Mark Oliver said:


> Last I knew this was a dog training forum? I've been up and down this thread a few times. What if most police dog trainers and handlers define "defense" the way they were taught by anyone who "thinks" they can bring it out of a dog while wearing a sleeve or suit?
> 
> One of many things I am grateful for in my police dog training career is I hardly know jack about dog sports.
> 
> ...


Your idea supports the notion that a dog would see a bite suit as a prey item out of the womb. Who are you?


----------



## Aaron Rice (Jun 12, 2010)

Mark Oliver said:


> Last I knew this was a dog training forum? I've been up and down this thread a few times. What if most police dog trainers and handlers define "defense" the way they were taught by anyone who "thinks" they can bring it out of a dog while wearing a sleeve or suit?
> 
> One of many things I am grateful for in my police dog training career is I hardly know jack about dog sports.
> 
> ...



So are you saying a k9 has to be in defense to bite? Are you saying a k9 can't be taught on a sleeve?


----------



## Mark Oliver (Nov 10, 2011)

Aaron Rice said:


> So are you saying a k9 has to be in defense to bite? Are you saying a k9 can't be taught on a sleeve?


Answer to your first question Aaron...No. The definition of prey drive includes chase and bite. Dog definition, that is for sure.

Answer to your second question...No. But get them off of it and on to a suit as soon as they are biting it well. Get them off the suit and into muzzle as soon as they are biting a suit well.

Go back to sleeve or suit one out of ten bite sessions , just for fun or to practice certification techniques.

For police dog training.

Mark O.


----------



## Mark Oliver (Nov 10, 2011)

Dave Colborn said:


> You should start by defining defense in your terms. Then explain what isn't a hard formula. My definition is in the thread. one, two, three, GO. What's yours?


Dave,

Defense is a dog trying to put another dog {enemy} into avoidance. They do it all the time. They understand it genetically. Any wonder why moron humans came up with "group obedience". A decoy can play the part of the other dog {enemy}, if they are not wearing prey equipment.

What isn't a hard formula is prey drive+defense drive+genetics=fightdrive. There is no way in hell you can achieve fight drive wearing a suit or sleeve. Not how a dog understands it.

Mark O.


----------



## Mark Oliver (Nov 10, 2011)

Dave Colborn said:


> Your idea supports the notion that a dog would see a bite suit as a prey item out of the womb. Who are you?


8 weeks and on bite rags. Yea, that is practically out of the womb, don't you think?

Mark O.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Mark Oliver said:


> Dave,
> 
> Defense is a dog trying to put another dog {enemy} into avoidance. They do it all the time. They understand it genetically. Any wonder why moron humans came up with "group obedience". A decoy can play the part of the other dog {enemy}, if they are not wearing prey equipment.
> 
> ...


I just want to know which banned forum member you are. Really. I don't want to stick to that, but please, let us know.

Dogs don't know that a suit is a prey item. I don't know what you are saying about group obedience at all.

Suits can actually be more scary than sleeves, and muzzles used in a bad fashion are just another piece of equipment.

Your formula makes no sense at all. Prey drive and defense = genetics, and defense is fight or flight. What are you saying?


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Mark Oliver said:


> 8 weeks and on bite rags. Yea, that is practically out of the womb, don't you think?
> 
> Mark O.


OK mark O. You train a dog on a rag and then let me work him in a suit. If I were the kind of guy that would ruin your dog to show you how ignorant you are, I would run your dog to the hills. A rag and a suit are two greatly different things. Just look in a store at bitesuits and towels. Two different aisles entirely.


Here is a formula that makes sense. Aisle 1 rags, Aisle 10 bitesuits = 2 different things. 

Really, who are you?


----------



## Aaron Rice (Jun 12, 2010)

Mark Oliver said:


> Answer to your first question Aaron...No. The definition of prey drive includes chase and bite. Dog definition, that is for sure.
> 
> Answer to your second question...No. But get them off of it and on to a suit as soon as they are biting it well. Get them off the suit and into muzzle as soon as they are biting a suit well.
> 
> ...




One out of ten... WOW just so the dog remembers how to bite?

I've seen dogs that have worked most their life on a sleeve get live bites and even more so for a suit with out doing muzzle work. 

I would like to see these dogs in action...


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

OK, you are a sport guy trying to discredit cops. Got it. Which one are you though....


----------



## Mark Oliver (Nov 10, 2011)

Dave Colborn said:


> I just want to know which banned forum member you are. Really. I don't want to stick to that, but please, let us know.
> 
> Dogs don't know that a suit is a prey item. I don't know what you are saying about group obedience at all.
> 
> ...


Dave,

You can't play me. Move on man.

Mark O.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Mark Oliver said:


> Dave,
> 
> You can't play me. Move on man.
> 
> Mark O.


No playing mark. You are saying some weird stuff.


----------



## Aaron Rice (Jun 12, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> No playing mark. You are saying some weird stuff.


Great point Dave.these people keep contradicting themselves. Also what is with these wacky formulas.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Dave Colborn said:


> I just want to know which banned forum member you are. Really. I don't want to stick to that, but please, let us know.


While watching Fightdrivedogs's Youtube Channel, I think I did here someone call a guy Mark.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> I would go with "The words of a fool can raise my hands" Sort of a combo. Then find your inner internet and become your own mod persona. Bob Scott is a competetive body builder in real life and David Frost is the president of a small country in the middle east. Connie Sutherland is a mortician. You can be who you want o be in this new job...
> 
> Good luck. Take my advice, don't take my advice. Also a good signature.



 Not on my best day even 40 years ago! :lol::lol:;-)


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Mark Oliver said:


> Dave,
> 
> Defense is a dog trying to put another dog {enemy} into avoidance. They do it all the time. They understand it genetically. Any wonder why moron humans came up with "group obedience". A decoy can play the part of the other dog {enemy}, if they are not wearing prey equipment.
> 
> ...



Mark I re-read what you wrote when I was less tired this morning. I still don't get what you are saying though.

Prey drive and defensive drive ARE genetic traits. In your formula you add genetics to defense and prey to get fight drive in your formula. Which means your formula is genetics + genetics = fight drive.

My contention is that defense has fight and flight encompassed already and that Fight Drive, separate from a dogs defensive nature is something that really isn't there. I agree dogs will fight, and that it is their response to a threat, of which they have a choice to fight or flee. Stronger trained dogs will fight, lesser dogs may flee (there is a range of preavoidance signs here that we have to watch as trainers to not ruin a young dog)

In training this is important to realize, by letting the dog win after being confronted with a threat until he/she thinks that they can win pretty much any fight.

No playing you, Mark. I read some of what you said wrong as I was tired, and some of it I just don't understand the way you are relating it.

Thanks Jennifer for pointing me to the videos. I jumped to the possibility it was someone trying to discredit police trainers by portraying themselves as one in a negative manner.


----------



## Mark Oliver (Nov 10, 2011)

Dave Colborn said:


> Mark I re-read what you wrote when I was less tired this morning. I still don't get what you are saying though.
> 
> Prey drive and defensive drive ARE genetic traits. In your formula you add genetics to defense and prey to get fight drive in your formula. Which means your formula is genetics + genetics = fight drive.
> 
> ...


Not my formula, just to be clear I was taught it years ago but now have expanded on it by NOT using equipment to test it. Let me try to say it another way.

A genetically sound dog has a built in foundation of useful prey drive and a useful defense drive. The prey and defense drive would not be useful if the dog was not genetically sound. Think fear biters for example. They are not genetically sound but they still possess some degree of prey drive but an out of whack defense drive. In a wild pack of dogs they would be pushed out or killed because they are weak, they are not proper in genetics.

It is a snowball formula. It gets bigger as it goes. Genetics includes proper prey and defense drives. See it? 

Mark O.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Mark Oliver said:


> Not my formula, just to be clear I was taught it years ago but now have expanded on it by NOT using equipment to test it. Let me try to say it another way.
> 
> A genetically sound dog has a built in foundation of useful prey drive and a useful defense drive. The prey and defense drive would not be useful if the dog was not genetically sound. Think fear biters for example. They are not genetically sound but they still possess some degree of prey drive but an out of whack defense drive. In a wild pack of dogs they would be pushed out or killed because they are weak, they are not proper in genetics.
> 
> ...


Mark.


I agree with part of what you are saying, but you are adding genetics on top of genetics still with the formula example. If a dog is a fear biter, he *may* have a flaw with his defensive drive. Part of his genetics. 

The definition of defensive drive I use is very clear.

Defense = Fight, Flight, or displacement. Defense is displayed as the dogs reaction to threat. So if a dog reacts incorrectly (perceived fear biter) to someone and sees them as a threat when they are not, his threshold to see something as a threat is too low and probably faulty, that's all. Since defense drive is genetic, faulty defense in the genetics. As is prey drive.

The formula you used, Mark was (defense + prey + genetics = fight) and that is redundant. Please explain if I am missing something in the way you see it.

The other thing here with a fear biter is inappropriate training may have caused the issue. Dog could be a well rounded dog that is taught to fear everyone, and react by biting. An extremely low threshold to his defense that he has learned by flanking or some other unpleasant stimulus to bite and chase off the "threat". Dogs do this naturally by barking or growling and chasing someone away. getting stronger and stronger til there is a bite, or someone shows the dog we are not all a threat.

You mentioned in another post defense is a dog trying to put another dog or human into avoidance. I am going to think about that for a while before I answer. If I understand what you are saying correctly, you are saying that a dog is biting to put someone into avoidance, and make them quit fighting. Some training I have used would agree with this, but some doesn't.

Stimulating some thought for me, here. 

Oh, and also to a previous post of yours,* I do believe with prey equipment on, even equipment a dog has seen as prey his whole life, I can in fact push a dog to be defensive*. This is why some people can get a mediocre dog to bite a tug and some can't. They are scary people to the dog, even though they hold a tug. 

Picture defense and prey two running currents in the dog like electricity. Picture a sleeve or a scary man as two switches. Throw a switch and the dog reacts how his genetics and training tell him. If you throw both switches at once, IE stimulate prey drive with a sleeve and then square off and yell at the dog to scare him, both drives will be displayed in most dogs. Sooner or later training will condition the dog to not react to the threat with fear and bite out of prey or fight because that is how he wins (conditioned response)through fight. 

Using the prey drive to overcome a threat or something scary (defense is how a dog reacts to something scary) to a dog is pretty common. IE slick floors (defensive-stimulates the desire to flee) throw a prey object and the dog comes up and retrieves it while flattened out. This is why a dog can be a backyard champion, or a great sport dog, and then come into a building with slick floors and look like a shitter. The difference between good and bad training is using the prey to carry the dog through the defense reaction.


Thanks for the discussion, Mark. I really did assume you were someone else, but I sometimes don't believe people exist til I meet them. Religion is hard on me sometimes.


----------



## Mark Oliver (Nov 10, 2011)

Dave Colborn said:


> Mark.
> 
> 
> I agree with part of what you are saying, but you are adding genetics on top of genetics still with the formula example. If a dog is a fear biter, he *may* have a flaw with his defensive drive. Part of his genetics.
> ...


So I asked my hypothetical six year old last night...

Do you think a dog who is genetically proper would exhibit a balanced prey drive and a balanced defense drive?

Mark O.


----------



## Mark Oliver (Nov 10, 2011)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> While watching Fightdrivedogs's Youtube Channel, I think I did here someone call a guy Mark.


Jennifer,

Just so there is not any confusion, my name is Mark Oliver. FightDriveDogs is my Youtube channel. I have nothing to hide in my almost 20 years of training and handling POLICE dogs.

Mark O.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Mark Oliver said:


> Jennifer,
> 
> Just so there is not any confusion, my name is Mark Oliver. FightDriveDogs is my Youtube channel. I have nothing to hide in my almost 20 years of training and handling POLICE dogs.
> 
> Mark O.


Yes, I know, I checked out your signature website and it led me to your Youtube channel.


----------



## Mark Oliver (Nov 10, 2011)

Aaron Rice said:


> Great point Dave.these people keep contradicting themselves. Also what is with these wacky formulas.


Aaron,

I'll accept your apology without hearing it. I train POLICE dogs. It is my only focus. Sorry I am not some european sport, shooting star, kind of guy. Last I knew, a fleeing rapist does not wear a sleeve or a suit...

Mark O.


----------



## Mark Oliver (Nov 10, 2011)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> Yes, I know, I checked out your signature website and it led me to your Youtube channel.


Thank you.

Mark O.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Mark Oliver said:


> So I asked my hypothetical six year old last night...
> 
> Do you think a dog who is genetically proper would exhibit a balanced prey drive and a balanced defense drive?
> 
> Mark O.


You have it backwards...You have to be able to explain it to a six year old. Good luck. What did your six year old trainer tell you though?


----------



## Mark Oliver (Nov 10, 2011)

Dave Colborn said:


> You have it backwards...You have to be able to explain it to a six year old. Good luck. What did your six year old trainer tell you though?


You are not even 6 years old, Dave...

Mark O.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Mark Oliver said:


> You are not even 6 years old, Dave...
> 
> Mark O.


You lost me. I thought we were going to talk about dog training.

Welcome to the world of having an opinion. Support your argument. That's all I am saying. Change my mind if you can. At least support your argument and stay away from regurgitated formulas and calling me "not even 6 years old."


----------



## Mark Oliver (Nov 10, 2011)

Dave Colborn said:


> You lost me. I thought we were going to talk about dog training.
> 
> Welcome to the world of having an opinion. Support your argument. That's all I am saying. Change my mind if you can. At least support your argument and stay away from regurgitated formulas and calling me "not even 6 years old."


Dave, I am one of the most easy to get along with guys you could ever meet. I have patiently supported my argument. You are obviously here on another agenda. Why is it people who play dumb do not understand that there are people capable of seeing they are playing dumb?

If you are hooked on equipment and everything europe has charged you to learn, so be it. I am not. I am hooked on making police dogs, not sport dogs. Believe it or not, there is a TRAINING difference.

Keep doing what you are doing. It has worked for you all the time, right?

Mark O.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

It will be interesting to see which thread out of this one and the ds thread will have the longest consecutive run of kinda interpersonal banter exchangy thingy posts.


----------



## Mark Oliver (Nov 10, 2011)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> It will be interesting to see which thread out of this one and the ds thread will have the longest consecutive run of kinda interpersonal banter exchangy thingy posts.


Well Pete I at least hope they see that a "senior member" is the one acting like an ankle biter :-o.

Mark O.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Hi Mark, why dont ya go post sumthin over on the ds thread, you been moping over here too long, plenty of sub topics to choose from or make up yr own, current discussion is on eggnog.

come on over pal.


----------



## Mark Oliver (Nov 10, 2011)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> Hi Mark, why dont ya go post sumthin over on the ds thread, you been moping over here too long, plenty of sub topics to choose from or make up yr own, current discussion is on eggnog.
> 
> come on over pal.


"Moping" Mr. Cavallaro? I'll let you off the hook on that one. Where is the DS thread?

Mark O.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Just hit new posts button, 'can the ds breed be saved', dont bother going from the start just jump in at the last post. its all completely random, since my last post here have gone from discussing eggnog with a real viet vet, to Doug Zaga coming to grips with his latent homosexuality.

even got 2 poems dedicated, one is quiet good, you only get THIS much crazy when ds owners are involved.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Mark Oliver said:


> Dave, I am one of the most easy to get along with guys you could ever meet. I have patiently supported my argument. You are obviously here on another agenda. Why is it people who play dumb do not understand that there are people capable of seeing they are playing dumb?
> 
> If you are hooked on equipment and everything europe has charged you to learn, so be it. I am not. I am hooked on making police dogs, not sport dogs. Believe it or not, there is a TRAINING difference.
> 
> ...



Sorry you are bailing on a training discussion. Not playing dumb, just feeling like I am explaining and you are not.


Good luck to you.


----------



## Aaron Rice (Jun 12, 2010)

Mark Oliver said:


> Aaron,
> 
> I'll accept your apology without hearing it. I train POLICE dogs. It is my only focus. Sorry I am not some european sport, shooting star, kind of guy. Last I knew, a fleeing rapist does not wear a sleeve or a suit...
> 
> Mark O.


Apology for what? I train police dogs too big deal. The trick is actually putting out a good quality dog... Got that mark? 

Do you know if you train the right way with equipment the don't focus just on that


----------



## Faisal Khan (Apr 16, 2009)

15 pages hehe, super trainers.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xfex4_funny-police-dog-chase-video_animals


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Mark Oliver said:


> Dave,
> 
> Defense is a dog trying to put another dog {enemy} into avoidance. They do it all the time. They understand it genetically. Any wonder why moron humans came up with "group obedience". *A decoy can play the part of the other dog {enemy}, if they are not wearing prey equipment.*
> 
> ...


So a dog cannot be put into defense or fight if guy is in a suit? is that what you are saying? trying to understand here...

What if said dog has never seen a suit before?

How does a dog understand (view, maybe? cant really follow) fight drive? please help me understand, I am really dumb..dumber than a dog.


----------



## Mark Oliver (Nov 10, 2011)

Aaron Rice said:


> Apology for what? I train police dogs too big deal. The trick is actually putting out a good quality dog... Got that mark?
> 
> Do you know if you train the right way with equipment the don't focus just on that


Yea, I got it Aaron. One, you have no clue what you are talking about when you say "if you train the right way with equipment they don't just focus on that". So what do they focus on Aaron? The decoys eyes? His aggressive posture? The whip, the stick? Fancy foot work. All of these things only become a learned temporary barrier for a dog to get what he really wants. The equipment.

I know I am messing with religion when I challenge all the high priests of equipment who make money off of you. So because I got tired of fixing equipment only dogs sold as police dogs I'm the bad guy? I'll take one for my team, thank you very much.

Mark Oliver


----------



## Mark Oliver (Nov 10, 2011)

Joby Becker said:


> So a dog cannot be put into defense or fight if guy is in a suit? is that what you are saying? trying to understand here...
> 
> What if said dog has never seen a suit before?
> 
> How does a dog understand (view, maybe? cant really follow) fight drive? please help me understand, I am really dumb..dumber than a dog.


Joby, dogs are smart so I'm sure you are too ;-). Minus the one scenario that the dog has never seen a suit before I would strongly argue that you can only hit defense a little bit and you certainly cannot hit fight drive if he was progressed to the suit traditionally.

If he has never seen a suit before there is no reference for the dog to compare anything when a decoy confronts him. So naturally you could put him into defense. Fight also if he has good genetics.

If he was progressed to a suit, the way most dogs are, he has way too many references of winning an item of one kind or another to ever see an opportunity to bite a suit as a true fight. You can hit defense to a degree by making the dog say "whoa, this decoy is pressuring me a little bit for the opportunity to bite that suit." You aren't ever truly making him try to drive you away, he wants to bite the damned suit to badly for that to happen!

Fight drive is a battle between a dog and an opponent where the endgame is not the opportunity to bite a piece of equipment, rather it is for survival. He who causes the most damage for real wins by either disabling the opponent {prey drive} or driving the opponent off {defense drive}.

Mark O.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Mark Oliver said:


> Joby, dogs are smart so I'm sure you are too ;-). Minus the one scenario that the dog has never seen a suit before I would strongly argue that you can only hit defense a little bit and you certainly cannot hit fight drive if he was progressed to the suit traditionally.
> 
> If he has never seen a suit before there is no reference for the dog to compare anything when a decoy confronts him. So naturally you could put him into defense. Fight also if he has good genetics.
> 
> ...


 
So Drive is deteminded by the actions of the opponent?

I thought prey drive was rooted in the predatory instinct of the dog to catch and kill something, this used to be for food. But through selective breeding we have accomplished in "manipulating" the drive to a point where a dog can use it in other areas...like chasing a tennis ball ( no disabling an adversary there). 

Defense drive I thought was rooted in the instinct of self preservation...the fight or flight response? So fight drive would be rooted in the self preservation instinct. Fight drive would simply be a dog who's defense drive would manifest itself in the form of fighting to survive. As a dog who flees...still in defense drive, is manifesting itself by running away.

Now, I have seen dogs who have been raised on equipment in the traditional prey drive manner. But still see the exchange between the man and the dog as a fight. Slip the sleeve...they still want to bite you. I do not think this is something you can install in a dog. It's either there or it is not. Either way. You can teach a dog through prey to still be an agressor....just ask the poor little rabbit who gets killed by a dog if he gave a shit the dog was in prey drive and won his cute little prize.


----------



## Aaron Rice (Jun 12, 2010)

James Downey said:


> So Drive is deteminded by the actions of the opponent?
> 
> I thought prey drive was rooted in the predatory instinct of the dog to catch and kill something, this used to be for food. But through selective breeding we have accomplished in "manipulating" the drive to a point where a dog can use it in other areas...like chasing a tennis ball ( no disabling an adversary there).
> 
> ...


Very well said! Was the dog who killed the bunny trained on suit or in a muzzle.... Wait it doesnt matter


----------



## Oluwatobi Odunuga (Apr 7, 2010)

I think the sleeve still plays an important role for certain scenarios where it would be difficult to wear a suit or where the goal is to test the dog's environmental stability rather than fight drive, a dog either has the desire to fight/bite a man or not. Once its been determined that the dog has no problem with biting a decoy without equipment, the trainer will want to see how the dog handles new scenarios. Some scenarios can be done with the decoy going behind a closed door without equipment and in other instances with the sleeeve or with the dog on a muzzle.
I think there are a lot of good k9 trainers that use sleeves in certain instances.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

James Downey said:


> . You can teach a dog through prey to still be an agressor....just ask the poor little rabbit who gets killed by a dog if he gave a shit the dog was in prey drive and won his cute little prize.





Aaron Rice said:


> Very well said!


 
Funny Aaron... if you say it.....It's a contradiction.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

James Downey said:


> So Drive is deteminded by the actions of the opponent?
> 
> I thought prey drive was rooted in the predatory instinct of the dog to catch and kill something, this used to be for food. But through selective breeding we have accomplished in "manipulating" the drive to a point where a dog can use it in other areas...like chasing a tennis ball ( no disabling an adversary there).
> 
> ...



Good explanation.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

So Mark...

Just so I have this straight...

In your opinion, Fight Drive is displayed when the dog is fighting to survive?

For the purpose of coming together on drive description in our heads...Do you have any video on your youtube channel fightdrivedogs, that are working in fight drive? so I can see it...


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Also, I did watch some of your videos.

One said you only do 10% of your BITE WORK..with equipment...
what do you do for the other 90% of the bite work? what does the dog bite?

thanks


----------



## Aaron Rice (Jun 12, 2010)

Joby Becker said:


> Also, I did watch some of your videos.
> 
> One said you only do 10% of your BITE WORK..with equipment...
> what do you do for the other 90% of the bite work? what does the dog bite?
> ...


Muzzle work but thats Still equipment....


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Aaron Rice said:


> Muzzle work but thats Still equipment....


Oh...I thought Bite work was Bite work...
and Muzzle work, was Muzzle work...

I am so dumb..

So was the muzzle work in the video in fight drive?


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Checked out some vids on the channel. Kind of anti-climatic. With the way Mark was talking I do not know what I was expecting, but it sure didn't appear to be what Mark was touting. I see the defensive behavior with the stick.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I watched the muzzle hit video, dog fired up when guy asked to pet him....
was that fight drive?

all of the muzzle work in those videos is with the guy running away, making a prey move up close to the dog to illicit a hit, or rolling away from the dog on the ground...
is that fight drive?

Is there ANY fight drive on there Mark, 

according to your definition of fight drive being a dog fighting for it's survival, there cannot be any fightdrive on fightdrivedogs youtube channel....by definition...


----------



## Aaron Rice (Jun 12, 2010)

Joby Becker said:


> I watched the muzzle hit video, dog fired up when guy asked to pet him....
> was that fight drive?
> 
> all of the muzzle work in those videos is with the guy running away, making a prey move up close to the dog to illicit a hit, or rolling away from the dog on the ground...
> ...


I would really like to see those dogs do a frontal attack and see how They ganske real pressure...


----------



## James Degale (Jan 9, 2009)

I am not a regular on this forum clicked on this thread hoping for somthing good. What a joke!

Half the know-it-alls commenting have never had a real bite in their life, never known the "oh shit" moment when transitioning a dog from training to his first encounter, never been in a real fight where the dog gets HURTS, never been in a dark warehouse wondering if it is a gun or knife, and how many bodies waiting for you. 

At the end of the day, PSD training weeds out the dogs that WILL bite or WON'T bite, those that have balls and those that don't. Yes sports terminology is helpful but when you know-it-alls turn 10 pages of thread into arguing about miniscule definitons, then you are just trying to show off. Any good police trainer knows how to read dogs, they may not be able to express it in fancy ways that you sports people can understand but I am not losing any sleep over this. Lets get it clear, a dog needs to be built up in training with sleeves, suits and finally covert but nothing substitutes for some real life experience.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

James Degale said:


> I am not a regular on this forum clicked on this thread hoping for somthing good. What a joke!
> 
> Half the know-it-alls commenting have never had a real bite in their life, never known the "oh shit" moment when transitioning a dog from training to his first encounter, never been in a real fight where the dog gets HURTS, never been in a dark warehouse wondering if it is a gun or knife, and how many bodies waiting for you.
> 
> At the end of the day, PSD training weeds out the dogs that WILL bite or WON'T bite, those that have balls and those that don't. Yes sports terminology is helpful but when you know-it-alls turn 10 pages of thread into arguing about miniscule definitons, then you are just trying to show off. Any good police trainer knows how to read dogs, they may not be able to express it in fancy ways that you sports people can understand but I am not losing any sleep over this. Lets get it clear, a dog needs to be built up in training with sleeves, suits and finally covert but nothing substitutes for some real life experience.


Your experience with Police dogs and mine. Vary a tad. What I have seen, is just like sports. A couple of monsters, a bunch of middle of the road dogs...and some that might on a good day rip your good sweatshirt. I have yet to meet the dog that actually in his mind know that thier is a difference.

You can save the Dramatic Miami vice scene about deploying the dog for your nephew at thanksgiving dinner. We are not here saying that the police do not provide a wanted and valuable service. We are just calling BS on one person making outlandish claims about how we all are doing it wrong. And that he somehow has it all figured out. Hey talk the hype. Do not be sad when people call you out on it. You do not have to be Ordained to do that. 

And do not worry bubb. I put myself in harms way often enough to know what the pucker factor feels like. And I do not have anyone but myself to rely on. So before you start saying I am talking out of my ass. You should watch your tone.

And with that....YO MAMA.


----------



## James Degale (Jan 9, 2009)

Not to say your blind-to-the-world heelwork, recalls out of the blind and footstep tracking isn't good training but it doesn't cut it in the real world. Ten full mouth bites on a hard sleeve under "pressure" from a floppy rubber stick in training is worth less than a half-mouth bite on a perp trying to gouge your dog's eyes out. So what if the dog is snarling and hackling but the question is will it come off the bite or re-engage when hurt till the guy gives up. Thing is you don't know do you? 

So save me your vast experience gained from green field weekend training sessions, seminars, youtube and attending regionals and nationals. Get back to me when you've licenced a k9 and your dog has a half a dozen live bites under its belt. *Till then your opinion is worth sh*t*. Like it or not, that's fact. Sports dogs and police K9s all come from the same stock, we work with the same genetic pool yet the training IS DIFFERENT. Till you have done both, again *your opinion is worth sh*t.*


----------



## James Degale (Jan 9, 2009)

By the way I am not addressing anyone in particular but it is meant for sports trainer who thinks they know it all and know what it takes to prepare a dog for the street. I am not saying the forces have nothing to learn from sports training, quite the opposite, but I think there are some sports trainers here who have a know-it-all attitude even before their dog has had its first live bite. Of course it is down to individual arrogance, there are many good sports people out there who K9s would be happy to work with and learn from and learn with. In real life nobody know-it-all, the exception is on FORUMS !!!


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

James Degale said:


> Not to say your blind-to-the-world heelwork, recalls out of the blind and footstep tracking isn't good training but it doesn't cut it in the real world. Ten full mouth bites on a hard sleeve under "pressure" from a floppy rubber stick in training is worth less than a half-mouth bite on a perp trying to gouge your dog's eyes out. So what if the dog is snarling and hackling but the question is will it come off the bite or re-engage when hurt till the guy gives up. Thing is you don't know do you?
> 
> So save me your vast experience gained from green field weekend "training" sessions, seminars, youtube and attending regionals and nationals. Get back to me when you've licenced a k9 and your dog has a half a dozen live bites under its belt. *Till then your opinion is worth sh*t*. Like it or not, that's fact. Sports dogs and police K9s all come from the same stock, they are the same geetics we both work with but the training IS DIFFERENT. Till you have done both, again *your opinion is worth sh*t.*


Your right my opinion is worth shit. I have absolutley no grounds of crediability on what I am talking about.

But just remember You do not know shit about sports... So there. 

HAHA what a dill hole.


----------

