# decoy throws the ball?



## Michael Murphy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idx5Eue0Oqo


----------



## Michael Murphy

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

is this french ring or belgium?


----------



## Joby Becker

Michael Murphy said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idx5Eue0Oqo


yeah..decoy dropped the ball....and?


----------



## Michael Murphy

would this not teach the dog to see the decoy as friend :evil:


----------



## Dave Colborn

Michael Murphy said:


> would this not teach the dog to see the decoy as friend :evil:


What is the harm in him being friendly?


----------



## Geoff Empey

Joby Becker said:


> yeah..decoy dropped the ball....and?


Exactly and I heard a clicker being utilized too .. the horror of it all. LOL! 

Nice 'modern' bark and hold training is what it looks like to me. The training decoy wasn't even obvious with the ball. Same techniques that are used training detection. I never understand why people think that exercises with the decoy always need to be trained with conflict. There is lots of time to add opposition from the decoy, but let the dog learn the exercise first.


----------



## Christopher Smith

There is a big difference between minimising conflict and this. But I promote this training for everyone. It makes them easier to beat.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Lots of Mondio ring search and barks use a ball/tug reward from the decoy. Quicker reward then waiting for the handler to come up. Less stress and conflict then a site on a suit and you don't have to worry about having a solid out. Just another technique that works with some dogs.


----------



## Guy Williams

Christopher Smith said:


> There is a big difference between minimising conflict and this. But I promote this training for everyone. It makes them easier to beat.


Here is another video from the same guys. This dog looks to be a bit more advanced than the bark and hold video. They look like they are doing ok to me!

http://www.youtube.com/user/MONTEPIANA?feature=watch


----------



## Christopher Smith

Guy Williams said:


> Here is another video from the same guys. This dog looks to be a bit more advanced than the bark and hold video. They look like they are doing ok to me!
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/user/MONTEPIANA?feature=watch




They don't do what I do.


----------



## Shade Whitesel

Anyone who has actually trained an IPO 3 and been to worlds or let's say even Nationals, want to comment on this technique?


----------



## Faisal Khan

Crickets


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Shade Whitesel said:


> Anyone who has actually trained an IPO 3 and been to worlds or let's say even Nationals, want to comment on this technique?


Unless they've added muzzle work to IPO, the 1st video has nothing to do with IPO. I think a ball/tug reward (minus the muzzle component) from the decoy is Ring sport training?
It's a way to train the exercise and minimize the drive level.


----------



## Bob Scott

Guy Williams said:


> Here is another video from the same guys. This dog looks to be a bit more advanced than the bark and hold video. They look like they are doing ok to me!
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/user/MONTEPIANA?feature=watch




The dog really hit hard. 
:-k :-k .........I'm thinking he was pissed off at the decoy for forgetting the ball.


----------



## Michael Murphy

its called protection sports, that aint protection. any dog with high drive could do this, solid nerves not needed. WHAT A JOKE


----------



## Bob Scott

:-o WOW! ](*,)


----------



## Stefan Schaub

Michael Murphy said:


> its called protection sports, that aint protection. any dog with high drive could do this, solid nerves not needed. WHAT A JOKE


what you see in the movie is the beginning of hold and bark under muzzel for the German Police Certification. the law in germany is real straight with the tools you can use on a dog. no pinch color, no e color and no hitting kicking and what else. the police dog trainer( also employed by the State) are real under pressure,they get every few weeks a new group of dog handler with close to no experience with dogs. this way makes it easier and legal for them,it works all on a positive reward system,basic training goes complete with the clicker.it works for them.what later happen outside the school or on the street is not any more the problem of the school or trainer.

is it the right way???yes because it works for them. must you like it. no!!but who likes you or your comments with no background knowledge


----------



## Christopher Smith

Shade Whitesel said:


> Anyone who has actually trained an IPO 3 and been to worlds or let's say even Nationals, want to comment on this technique?


I did.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

Thomas Barriano said:


> I think a ball/tug reward (minus the muzzle component) from the decoy is Ring sport training?


I've seen people use a ball and/or tug (and bite pillow) reward for the bark and hold in all sports, IPO included.


----------



## Guy Williams

The guys in the first video look to be training the bark and hold. I'm guessing the dog is in muzzle because they are getting the dog used to wearing muzzle for future training. By doing everything in muzzle, it doesn't become a trigger for bitework when it comes.


----------



## Guy Williams

Michael Murphy said:


> its called protection sports, that aint protection. any dog with high drive could do this, solid nerves not needed. WHAT A JOKE


These dogs will be working the streets so it is no joke to them. This is just the foundation training and as has been pointed out, without e- collar, no pinch collar etc you need to work with what you can. 

The control has to be in place before the dog gets to bite, before the decoy brings the fight etc. You are seeing a snapshot of a long process. If you check out the youtube site for these guys you can see they are training for Police and KNPV.

Just out of curiosity are your dogs expected to deal with threat from the outset with no foundation in prey work?:-k


----------



## Joby Becker

Michael Murphy said:


> its called protection sports, that aint protection. any dog with high drive could do this, solid nerves not needed. WHAT A JOKE


What is called protection sports?

What isnt protection?

What can any dog with high drive do? 

Why are you bringing up nerves at all in this topic?

What is a Joke?


----------



## Michael Murphy

is this the standard way that they teach bark and hold in the knpv?

whats a joke? the dog is playing fetch with the decoy, i understand that the dog will be working the streets one day and will bite but still.......lead to softer dogs?


----------



## Joby Becker

Michael Murphy said:


> is this the standard way that they teach bark and hold in the knpv?
> 
> whats a joke? the dog is playing fetch with the decoy, i understand that the dog will be working the streets one day and will bite but still.......lead to softer dogs?


Michael, as stated this is not even KNPV training. 

how would training with a ball at 8 months for this, lead to softer dogs? 

where do you see "a dog playing fetch with a helper".

And lastly, July is long gone now, which means exams are now over for you, so lets see some videos of YOUR training, instead of reading you make derogatory and uninformed posts about videos of other peoples training.

This dog is now 3.5 yrs old and is a certified dual purpose dog in Germany.
Go visit Germany and volunteer yourself to be bitten by that dog, I wold bet your opinion would change, bring a ball with you and try to distract him with it..


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Michael Murphy said:


> is this the standard way that they teach bark and hold in the knpv?
> 
> whats a joke? the dog is playing fetch with the decoy, i understand that the dog will be working the streets one day and will bite but still.......lead to softer dogs?


Just because you see one mention of KNPV in a topic you already assume its the way it works for the entire KNPV.

Michael, if you are going to make comments on topics then atleast try to not blanket every statement you see and even better, try to gain some knowledge about the topics instead of posting questions that pop of the top of your mind without thinking about what you are asking or talking about! 

I sometimes wonder if anything you read really registers with you..... Try to learn something instead of showing your blatent ignorance in each and every post you make. Maybe then people will start to take you seriously and will also reply to the questions that so often get ignored when you pose them on topic or in private.


----------



## will fernandez

How do they teach the BH in OZ


----------



## Joby Becker

WILL 










http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jgv7k805LE

in OZ they teach the bark and hold like this, they are in this youtube video, so they must all do it over there for every dog and every purpose. 

The dog is 19 months old! There is not even a decoy! 

The dog will grow up to just bark at balls all the time and ignore helpers and or intruders 

Does he not know this? I wonder if Kris K has consulted with Michael on this subject.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Alice Bezemer said:


> Just because you see one mention of KNPV in a topic you already assume its the way it works for the entire KNPV.



Maybe part of the problem stems from the fact that you, and other Europeans on this forum, often start off a statement with something like "What we do over here..." or "What we do in KNPV is.....". Some people take that literally and believe that all of you do the same thing. They are simply believing what YOU told them.

Maybe you should say "What *I* do is...." more often.


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Christopher Smith said:


> Maybe part of the problem stems from the fact that you, and other Europeans on this forum, often start off a statement with something like "What we do over here..." or "What we do in KNPV is.....". Some people take that literally and believe that all of you do the same thing. They are simply believing what YOU told them.
> 
> Maybe you should say "What *I* do is...." more often.


Could be, I see your point. Although I have to say that all general "What we do in KNPV" mentions are about the exercises as all in KNPV have to perform them. In training or way of handling a certain training I try to be specific and always state from my point of view as do most Europeans for that matter.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Alice Bezemer said:


> Could be, I see your point. Although I have to say that all general "What we do in KNPV" mentions are about the exercises as all in KNPV have to perform them. In training or way of handling a certain training I try to be specific and always state from my point of view as do most Europeans for that matter.




No....really.....you and most Europeans ON THIS FORUM often make statements that make it sound as if you are speaking for the entire EU. I'll make a pointing it out to you from now on.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I've seen people use a ball and/or tug (and bite pillow) reward for the bark and hold in all sports, IPO included.


Hi Kadi,

There is a difference between a decoy rewarding with a tug or bite pillow or ball on a rope and interacting with the dog and what
happens in the 1st video where the decoy is just throwing the ball without any interaction or tug/play


----------



## Kadi Thingvall

Thomas Barriano said:


> Hi Kadi,
> 
> There is a difference between a decoy rewarding with a tug or bite pillow or ball on a rope and interacting with the dog and what
> happens in the 1st video where the decoy is just throwing the ball without any interaction or tug/play


Yes, but I have seen IPO people just throw a ball. Heck, take it one step further and there are IPO people teaching the search, bark and hold with an automatic ball dropper in the blind, no decoy/helper at all.

It's a training technique, whether either of us would use it or not, that isn't limited to just one sport.


----------



## Joby Becker

Thomas Barriano said:


> Hi Kadi,
> 
> There is a difference between a decoy rewarding with a tug or bite pillow or ball on a rope and interacting with the dog and what
> happens in the 1st video where the decoy is just throwing the ball without any interaction or tug/play


how can he tug or play with the dog in muzzle?


----------



## Guy Williams

Joby Becker said:


> WILL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jgv7k805LE
> 
> in OZ they teach the bark and hold like this, they are in this youtube video, so they must all do it over there for every dog and every purpose.
> 
> The dog is 19 months old! There is not even a decoy!
> 
> The dog will grow up to just bark at balls all the time and ignore helpers and or intruders
> 
> Does he not know this? I wonder if Kris K has consulted with Michael on this subject.


This is why I come on this forum. That is a great way to start young dogs if you don't have access to a helper. That had never crossed my mind before and is great for people like me with no mates!!:razz:


----------



## Faisal Khan

Joby Becker said:


> how can he tug or play with the dog in muzzle?


The dog gets the release marker and chases the ball punching with muzzle, handler can end with down command, get ball and continue. To the dog it is a reward. I have used in OB exercises with a muzzle!


----------



## Joby Becker

Faisal Khan said:


> The dog gets the release marker and chases the ball punching with muzzle, handler can end with down command, get ball and continue. To the dog it is a reward. I have used in OB exercises with a muzzle!


That is good idea... will have to try it..


----------



## Dave Colborn

Thomas Barriano said:


> Hi Kadi,
> 
> There is a difference between a decoy rewarding with a tug or bite pillow or ball on a rope and interacting with the dog and what
> happens in the 1st video where the decoy is just throwing the ball without any interaction or tug/play


Can you explain the diffeence? Behavior-reward-increase liklihood of the behavior.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Joby Becker said:


> how can he tug or play with the dog in muzzle?


Most of the time I've seen the decoy throw a ball it's been Mondio ring search and bark training and there hasn't been a muzzle involved


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Dave Colborn said:


> Can you explain the diffeence? Behavior-reward-increase liklihood of the behavior.




I already have.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Thomas Barriano said:


> I already have.


What post # i missed it.


----------



## Matt Vandart

@ the OP:

Have you ever seen or heard of Bart Bellon? 
If not check him out on You tube.


----------



## Erik Berg

The dog is rewarded for barking, some starts this with clicker and food, go on to balls and similar, in many sports or in service. Breaking down the exercise in smaller parts makes it easier and less conflict, have to differ between learning the dog something(transport,barking, distance etc) and the finsihed product. For sport I suppose it´s not an issue anyway how you train the behaviours you want, also know policedogs and militarydogs doing both sport and servicework who uses similar rewards in training, so either this don´t hurt the "real" work or the dog knows the difference between real and sport 

Some examples, SCH-dog getting ball and then in competition,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsdbqM82DUI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovszDR5QbQ4

Mondidog getting reward from the decoy, also certified miltarydog and doing some scenariowork in the other clip,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUPEKtnLYi0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SJvTydsxaC0

A policedog, winner of policedog champion and also trains the swedish program. As you can see the dog is rewarded by the decoy and also handler when he is backing out to the correct distance after the hit. A fairly common use of reward, to reward the backing out and maybe also tone down the aggresion and frustration a bit, last clip an interview when he won the championship but also there a quite common use of basic reward,

http://mallekraft.se/video/Tim_blandadekorgm1003.wmv

http://mallekraft.se/video/Timfastt.wmv

http://www.skanskan.se/webbtv/1864421598001/tim-ar-bast-i-sverige


----------



## Matt Vandart

Also dunno if its French/Belgian/mondo but that is old school object guard training.....


----------



## Christopher Smith

Erik thank you for posting the video of the IPO dog. It is the perfect example of what you get when you train the dog to bark for a ball. If you think that that barking is good than the ball method might be fine in your program. But if you want good barking you may want to find another method.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Dave Colborn said:


> What post # i missed it.


#8


----------



## Erik Berg

I suppose the idea is not that the dog should bark for a ball when finsihed when you have trained the dog on helpers, but I agree that bark was a bit bad. Looking at this IPO dog it barks for a ball in the first video but what I can tell has a good bark in the most recent video,
http://www.working-dog.eu/dogs-details/516504/Cape-Secure-Artillery

A dog trained for IPO/securitywork, started young on a tug, about 14 months maybe in the second video. I guess michael thought a dog isn´t "real" anymore if you use decoy or handler rewards with items/toys but there are many that uses such rewards it seems.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUPiRLLr4rE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RinKEww7S2w


----------



## Christopher Smith

Erik Berg said:


> I suppose the idea is not that the dog should bark for a ball when finsihed when you have trained the dog on helpers, but I agree that bark was a bit bad. Looking at this IPO dog it barks for a ball in the first video but what I can tell has a good bark in the most recent video,
> http://www.working-dog.eu/dogs-details/516504/Cape-Secure-Artillery
> 
> A dog trained for IPO/securitywork, started young on a tug, about 14 months maybe in the second video. I guess michael thought a dog isn´t "real" anymore if you use decoy or handler rewards with items/toys but there are many that uses such rewards it seems.
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUPiRLLr4rE
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RinKEww7S2w


Two things. First thing is that this is a wedge not a ball. I the wedge can be used very differently than the ball. Second thing. I thought that the whole purpose of using the ball is to minimize the corrections and conflict? This dog is still getting corrections and making conflict. So why use the ball in the first place?

In my method the barking is a part of the aggression and fight of the protection. I want my dog to feel that his bark can diminish and dominate his opponent almost as well has his bite. He does not look at the barking as something he must do to earn a bite. The bite is not a reward, it's a part of the fight. Training the barking for a ball takes away one of the dogs methods of fighting the helper.


----------



## Geoff Empey

Joby Becker said:


> The dog will grow up to just bark at balls all the time and ignore helpers and or intruders


Yeah my dog will bark at balls, but when they try to run she will bite them and the person with those said 'balls' will sound like a falsetto choirboy eunoch the rest of his life as he won't have those 'balls' anymore.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Also let's not forget that in IPO the dog is not just barking. he must hold (guard) and bark. How can a dog be in the proper mindset and drives to hold properly when he is looking to chase a ball rolling away from the helper?


----------



## Shade Whitesel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItXMyVd1Sec

Bark and hold and the biting look just fine to me. imprinted and trained with a ball, a ball launcher and a cannon ball. 
Mario has won the 2012 FMBB, the 2012 FCI and the 2013 FMBB with Hasko. Previously he won the shit out of World championships with his last 2 dogs, Yagus and Stoned, who I doubt were trained with a ball launcher. Why has he switched?


----------



## Shade Whitesel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hkc7tHLaEI

Again barking and biting look just fine to me. According to a Feb 2012 seminar I went to, lots of control in the protection trained, imprinted with a ball. 

You guys can moan about how this shows the sport of IPO is going downhill when the World winners are using balls and clickers and treats, but the real truth is that I am sure you would like to be on the podium with them.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

The whisper from the top of the World Championship Podium(s) carries a lot further then the screams from the WDF resident experts ;-)


----------



## Christopher Smith

Shade, history on the WDF tells me that I need more than your word to believe how Mario and Mia train. Especially when I have seen evidence to the contrary with my own eyes.


----------



## Bob Scott

Training with a clicker, ball and treats doesn't automatically remove corrections in training. It just means the dog learns what is expected before corrections might be used.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Bob Scott said:


> Training with a clicker, ball and treats doesn't automatically remove corrections in training. It just means the dog learns what is expected before corrections might be used.


OK.....:-?


----------



## Shade Whitesel

What Bob said. 
Just because the dog has been imprinted or trained with a ball in the blind does not mean that it never gets a bite in the blind, corrections, etc... It does not mean it hasn't then been trained with aggression in the bite work. Why do you think the 2 have to be exclusive? 
And don't take my word for it, ask them.


----------



## Bob Scott

It also doesn't mean that a bad guy tossing a ball will distract the dog. That's all about having the right dog and the right training. In that sense it's no different then any method used. Just do it correctly with the correct dog. :wink:


----------



## Christopher Smith

Shade Whitesel said:


> What Bob said.
> Just because the dog has been imprinted or trained with a ball in the blind does not mean that it never gets a bite in the blind, corrections, etc... It does not mean it hasn't then been trained with aggression in the bite work. Why do you think the 2 have to be exclusive?


Shade did I say that it was exclusive? 

Go take a look at Jogi Zank's dogs Moses. It has the same barking as the black dog above and was also trained with the ball. 3-5 barks and a pause or displacement behavior. Why don't the dogs have sustained barking?


----------



## Bob Scott

Does it ever get a bite? Does the decoy/helper ever put pressure on the dog? 
At this point in training I think the decoy/helper should be putting more pressure on the dog to up it's game. 
The ball teaches the game. The decoy/helper ups that game with pressure on the dog. toss in a few tennis balls now and the decoy/helper shows the dog how to stay focused on him/her. 
The ball is still a reward for initial training but it can also be used as a high level distraction.


----------



## Katie Finlay

I think that's the fundamental difference between my thoughts and those that train with a ball for protection. I'm not teaching a game. It's almost like I actually train personal protection that just happens to work to get good results on the sport field as well.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Bob Scott said:


> Does it ever get a bite? Does the decoy/helper ever put pressure on the dog?
> At this point in training I think the decoy/helper should be putting more pressure on the dog to up it's game.
> The ball teaches the game. The decoy/helper ups that game with pressure on the dog. toss in a few tennis balls now and the decoy/helper shows the dog how to stay focused on him/her.
> The ball is still a reward for initial training but it can also be used as a high level distraction.


Bob don't get things twisted. I understand this type of training.

"The ball teaches the game" is the same as saying a game is the foundation of the barking. What happens when too much pressure is put on a dog in a trial?


----------



## Shade Whitesel

Chris, 
From a training prospective, I would say both trainers of the dogs tried to extend the length of the barking too quickly, and accidentally taught, bark 6 times, pause, bark 6 times, pause. 
Probably doesn't have much to do with the ball as a method, or a helper using aggression to get the barking, just the criteria for barking was not taught correctly as a continuous behavior. Maybe it is easier to get sustained barking for a longer time if the dog thinks it is a threat and then the trainer can reward appropriately however that reward is, a bite, or release of pressure of whatever. But it still comes down to straight training no matter how you look at it. At least for me. Speaking of which, don't you know plenty of dogs trained without a ball that have non continuous hold and barks? I sure do. I'll count them tomorrow at the helper seminar I am going to.


----------



## Matt Vandart

Interesting conversation, I'm not sure which side of the fence I am currently sitting. I'll use whatever works to train my dogs (individually) I don't like to be stuck to just one method or another.


----------



## James Downey

What if in the foundation of training you did not teach the dog that the helper was the dispenser of the reward?

Greg Doud showed me this video a while ago. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2z7xKpdGXW4

my dog was very young when he showed me this. I taught the dog to guard a sleeve. It worked beautifully. I am very happy with my dogs guarding no stopping, and he barks like a banshee on crack. 

I think the argument really is not about the reward schedule or the operantly trained behavior of barking. But more so the classicly conditioned elements of barking. I do think there is a severe, very obvious difference in dogs who have been taught barking with only concern to the operant. I think you can see the dog has barking devoid of any real feeling. When you compare this with a dog that has some training that took into account the classicly conditioned emotions that create more aggressive guarding. 

Can you teach a dog to bark for a ball....sure. Can you add emotions later.... I am not so sure. That's really tough. It's hard once a dog sees the cue of a passive helper as a toy dispenser. I have seen people try.... But what do they do? they have decoy threaten the dog, they pull the dog backward to create fustration, they might put the dog on a table and have the helper act all weird, they might even induce some pain.....but all these stimulus are new cues that now mean be aggressive. But once the decoy goes passive....he's once again a toy dispenser. You can see it in some videos where dogs are in trial barking like crap and then on a table they are barking like wild animals. 2 different cues, 2 different responses. I think the foundation of barking is critical. The cue ( the passive decoy) has to be an indication some sort conflict could break out. that is if you want classicly conditioned emotions tied to barking that has some edge to it.


----------



## Guy Williams

Christopher Smith said:


> Also let's not forget that in IPO the dog is not just barking. he must hold (guard) and bark. How can a dog be in the proper mindset and drives to hold properly when he is looking to chase a ball rolling away from the helper?


The same can be said for police dogs. Using the ball allows you to teach the exercises including the recall away from the helper, recall off the bite and standoff (bark and hold if the running helper stops) before the dog has too much fight in him. 

I try and keep the control elements on a par with the dogs 'attitude'. If it gets too exciting too soon then you end up with problems getting the dog off the bite.

With no electric, prong or other punitive methods available to me I don't know of a better way. But I am open to suggestions!

The important thing is to remember that the ball rewarding phase is just a part of the bigger picture. The IPO dog in the first clip was barking in 3-4 bark bursts. These bursts appear to have been captured in the sequence. I think this is something that could just as easily be done using any reward method.


----------



## Shade Whitesel

Thanks Jim for reminding me of passive helper as cue for conflict! A timely reminder for where I am with my pup's training!

However, you see the good barking on the tie out or on the table and the so so barking in trial all the time, regardless of method. Just check out the training days at the National trials and then look at those same dogs in the trial. Again, not sure if it has anything to do with ball trained bark, whip trained bark or whatever, just mostly has to do with good training vs not so good training.


----------



## Joby Becker

Shade Whitesel said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hkc7tHLaEI
> 
> Again barking and biting look just fine to me. According to a Feb 2012 seminar I went to, lots of control in the protection trained, imprinted with a ball.
> 
> You guys can moan about how this shows the sport of IPO is going downhill when the World winners are using balls and clickers and treats, but the real truth is that I am sure you would like to be on the podium with them.


I didnt see any moaning, and the World winners are still using corrections and corrective devices as well...


----------



## Joby Becker

I do not do IPO, this thread is not specifically about IPO, but seems this is a big thing in IPO.

But is it not very possible to imprint blind search and beginning of barking with a ball, and then use a helper to get it where you want it?

I would think the type of dog and the type of training that comes after using a ball would have more influence.

sure if you take a young dog, have him bark for a ball for 6 months, a year or two, and then train him to think that the helper is his reward giver and sleeve holder, then I can see how this would be a major issue. 

But what if the ball is is not used that way? and just used for blind searching and beginning barking, or am I not thinking correctly here? just curious.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Christopher Smith said:


> Shade did I say that it was exclusive?
> 
> Go take a look at Jogi Zank's dogs Moses. It has the same barking as the black dog above and was also trained with the ball. 3-5 barks and a pause or displacement behavior. Why don't the dogs have sustained barking?


Improperly timed reward. Ie if there were 6 barks and a reward, thats what he'd do.

It's important to remember that behaviors are rewarded. If bad behavior is rewarded on a sleeve, then you still have bad behaviors no matter the reward.

This is a common problem i think, when a reward is used to stimulate a behavior and then never used as a reward.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Joby Becker said:


> I do not do IPO, this thread is not specifically about IPO, but seems this is a big thing in IPO.
> 
> But is it not very possible to imprint blind search and beginning of barking with a ball, and then use a helper to get it where you want it?
> 
> I would think the type of dog and the type of training that comes after using a ball would have more influence.
> 
> sure if you take a young dog, have him bark for a ball for 6 months, a year or two, and then train him to think that the helper is his reward giver and sleeve holder, then I can see how this would be a major issue.
> 
> But what if the ball is is not used that way? and just used for blind searching and beginning barking, or am I not thinking correctly here? just curious.


Joby, anything is possible. But have you ever tried to teach a sleeve dog to bite the leg? I put it at about that level of possibility. Would you ever work that dog off of a backtie without the jacket?


----------



## Christopher Smith

Shade Whitesel said:


> Chris,
> From a training prospective, I would say both trainers of the dogs tried to extend the length of the barking too quickly, and accidentally taught, bark 6 times, pause, bark 6 times, pause.
> Probably doesn't have much to do with the ball as a method, or a helper using aggression to get the barking, just the criteria for barking was not taught correctly as a continuous behavior. Maybe it is easier to get sustained barking for a longer time if the dog thinks it is a threat and then the trainer can reward appropriately however that reward is, a bite, or release of pressure of whatever. But it still comes down to straight training no matter how you look at it. At least for me. Speaking of which, don't you know plenty of dogs trained without a ball that have non continuous hold and barks? I sure do. I'll count them tomorrow at the helper seminar I am going to.


When you teach the barking, as you describe, with a ball you reward the dog many, many times for the wrong behavior. The dog barks a few times and the ball comes. That is the exercise you are teaching in the beginning stages. So what these dog end up doing is not one exercise of consistent barking. They are doing a bunch of four or five bark exercises strung in a row. So they bark five times-finish exercise and wait for reward-bark five times-wait-bark five-wait-....... They don't seem to be able to remember past the last five barks so every time you are rewarding the dog he thinks you are rewarding a series of five. He never learns that the barking should be sustained. Some dogs pause the barking, others might do some type of other behavior. Watch some competition videos and notice all the little movements and twitches the dog does. Most will repeat at around 5 barks. 

When the dog is barking out of drive, fight and emotion the reward is always there. Every single bark is a reward.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Dave Colborn said:


> This is a common problem i think, when a reward is used to stimulate a behavior and then never used as a reward.


 So why in the hell do it? Especially when they then have to go out and "make the dog serious". Which always means high levels stress and discomfort. Once again the dog pays the price for the handlers comfort. 

When I first saw the ball used for barking was about 20 years ago. It was used for nervebags couldn't deal with a helper or dogs that had a lot of "defense" work. It was a good way of making the helper fade into the background a bit. Now I see GOOD dogs being worked like this. Shameful. It's like taking a great runner as a child and making him wear leg braces when he's two years old, because it will help him walk better than the average 2 year old. It might help in the short run but it won't help in the long run.


----------



## Joby Becker

Christopher Smith said:


> Joby, anything is possible. But have you ever tried to teach a sleeve dog to bite the leg? I put it at about that level of possibility. Would you ever work that dog off of a backtie without the jacket?


Yes I have, and no I wouldnt...


----------



## Bob Scott

Christopher said:
"What happens when too much pressure is put on a dog in a trial?"


Are there dogs that are trained with no ball, food, reward that don't fail under to much pressure? Of course there are. 
That's no different then saying what happens when you train with a ball or food and then can't take any on the field with you. Simple! You wean the dog off the ball or food just like you would wean a dog off the pinch,choke, e-collar when it's on the field. I've seen more then a few examples of both when the dog knows it can't be controlled on the trial field. Training fell down somewhere and it's usually in the transition of weaning off the correction or the reward. Not the method.
It's the follow up training that brings out the aggression in the dog...."IF" the dog has it. 
Teach the H&B with a ball then it's the helper/decoy's job to tap into whats inside the dog. 
Are there dog out there that don't have what it takes in their heart but still have high scores? Of course there are, and in both methods of training.
I won't knock any training that is successful because it still boils down to the dog and the trainer no matter the method.
With any method there are those that can, those that can't and those that wont. If they are comfortable/happy with their own methods that go for it! :wink:


----------



## Christopher Smith

Bob I don't think you understand the question. It's not about failure. Just try answering the question.


----------



## Shade Whitesel

My own dog was a 3 year old Schutzhund dog that we transferred to leg bites on the suit in one session. So perhaps I have a different perspective of what is impossible or not.

Chris: I'll have to think on what you said. I think the barking to get the helper to react in some way is a reward and depends on the helper's reactions. But perhaps the bark is rewarding in itself because of the emotion is different and perhaps is an expression of the stress?
Also imprinting the bark with a ball independent of a helper, blind, etc... for not 6months, might be different than have the helper reward the hold and bark with a ball for the dog's career. Pretty different examples there and you seem to be lumping them together?

Joby, of course they use corrections. Did I say they didn't? Just because people use a clicker and a ball and other rewards does not mean they don't then use corrections as well. The most common method I see having success is "click and nick".


----------



## Bob Scott

:-k I guess I don't understand it then. If pressure is put on a dog doesn't how the dog handles it depend on the dog and how much pressure is put on it in training? 
Honestly what am I missing? 
Pressure will make the dog break or not. How does the method of training effect that as long as the dog has pressure put on it in training also. The reward for pressure from the decoy should be the fight/bite.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Shade Whitesel said:


> My own dog was a 3 year old Schutzhund dog that we transferred to leg bites on the suit in one session. So perhaps I have a different perspective of what is impossible or not.
> 
> Chris: I'll have to think on what you said. I think the barking to get the helper to react in some way is a reward and depends on the helper's reactions. But perhaps the bark is rewarding in itself because of the emotion is different and perhaps is an expression of the stress?
> Also imprinting the bark with a ball independent of a helper, blind, etc... for not 6months, might be different than have the helper reward the hold and bark with a ball for the dog's career. Pretty different examples there and you seem to be lumping them together?



Nowhere did I day anything about getting the helper to react nor did I say anything about expressions of stress. Don't muddy the conversation by putting words in my mouth. 

I'll tell you again. I teach the dog to be aggressive and to fight. Barking is an expression of that fight and the dog uses his barking to fight the helper. The goal in the end is to have a dog that barks at the helper becase the barking is self rewarding. This keeps the dog cleaner because the dog has less of a need to bite because he is not seeking the sleeve as a reward. Nor does he focus on the sleeve. The dog feels that he is in control and not feeling blocked by compulsion and stressed. Dogs that are less stressed tend to show more power and better biting. 

And I'm not lumping anything together. I'm sticking to the subject. Please see the videos that the OP posted.


----------



## Joby Becker

Shade Whitesel said:


> My own dog was a 3 year old Schutzhund dog that we transferred to leg bites on the suit in one session. So perhaps I have a different perspective of what is impossible or not.


The dog transferred to _only _ taking leg bites in one session, without ever taking a leg before? Was he then taught arm bites on the suit after that?


----------



## Joby Becker

Shade Whitesel said:


> My own dog was a 3 year old Schutzhund dog that we transferred to leg bites on the suit in one session. So perhaps I have a different perspective of what is impossible or not.


I think this is apples to oranges .

No one said it is impossible.

Chris asked me if *I* would work a previous sleeve dog and cut him loose with only pants on.

My answer is NO, the only dogs I have ever transferred over to legs that had SCH training, were being trained as police dogs or protection dogs, first the sleeve focus was diminished and focus brought more to the man, and then legs were introduced on a suit, I would never personally work a previous arm dog without a jacket on, unless I knew the dog very well, and knew that he was only interested in biting the equipment, and not me.


----------



## Shade Whitesel

He never took the arm on the suit. I kept Schutzhund for sleeve, and ring for legs. He earned his Sch 2, brevet, Sch 3 twice, Ring 1, Sch 3 a couple more times, trialed for ring 2. Then switched back totally to Schutzhund.


----------



## Joby Becker

Shade Whitesel said:


> He never took the arm on the suit. I kept Schutzhund for sleeve, and ring for legs. He earned his Sch 2, brevet, Sch 3 twice, Ring 1, Sch 3 a couple more times, trialed for ring 2. Then switched back totally to Schutzhund.


If the decoy was wearing bite pants and also a sleeve what would the dog take if neither was presented in an obvious manner do you think?

I am not doubting you at all...

I think it is just apples to oranges compared to the question that Chris asked me. You trained your dog with very specific pictures to get very predictable responses from him when he sees those pictures for your dogsport training. That does not seem impossible or even that difficult to me if working with a dog that is very focused on biting the equipment, especially if he was never taught to bite the arms of a bite suit. The FR dogs that I have worked with albiet it is only a few, have all been taught to take upper body as well though, to be honest. Hard to get past certain things I think with with a dog that only bites legs.


----------



## Shade Whitesel

Chris: "I'll tell you again. I teach the dog to be aggressive and to fight. Barking is an expression of that fight and the dog uses his barking to fight the helper. The goal in the end is to have a dog that barks at the helper becase the barking is self rewarding. This keeps the dog cleaner because the dog has less of a need to bite because he is not seeking the sleeve as a reward. Nor does he focus on the sleeve. The dog feels that he is in control and not feeling blocked by compulsion and stressed. Dogs that are less stressed tend to show more power and better biting."

I understand what you are saying Chris and I very much agree. 
I don't feel that imprinting the bark for a ball is counterproductive to this. Evidently some high scoring winners in IPO also think this. 

Perhaps we can agree to disagree.


----------



## Shade Whitesel

Joby, 
"But have you ever tried to teach a sleeve dog to bite the leg?" 

I thought that was the question asked? In response to your post about exactly what I am talking about, imprinting the blinds and beginning barking with the ball, then switching it to the helper.


----------



## Shade Whitesel

And yes, french ring dogs are taught to target upper body. We taught Reik lower to make the different sports more clear to him, and also because I wasn't planning to go up to ring 3.


----------



## Joby Becker

Shade Whitesel said:


> Joby,
> "But have you ever tried to teach a sleeve dog to bite the leg?"
> 
> I thought that was the question asked? In response to your post about exactly what I am talking about, imprinting the blinds and beginning barking with the ball, then switching it to the helper.


I gotcha, I dont know much about it personally, I never taught a dog to do a bark and hold on a ball, but my initial thoughts on it were the same I think, as to what you are saying. seems to me that it shouldnt be all that difficult to get good barking on the helper with a good dog with good helper work. 

It is apparent however to me, that your dog was not converted to "only" and "always" biting the legs, which is what I thought Chris was asking me when he asked if I would work a dog that was trained using a sleeve in pants only. Which is why I said no..safety first!


----------



## Shade Whitesel

Agreed! Safety first!


----------



## Joby Becker

not applicable to IPO training most likely, since I have shown these videos before and got ragged on pretty good from some IPO people...but this is how I encouraged my current adult dog to bark. I am happy with the barking, personally, but my standards may not be as high as sport people.

a little over 9 months
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ur9J-wuMBds

2 years or so.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZyhe5lI_X8


----------



## Dave Colborn

Christopher Smith said:


> So why in the hell do it? Especially when they then have to go out and "make the dog serious". Which always means high levels stress and discomfort. Once again the dog pays the price for the handlers comfort.
> 
> When I first saw the ball used for barking was about 20 years ago. It was used for nervebags couldn't deal with a helper or dogs that had a lot of "defense" work. It was a good way of making the helper fade into the background a bit. Now I see GOOD dogs being worked like this. Shameful. It's like taking a great runner as a child and making him wear leg braces when he's two years old, because it will help him walk better than the average 2 year old. It might help in the short run but it won't help in the long run.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Chris, you misunderstand what i am saying. The ball, the sleeve, or any other reward being used isnt the problem. It's using that reward as a way to stimulate the behavior vs being used as a reward for the correct behavior. You are living where you saw nerve bags being trained 20 years ago. That moment imprinted on you maybe forever that a ball is bad for this training. Until you accept that, you'll never get past it. 

You reward what you want, and it repeats itself. Good or bad.


----------



## Katie Finlay

Dave Colborn said:


> Chris, you misunderstand what i am saying. The ball, the sleeve, or any other reward being used isnt the problem. It's using that reward as a way to stimulate the behavior vs being used as a reward for the correct behavior. You are living where you saw nerve bags being trained 20 years ago. That moment imprinted on you maybe forever that a ball is bad for this training. Until you accept that, you'll never get past it.
> 
> You reward what you want, and it repeats itself. Good or bad.


Barking in itself is the reward. Why would you reward a reward?


----------



## Christopher Smith

Dave Colborn said:


> Chris, you misunderstand what i am saying. The ball, the sleeve, or any other reward being used isnt the problem. It's using that reward as a way to stimulate the behavior vs being used as a reward for the correct behavior. You are living where you saw nerve bags being trained 20 years ago. That moment imprinted on you maybe forever that a ball is bad for this training. Until you accept that, you'll never get past it.




Maybe. Or maybe I have done exactly what you guys are talking about and saw it deficiencies in the finished dog. Or maybe everything I'm writting is over your head and you can't understand. Or maybe you have never titled an IPO dog in your life and don't know the subtleties of the sport. There are a lot of maybes. But I definitely know that your troll skillz are week


----------



## Christopher Smith

Katie Finlay said:


> Barking in itself is the reward. Why would you reward a reward?




Dave has it figured out. Let it go.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Christopher Smith said:


> Dave has it figured out. Let it go.


So you guys dont reward higher quality barking with a bite? Maybe this is also part of your trouble.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Dave Colborn said:


> So you guys dont reward higher quality barking with a bite? Maybe this is also part of your trouble.




A higher quality bark is rewarded with weakness from the helper. A bite is one of many things used. 

BTW, I'm not having "trouble" with anything. My dogs bark wonderfully.  How's that Boxer you are training for IPO barking?


----------



## Dave Colborn

Christopher Smith said:


> A higher quality bark is rewarded with weakness from the helper. A bite is one of many things used.
> 
> BTW, I'm not having "trouble" with anything. My dogs bark wonderfully.  How's that Boxer you are training for IPO barking?


PSA. He does a silent guard. He'll bark nicely if i train it from what inhave seen of his barking thus far. The bulldog that doesnt bite is the one i am really thinking of ipoing with. I got home yesterday from being over seas for most of a year. We'll see how it goes.

Katie, do you see what chris is saying here? That self rewarding behavior, when put on command is still rewarded for the better behavior. Ie more rhythmic barking, etc. i know you wont believe me when i tell you, so maybe you can pm him. That self rewarding behavior being high quality is what we are talking about here. I am just contending that you can get it with a ball. That people with issues might use the reward (sleeve or ball in this case) to Long or to generate the behavior vs becoming a reward for correct behavior and being witheld for weak behavior.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Dave Colborn said:


> He'll bark nicely if i train it from what inhave seen of his barking thus far.


Many dreams are dashed when reality enters the equation. I'll be waiting for the video.


----------



## Christopher Smith

And Dave once the dog understands the barking it is self rewarding. But becoming weaker is very very different than tossing a ball. Becoming weaker is still engaging the dog in the fight and aggression. The ball is a distraction and pulls the dog out of the fight and aggression.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Christopher Smith said:


> Many dreams are dashed when reality enters the equation. I'll be waiting for the video.


Oh, did you want to see video of something? A polite thing to do would be to ask vs just waiting.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Dave Colborn said:


> Oh, did you want to see video of something? A polite thing to do would be to ask vs just waiting.


Same result either way.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Chris. You dont need to tell me, you need to tell the dog. He is, unfortunately for your belief system, the one that picks what is rewarding and how rewarding he finds it.. Something being self rewarding for one dog is not definitely self rewarding to another. The key point here is you had to train it. IE once he "understands" it. If he has to "understand" it then it isnt as likely that it is self rewarding. He "understands" that a reward comes from it and in fact then it is a conditioned behavior. Self rewarding suggest the act itself provides the reward. To get him to "understand" that barking is good in an ipo blind or guard, a certain context, you provide reward, you've already said that. Dog is anticipating the reward at this point.


Christopher Smith said:


> And Dave once the dog understands the barking it is self rewarding. But becoming weaker is very very different than tossing a ball. Becoming weaker is still engaging the dog in the fight and aggression. The ball is a distraction and pulls the dog out of the fight and aggression.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Christopher Smith said:


> Same result either way.



What result is that?


----------



## Dave Colborn

Christopher Smith said:


> And Dave once the dog understands the barking it is self rewarding. But becoming weaker is very very different than tossing a ball. Becoming weaker is still engaging the dog in the fight and aggression. The ball is a distraction and pulls the dog out of the fight and aggression.


Oh, and what you are probably seeing and not realizing is behaviors being chained together. Ie the dog is performing multiple behaviors to get to the reward. Ie running the blinds, doing a guard, getting called to heel, all in anticipation of getting that escape bite...i dont disagree that barking is self rewarding, but you'd probably see a lot of dogs break the down and go back to an empty blind and start barking if it was as high end as you seem to think. Post a video of that, please. Helper on the field and a dog breaking to go reward himself by barking in the blind...


----------



## Shade Whitesel

Do we want to compare videos of dogs barking in the blind that were trained with the ball to dogs that weren't? Is that what we are getting at? That would be fun, to have no prior associations and to actually look at the barking with a critical eye. 
Chris can submit video, I will, we already have Mario's, perhaps James with his dog that was trained to guard the sleeve and has good barking.....


----------



## Shade Whitesel

Oh by the way, I did see lots of barking in the blind yesterday at the helper seminar. Good barking from dogs that have never seen a ball in the blind and inconsistent barking from dogs that have never seen a ball in the blind. It seemed to be the difference was really about the dog's genetics and the quality of training they got that made the good barking vs bad barking.


----------



## Katie Finlay

Maybe I was blessed with a good first dog and good trainers with good dogs from the get-go...

But I wish more people who train PROTECTION and not BEHAVIORS. Regardless of IPO vs ring vs police work, etc.


----------



## Bob Scott

Shade Whitesel said:


> Oh by the way, I did see lots of barking in the blind yesterday at the helper seminar. Good barking from dogs that have never seen a ball in the blind and inconsistent barking from dogs that have never seen a ball in the blind. It seemed to be the difference was really about the dog's genetics and the quality of training they got that made the good barking vs bad barking.




Ding, ding, ding! Give that lady a cigar!


----------



## Shade Whitesel

Katie!
So glad you mentioned that you have a good first dog and have access to a wonderful club with experienced National competitors as trainers. 
Most of us are not so lucky to have that kind of guidance and training available to us. 
Some of us have trained numerous Sch 3s with traditional tools and traditional training and might like to try to get the same results or better without using said tools. Maybe we live in a country where e collar use is banned. So, getting barking with a ball is interesting, especially if you can get as good of results with it. I sent my first Sch dog into the blind with a prong about a thousand times and he still came in dirty when he was off leash. I'm sure as a novice trainer, my timing sucked. So should I blame the prong or my terrible timing?


----------



## Katie Finlay

Shade Whitesel said:


> Katie!
> So glad you mentioned that you have a good first dog and have access to a wonderful club with experienced National competitors as trainers.
> Most of us are not so lucky to have that kind of guidance and training available to us.
> Some of us have trained numerous Sch 3s with traditional tools and traditional training and might like to try to get the same results or better without using said tools. Maybe we live in a country where e collar use is banned. So, getting barking with a ball is interesting, especially if you can get as good of results with it. I sent my first Sch dog into the blind with a prong about a thousand times and he still came in dirty when he was off leash. I'm sure as a novice trainer, my timing sucked. So should I blame the prong or my terrible timing?


You're assuming we're using traditional methods. Also, you're not training dogs to fight. So you might get the points, and if that's what you want, awesome. But to me protection training, regardless of venue, should create a serious dog that sees value in the fight and wants to fight. I just don't see how that's created with a ball in protection.


----------



## Shade Whitesel

Katie, 
You have no idea how I train. You have no idea if I am training my dogs to fight or if I am training protection with a ball, or if I am doing both. 
I do get the points. At Nationals. 
I do assume you and your club are using traditional methods, (whatever we mean by that!) Sorry if I was wrong. I'd love to visit you guys next time I'm down in your area. 

You're totally entitled to your opinion about a ball in protection. I'd probably agree with you. I think imprinting a bark with a ball is quite different from what I would call using a ball in protection.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Shade Whitesel said:


> Katie,
> You have no idea how I train. You have no idea if I am training my dogs to fight or if I am training protection with a ball, or if I am doing both.
> I do get the points. At Nationals.
> I do assume you and your club are using traditional methods, (whatever we mean by that!) Sorry if I was wrong. I'd love to visit you guys next time I'm down in your area.
> 
> You're totally entitled to your opinion about a ball in protection. I'd probably agree with you. I think imprinting a bark with a ball is quite different from what I would call using a ball in protection.



+1


----------



## Katie Finlay

Shade Whitesel said:


> Katie,
> You have no idea how I train. You have no idea if I am training my dogs to fight or if I am training protection with a ball, or if I am doing both.
> I do get the points. At Nationals.
> I do assume you and your club are using traditional methods, (whatever we mean by that!) Sorry if I was wrong. I'd love to visit you guys next time I'm down in your area.
> 
> You're totally entitled to your opinion about a ball in protection. I'd probably agree with you. I think imprinting a bark with a ball is quite different from what I would call using a ball in protection.


You sort of parade around your training methods, so I do at least have SOME idea. My opinion is that using a ball to imprint barking or any other part of protection training is that you do not teach the dogs the full power they have in the fight. To me, barking is a very important part of that fight. We will have to agree to disagree.

I don't have train with a club, but you're more than welcome to come train with my friends and me.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Katie Finlay said:


> Maybe I was blessed with a good first dog and good trainers with good dogs from the get-go...
> 
> But I wish more people who train PROTECTION and not BEHAVIORS. Regardless of IPO vs ring vs police work, etc.


I am glad you had a good first experience with a club and a dog.

I am not sure what your next sentence means, and i say that without sarcasm. Could you explain or restate. Did you mean would instead of who?


----------



## Katie Finlay

Dave Colborn said:


> I am glad you had a good first experience with a club and a dog.
> 
> I am not sure what your next sentence means, and i say that without sarcasm. Could you explain or restate. Did you mean would instead of who?


Haha, yeah, supposed to be "would." Sorry. My brain apparently doesn't want to transmit correctly through my fingers.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Katie, all we can do is train behaviors and let the genetics shine through. How do you propose someone trains protection without teaching behaviors? If i am missing what you mean, please set me straight.


----------



## Gregory Doud

Aggression, in my opinion, is all about teaching the dog to mentally fight the helper and seek out the encounter based on a situation and/or being told by its handler. Whether it be civilly without equipment or if the decoy is holding something the dog wants. The drive goal of these two exercises are entirely different for the dog but equally as aggressive if trained correctly. If worked civilly, it is to have the helper go into some type of avoidance (running away, deciding to leave, not encroaching any closer, acting physically submissive such as avoiding eye contact, becoming smaller, acting intimidated, etc.). It can be any or one of the above. The barking bothers and intimidates the opponent from encroaching closer. It is their best weapon from a distance and the dog should be trying to communicate to their foe that if they come any closer or within striking distance that they will bite them if that what it rises to or if they are within reach. If they are hunted down by the dog and it's a hold and bark situation, it's if the person moves. In any of these situations, the drive goal is met if the person chooses to not come any closer, elects to retreat, or is detained. By standing still in the blind the helper is too frightened to move and dares not to fight the dog. Sort of like an animal that freezes because he is scared stiff. By having an intimidating bark the dog doesn't need a bite to have their drive satisfaction met if trained this way. Now, if the helper is holding something the dog wants then the drive goal for the dog is totally different but, again, equally as aggressive. If we are talking about guarding in the blind with something, the dog should bark aggressively to intimidate the decoy to hand it over or try to flush it out. Make the helper froggy by being intimidated by his pushy, forward barking. If the training is correct in protection, the dog should be communicating with his bark to hand over the item or he will be bitten. And, of course, always in training the helper gives him the ball, sleeve, pillow, etc. because he doesn't have enough guts to actually fight the dog. If it's a sleeve, it is just protection for the helper. In my training, the helper gives him the sleeve because he doesn't want to be bitten somewhere else. 

The use of a ball dropper is very useful if you don't want to attach fighting instincts in teaching control exercises in protection. After all, if their fighting instincts are included then their adrenaline could get in their way of them learning the exercises. Especially in the beginning. But, for sure a dog could bark aggressively for any item the decoy is holding if they want it whether it be a food bowl, ball, tug, pillow, sleeve, etc. Powerful, pushy barking makes the helper move or flush out the item from its person. It really depends on how you train the dog and could be natural for a dog that thinks this way and is promoted in training whether the helper realizes it or not. Again, the dog should be communicating to hand over the item or I will bite you. Sort of like a mugger coming up and saying hand over your wallet or I will mug you. It will essentially create a fight or flight response from the potential victim. Same with a dog if they are taught to think this way.

But, training only with a prey mindset could lead to problems with the guarding and could create sleeve suckers or problems Chris has already talked about. Basically, it could create beggers that essentially bark without being pushy or powerful as they are more or less asking for something with their bark instead of being aggressive with it. 

It is not a problem at all to get a dog to drop a ball and immediately bite a civil decoy. It is just different training. Pretty soon the dog won't even want the ball when he is given it by his foe and will want to bite their opponent instead if it's trained properly as you advance in the training. It really depends if you want to do more police or sport training at that point. You just have to know how to train it. - Greg


----------



## Katie Finlay

Gregory Doud said:


> Aggression, in my opinion, is all about teaching the dog to mentally fight the helper and seek out the encounter based on a situation and/or being told by its handler. Whether it be civilly without equipment or if the decoy is holding something the dog wants. The drive goal of these two exercises are entirely different for the dog but equally as aggressive if trained correctly. If worked civilly, it is to have the helper go into some type of avoidance (running away, deciding to leave, not encroaching any closer, acting physically submissive such as avoiding eye contact, becoming smaller, acting intimidated, etc.). It can be any or one of the above. The barking bothers and intimidates the opponent from encroaching closer. It is their best weapon from a distance and the dog should be trying to communicate to their foe that if they come any closer or within striking distance that they will bite them if that what it rises to or if they are within reach. If they are hunted down by the dog and it's a hold and bark situation, it's if the person moves. In any of these situations, the drive goal is met if the person chooses to not come any closer, elects to retreat, or is detained. By standing still in the blind the helper is too frightened to move and dares not to fight the dog. Sort of like an animal that freezes because he is scared stiff. By having an intimidating bark the dog doesn't need a bite to have their drive satisfaction met if trained this way. Now, if the helper is holding something the dog wants then the drive goal for the dog is totally different but, again, equally as aggressive. If we are talking about guarding in the blind with something, the dog should bark aggressively to intimidate the decoy to hand it over or try to flush it out. Make the helper froggy by being intimidated by his pushy, forward barking. If the training is correct in protection, the dog should be communicating with his bark to hand over the item or he will be bitten. And, of course, always in training the helper gives him the ball, sleeve, pillow, etc. because he doesn't have enough guts to actually fight the dog. If it's a sleeve, it is just protection for the helper. In my training, the helper gives him the sleeve because he doesn't want to be bitten somewhere else.
> 
> The use of a ball dropper is very useful if you don't want to attach fighting instincts in teaching control exercises in protection. After all, if their fighting instincts are included then their adrenaline could get in their way of them learning the exercises. Especially in the beginning. But, for sure a dog could bark aggressively for any item the decoy is holding if they want it whether it be a food bowl, ball, tug, pillow, sleeve, etc. Powerful, pushy barking makes the helper move or flush out the item from its person. It really depends on how you train the dog and could be natural for a dog that thinks this way and is promoted in training whether the helper realizes it or not. Again, the dog should be communicating to hand over the item or I will bite you. Sort of like a mugger coming up and saying hand over your wallet or I will mug you. It will essentially create a fight or flight response from the potential victim. Same with a dog if they are taught to think this way.
> 
> But, training only with a prey mindset could lead to problems with the guarding and could create sleeve suckers or problems Chris has already talked about. Basically, it could create beggers that essentially bark without being pushy or powerful as they are more or less asking for something with their bark instead of being aggressive with it.
> 
> It is not a problem at all to get a dog to drop a ball and immediately bite a civil decoy. It is just different training. Pretty soon the dog won't even want the ball when he is given it by his foe and will want to bite their opponent instead if it's trained properly as you advance in the training. It really depends if you want to do more police or sport training at that point. You just have to know how to train it. - Greg


This is how I feel, I just think protection should be for fighting the man to fight the man instead of for the ball, etc. just my personal preference, I guess, and I have seen it to work best for a dog that can excel in high level sport and in real situations. Protection training is not broken down into behaviors for me (ie. run blinds this way, sit here, bark, come back, etc.) The fight in protection is just one large "behavior," if you will. And if you have good obedience you will have good control in protection.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

How do you all tell the difference between frustration and aggression?

T


----------



## Joby Becker

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> How do you all tell the difference between frustration and aggression?
> 
> T


???

frustration can be a source of aggression.


----------



## Gregory Doud

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> How do you all tell the difference between frustration and aggression?
> 
> T


Frustration is a component of aggression. When an animal or human become frustrated, they naturally become aggressive.

Dogs that are also trained primarily in prey in protection usually have a lot more control problems and relationship issues with their handlers than dogs that are taught both ways because they only see bite rewards as satisfying their drive state and feel constantly ripped off if bite rewards aren't maintained for guarding. These dogs are dependent on bite rewards. They see the exercises like the call back and transports as their guarding not working as it didn't make the decoy move and also that their handler is preventing them from fighting the helper by commanding them to do another exercise. The dogs don't want to perform these exercises because they feel like it's unfinished business as they didn't get to bite and they are not satisfied until they bite. They then tend to argue with the handler over control. These dogs don't see that their barking actually made the decoy scared stiff and afraid of fighting them. They have to come up with exercises to give their dogs delayed bite rewards to communicate to their dog that if they do such and such an exercise reward awaits them. The dogs don't see the barking as a guarding exercise and is actually a self-rewarding behavior that doesn't need a bite reward. If they do understand that their guarding actually made the decoy scared stiff and also get a delayed bite reward it is a double reward. And, the bite reward is a bonus as it isn't necessary to fulfill their drive state. I believe very few people train this way from what I have seen out and about and from what I read on this forum. - Greg


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

I'm still having trouble understanding barking as self-rewarding. Do you really think all dogs are satisfied with running the guy off with a bark? Other than frustration, what are other reasons for aggression displays?

T


----------



## Dave Colborn

Read the second paragraph that you posted, since you feel this way. Explain it in your own words, and you'll then realize you and chris dont agree. That a dog can be trained with a ball, but knowing where the dog is at mentally (and rewarding it) is the more important part of the picture according to this.


I think your quoting of this is indicative of where you are. You instinctively have a good eye for smart training and concepts, you just may not understand them completely yet.

He actually describes fighting the man FOR a ball. Give me the ball or i will bite you. 




Katie Finlay said:


> This is how I feel, I just think protection should be for fighting the man to fight the man instead of for the ball, etc. just my personal preference, I guess, and I have seen it to work best for a dog that can excel in high level sport and in real situations. Protection training is not broken down into behaviors for me (ie. run blinds this way, sit here, bark, come back, etc.) The fight in protection is just one large "behavior," if you will. And if you have good obedience you will have good control in protection.


----------



## Katie Finlay

Dave Colborn said:


> Read the second paragraph that you posted, since you feel this way. Explain it in your own words, and you'll then realize you and chris dont agree. That a dog can be trained with a ball, but knowing where the dog is at mentally (and rewarding it) is the more important part of the picture according to this.
> 
> 
> I think your quoting of this is indicative of where you are. You instinctively have a good eye for smart training and concepts, you just may not understand them completely yet.
> 
> He actually describes fighting the man FOR a ball. Give me the ball or i will bite you.


Maybe you misunderstood. I don't want my dog to fight a man for a ball. I want my dog to fight the man because the fight in and of itself is rewarding. 

Smart training, IMO, is not using the ball. Did you not consider any of the issues Greg posted about happening when you use the ball? And that's just beside the fact that I think training in prey only is pointless and counterintuitive to actual protection training. 

Greg is right when he says hardly anyone trains protection the way we do. Apparently you have to see it to understand it.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Katie. Maybe go direct with greg, but your statements dont match what he has written, nor do your statements agree from one post to the next. 



Katie Finlay said:


> Maybe you misunderstood. I don't want my dog to fight a man for a ball. I want my dog to fight the man because the fight in and of itself is rewarding.
> 
> Smart training, IMO, is not using the ball. Did you not consider any of the issues Greg posted about happening when you use the ball? And that's just beside the fact that I think training in prey only is pointless and counterintuitive to actual protection training.
> 
> Greg is right when he says hardly anyone trains protection the way we do. Apparently you have to see it to understand it.


----------



## Katie Finlay

Dave Colborn said:


> Katie. Maybe go direct with greg, but your statements dont match what he has written, nor do your statements agree from one post to the next.


Then I must not be explaining myself correctly or you are purposefully misunderstanding me. I don't know how else to explain it.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Dave Colborn said:


> Katie. Maybe go direct with greg, but your statements dont match what he has written, nor do your statements agree from one post to the next.


WTF is your point here? To beat up on someone because of a misunderstanding or a lack of understanding or to learn something about dogs and training? One of the reasons you and many of the readers here don't understand and never hear about this is because it's difficult to explain and an art to carry it out. This ain't no paint by numbers. There are no simple step by step formulas that can be put in a book or video.

The fact is Katie understands and has trained dogs in this system you have not. She knows more than you about it.


----------



## Joby Becker

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I'm still having trouble understanding barking as self-rewarding. Do you really think all dogs are satisfied with running the guy off with a bark? Other than frustration, what are other reasons for aggression displays?T


I dont think anyone said all dogs are satisfied with running the guy off with a bark. I guess that would depend on why the dog was barking at him...

I wont peak to the _display_ part of you question, which I guess is what this thread is sort of about, but to the different sources of aggression itself, sure....
people vary on their definitions of what are sources of components/aggression, Margolis named 10, another dude named like 15 or something, I think I saw a post on here that had a crap load too of individidual components/sources as well, 15 or more. 

I think Armin W. lays it out pretty good in this article as far as his defintion of aggression and the useful sources of aggression without parsing it down so far as to label every little type of aggression. the article refers to components of aggression that are most useful for working dogs...

http://k9trainingexperts.com/index.php?p=1_22_The-Winkler-aggression-model-drives-and-aggression


----------



## Dave Colborn

Wow. So me trying to get her to explain herself when her text doesnt initially do so means i am beating up on her. Wow. Let her type and do her thing, and it will give her greater ability to explain what she's doing. If you can read and explain what she's saying better please do. Otherwise, the discussion isnt about your training system, it's about a ball used for training a bark. Which can be done at points, within your system apparently.


Christopher Smith said:


> WTF is your point here? To beat up on someone because of a misunderstanding or a lack of understanding or to learn something about dogs and training? One of the reasons you and many of the readers here don't understand and never hear about this is because it's difficult to explain and an art to carry it out. This ain't no paint by numbers. There are no simple step by step formulas that can be put in a book or video.
> 
> The fact is Katie understands and has trained dogs in this system you have not. She knows more than you about it.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Between Greg, Katie and I your questions have been answered. If you can't understand the answers, maybe it's you that has the problem.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Erik Berg

But the question is if using a preyitem in learning affects the finished dog, not that dog needs a toy to motivate it to bite. Is it wrong some IPO/ring people do learn the dog handler defence/transport by using a ball and clicker first, to show the dog the correct position before you moving on to transporting the helper with sleeve?

Also many seems to train much of the behaviours on themself with a preyitem before introducing the real helper and developing aggression in the dog, is this also wrong? As I understand gregory this is OK as long as the dog barks the way you want, just like the handler does here, I guess this is frustration aggresion barking,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWEtyDJCOsc

For sport I guess you train with what works best for the dog and get´s the result you want, real aggressive barking is not really needed in many sports either like KNPV/ringsport. A dog that is working more in prey isn´t he still under good controll and good relationship with the handler if he can switch drives from biting the decoy to getting a handler reward the next? Letting the dog only get biterewards on the decoy however I suppose can get you some conflict if the dog expect a bite to much.

If the dog in the first video, the young dog in the muzzle, needed a preyitem/toy to motivate it to attack in the muzzle then it would be a different thing.


----------



## Dave Colborn

Chris, you are mistaken. I'll get my computer up and running an see if i can list it out. In a nutshell, though, it sounds as i you and katie have a problem with a ball being used and greg sees value in it at certain points. Do you all train together?


Christopher Smith said:


> Between Greg, Katie and I your questions have been answered. If you can't understand the answers, maybe it's you that has the problem.
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Katie Finlay

Dave Colborn said:


> Chris, you are mistaken. I'll get my computer up and running an see if i can list it out. In a nutshell, though, it sounds as i you and katie have a problem with a ball being used and greg sees value in it at certain points. Do you all train together?


I don't think Greg sees value in it for himself in his training. I think he just understands how it works and how it doesn't, just like Chris and I.

Greg and Chris have seen this all done before, they know the results for both methods.


----------



## Gregory Doud

Erik Berg said:


> But the question is if using a preyitem in learning affects the finished dog, not that dog needs a toy to motivate it to bite. Is it wrong some IPO/ring people do learn the dog handler defence/transport by using a ball and clicker first, to show the dog the correct position before you moving on to transporting the helper with sleeve?
> 
> Also many seems to train much of the behaviours on themself with a preyitem before introducing the real helper and developing aggression in the dog, is this also wrong? As I understand gregory this is OK as long as the dog barks the way you want, just like the handler does here, I guess this is frustration aggresion barking,
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWEtyDJCOsc
> 
> For sport I guess you train with what works best for the dog and get´s the result you want, real aggressive barking is not really needed in many sports either like KNPV/ringsport. A dog that is working more in prey isn´t he still under good controll and good relationship with the handler if he can switch drives from biting the decoy to getting a handler reward the next? Letting the dog only get biterewards on the decoy however I suppose can get you some conflict if the dog expect a bite to much.
> 
> If the dog in the first video, the young dog in the muzzle, needed a preyitem/toy to motivate it to attack in the muzzle then it would be a different thing.


In my training whatever prey item the decoy has is not important. It can be a food bowl, ball, tug, pillow, sleeve, etc. It doesn't have to be formal "protection" gear. The mindset of the dog is more important to me. A dominant active mind which basically communicates to the person with their posture and/or bark "to give me the flippin' prey item or I will bite you!" But he has also learned that by detaining the person he is also winning. They have learned that if their foe is not moving that person is actually submitting and is locked in fear by his intimidating posturing and/or active guarding. Their rival is afraid to fight and have learned through training that a bite is not needed to win an encounter. Just like a person who walks away from a fight when their potential opponent has strong eye contact and is yelling at them. Their fixed eye contact, yelling and posturing made the guy retreat because he was intimidated. There is no need to punch him. He won without needing to actually physically grapple. 

I, myself, work the guarding with my own personal dogs. It's my belief that if I can put them in an aggressive state where they will bite me to get their prey item then they will bite anyone. Of course, allowing the dog to be free like this along with maturity and genetics all are important factors. If they do have the genetics but are too polite it simply means to me that their aggression isn't as good as it can get - they need more promotion in training to be more bold in protection. They are not where I want them. With that said, it's not a problem for me to put control on them. That's the easy part for me. Of course, if they are born naturally aggressive then I don't work them this way because they are naturally sharp and dominant when in that mindset. I have one like this now. I don't need to put it in there as it's already present. 

This is just how I train and see things. Honestly, there tends to be too much negativity in these discussions. I am bowing out of this conversation now and hope I have positively contributed. - Greg


----------



## Dave Colborn

Katie Finlay said:


> I don't think Greg sees value in it for himself in his training. I think he just understands how it works and how it doesn't, just like Chris and I.
> 
> Greg and Chris have seen this all done before, they know the results for both methods.


I guess we'd have to ask him if he'd use it for some dogs. That is what i understood from his text that you quoted. It may just be an academic acknowledgement of the method vs him using it himself. It certainly reads like in his opinion the dog barking (drop the ball or i will bite you) for a ball describes the mindset he is looking for. My point is they are all just behaviors and what seperates most are what behaviors a trainer chooses to reward, when and how.


----------



## Katie Finlay

There, the misunderstanding is cleared up. How Greg trains is not how I would train, or how Chris would train, but at least there's a full understanding of the way training with prey items work.

So I do not see any value in training protection and guarding using prey. I didn't think Greg did either, but I was mistaken.

Clear?


----------



## jamie lind

One thing I don't understand and I saw it in the table training thread too. Why would you want a dog that barks to drive the bite away? I would want a dog to bark to get a bite, regardless of if its coming from begging or frustration. I can see how the first type of dog would be easier to get a good bark from though. Then again maybe I don't understand what's being said.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

jamie lind said:


> One thing I don't understand and I saw it in the table training thread too. Why would you want a dog that barks to drive the bite away? I would want a dog to bark to get a bite, regardless of if its coming from begging or frustration. I can see how the first type of dog would be easier to get a good bark from though. Then again maybe I don't understand what's being said.


Now you're heading in the direction I was. I keep wondering if its a prey vs. defense state of mind since you are driving something off. i see frustration when the dog can't have what it wants. You'd have to get to the heart of WHY the dog barks or bites. What motivates him? Of course for me all of this [especially the barking] is learned behavior and not really what some dogs would otherwise do in these situations. Sorry but I think most barking is either frustration or avoidance depending on the situation. For the sport context and "the look" who cares how you get it? So you train it however works for you and the dog. If you were LE and you wanted a guard with a bark, does you or the perp count the barks and grade them on their intensity and rapid fire delivery? If you think you can train real tracking with cookies, why can't a ball be used to teach a bark on command and the "realness" develop from there? 

T


----------



## Guy Williams

Katie Finlay said:


> You're assuming we're using traditional methods. Also, you're not training dogs to fight. So you might get the points, and if that's what you want, awesome. But to me protection training, regardless of venue, should create a serious dog that sees value in the fight and wants to fight. I just don't see how that's created with a ball in protection.


Hi Katie. I am training dogs to fight and I do all my foundation work in prey drive for a ball reward. The point that keeps getting missed is that it is only the foundation work that is done for a ball reward. I teach all the behaviours that I require then chain them together to create the exercises as I need them.

Then I work on the attitude of the dog towards the helper. I would imagine that the work I do to achieve this is very similar to what you and everyone else who is trying to harness the dogs aggression does. Not doing this would clearly leave me with a dog that views the helper as a ball dispenser rather than an adversary.

Teaching the dog to bark for a ball isn't the problem as I see it. Failing to do the work to achieve the attitude you are describing is.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Erik Berg said:


> But the question is if using a preyitem in learning affects the finished dog, not that dog needs a toy to motivate it to bite. Is it wrong some IPO/ring people do learn the dog handler defence/transport by using a ball and clicker first, to show the dog the correct position before you moving on to transporting the helper with sleeve?
> 
> Also many seems to train much of the behaviours on themself with a preyitem before introducing the real helper and developing aggression in the dog, is this also wrong? As I understand gregory this is OK as long as the dog barks the way you want, just like the handler does here, I guess this is frustration aggresion barking,
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWEtyDJCOsc
> 
> For sport I guess you train with what works best for the dog and get´s the result you want, real aggressive barking is not really needed in many sports either like KNPV/ringsport. A dog that is working more in prey isn´t he still under good controll and good relationship with the handler if he can switch drives from biting the decoy to getting a handler reward the next? Letting the dog only get biterewards on the decoy however I suppose can get you some conflict if the dog expect a bite to much.
> 
> If the dog in the first video, the young dog in the muzzle, needed a preyitem/toy to motivate it to attack in the muzzle then it would be a different thing.


We had this discussion the other night--dogs that are working for the external reward vs. the desire for the work itself. My response was that you have to first determine whether the drives and instincts are there and only need unlocking--so to speak vs. the dog that is just in it for the reward. For some, to know, you have to take them through the process and see what develops. Just because you were able to train/teach some components of the exercise which really have nothing to do with the interaction and the dog's state of mind, doesn't mean that the end result is any less. Of course you have to know what you are doing and if you muck it up, it doesn't work. I don't think you can assume that there are control issues with dogs trained with prey/external rewards. Again, you have to know what you are doing from start to finish and don't skip any steps.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Guy Williams said:


> Hi Katie. I am training dogs to fight and I do all my foundation work in prey drive for a ball reward. The point that keeps getting missed is that it is only the foundation work that is done for a ball reward. I teach all the behaviours that I require then chain them together to create the exercises as I need them.
> 
> Then I work on the attitude of the dog towards the helper. I would imagine that the work I do to achieve this is very similar to what you and everyone else who is trying to harness the dogs aggression does. Not doing this would clearly leave me with a dog that views the helper as a ball dispenser rather than an adversary.
> 
> Teaching the dog to bark for a ball isn't the problem as I see it. Failing to do the work to achieve the attitude you are describing is.



+1 and you actually rely on yours to perform in the protection context.


----------



## Guy Williams

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> +1 and you actually rely on yours to perform in the protection context.


I do. I have been testing him the last few days just to make sure he isn't distracted by balls when working on the helper. A few seeds of doubt floating in my mind. He was ok though!:-D


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Guy Williams said:


> I do. I have been testing him the last few days just to make sure he isn't distracted by balls when working on the helper. A few seeds of doubt floating in my mind. He was ok though!:-D



There's the value of the reward itself and the reward through the handler. This is something my bouv and another dog taught me about working with external rewards and R+. 

T


----------



## Katie Finlay

Guy Williams said:


> Hi Katie. I am training dogs to fight and I do all my foundation work in prey drive for a ball reward. The point that keeps getting missed is that it is only the foundation work that is done for a ball reward. I teach all the behaviours that I require then chain them together to create the exercises as I need them.
> 
> Then I work on the attitude of the dog towards the helper. I would imagine that the work I do to achieve this is very similar to what you and everyone else who is trying to harness the dogs aggression does. Not doing this would clearly leave me with a dog that views the helper as a ball dispenser rather than an adversary.
> 
> Teaching the dog to bark for a ball isn't the problem as I see it. Failing to do the work to achieve the attitude you are describing is.


Greg describes the differences in the attitude when work in prey vs not very well. I don't like my dog to be in that mindset in protection at any stage of the training. That's just my preference.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Katie Finlay said:


> Greg describes the differences in the attitude when work in prey vs not very well. I don't like my dog to be in that mindset in protection at any stage of the training. That's just my preference.



You start a 6 month old puppy in protection training. How do you start with the fight the man for the sake of the fight mentality? What exercises are you utilizing. How, based on the dog's behavior do you decide the next step? Greg initially started with the premise that effective aggression can be obtained both with training with a prey item vs. civil. His definition of aggression is desire to fight the man. He then elaborated on some issues that can occur if the dog is trained wrong, presumedly or doesn't really have the instincts or drives to begin with. But bottom line, Greg as the others, agreed that training with the ball can work. Whether someone personally prefers it or doesn't like the idea of it, is a different story. Greg starts his dogs with foundation work with him and a prey item. So that makes him different than you. How do you start your dogs out? What are the steps to fight the decoy for the fight and how do you build that into the exercises such as the transport or B & H, guard. What behaviors are displayed by the dog that lead you to know what frame of mind the dog is in or what is motivating him?


T


----------



## Katie Finlay

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> You start a 6 month old puppy in protection training. How do you start with the fight the man for the sake of the fight mentality? What exercises are you utilizing. How, based on the dog's behavior do you decide the next step? Greg initially started with the premise that effective aggression can be obtained both with training with a prey item vs. civil. His definition of aggression is desire to fight the man. He then elaborated on some issues that can occur if the dog is trained wrong, presumedly or doesn't really have the instincts or drives to begin with. But bottom line, Greg as the others, agreed that training with the ball can work. Whether someone personally prefers it or doesn't like the idea of it, is a different story. Greg starts his dogs with foundation work with him and a prey item. So that makes him different than you. How do you start your dogs out? What are the steps to fight the decoy for the fight and how do you build that into the exercises such as the transport or B & H, guard. What behaviors are displayed by the dog that lead you to know what frame of mind the dog is in or what is motivating him?
> 
> 
> T


I don't start 6 month old puppies in protection training.

Other than that, I don't really understand. I never said it didn't work, I said it didn't create the dog I was looking for that can excel in sport and in real life. It's been established that people can do just fine in sport training prey only.


----------



## Katie Finlay

Duplicate.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Katie Finlay said:


> I don't start 6 month old puppies in protection training.
> 
> Other than that, I don't really understand. I never said it didn't work, I said it didn't create the dog I was looking for that can excel in sport and in real life. It's been established that people can do just fine in sport training prey only.


At whatever age you start, can you describe the training. This isn't about prey or R+, only or sport only. You said you disagreed with it regarding any stage of training. I'm just asking can you describe your stages of training in protection that don't involve a prey item. How do you start with the fight the man for the sake of the fight? Or what "creates" the dog you are looking for in sport or real life and can you describe this dog?

T


----------



## Katie Finlay

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> At whatever age you start, can you describe the training. This isn't about prey or R+, only or sport only. You said you disagreed with it regarding any stage of training. I'm just asking can you describe your stages of training in protection that don't involve a prey item. How do you start with the fight the man for the sake of the fight? Or what "creates" the dog you are looking for in sport or real life and can you describe this dog?
> 
> T


Greg has already done so.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Katie Finlay said:


> Greg has already done so.


No, Greg didn't describe any steps in training that didn't involve prey foundation. He described prey vs. civil motivation. He didn't describe the steps to getting there. But perhaps you are inadvertently saying that you didn't know there was a prey component to the foundation work you were doing.

T


----------



## Gregory Doud

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Greg starts his dogs with foundation work with him and a prey item.
> 
> 
> T


Just for the record, I never explained how I start my dogs in protection. I just explained how I use prey items to heighten their fighting instincts and to know what a clear victory is depending on a particular training exercise and/or situation. 

I believe in totality. Knowing both ways to fight and what the objective is depending on the situation. Both ways involve challenging and being aggressive towards the man. Just training one way is not training a dog completely or giving them an all around education, IMO. A lot will be missed and their will be holes in dog's schooling. 

Now back to lurking. - Greg


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Gregory Doud said:


> Just for the record, I never explained how I start my dogs in protection. I just explained how I use prey items to heighten their fighting instincts and to know what a clear victory is depending on a particular training exercise and/or situation.
> 
> I believe in totality. Knowing both ways to fight and what the objective is depending on the situation. Both ways involve challenging and being aggressive towards the man. Just training one way is not training a dog completely or giving them an all around education, IMO. A lot will be missed and their will be holes in dog's schooling.
> 
> Now back to lurking. - Greg


Post 133:

_I, myself, work the guarding with my own personal dogs. It's my belief that if I can put them in an aggressive state where they will bite me to get their prey item then they will bite anyone._

I agree you've never provided the actual training steps, just the general premise of what you describe as both types of training. However, all the disagreement seemed to be over using a prey item to instill some concepts and that this somehow detracted from instilling/promoting fight drive in the interaction with the decoy.

T


----------



## Katie Finlay

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> No, Greg didn't describe any steps in training that didn't involve prey foundation. He described prey vs. civil motivation. He didn't describe the steps to getting there. But perhaps you are inadvertently saying that you didn't know there was a prey component to the foundation work you were doing.
> 
> T


He described what we do as a whole (without using prey). I don't have the patience to type out everything step by step. It sort of just falls together naturally. Sorry.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

*The System*

There has been a LOT of talk about the Smith System and apparently only two people on the WDF follow it.
How about ONE protection video of ONE dog trained with this system? Or how about the protection score/trial of a dog trained with the SS?


----------



## David Winners

*Re: The System*



Thomas Barriano said:


> There has been a LOT of talk about the Smith System and apparently only two people on the WDF follow it.
> How about ONE protection video of ONE dog trained with this system? Or how about the protection score/trial of a dog trained with the SS?


I'm assuming Katie trains using the Smith System. She has a YouTube channel with many protection videos of Danni, her GSD.

Here is one example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIGlmV0LUwo&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Please correct me if I am mistaken.

David Winners


----------



## Thomas Barriano

*Re: The System*



David Winners said:


> I'm assuming Katie trains using the Smith System. She has a YouTube channel with many protection videos of Danni, her GSD.
> 
> Here is one example:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIGlmV0LUwo&feature=youtube_gdata_player
> 
> Please correct me if I am mistaken.
> 
> David Winners



There's only one recent protection video (from a seminar)?
The other videos are a year old and look and sound like a prey bark to me? I don't see all the power and seriousness that has been claimed. The Peter V video is OK but nothing like we've been lead to expect and no different then a dog trained with a ball or tug.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Thomas, that dog looks better than anything you have ever had on the end of a leash. Why don't you post a video of a dog dog you have trained do we can compare the barking?

[Now comes the part where Thomas does everything but produce a video with a dog he trained.]

LET THE YOUTUBE CHAMPIONSHIP BEGIN!


----------



## Christopher Smith

Let me throw my entry into The Championship.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_yXph0wIds&feature=youtube_gdata_player

ANYBODY ELSE WANNA GET A PIECE OF THIS!!!

Yeah that's right I got them super sexy decoys too. Livin large y'all!!!


----------



## Katie Finlay

*Re: The System*



David Winners said:


> I'm assuming Katie trains using the Smith System. She has a YouTube channel with many protection videos of Danni, her GSD.
> 
> Here is one example:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rIGlmV0LUwo&feature=youtube_gdata_player
> 
> Please correct me if I am mistaken.
> 
> David Winners


You are correct! I was really proud of my dog that day. And if it makes anyone feel better Chris wasn't even there. 

In Peter's words, verbatim: "I like your dog very much. She shows great temperament and a great overall picture."

He also told me she has no problems. Which is false, but it's nice to know her foundation shines through her issues


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Christopher Smith said:


> Thomas, that dog looks better than anything you have ever had on the end of a leash. Why don't you post a video of a dog dog you have trained do we can compare the barking?
> 
> [Now comes the part where Thomas does everything but produce a video with a dog he trained.]
> 
> LET THE YOUTUBE CHAMPIONSHIP BEGIN!


The video of Flanns IPO III at the UDC Nats was already posted, look it up. The barking in the blind was better then anything you've posted and under trial conditions with a real decoy and not a couple of little girl sleeve holders/bite givers.
The only one half way decent was the Peter V seminar video.
Can't you get any real/certified decoys to work your dogs unless you pay for a seminar?


----------



## Thomas Barriano

*Re: The System*



Katie Finlay said:


> You are correct! I was really proud of my dog that day. And if it makes anyone feel better Chris wasn't even there.
> 
> In Peter's words, verbatim: "I like your dog very much. She shows great temperament and a great overall picture."
> 
> He also told me she has no problems. Which is false, but it's nice to know her foundation shines through her issues



When your dog looks better with a decoy she's never seen before then with her "trainer". That should tell you something.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

*Re: The System*



Katie Finlay said:


> You are correct! I was really proud of my dog that day. And if it makes anyone feel better Chris wasn't even there.
> 
> In Peter's words, verbatim: "I like your dog very much. She shows great temperament and a great overall picture."
> 
> He also told me she has no problems. Which is false, but it's nice to know her foundation shines through her issues


What issues? You've described her before as being not reliable. What are you referring to--issues and unreliable--wise?


----------



## Christopher Smith

HAHAHAHA! I don't know if you're searching for clues are grasping for straws.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

What we're looking for is video of how strong the SS trained dogs look in a H&B in the blind, under trial conditions would be better. How abut a video when you got you IPO I, show us how it's done? 
What we've got so far is Katie's dog being worked by another decoy and a couple of clips of you playing in a warehouse.
When you plan on going for the IPO II, at the AWMA Nats?


----------



## Christopher Smith

Had it for months you senile coot.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Christopher Smith said:


> Had it for months you senile coot.
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


I just don't pay that much attention to you Chris.
Where's the video and what was the scores?


----------



## Katie Finlay

*Re: The System*



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> What issues? You've described her before as being not reliable. What are you referring to--issues and unreliable--wise?


That's her issue, but we don't what causes it (hint, it's not training - likely actual brain inactivity).


----------



## Christopher Smith

Since you keep moving your criteria for what is acceptable, I need you you tell me what is good enough score. 

Then I want you to take a picture of the scores in your dog's scorebook and post them here.

Then I will do the same.

Sorry no videos. I normally don't participate in The YouTube Championships.


----------



## Joby Becker

*Re: The System*



Thomas Barriano said:


> When your dog looks better with a decoy she's never seen before then with her "trainer". That should tell you something.


what do you think that should that tell you? seriously curious..no bs here from me....


----------



## Christopher Smith

*Re: The System*



Joby Becker said:


> what do you think that should that tell you? seriously curious..no bs here from me....


Damn Joby, I was going to bring that into my troll in a few post :mrgreen:


----------



## Christopher Smith

Thomas Barriano said:


> I just don't pay that much attention to you Chris.


No you just don't remember it Thomas. You pay attention to everything I say and do. You find me irresistible. Don't worry, I'm used to rockin this much sexy and it comes with the territory. 

Please see your own comments on a subject that you couldn't resist. http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f53/big-brag-25864/

And see where it says IPO1 next to my dogs name right under this post. It's been like that for months.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Christopher Smith said:


> Since you keep moving your criteria for what is acceptable, I need you you tell me what is good enough score.
> 
> Then I want you to take a picture of the scores in your dog's scorebook and post them here.
> 
> Then I will do the same.
> 
> Sorry no videos. I normally don't participate in The YouTube Championships.


I"m not moving anything. The whole topic was about a decoy rewarding a dog barking (H&B)by throwing a ball and your claim that it creates weak dogs. I want to see a video of a dog trained by you exhibiting what you consider an acceptable bark under the same conditions as the original video.
An SG or better protection score shouldn't be too hard for an expert like yourself especially at an IPO I level.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

*Re: The System*



Joby Becker said:


> what do you think that should that tell you? seriously curious..no bs here from me....


It tells me the dog is more comfortable and performs better with a stranger. I want my dog to be more comfortable with his training decoy.


----------



## Joby Becker

Thomas Barriano said:


> I"m not moving anything. The whole topic was about a decoy rewarding a dog barking (H&B)by throwing a ball and your claim that it creates weak dogs. I want to see a video of a dog trained by you exhibiting what you consider an acceptable bark under the same conditions as the original video.
> An SG or better protection score shouldn't be too hard for an expert like yourself especially at an IPO I level.


I dont know much about IPO ratings, what rating is a 96 in protection?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

*Re: The System*



Katie Finlay said:


> That's her issue, but we don't what causes it (hint, it's not training - likely actual brain inactivity).




How is she unreliable? So far you've never said even when asked in a couple of threads. As for the hint, if you don't know what causes the unreliable performance, how do you know it isn't training. As for the video, that's not what I'm interested in. That's a few moments in time. Its more interesting to me how you think you got there. But if you can't or won't say other than "what he said," I guess it ends there. 

T


----------



## jamie lind

*Re: The System*



Thomas Barriano said:


> It tells me the dog is more comfortable and performs better with a stranger. I want my dog to be more comfortable with his training decoy.


Why would your dog bark better when it's more comfortable?


----------



## Christopher Smith

Thomas Barriano said:


> I"m not moving anything. The whole topic was about a decoy rewarding a dog barking (H&B)by throwing a ball and your claim that it creates weak dogs.


Are you lying, senile or stupid? I never said that. Find the quote.



I think it does not bring out the strength in dogs. I know that's hard for you to understand, but there is a huge difference between those two things. And it's not just the barking that is improved it's everything including control. 




> An SG or better protection score shouldn't be too hard for an expert like yourself especially at an IPO I level.


Yes my score meets your criteria.


----------



## Christopher Smith

*Re: The System*



jamie lind said:


> Why would your dog bark better when it's more comfortable?


Because it won't be too scared to chase the ball?


----------



## David Winners

*Re: The System*



Thomas Barriano said:


> When your dog looks better with a decoy she's never seen before then with her "trainer". That should tell you something.


Speaking from theory and not experience here, so this is a question and not an opinion. 

It makes sense to me that a dog trained to take a helper seriously, and work in aggression versus prey, would take a strange handler as a more serious threat, and would subsequently react in a more aggressive manner to a stranger than to a familiar adversary.

Is my thought process valid here?

David Winners


----------



## Christopher Smith

Joby Becker said:


> I dont know much about IPO ratings, what rating is a 96 in protection?


That would be a V = vorzuglich= excellent

Why do you ask?:wink:


----------



## Christopher Smith

*Re: The System*



David Winners said:


> Is my thought process valid here?
> 
> David Winners


Very valid David. I train dogs to look good on trial day not YouTube.


----------



## Joby Becker

*Re: The System*



jamie lind said:


> Why would your dog bark better when it's more comfortable?


I was thinking the same thing.

I could be wrong, cant remember every dog I had, but I would guess that almost all of them looked better with strange decoys and helpers, to me anyhow...at least more aggressive and stronger anyhow..either it is the new guy that they punk out, or the knew guy that gives them a challenge that is out of the norm of what they see with the regular ole training helper...

with a few exceptions of certain dogs that seriously hated a few of the regular decoys/agitators I used.


----------



## Joby Becker

Christopher Smith said:


> That would be a V = vorzuglich= excellent
> 
> Why do you ask?:wink:


Didnt your current dog get a 96 in protection for IPO 1?


----------



## Christopher Smith

Well yes he did! How about that. He also got 99 points tracking and 92 points in obedience. He also got his was FH at a Championship with a score of 93 and he even got 100 points for his FH2. But I don't know what I'm doing so I must just have a badass dog or get lucky over and over and over again. Or maybe the judges just give me extra points for being so damn sexy and not looking like Cartman.


----------



## Katie Finlay

*Re: The System*



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> How is she unreliable? So far you've never said even when asked in a couple of threads. As for the hint, if you don't know what causes the unreliable performance, how do you know it isn't training. As for the video, that's not what I'm interested in. That's a few moments in time. Its more interesting to me how you think you got there. But if you can't or won't say other than "what he said," I guess it ends there.
> 
> T


Here's the thing, I never go on forums on a computer. I'm always on my phone. When Greg Doud comes along and states very clearly how people who build dogs to fight helpers and for the barking to be self-rewarding, why should I repeat the exact same thing? Especially with my thumbs.


----------



## David Winners

*Re: The System*



Katie Finlay said:


> Here's the thing, I never go on forums on a computer. I'm always on my phone. When Greg Doud comes along and states very clearly how people who build dogs to fight helpers and for the barking to be self-rewarding, why should I repeat the exact same thing? Especially with my thumbs.


I recommend Swype.

David Winners


----------



## Joby Becker

*Re: The System*



Katie Finlay said:


> Here's the thing, I never go on forums on a computer. I'm always on my phone. When Greg Doud comes along and states very clearly how people who build dogs to fight helpers and for the barking to be self-rewarding, why should I repeat the exact same thing? Especially with my thumbs.


I think that Greg exlplained how you can teach a dog to fight a helper FOR A BALL, and make the barking self rewarding.

he pretty clearly explained how a dog barking for a ball and a dog barking for a ball can be 2 totally different things.


----------



## Katie Finlay

Gregory Doud said:


> <br>Aggression, in my opinion, is all about teaching the dog to mentally fight the helper and seek out the encounter based on a situation and/or being told by its handler. Whether it be civilly without equipment ... If worked civilly, it is to have the helper go into some type of avoidance (running away, deciding to leave, not encroaching any closer, acting physically submissive such as avoiding eye contact, becoming smaller, acting intimidated, etc.). It can be any or one of the above. The barking bothers and intimidates the opponent from encroaching closer. It is their best weapon from a distance and the dog should be trying to communicate to their foe that if they come any closer or within striking distance that they will bite them if that what it rises to or if they are within reach. If they are hunted down by the dog and it's a hold and bark situation, it's if the person moves. In any of these situations, the drive goal is met if the person chooses to not come any closer, elects to retreat, or is detained. By standing still in the blind the helper is too frightened to move and dares not to fight the dog. Sort of like an animal that freezes because he is scared stiff. By having an intimidating bark the dog doesn't need a bite to have their drive satisfaction met if trained this way.


Well, if I misunderstood again somehow, this can be applied to how I train.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Katie Finlay said:


> Well, if I misunderstood again somehow, this can be applied to how I train.



That's why so there is no misunderstanding with the regurgitated version, I asked you what your training steps were. Greg Doud has said that he has not provided any training steps. I asked how you train the dog to fight for the sake of the fight. Greg Doud gave a couple of different scenarios that can produce aggression--one of which involves a prey item or a ball. Rather than cut/paste the version that involves the ball/prey item, which part of his descriptions do you adopt as a statement of how you train?

T


----------



## Katie Finlay

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> That's why so there is no misunderstanding with the regurgitated version, I asked you what your training steps were. Greg Doud has said that he has not provided any training steps. I asked how you train the dog to fight for the sake of the fight. Greg Doud gave a couple of different scenarios that can produce aggression--one of which involves a prey item or a ball. Rather than cut/paste the version that involves the ball/prey item, which part of his descriptions do you adopt as a statement of how you train?
> 
> T


Michael Ellis has a video about teaching dogs to heel. It's 4 hours long. I can't break down step by step instructions for protection work. I'm sorry. I'm not Herr Hundesport.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Katie Finlay said:


> Michael Ellis has a video about teaching dogs to heel. It's 4 hours long. I can't break down step by step instructions for protection work. I'm sorry. I'm not Herr Hundesport.


Not instructions, how you've done it. What's step 1, 2 and 3? You participated in the training of your dog--right? What were the first steps in the protection training--particularly training the dog to fight for the sake of the fight? What are the training stages to get that result?

T


----------



## Christopher Smith

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> That's why so there is no misunderstanding with the regurgitated version, I asked you what your training steps were. Greg Doud has said that he has not provided any training steps. I asked how you train the dog to fight for the sake of the fight. Greg Doud gave a couple of different scenarios that can produce aggression--one of which involves a prey item or a ball. Rather than cut/paste the version that involves the ball/prey item, which part of his descriptions do you adopt as a statement of how you train?
> 
> T


 
Terrasita this is not something that you explain like the directions for a toaster. There is no paint by numbers. If you want to find out more you should train with someone that understands this type of training. Greg is an excellent teacher and does seminars. Why don't you organize a seminar for your training group or club? I also know other helpers all over the country that understand the concept and I can help you find one. I also invite you to come to LA and train with me. But not everything can be or should be explained over the interwebs.


----------



## Joby Becker

Katie Finlay said:


> Well, if I misunderstood again somehow..


I think that is where some people may have gotten twisted up...

there is a slight difference between,

"hey listen to me, I am barking like you like, are you going to give me the ball now"?

and "hey motherfukker GIVE ME THAT BALL NOW! or I will tear a chunk out of you."


----------



## Katie Finlay

Joby Becker said:


> I think that is where some people may have gotten twisted up...
> 
> there is a slight difference between,
> 
> "hey listen to me, I am barking like you like, are you going to give me the ball now"?
> 
> and "hey motherfukker GIVE ME THAT BALL NOW! or I will tear a chunk out of you."


Okay, we'll I took it that he explained with using a physical reward vs barking as the reward.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Christopher Smith said:


> Terrasita this is not something that you explain like the directions for a toaster. There is no paint by numbers. If you want to find out more you should train with someone that understands this type of training. Greg is an excellent teacher and does seminars. Why don't you organize a seminar for your training group or club? I also know other helpers all over the country that understand the concept and I can help you find one. I also invite you to come to LA and train with me. But not everything can be or should be explained over the interwebs.


Chris,

While I can appreciate your point, I NEVER do anything with a dog before I understand what's going to occur and the articulated reasoning behind it. I don't see why its so impossible to state the training stages the dog has been through or how a finished dog progressed from one stage to another in demonstrating how a particular training theory works. Part of this is the fact that I've dealt with dogs that don't bark as a prelude to a bite and they don't think about weakening the person or driving it off. They just went for the bite. So in the artificial context, how do you train a dog that a bark is self-rewarding. This is confusing for me because as its been explained, the bark isn't the reward. The decoy running off or otherwise submitting is what the dog wants--relief from the pressure. That's not fight for the sake of the fight for me. But maybe it works for you guys. Bob mentioned a dog in another thread--Whiskey. The video which was poo pooed I didn't watch. I watched the dog train from a young dog and tested the dog on stock. This is/was a dog that wanted to plow through the pressure with all he had and got off on the fight. That's his character. There are dogs that truly seek and want the interaction with the fight. Again, for me, that's implicit character. Katie says you train it. How?

T


----------



## Joby Becker

Katie Finlay said:


> Okay, we'll I took it that he explained with using a physical reward vs barking as the reward.


you are not wrong there either, he did say that both occur if dog is in correct mindset...barking is self rewarding and IF the helper submits to the dogs power AND gives the item to the dog, it is double the reward...

"If they do understand that their guarding actually made the decoy scared stiff and also get a delayed bite reward it is a double reward. 

And, the bite reward is a bonus as it isn't necessary to fulfill their drive state. I believe very few people train this way from what I have seen out and about and from what I read on this forum."

I totally gey your points in this thread though, and honestly the % of people that train a dog in the manner like Greg is describing with a physical "prey item" is most likely very very small..


----------



## Katie Finlay

Joby Becker said:


> you are not wrong there either, he did say that both occur if dog is in correct mindset...barking is self rewarding and IF the helper submits to the dogs power AND gives the item to the dog, it is double the reward...
> 
> "If they do understand that their guarding actually made the decoy scared stiff and also get a delayed bite reward it is a double reward.
> 
> And, the bite reward is a bonus as it isn't necessary to fulfill their drive state. I believe very few people train this way from what I have seen out and about and from what I read on this forum."
> 
> I totally gey your points in this thread though, and honestly the % of people that train a dog in the manner like Greg is describing with a physical "prey item" is most likely very very small..


Agreed.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Chris,
> 
> While I can appreciate your point, I NEVER do anything with a dog before I understand what's going to occur and the articulated reasoning behind it. I don't see why its so impossible to state the training stages the dog has been through or how a finished dog progressed from one stage to another in demonstrating how a particular training theory works. Part of this is the fact that I've dealt with dogs that don't bark as a prelude to a bite and they don't think about weakening the person or driving it off. They just went for the bite. So in the artificial context, how do you train a dog that a bark is self-rewarding. This is confusing for me because as its been explained, the bark isn't the reward. The decoy running off or otherwise submitting is what the dog wants--relief from the pressure. That's not fight for the sake of the fight for me. But maybe it works for you guys. Bob mentioned a dog in another thread--Whiskey. The video which was poo pooed I didn't watch. I watched the dog train from a young dog and tested the dog on stock. This is/was a dog that wanted to plow through the pressure with all he had and got off on the fight. That's his character. There are dogs that truly seek and want the interaction with the fight. Again, for me, that's implicit character. Katie says you train it. How?
> 
> T


Yeah...Good Luck on all that.


----------



## Joby Becker

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Chris,
> 
> While I can appreciate your point, I NEVER do anything with a dog before I understand what's going to occur and the articulated reasoning behind it. I don't see why its so impossible to state the training stages the dog has been through or how a finished dog progressed from one stage to another in demonstrating how a particular training theory works. Part of this is the fact that I've dealt with dogs that don't bark as a prelude to a bite and they don't think about weakening the person or driving it off. They just went for the bite. So in the artificial context, how do you train a dog that a bark is self-rewarding. This is confusing for me because as its been explained, the bark isn't the reward. The decoy running off or otherwise submitting is what the dog wants--relief from the pressure. That's not fight for the sake of the fight for me. But maybe it works for you guys. Bob mentioned a dog in another thread--Whiskey. The video which was poo pooed I didn't watch. I watched the dog train from a young dog and tested the dog on stock. This is/was a dog that wanted to plow through the pressure with all he had and got off on the fight. That's his character. There are dogs that truly seek and want the interaction with the fight. Again, for me, that's implicit character. Katie says you train it. How?
> 
> T


](*,)](*,)](*,)

Not talking about dog that will bite first instead of barking if given a choice , and not talking about relieving pressure in place of fighting or the dog wanting to fight...we are talking about a controlled aggressive trained barking/guarding response here. actual fighting (physical contact) is only allowed if specific things occur.

Lets say I roll my window down and tell my dog to guard the car...

You walk towards the car and get within so many feet of my car''

The dog starts to bark very aggressively...

You stop coming closer turn around and back off of the car and leave, and start thinking about what you just saw in relation to the dog...

Would you automatically assume that the dog really did not want to fight you, because it did not fly out the window and attack you, and instead barked aggressively?

Would you assume that the dog was somehow happier or felt more relieved that you decided to leave, as opposed to you deciding to open the car door and try to steal something, giving the dog the green light to light your ass up and put you in the hospital? 

another way of looking at the concept that is a little more applicable to this thread.

lets say you break into my home and I come home and find you in here unarmed, and you have my laptop in your hand.

I tell the dog to "guard" you actively, and tell you not to move, to detain you and hopefully piss yourself (luckily you are on the tile), while I call the police and wait for them to get here.. 

The dog runs up to you and starts barking like mad and staring you dead in your eyes...

You start to piss youself and start shying away from the dog slightly and get pushed into the corner of the room and start and begging me not to let the dog attack you...

Would you assume that the act of you pissing your pants and your submitting to the dog actually relieved much pressure that the dog was feeling? 

Would you assume that the dog did not want to fight you, and was *not* actually hoping that you might try to run away, or otherwise give the dog the green light to light your ass up and put you in the hospital?

conversely..if the dog was able to successfully refrain from biting you in those situations and perfromed great scary displays, do you think if I just told the dog to bite you instead, that the dog would not. because it only barked instead of biting you, when its job was only to bark at that time?

Would you assume that if I was not home but left the dog home and you broke in to steal my laptop, that the dog would not bite/fight you?


----------



## Joby Becker

what if the dog came into the room and found you trying to steal its favorite ball?? (to tie this back into this thread)


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Joby Becker said:


> ](*,)](*,)](*,)
> 
> Not talking about dog that will bite first instead of barking if given a choice , and not talking about relieving pressure in place of fighting or the dog wanting to fight...we are talking about a controlled aggressive trained barking/guarding response here. actual fighting (physical contact) is only allowed if specific things occur.
> 
> *Yes, a behavior. How did you train that? How do you know the dog perceives it as actual fighting? You humans call it fighting. Really, its a trained response, look, sound for a particular identifiable context. You humans want to ascribe some emotion to it by stating that the dog believes that he has made the threat submit or leave. How do you know?*
> 
> Lets say I roll my window down and tell my dog to guard the car...
> 
> You walk towards the car and get within so many feet of my car''
> 
> The dog starts to bark very aggressively...
> 
> You stop coming closer turn around and back off of the car and leave, and start thinking about what you just saw in relation to the dog...
> 
> Would you automatically assume that the dog really did not want to fight you, because it did not fly out the window and attack you, and instead barked aggressively?
> 
> *I wouldn't automatically assume anything. Some dogs are all ferocious behind the barrier and then you get rid of it and you got nothing. For all I know, he could be one of those. I also don't assume what his motivation is behind the bark. He could want to bite the crap out of me and the bark is his frustration that he can't get to me. He could be scared out of his wits and the bark is PLEASE go away. He could be warning me. Like anyone else not wearing equipment, I'm not going to test it. Fight for the sake of the fight is how common? You give a territorial defense situation to somehow demonstrate fight for the sake of a fight--apples and oranges.*
> 
> Would you assume that the dog was somehow happier or felt more relieved that you decided to leave, as opposed to you deciding to open the car door and try to steal something, giving the dog the green light to light your ass up and put you in the hospital?
> 
> *Again, I don't make that assumption. But since I've had a couple that went through the barriers, I'm kinda of the frame of mind that if they want it, they will go get it. These were untrained. Territorially, if I open the door, he might bite. Some dogs don't instinctively leave what they are guarding. However, again, this isn't fight for the sake of fight. There is a reason for the dog's action--keep you out of the territory. If that's accomplished, then he is satisfied. I don't consider the dog acting along these lines as weak. I'm assuming you are describing the instinctual rather than scenario trained dog.*
> 
> another way of looking at the concept that is a little more applicable to this thread.
> 
> lets say you break into my home and I come home and find you in here unarmed, and you have my laptop in your hand.
> 
> I tell the dog to "guard" you actively, and tell you not to move, to detain you and hopefully piss yourself (luckily you are on the tile), while I call the police and wait for them to get here..
> 
> The dog runs up to you and starts barking like mad and staring you dead in your eyes...
> 
> You start to piss youself and start shying away from the dog slightly and get pushed into the corner of the room and start and begging me not to let the dog attack you...
> 
> Would you assume that the act of you pissing your pants and your submitting to the dog actually relieved much pressure that the dog was feeling?
> 
> *Okay, lets assume I don't blow his brains out or decide to feed him something besides one of my appendages, I don't know if the dog is feeling pressure--or care. If he is pressured, then my retreat or fear can relieve that pressure. Really, since he is trained, what am I so afraid of. All I have to do is stand there and don't look in the eyes of course. What any of this has to do with the bark self reward thing, I don't know--other than you assuming its in fight drive and I pose the possibility that the reward is to gain submission or drive the decoy off--which does relieve pressure if felt. Again, as you are training this, how do you know and how do you train it? *
> 
> Would you assume that the dog did not want to fight you, and was actually hoping that you might try to run away, or otherwise give the dog the green light to light your ass up and put you in the hospital?


*I don't assume anything. You seem to know he desires a fight. How? But again, this has nothing to do with the premise that you TRAIN a dog to fight the man for the sake of the fight. Can you articulate the training steps for that? 
*


----------



## Joby Becker

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> *I don't assume anything. You seem to know he desires a fight. How? But again, this has nothing to do with the premise that you TRAIN a dog to fight the man for the sake of the fight. Can you articulate the training steps for that?
> *


I do not understand the question? please rephrase in greater detail.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Joby Becker said:


> what if the dog came into the room and found you trying to steal its favorite ball?? (to tie this back into this thread)


If the dog was worth anything, you wouldn't have made it into the room, house for that matter. I think you all are afraid of the ball training because you are basically insecure regarding what is truly in the dog's character. I know if the dog is acting out of one motivation, the other will not register or mean anything to him. But again, you'd have to know what's the higher power for that dog.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Joby Becker said:


> I do not understand the question? please rephrase in greater detail.


That's because you weren't the one that made the statement. Since you brought up all of this, I thought you might know where they were coming from and could articulate the training steps. 

T


----------



## Alice Bezemer

21 Pages! Read them all and it got me wondering on something that is off topic but I wanted to ask the question anyway. I've seen some excellent bragging on this topic about quality dogs and their training. (Y'all deserve a gold star in that department.) What happens to these dogs after they are trained? Do they get kept as pets or do they actually get sold into something like LE or MIL? Do they actually have a use beyond bragging about them and their excellent training?


----------



## Christopher Smith

Alice Bezemer said:


> 21 Pages! Read them all and it got me wondering on something that is off topic but I wanted to ask the question anyway. I've seen some excellent bragging on this topic about quality dogs and their training. (Y'all deserve a gold star in that department.) What happens to these dogs after they are trained? Do they get kept as pets or do they actually get sold into something like LE or MIL? Do they actually have a use beyond bragging about them and their excellent training?




I have my dogs for fun and protection. And part of the fun is bragging and ego fulfilment. Training dogs has taught me self discipline. It's a distraction from the stresses boredom of everyday life. I also like meeting and spending time withother people that enjoy something that brings me so much pleasure. 

Only sell them to police or military if they suck.


----------



## Joby Becker

T...

you are all over the place..

I was attempting to explain what active guarding is, you assume that the example of the dog guarding the car would be a territorial defense situation...that may or may not be the case at all. 
it may be a case of the dog actively guarding on a command.

I was not talking about natural responses in the barking examples, I was talking about the dog restraining itself and barking, as an extension of his desire to fight.

It is not that complicated. 

Fight for the sake of fight is described in the first short segment here:
http://youtu.be/9siVtZyeE7k?t=3m1s

also, in about 7 hours I will stop in at a friends and make a video of a dog barking for the sake of barking for you, not fighting just barking, if the guy is available.. his dog just loves to bark all the time, most of the time by the end of the day the dog is just going HA! HA! HA!,,,cause his voice gets hoarse from all the barking he does which he finds very self rewarding.


----------



## Joby Becker

even simpler for you T.

ever see a dog that herds for the sake of herding? or do all those herding dogs herd for some other external rewards? do you think some of those dogs find the herding activity self rewarding?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Joby Becker said:


> T...
> 
> you are all over the place..
> 
> I was attempting to explain what active guarding is, you assume that the example of the dog guarding the car would be a territorial defense situation...that may or may not be the case at all.
> it may be a case of the dog actively guarding on a command.
> 
> I was not talking about natural responses in the barking examples, I was talking about the dog restraining itself and barking, as an extension of his desire to fight.
> 
> It is not that complicated.
> 
> Fight for the sake of fight is described in the first short segment here:
> http://youtu.be/9siVtZyeE7k?t=3m1s
> 
> also, in about 7 hours I will stop in at a friends and make a video of a dog barking for the sake of barking for you, not fighting just barking, if the guy is available.. his dog just loves to bark all the time, most of the time by the end of the day the dog is just going HA! HA! HA!,,,cause his voice gets hoarse from all the barking he does which he finds very self rewarding.


Joby, I didn't assume anything. I gave you some possibilities for the actions and that's all they are because you can't really know. You really don't get what I'm asking. 'Dog restrain himself in the barking as an extension of fight'----how is that trained and how do you know that the dog believes that its an extension of the fight? You train the dog to bark on command. Done. But you also say you train the motivation behind the bark. How? As for your video, save yourself some time and we will agree that no one knows why he barks. Furthermore, it has nothing to do with this discussion and chances of me watching a dog barking for the sake of barking is slim to none.


T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Joby Becker said:


> even simpler for you T.
> 
> ever see a dog that herds for the sake of herding? or do all those herding dogs herd for some other external rewards? do you think some of those dogs find the herding activity self rewarding?


It depends on how you define herding. Depending on that definition it can involve pack and/or external reward. But how does this have anything to do with what is stated here? I didn't tell you that herding for the sake of herding is trained. The traits needed for managing livestock are innate. The dog either has them or they don't. Sure you can train the lesser dog, particularly for sport but that's not the dog you will want to rely on in certain situations. The premise here was that protection dogs should be trained to fight the man for the sake of fight. Again, how do you train that? Next is the idea that the reason the dog barks is to drive the decoy into submission or make him run away and somehow this is an extension of fight. Somehow this is trained [bark and state of mind or motivation]. How? If you don't know because you haven't trained it that's fine. I'm not interested in the hypothetical what ifs or would you assume this or thats. 

T


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Christopher Smith said:


> I have my dogs for fun and protection. And part of the fun is bragging and ego fulfilment. Training dogs has taught me self discipline. It's a distraction from the stresses boredom of everyday life. I also like meeting and spending time withother people that enjoy something that brings me so much pleasure.
> 
> Only sell them to police or military if they suck.


To each their own, right? It is nice to know you enjoy the sports and interaction with others and have something to take you away from everyday life to relieve stress and boredom. 

How do you determine if a dog sucks enough to go into LE or MIL and have you ever sold any dogs to the police or militairy?



Christopher Smith said:


> Let me throw my entry into The Championship.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_yXph0wIds&feature=youtube_gdata_player
> 
> ANYBODY ELSE WANNA GET A PIECE OF THIS!!!
> 
> Yeah that's right I got them super sexy decoys too. Livin large y'all!!!


Nice dog. Was this the first time in this particular area or has he been there before? As for asking if anybody else wants a piece of that? A piece of what? A bark and a bite?


----------



## Joby Becker

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> It depends on how you define herding. Depending on that definition it can involve pack and/or external reward.
> 
> *How do you know this?*
> 
> But how does this have anything to do with what is stated here? I didn't tell you that herding for the sake of herding is trained. The traits needed for managing livestock are innate.
> 
> *As are the traits for protection training.*
> 
> The dog either has them or they don't.
> 
> *I agree.*
> 
> Sure you can train the lesser dog, particularly for sport but that's not the dog you will want to rely on in certain situations.
> 
> *Same thing I agree..*
> 
> The premise here was that protection dogs should be trained to fight the man for the sake of fight.
> 
> *The premise is that you have actually asked many questions, which I have tried to help you with a few answers, and you seem not to notice those....The answers you are looking for his here already. Reread everything written here again, from EVERYONE, and also the links I have provided to you. The Winkler article, and might as well watch the entire series of those leerburg Michael Ellis videos on Aggression as well *
> 
> Again, how do you train that?
> 
> *You use the dogs innate character traits and drives and train the dog..The dogs natural makeup and the quality of the training, knowldge of the trainers and handlers will of course determine how far the dog is developed. You give the dog what that individual dog needs to perform in the correct mindset and display the correct behaviors.*
> 
> Next is the idea that the reason the dog barks is to drive the decoy into submission or make him run away and somehow this is an extension of fight.
> 
> *yes that is true, having your opponents or enemies submit. quit, or leave is usually the goal in most forms of fighting. The goal is to WIN the fight.*
> 
> Somehow this is trained [bark and state of mind or motivation]. How?
> 
> *It is trained by using what the dog brings to the table , and training the dog.*
> 
> If you don't know because you haven't trained it that's fine. I'm not interested in the hypothetical what ifs or would you assume this or thats.
> 
> *You start out with dogs that are bred correctly and have the qualities necessary, and you train them. Every dog is going to go through either slightly different or possibly radically different training, even if trained by the same person for the same exact thing, depending on the the dog.*
> 
> *I get sort of what you are asking I think, and NO I dont think any person can read a dogs mind 100%, or watch a video and always accurately assess what is going on in the dogs head. what people can do is get to know the dogs they are dealing with, try out things, guage responses, and formulate a picture of the dog, read the dog, based on what you see in him at a given moment, make adjustments to what you are doing to give the dog what he needs to move forward towards the goals for him.
> 
> You have to accept the premise that people have the ability to read dogs in protection work, not their minds 100% of course, but there actions and behaviors and moods and the way those are expressed in relation to what is going on around them. Just as you have stated that YOU dont know why a dog might do what it is doing, a person that has worked extenisvely with that dog, and sometimes not with that dog before, may in fact know why he is doing what he is doing and be able to adjust himself to the dog, or adjust the dog to the work..
> 
> If you cant agree that there is an accepted framework of understood traits, actions and behaviors, and that over time, people have interpreted them failry accurately, then there is nothing to talk about I guess.*
> 
> T


You yourself have named lots of reasons that you feel dogs may do things...When you are training the dog and working with him, you can narrow those reasons down.

Here is the trouble with you, you twist things and then put words in peoples mouth, or you make incorrect assumtptions, even though you say you dont assume anything.

I gave example of dog guarding a car on command, to help explain how barking can be trained restrained aggressive response as an extension of fight, since you seemed to be really confused about that and said something about relieving pressure and not wanting to really fight, something to that effect anyhow, saying maybe barking works for us, but so and sos dog liked to fight the stock and that was natural, went off on a tangent and in response to my example.... you said this:

*You give a territorial defense situation to somehow demonstrate fight for the sake of a fight--apples and oranges.*

You made an assumption about that situation, made a statement, so dont say you dont make assumptions, you make assumptions about the motivations and intentions in the dogs you work with too, just like anyone else...

The fact could be that the dog was NOT territorial aggressive, or aggressive in the car at all, but was trained to act in a certain manner in a certain situation...While you as the person approaching the car will not know what is going on, what went into the process from the dog itself and the training, or the minset in the dog I would know, because it would be my dog, I know the dog and I trained it. My dog likes to fight, for the sake of fighting, she is not aggressive in the car in the least, she does not guard the car at all using aggressive displays. But, I could train her to do so very easily if I desired to do so. I would teach dog to show active response to stimulus, and then teach her when it is acceptable to actually engage and fight the person and when it is not. The process to do this will be different for different dogs. 


You are correct in some of the thinking, you cannot simply train all of the stuff discussed here in the mindset being talked about into just any dog or every dog. The dog has to have correct makeup, and have effective training. 

You are stuck on the wording of one phrase used by one person and ignoring the concept and reasons why that statement was made amd all of the other thigns said here,or so it seems. 

Barking as an extension of desire to fight is self rewarding. When fight packages are discussed they involve quite a few different aspects of the dog, not just one trait. 

When training dogs you can see the dog reacting certain ways, to various things, dogs operating from vertain places in there heads, with certain traits and motivations will do certain things, exploration into the dog is done, patterns are seen, reactions are seen that fit patterns learned and understood by people using previous knowledge and experiences just like you do I am sure for whatever you are training. Training is adjusted to suit the dog, get him coming from where we want him to, if he has correct make up for it, and performing the behoaviors in the way we want them to.

I believe what Katie was trying to say was that she doesnt believe in using the ball as a reward or a prey object as a reward as a primary motivation for the dog in its barking for IPO or barking displays in protection, and also for protection behaviors in general...she did not say it was impossible, she said she does not like the idea of it..

You have been all over the map in this thread so it is really hard to even try to give you answers, since you then ignore those and move on to another questions, I am giving you what I can here.

you asked what the difference between aggression displays and frustration was, I gave you great article to read, all about aggression..


You have to accept the premise that some people know what they are talking about, whether you understand it or not. You have to accept the fact that all dogs are individuals, and that there is usually more than one way to skin a cat. so giving specifics on vague blanket question is pretty much impossible. You have said yourself you have to dig into the dog and find out what works, when you find out what works and dig into the dog, you learn more about the motivations and mindset of the dog.

You also made this statement.

*I don't think you can assume that there are control issues with dogs trained with prey/external rewards. Again, you have to know what you are doing from start to finish and don't skip any steps.*

Which I assume was some sort of response to these statements made by Greg.



> *Frustration is a component of aggression. When an animal or human become frustrated, they naturally become aggressive.
> *
> *Dogs that are also trained primarily in prey in protection usually have a lot more control problems and relationship issues with their handlers than dogs that are taught both ways because they only see bite rewards as satisfying their drive state and feel constantly ripped off if bite rewards aren't maintained for guarding. These dogs are dependent on bite rewards. They see the exercises like the call back and transports as their guarding not working as it didn't make the decoy move and also that their handler is preventing them from fighting the helper by commanding them to do another exercise. The dogs don't want to perform these exercises because they feel like it's unfinished business as they didn't get to bite and they are not satisfied until they bite. They then tend to argue with the handler over control. These dogs don't see that their barking actually made the decoy scared stiff and afraid of fighting them. They have to come up with exercises to give their dogs delayed bite rewards to communicate to their dog that if they do such and such an exercise reward awaits them. The dogs don't see the barking as a guarding exercise and is actually a self-rewarding behavior that doesn't need a bite reward. If they do understand that their guarding actually made the decoy scared stiff and also get a delayed bite reward it is a double reward. And, the bite reward is a bonus as it isn't necessary to fulfill their drive state.*


I dont think Greg is assuming anything. I think he has worked enough dogs and has a very good capability of reading dogs, and over time has developed his opinion on the matter based on what he has experienced..his reasons for making those statements are well laid out in the about paragraph...

you can choose to think that it is impossible for anyone to know anything about what is going on inside a dogs head. or you can adopt the thought that it is possible to know lots about what makes dogs tick, and why certain dogs do certain things, respond in certain ways, have certain issues, are easier or harder to get to doing things we want them to, in the way we want them to, even without having the ability to being able to read a dogs mind 100%. 

Dogs are not really that complicated..we use the natural traits and mold them to suit our purposes.

Fighting and aggressive behaviors and motivations come from more than one place though, the more complete the dog is, the more desirable traits the dog has, the better he will be for the work.

as far as your harping on katies statement, look at it this way..

if you knew nothing else about a dog, but knew that one dog had been trained to fight a man in protection and the other was trained to bite a sleeve as his reward or bark for a ball reward, which one would you choose to walk down a dark alley with?


----------



## Joby Becker

there can be a huge difference between the 2 dogs, even though they both bite a sleeve and bark tha is what I beleive Katie is trying to convey for a more broad viewpoint.


----------



## Thomas Barriano

*Re: The System*



Christopher Smith said:


> Very valid David. I train dogs to look good on trial day not YouTube.


Sure you do Chris. You just don't video tape anything to back up all the nonsense you claim on the WDF. You've flapped your gums on numerous topics about how serious the dogs you train are, especially in the blind. Still waiting for proof................................


----------



## Katie Finlay

Most people are not going to sit back and question whether or not the barking dog is going to bite him if he gets too close.

Those experienced in training protection work generally are able to tell if a dog is bluffing or not.

I didn't have to teach any of my dogs to bark at a threat (not even my Cocker Spaniel). I don't really feel it's a behavior that needs to be taught so much as encouraged.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Alice Bezemer said:


> How do you determine if a dog sucks enough to go into LE or MIL and have you ever sold any dogs to the police or militairy?


 Yes. That was a substantial part of my income at one time. But only two of my own. They sucked because they wanted to eat me. But that might be because I'm so damn delicious. 






> Nice dog. Was this the first time in this particular area or has he been there before? As for asking if anybody else wants a piece of that? A piece of what? A bark and a bite?


Thank You. 

Yes. Everything and everyone is new. New place. Decoys first time working dogs. 

If you don't know about a piece then I can't tell you about a piece. Jusy avert your eyes and keep moving. It's an American thing. But if you must know about a piece please research great Americans like Ronald Savage or Richard Flair. 




Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Christopher Smith said:


> Yes. That was a substantial part of my income at one time. But only two of my own. They sucked because they wanted to eat me. But that might be because I'm so damn delicious.
> 
> *You allowed dog to try and eat you? Delicious looking as you are, I can understand their need for wanting a nibble! Never expected you to let them get away with it tho, would have thought you would have taught them that eating the trainer is not allowed  *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank You.
> 
> Yes. Everything and everyone is new. New place. Decoys first time working dogs.
> 
> If you don't know about a piece then I can't tell you about a piece. Jusy avert your eyes and keep moving. It's an American thing. But if you must know about a piece please research great Americans like Ronald Savage or Richard Flair.
> 
> 
> *:lol: I know enough about wanting a piece and whom ever wants it is allowed to come and try to get him some and we will see how far they get.
> 
> Why keep my eyes averted? Its a nice dog, it does part of the job, it barks, it bites. To say, wanna piece of that? Its a bark and bite, nothing to scary or impressive about it, he does the job and thats it. One can not judge a dog on its ability by a 4 minute video. No offense intended. *
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Christopher Smith

OMG BEEZY, what do you mean you can't tell anything in a four minute video!!! That would invalidate the YouTube Championship and then all I would have to prove my worth as a trainer and attest to the quality of my dog are the scores in his book and the opinions of those that actually know me and my dog. Where is the fun in that? How would WDF function?


----------



## Christopher Smith

And about the dogs wanting to eat me. F that BS. You come from a country with free health care. I don't. And remember I get over in life on my looks. I can't have some mutt biting me in my money maker. 

Honestly, the type of relationship I like to have with my dogs simply can't exist if the dog wants to bite me. I can sell the dog to someone else and they might be very happy with that dog and the dog happy with them. It's better for everyone.


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Christopher Smith said:


> OMG BEEZY, what do you mean you can't tell anything in a four minute video!!! That would invalidate the YouTube Championship and then all I would have to prove my worth as a trainer and attest to the quality of my dog are the scores in his book and the opinions of those that actually know me and my dog. Where is the fun in that? How would WDF function?


:lol: There you go again.... Is it really that hard to use a name instead of coming up with some derogatory kind of name? Now if only it would offend me as you intended it to do but that would only happen if it came from someone who's opinion I valued.


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Christopher Smith said:


> And about the dogs wanting to eat me. F that BS. You come from a country with free health care. I don't. And remember I get over in life on my looks. I can't have some mutt biting me in my money maker.
> 
> Honestly, the type of relationship I like to have with my dogs simply can't exist if the dog wants to bite me. I can sell the dog to someone else and they might be very happy with that dog and the dog happy with them. It's better for everyone.


We have free healthcare? Awesome! Thanks for letting me know, means I can expect a big fat check for a refund in the mail for paying for healthcare that is free. 

I had to laugh at your comment tho :lol: Yep make sure to keep that moneymaker intact and to make sure those excellent looks do not get damaged in any way! You need them to make up for your spiffy character 

As for a dog biting you, I would have thought that good training would solve that issue pretty quick but I guess thats just me.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Alice Bezemer it's not ment to offend you in the slightest. It truly is affectionate. Notice that Thomas has no nickname?


----------



## Thomas Barriano

Christopher Smith said:


> Alice Bezemer it's not ment to offend you in the slightest. It truly is affectionate. Notice that Thomas has no nickname?



I do but it's only used by people I know and respect.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Joby Becker said:


> You yourself have named lots of reasons that you feel dogs may do things...When you are training the dog and working with him, you can narrow those reasons down.
> 
> Here is the trouble with you, you twist things and then put words in peoples mouth, or you make incorrect assumtptions, even though you say you dont assume anything.
> 
> I gave example of dog guarding a car on command, to help explain how barking can be trained restrained aggressive response as an extension of fight, since you seemed to be really confused about that and said something about relieving pressure and not wanting to really fight, something to that effect anyhow, saying maybe barking works for us, but so and sos dog liked to fight the stock and that was natural, went off on a tangent and in response to my example.... you said this:
> 
> *You give a territorial defense situation to somehow demonstrate fight for the sake of a fight--apples and oranges.*
> 
> You made an assumption about that situation, made a statement, so dont say you dont make assumptions, you make assumptions about the motivations and intentions in the dogs you work with too, just like anyone else...
> 
> The fact could be that the dog was NOT territorial aggressive, or aggressive in the car at all, but was trained to act in a certain manner in a certain situation...While you as the person approaching the car will not know what is going on, what went into the process from the dog itself and the training, or the minset in the dog I would know, because it would be my dog, I know the dog and I trained it. My dog likes to fight, for the sake of fighting, she is not aggressive in the car in the least, she does not guard the car at all using aggressive displays. But, I could train her to do so very easily if I desired to do so. I would teach dog to show active response to stimulus, and then teach her when it is acceptable to actually engage and fight the person and when it is not. The process to do this will be different for different dogs.
> 
> 
> You are correct in some of the thinking, you cannot simply train all of the stuff discussed here in the mindset being talked about into just any dog or every dog. The dog has to have correct makeup, and have effective training.
> 
> You are stuck on the wording of one phrase used by one person and ignoring the concept and reasons why that statement was made amd all of the other thigns said here,or so it seems.
> 
> Barking as an extension of desire to fight is self rewarding. When fight packages are discussed they involve quite a few different aspects of the dog, not just one trait.
> 
> When training dogs you can see the dog reacting certain ways, to various things, dogs operating from vertain places in there heads, with certain traits and motivations will do certain things, exploration into the dog is done, patterns are seen, reactions are seen that fit patterns learned and understood by people using previous knowledge and experiences just like you do I am sure for whatever you are training. Training is adjusted to suit the dog, get him coming from where we want him to, if he has correct make up for it, and performing the behoaviors in the way we want them to.
> 
> I believe what Katie was trying to say was that she doesnt believe in using the ball as a reward or a prey object as a reward as a primary motivation for the dog in its barking for IPO or barking displays in protection, and also for protection behaviors in general...she did not say it was impossible, she said she does not like the idea of it..
> 
> You have been all over the map in this thread so it is really hard to even try to give you answers, since you then ignore those and move on to another questions, I am giving you what I can here.
> 
> you asked what the difference between aggression displays and frustration was, I gave you great article to read, all about aggression..
> 
> 
> You have to accept the premise that some people know what they are talking about, whether you understand it or not. You have to accept the fact that all dogs are individuals, and that there is usually more than one way to skin a cat. so giving specifics on vague blanket question is pretty much impossible. You have said yourself you have to dig into the dog and find out what works, when you find out what works and dig into the dog, you learn more about the motivations and mindset of the dog.
> 
> You also made this statement.
> 
> *I don't think you can assume that there are control issues with dogs trained with prey/external rewards. Again, you have to know what you are doing from start to finish and don't skip any steps.*
> 
> Which I assume was some sort of response to these statements made by Greg.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont think Greg is assuming anything. I think he has worked enough dogs and has a very good capability of reading dogs, and over time has developed his opinion on the matter based on what he has experienced..his reasons for making those statements are well laid out in the about paragraph...
> 
> you can choose to think that it is impossible for anyone to know anything about what is going on inside a dogs head. or you can adopt the thought that it is possible to know lots about what makes dogs tick, and why certain dogs do certain things, respond in certain ways, have certain issues, are easier or harder to get to doing things we want them to, in the way we want them to, even without having the ability to being able to read a dogs mind 100%.
> 
> Dogs are not really that complicated..we use the natural traits and mold them to suit our purposes.
> 
> Fighting and aggressive behaviors and motivations come from more than one place though, the more complete the dog is, the more desirable traits the dog has, the better he will be for the work.
> 
> as far as your harping on katies statement, look at it this way..
> 
> if you knew nothing else about a dog, but knew that one dog had been trained to fight a man in protection and the other was trained to bite a sleeve as his reward or bark for a ball reward, which one would you choose to walk down a dark alley with?


You love to state the obvious but can't/won't answer my question. I read dogs all day, every day which is why I'm intrigued regarding how you TRAIN a dog to fight the man for the sake of the fight. As for what I will walk down the alley with, give me the confident instinct dog that I have a pack relationship with. I'm also not harping on Katie's statement. I asked her how she trained her dog. She couldn't or wouldn't describe that. End of story. Then you decided to harp on all these sidebar issues that don't really have anything to do with what I asked. Like I said before, if you all think barking is an expression of fight and you can train that, glad that works for you. All you can do is train a dog to bark. You have yet to establish how in that training and in that dog's mind its an expression of so called fight. So far its been described as the dog's intent to weaken his opponent and drive the man/threat off. I don't see the bark as self rewarding in that aspect. The bark is just a way of getting what the dog wants---ball or running off the opponent. 

T


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Christopher Smith said:


> Alice Bezemer it's not ment to offend you in the slightest. It truly is affectionate. Notice that Thomas has no nickname?


Well..... in that case.. Bluffer, this affectionate Dutch nickname is just for you! Its a perfect equal to your "Beezy/Bitch" It suits your delicious, spiffy and most excellent moneymaker!


----------



## Katie Finlay

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> You love to state the obvious but can't/won't answer my question. I read dogs all day, every day which is why I'm intrigued regarding how you TRAIN a dog to fight the man for the sake of the fight. As for what I will walk down the alley with, give me the confident instinct dog that I have a pack relationship with. I'm also not harping on Katie's statement. I asked her how she trained her dog. She couldn't or wouldn't describe that. End of story. Then you decided to harp on all these sidebar issues that don't really have anything to do with what I asked. Like I said before, if you all think barking is an expression of fight and you can train that, glad that works for you. All you can do is train a dog to bark. You have yet to establish how in that training and in that dog's mind its an expression of so called fight. So far its been described as the dog's intent to weaken his opponent and drive the man/threat off. I don't see the bark as self rewarding in that aspect. The bark is just a way of getting what the dog wants---ball or running off the opponent.
> 
> T


You read dogs all day in herding, right? Not in protection. They are two very different things that I don't think transfer.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Katie Finlay said:


> You read dogs all day in herding, right? Not in protection. They are two very different things that I don't think transfer.


So you think. Don't make assumptions of what I'm involved in Katie and what's different and transfers.

T


----------



## Katie Finlay

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> So you think. Don't make assumptions of what I'm involved in Katie and what's different and transfers.
> 
> T


See where it says, "right?" With the question mark? It means I'm asking you, not assuming.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Katie Finlay said:


> See where it says, "right?" With the question mark? It means I'm asking you, not assuming.


If it were a question, you would have stopped there and not continued with the rest.

T


----------



## Kristi Molina

Alice Bezemer said:


> 21 Pages! Read them all and it got me wondering on something that is off topic but I wanted to ask the question anyway. I've seen some excellent bragging on this topic about quality dogs and their training. (Y'all deserve a gold star in that department.) What happens to these dogs after they are trained? Do they get kept as pets or do they actually get sold into something like LE or MIL? Do they actually have a use beyond bragging about them and their excellent training?


I've always wondered this as well. 


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Katie Finlay

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> If it were a question, you would have stopped there and not continued with the rest.
> 
> T


If it were a statement I would just disregard everything you said, be caused I would assume you don't have the experience to know what you're talking about. You've stated you worked protection in past, I was asking if you still do.

You ARE twisting things around, as Joby says. Relax.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Alice Bezemer said:


> Well..... in that case.. Bluffer, this affectionate Dutch nickname is just for you! Its a perfect equal to your "Beezy/Bitch" It suits your delicious, spiffy and most excellent moneymaker!


I'm really sorry. I didn't make a bitch joke. I wouldn't do that. It was a play on your name. Plesse take my sincerest apology. 

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Katie Finlay

Kristi Molina said:


> I've always wondered this as well.
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


If we train in sport we compete with them. Not every great dog needs to get sold.


----------



## Guy Williams

So just to sum up so far. Nobody agrees on anything!

O


----------



## Dave Colborn

Guy Williams said:


> So just to sum up so far. Nobody agrees on anything!
> 
> O


Guy. If I agree with you that no one agrees, does that make it a catch .22?

I for one agree. With someone. sometimes. usually.


----------



## Alice Bezemer

Christopher Smith said:


> I'm really sorry. I didn't make a bitch joke. I wouldn't do that. It was a play on your name. Plesse take my sincerest apology.
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


Its pretty much known that Beezy is slang for Bitch, hence my assumption that that was exactly how it was meant. If your apology is really sincere, then thank you.


----------



## Keith Jenkins

Dave Colborn said:


> Guy. If I agree with you that no one agrees, does that make it a catch .22?
> 
> I for one agree. With someone. sometimes. usually.


Is this sort of like the exact same thing only completely different? :-o


----------



## Dave Colborn

Keith Jenkins said:


> Is this sort of like the exact same thing only completely different? :-o


If you look at my posts above it's clearly stated what my opinion is of this. I wrote it in english. If you translate it to swedish then to slovak, then back to english it should be perfectly clear.


----------



## Laura Bollschweiler

Alice Bezemer said:


> Its pretty much known that Beezy is slang for Bitch, hence my assumption that that was exactly how it was meant. If your apology is really sincere, then thank you.


24 pages and I finally learned something new. 

Had to google it, words make me curious. 

I never heard the word before. Comes from Mac Dre, who apparently is a rapper. Or at least that's what the urban slang dictionary says.

Thanks, Alice!

Laura


----------



## Joby Becker

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> You love to state the obvious but can't/won't answer my question. I read dogs all day, every day which is why I'm intrigued regarding how you TRAIN a dog to fight the man for the sake of the fight. As for what I will walk down the alley with, give me the confident instinct dog that I have a pack relationship with. I'm also not harping on Katie's statement. I asked her how she trained her dog. She couldn't or wouldn't describe that. End of story. Then you decided to harp on all these sidebar issues that don't really have anything to do with what I asked. Like I said before, if you all think barking is an expression of fight and you can train that, glad that works for you. All you can do is train a dog to bark. You have yet to establish how in that training and in that dog's mind its an expression of_ *so called fight*_. So far its been described as the dog's intent to weaken his opponent and drive the man/threat off. I don't see the bark as self rewarding in that aspect. The bark is just a way of getting what the dog wants---ball or running off the opponent.
> 
> T


T yes you seem to have latched on to the "fight for the sake of fight". 

Lets go at this another way, start with the basics...since you again used the "so called" phrase in reference to fight. Which seems to express doubt to most people.

Are you saying you are doubtful that dogs can have the desire to fight? 
Or are you saying that you doubt that barking can be an extension/part of fighting behaviors?

or what are you saying when you say that.


----------



## Joby Becker

*
Self Rewarding

Merriam Webster:*

containing or producing its own reward...

*Self Rewarding* behavior in dogs means to me, that the dog enjoys the activity or behavior, and that the very act of doing the activity or behavior brings enjoyment to the dog, without the need of external reward. He finds pleasure in the activity.

Many behaviors in dogs can be self rewarding, they can be self rewarding from the very beginning as instinctual, they can be re-enforced or they can be trained/rewarded behaviors that become self-rewarding to the dog, in my opinion.

Various dog breeds and types usually will have certain traits that they will express in self rewarding activites/behaviors that if allowed to occur on there own, or if re-enforced or traned and rewarded., 

A previously rewarded and trained activity can become just as self rewarding to a dog, as even the more instincual self rewarding behaviors/activities that may occur in a particular type of dog. 

Dogs that are purpose bred working dogs find pleasure in the working activities that they are doing. Some of those activities are simple and more natural and instinctive, others use manipulation of the instincts and training of the dog to get them to do certain things that we want them to do.

I think the idea that Greg and others explained, that barking can be self rewarding, is a very simple idea to grasp, personally.

I also think what was talked about, that barking/guarding can be a part of fighting behavior is a simple concept to grasp personalyly.

I think that fighting for the sake of fighting, is a very simple idea to grasp, personally.

Both fighting and barking can be self rewarding in dogs, even if one does not think barking is a component of fighting .

I think Katies barking as extension of the fight, and fighting for the sake of fighting was used in terms of the training methods and mindset in the dog.

I think she thinks that training a dog to bark at or for a ball, is not training the self rewarding behavior of barking/guarding as an part of the fighting behaviors expressed in the dog. I think she thinks that a dog barking for a ball is barking for a ball. 

I also think that she is somewhat against or discouraged with the trends of teaching dogs "protection" based activities as a manner of of "trained behaviors" meaning dogs "going through the motions" or just performing "trained activites" for prey or toy reward or whatever.

The training of dogs that present a picture of the dog that can be looked at as "protection" work, but that often occur with the lack of the dog being in the right mindset. Where the dog is looking to gain prey or toy reward instead of looking to really fight the man. 

I also think that she and others were saying that barking/guarding, included as a trained expression of fighting behaviors, can be come self rewarding to dogs, as opposed to barking while not in the right mindset devoid of the more emotional aspects and barking solely for an external reward, like a bite on equipment, or a prey object.

we can all parse words used, and twist them up into a pretzel.. but that is how I took what what said or meant to be said....

The topic where Katie and my opinions are a little off maybe is on the topic of what Greg said about dogs can still be in the desired mindset, if using a prey object or othre object, if the dog is using his fighting behaviors with that emotion to intimidate the helper into giving up possession of the object over to the dog. That the dog will find satisfaction of having caused the person to give up the object through intimidation, than simply having the object, or getting to bite or get it as a reward.


I also see where Dave was coming from, ,even if not training in prey or for prey objects or toys without that emotion, that rewards are still given..

where I possibly diverge from that opinion is that at some point along the timeline the activity possibly very quickly or later on, the activity can become "self rewarding" to the dog in my mind. 

It becomes something that the dog enjoys, within the parameters of what he is allowed to do, that does not need an external reward. 

The dog can enjoy the guarding/barking without needing to get a toy or a bite or even the helper/agitator having to show submission to the dog in any way or give the dog anything. The dog enjoys and relishes in the activity and gets his own satisfaction from doing the activity.

I think some dogs also find biting/fighting more rewarding than the barking/guarding obviously, but not all.

Some people either can't or dont want to tap into all of the facets of the dog that can contribute to the aggression, and promote the strongest fighting "package" that the dog can bring into the fighting, being in the right mindset, having the right motivations, behaviors and emotion, and having the same goal that brings the best and strongest fighting behaviors in the dog. To do this the aggression must be developed and utilized. 

I think that it is very possible to train dogs to do almost every activity we want them to do, in what is considered a "protection routine" or a "protection phase" of most all dogsports, without teaching, developing, or promoting the fighting behaviors to get the most out of them in terms of the dogs expressing their most complete fighting capabilities, using all of the character traits and drives that are applicable, I think that some people do not want to promote, or are unable to promote, the mindset and emotion of the figthing behaviors in the dogs when they are performing. 

I think when Katie says "fight for the sake of fighting" I think she means that the dogs should have a good fully developed and utilized package of traits that go into his "protection work", including developed aggression and the other traits of good fighting. I think that she is saying that this is not something that is very common, or is certainly not the norm..

I think she wants her dog to bring all those things into the "protection" work. I think she wants a dog that relishes "protection" with somewhat differing motivations and emotion than what she may see in others people training or dogs doing protection.

Katie will correct me if I am wrong about my intrepretation of what she is saying.

It is all pretty simple in my mind, you CAN train the barking/guarding to be a part of the fighting behaviors, you can train a dog to do this as a self-rewarding behavior. 

A dog can fight for the sake of fighting, and be trained to do so, if he gets good training, and has enough of the traits that are available and/or required for the trainers to tap into. 

If all this is present the dog could/should eventually find the activity of fighting and most all of the behaviors associated with fighting, including the trained and rewarded behaviors, such as barking/guarding, as self-rewarding.

A dog can bark/guard as just a simple trained behavior, or he can be trained to bark/guard as an extension of a more complete fighting package, where it comes from different experiences and more developed traits, and do so in a different mindset with different emotions and motivations than a dog barking to get a toy bite or a simple prey bite on a sleeve as his reward ..

HOW TO DO THIS???

Again, all dogs are different, they bring differing traits and different expressions of those traits, and varying levels of those traits with them.
As Chris and others have stated there is no roadmap, it is not paint by numbers.

Someone shared this video in this thread. T. watch it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnHptKyatc4

why is the dog barking? what emotions is the dog possibly feeling/expressing?

Do you think that the dog might be finding this type of behavior self-rewarding? 

Do you think it also might be possible that it is a behavior that is and extension of his overall developed package of fighting behaviors? Could it be that it may be an expression of several different traits working together all at once, and also be expressing something far different than just any old dog taught to bark for whatever reasons?


----------



## Katie Finlay

Joby, thank you for assuring me that I can infact clearly depict my thoughts to others. Sometimes I think my communication skills, but you are correct in your understand of my thoughts here.


----------



## Mario Fernandez

What really is the end result..what the judge see and judge's on that given day.Our opinions don't matter only the judge or the handler...

I forgot to mention I did stay at a Holiday Inn Last night..l


----------



## Guy Williams

Dave Colborn said:


> Guy. If I agree with you that no one agrees, does that make it a catch .22?
> 
> I for one agree. With someone. sometimes. usually.


Very good. =D> If only my brain was that sharp.


----------



## Joby Becker

Mario Fernandez said:


> What really is the end result..what the judge see and judge's on that given day.Our opinions don't matter only the judge or the handler...
> 
> I forgot to mention I did stay at a Holiday Inn Last night..l


this thread is not specfic to competition sport dogs. But I agree, if the goal is to be competitive in a dogsport, that is what matters, the judges opinion.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Joby Becker said:


> T yes you seem to have latched on to the "fight for the sake of fight".
> 
> Lets go at this another way, start with the basics...since you again used the "so called" phrase in reference to fight. Which seems to express doubt to most people.
> 
> Are you saying you are doubtful that dogs can have the desire to fight?
> Or are you saying that you doubt that barking can be an extension/part of fighting behaviors?
> 
> or what are you saying when you say that.


Joby, 

Move on with the lectures and you trying to read between the lines and failing to do so. I do understand it provides you with more material for your platform.

T


----------



## Joby Becker

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Joby,
> 
> Move on with the lectures and you trying to read between the lines and failing to do so. I do understand it provides you with more material for your platform.
> 
> T


nice way to participate in a conversation/debate... 
so you agree or disagree?
or you are just deflecting now, and walking away..

either way..pat attention to Stefan at the seminar, ask him,, I am sure he can help you understand what seems so confusing to you.


----------



## Joby Becker

T.

what is YOUR defintion of self rewarding behavior in dogs?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Joby Becker said:


> nice way to participate in a conversation/debate...
> so you agree or disagree?
> or you are just deflecting now, and walking away..
> 
> either way..pat attention to Stefan at the seminar, ask him,, I am sure he can help you understand what seems so confusing to you.


I'm not confused but I believe you are since you can't seem to answer the question asked. Yes, Stefan is a TRAINER and I'm certainly hoping that if I asked him how he trains something, he can/will answer. Argue for the sake of argue and fight for the sake of fight--maybe the same things.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Joby Becker said:


> T.
> 
> what is YOUR defintion of self rewarding behavior in dogs?


Save it for the "me to, what he said," crowd or find an Armin quote.

T


----------



## Joby Becker

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Save it for the "me to, what he said," crowd or find an Armin quote.
> 
> T


???


----------



## Christopher Smith

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I'm not confused but I believe you are since you can't seem to answer the question asked. Yes, Stefan is a TRAINER and I'm certainly hoping that if I asked him how he trains something, he can/will answer. Argue for the sake of argue and fight for the sake of fight--maybe the same things.
> 
> T


Why go to the seminar? Do you think he's going to explain this stuff to you? No he's going to show you. 



Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Christopher Smith

Joby as you have now learned...No good deed goes unpunished.


----------



## Joby Becker

Christopher Smith said:


> Joby as you have now learned...No good deed goes unpunished.


I tried..


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Joby Becker said:


> I tried..


Great new smiley! :lol: :lol:


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Christopher Smith said:


> Why go to the seminar? Do you think he's going to explain this stuff to you? No he's going to show you.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from Petguide.com Free App


I don't know how you know what he will do but if he shows it, great. Some trainers are able to articulate the process as they see it and show it. Some can't or won't.

T


----------



## Faisal Khan

I missed a few pages here and there! what is he going to explain/show?


----------



## Christopher Smith

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I don't know how you know what he will do but if he shows it, great. Some trainers are able to articulate the process as they see it and show it. Some can't or won't.
> 
> T



Some things are not completely explainable. What you are asking for is like asking an artist how he paints. He can tell you what paints to use and how to mix them. He can teach you what brushes to use. You can even go to art school. But he can never make you an artist. 

Further, I have been doing helperwork for over 30 years. You don't have very much experience with protection at all. So how does a PhD in physics explain to a grade schooler something like the effects of light on isotopes? Even if the PhD gives her peer reviewed research on the subject, the grade schooler is simply incapable of understanding. It's not the grade schoolers fault and doesn't reflect any shortcomings, it's just the way things are.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Christopher Smith said:


> Some things are not completely explainable. What you are asking for is like asking an artist how he paints. He can tell you what paints to use and how to mix them. He can teach you what brushes to use. You can even go to art school. But he can never make you an artist.
> 
> Further, I have been doing helperwork for over 30 years. You don't have very much experience with protection at all. So how does a PhD in physics explain to a grade schooler something like the effects of light on isotopes? Even if the PhD gives her peer reviewed research on the subject, the grade schooler is simply incapable of understanding. It's not the grade schoolers fault and doesn't reflect any shortcomings, it's just the way things are.


If you can't teach, then no, you won't be able to provide the information so that the grade schooler understands. Meanwhile you can pat yourself on the back and tell yourself that its rocket science that only you can understand. 

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Faisal Khan said:


> I missed a few pages here and there! what is he going to explain/show?


Actually, what's being discussed isn't something that I expect Stefan to touch upon because he didn't make the statement but if it comes up, that's okay too. Someone said they TRAIN something and when asked how, didn't respond. Joby thought he would interject on everything that didn't have anything to do with the HOW it was trained. Early on Greg stated that the situationally trained bark is an expression of aggression in that the dog either runs off his opponent or as the dog perceives it, he weakens him. From that came the idea that the bark is self rewarding. Joby wants to debate self-rewarding. I don't. Chris says its so deep, it either can't be explained or understood by the less experienced. 

T


----------



## Katie Finlay

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Actually, what's being discussed isn't something that I expect Stefan to touch upon because he didn't make the statement but if it comes up, that's okay too. Someone said they TRAIN something and when asked how, didn't respond. Joby thought he would interject on everything that didn't have anything to do with the HOW it was trained. Early on Greg stated that the situationally trained bark is an expression of aggression in that the dog either runs off his opponent or as the dog perceives it, he weakens him. From that came the idea that the bark is self rewarding. Joby wants to debate self-rewarding. I don't. Chris says its so deep, it either can't be explained or understood by the less experienced.
> 
> T


T, I said I couldn't explain it. It's not "so deep" or any special sort of science. It's just not something that can be explained over the Internet from step one all the way until the end. You're not satisfied with that answer. I don't know what to tell you. Every dog is different and while they can all be trained this way you're going to start every dog differently because every dog brings something different to the table. It's not obedience. It can't be explained so much as it can be demonstrated. And so much of it has to do with reading the dog and timing and reaction that there just isn't a simple answer.


----------



## Christopher Smith

Katie Finlay said:


> And so much of it has to do with reading the dog and timing and reaction that there just isn't a simple answer.


 Simple minded people need simple answers.


Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie

Katie Finlay said:


> T, I said I couldn't explain it. It's not "so deep" or any special sort of science. It's just not something that can be explained over the Internet from step one all the way until the end. You're not satisfied with that answer. I don't know what to tell you. Every dog is different and while they can all be trained this way you're going to start every dog differently because every dog brings something different to the table. It's not obedience. It can't be explained so much as it can be demonstrated. And so much of it has to do with reading the dog and timing and reaction that there just isn't a simple answer.


Actually, I was done with it when you said you couldn't explain it and I understand why you can't. But then someone tried to explain it for you. I was perfectly satisfied with your answer. Please don't attribute my response to Chris' physics example to you. As for the generalizations, of course every dog is different and there is a process within the process going on. I thought I was making it easy by asking about how you trained that concept in your dog. But again, understand if you couldn't explain that either and I certainly accept that. I didn't ask for the simple answer but really I understand if its so complex you can't provide an answer.

T


----------



## Guy Williams

decoy throws the ball?

If the original video is still relevant to this post the makers of the video have confirmed that they are training a bark and hold for german police work. The dog gets a ball from a friendly helper initially and will progress on to muzzle bites as it develops.

Carry on...:-D


----------



## Joby Becker

Guy Williams said:


> decoy throws the ball?
> 
> If the original video is still relevant to this post the makers of the video have confirmed that they are training a bark and hold for german police work. The dog gets a ball from a friendly helper initially and will progress on to muzzle bites as it develops.
> 
> Carry on...:-D


Guy, good on you for confirming it...
did they mention exactly what a "muzzle bite" is?


----------



## Faisal Khan

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Actually, what's being discussed isn't something that I expect Stefan to touch upon because he didn't make the statement but if it comes up, that's okay too. Someone said they TRAIN something and when asked how, didn't respond. Joby thought he would interject on everything that didn't have anything to do with the HOW it was trained. Early on Greg stated that the situationally trained bark is an expression of aggression in that the dog either runs off his opponent or as the dog perceives it, he weakens him. From that came the idea that the bark is self rewarding. Joby wants to debate self-rewarding. I don't. Chris says its so deep, it either can't be explained or understood by the less experienced.
> 
> T


It's pretty simple, some dogs are good at it and some not so! I could have answered that!


----------



## Joby Becker

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I didn't ask for the simple answer but really I understand if its so complex you can't provide an answer.
> 
> T


How do you assemble a motorcycle engine and what modifications do you make to get the most perfromance out of it?

Its easy enough to do for some people, and can certainly be shown to someone. The concepts are simple, the specifics are not.

Simple answer, you take the parts, you upgrade where applicable, then you put it all together in the right order so it works right.

If someone asked for an expanation of it on a message board, could it be answered? Not without knowing what kind of engine it was, what parts it has, the order that one should assemble them in, and what parts upgrades are best for that particular engine type to get what you want out of it. Any of which might be different with engines of different types.


----------



## Faisal Khan

Joby Becker said:


> How do you assemble a motorcycle engine and what modifications do you make to get the most perfromance out of it?


1. Increase bore, reduce stroke
2. Get new cylinders + head
3. Replace with low lobe profile crank (more value timing)
4. Adjust throttle bodies
4. Add Power Commander and dyno tune for optimum AF ratios keeping 20% open at 0 TPS
6. Upgrade to Ohlins suspension
7. Add Brembo brakes
8. Add race Michelins


----------



## Joby Becker

Faisal Khan said:


> 1. Increase bore, reduce stroke
> 2. Get new cylinders + head
> 3. Replace with low lobe profile crank (more value timing)
> 4. Adjust throttle bodies
> 4. Add Power Commander and dyno tune for optimum AF ratios keeping 20% open at 0 TPS
> 6. Upgrade to Ohlins suspension
> 7. Add Brembo brakes
> 8. Add race Michelins


 That was for you 

no cams? oversized valves or velocity porting?

assuming we have all the parts, and the cases have been cleaned and prepped, now just tell us how to put it all together step by step.

I assume that everything said will work if I have a Harley as well?


----------



## Faisal Khan

Joby Becker said:


> That was for you
> 
> no cams? oversized valves or velocity porting?
> 
> assuming we have all the parts, and the cases have been cleaned and prepped, now just tell us how to put it all together step by step.
> 
> I assume that everything said will work if I have a Harley as well?


No point souping up a Hardley if you can't turn it! I was referring to an inline 4, fast cornering machine


----------



## Bob Scott

Don't forget the NOS! ;-)


----------



## Guy Williams

Joby Becker said:


> Guy, good on you for confirming it...
> did they mention exactly what a "muzzle bite" is?


They have to do all exercises in and out of muzzle. I assume the bites could come anywhere at anytime but that's just my thoughts. There must be someone on this forum that knows more about what the German Police get up to.


----------



## Joby Becker

Guy Williams said:


> They have to do all exercises in and out of muzzle. I assume the bites could come anywhere at anytime but that's just my thoughts. There must be someone on this forum that knows more about what the German Police get up to.


yeah. I am sure not all German Police do things the same either, I was just curious... good on you for verifying what they were doing.

I personally dont think it is a big deal to teach a young dog on a ball or toy, IF you have the right dog and good training follows up, but I can also see why some dont like the idea of it for themselves....


----------

