# FD ?



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

So what purpose within the standard definition of FD does FD serve in a wild dog pack,

1. alpha dog fights off an intuder that is not prey scenario?
2. Prey animal stops running and chooses to try save itself by attacking predator?
3. Dog /wolf is attacked by challenging male?

Are any /all/none FD situations?

My guess, FD is a myth we made up, of course dogs dont know or care. Newb speakin here.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

LOL :wink:


----------



## Doug Zaga (Mar 28, 2010)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> So what purpose within the standard definition of FD does FD serve in a wild dog pack,
> 
> 1. alpha dog fights off an intuder that is not prey scenario?
> 2. Prey animal stops running and chooses to try save itself by attacking predator?
> ...


 
Did you read Yarnall's definition of FD?


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Yarnall who?


----------



## Doug Zaga (Mar 28, 2010)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Yarnall who?


Don


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> So what purpose within the standard definition of FD does FD serve in a wild dog pack,
> 
> 1. alpha dog fights off an intuder that is not prey scenario?
> 2. Prey animal stops running and chooses to try save itself by attacking predator?
> ...


1. territorial social aggression
2. defense
3. dominance fueled desire 



what is the standard definition?  There are at least 20 of them. I think all descriptions about dogs are made up  Like you said the dogs dont know or care.

some say there is a separate fight drive, others say FD is not a separate drive, but an extension of Prey drive, that is elicited and tempered through experience in training, by developing prey, defense, aggression, and active aggression... LOL....

there are alot of threads here on it to search 

here is what Helmut Raiser thinks...written by Armin Winkler (my Guru, LOL....inside joke)

*Again the question of whether or not an independent fighting drive exists has not yet been answered. Some dog-experts feel that a fighting drive must exist and that it is related to the play drive. The term fighting drive is an oxymoron. It combines the word drive refers to an inherited trait which serves to preserve life and species, with the word fight which refers to physical combat. A drive to fight would then be an internal motivation which leads the animal into a potentially harmful situation. But even in social aggression the non-physical ritualistic showdowns are much more common than the injurious physical fights. However, that argument aside, the term fighting drive is a useful description of a desirable behaviour in the dog. *


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> So what purpose within the standard definition of FD does FD serve in a wild dog pack,
> 
> 1. alpha dog fights off an intuder that is not prey scenario?
> 2. Prey animal stops running and chooses to try save itself by attacking predator?
> ...


 
Peter, 

It serves no purpose. It's a result of selective breeding. Nor do I think it really exists in wild dogs, Not like it does in our selectively bred dogs. First, Take a wild dog, it will be skiddish, fearful and almost consumed with the notion that everything it is not familar with is going to threaten it's survival. Even if a wild dog could preform protection work, which I highly doubt they can, it would be pissing all over itself while it did. 

I doubt you will ever hear of wild dog biting cause it's happy. I have seen Malinois who get so happy, they bite and want to fight. It's enjoyable to them. They like conflict. My guess is wild dogs will avoid conflict if at all possible. 

call it fight drive.....or whatever,Drive is just another word for desire to do something. But I have seen dogs, and own 2, that actively seek the enjoyment of conflict with a human being. They desire it, they offer unnatural behaviors in order to be allowed access to get it. It's a rewarding behavior for them, that's the difference, the wild dog will not find fighting to be rewarding, they will only do it out of the necassity to survive. The wild dog, is everything we have been breeding away from. wild dogs, and dogs today are apples and oranges.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

> It combines the word drive refers to an inherited trait which serves to preserve life and species
> 
> 
> *However, that argument aside, the term fighting drive is a useful description of a desirable behaviour in the dog.*


 That is a realistic assessment! Everything else is pretty much bullshit.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> That is a realistic assessment! Everything else is pretty much bullshit.


 
Humans have sex for pleasure, not all sex for humans is for survival....but yet when you refer to how much a human desires sex, even if only pleasure...it's called.....Sex Drive.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

James Downey said:


> Humans have sex for pleasure, not all sex for humans is for survival....but yet when you refer to how much a human desires sex, even if only pleasure...it's called.....Sex Drive.


Well James, you are one slow learner, but I am at the GF's tonight and am going to have sex for my survival as a man. You should try it yourself. Might help you understand some of this. BUT, tomorrow I will pick your other post apart about the wild dogs that you have no damned idea of what you are talking about. Fair enough?


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

So how much else of this pack structure stuff is BS as well, ceaser never shuts up about it when analysing pet behaviour.


----------



## Doug Zaga (Mar 28, 2010)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Well James, you are one slow learner, but I am at the GF's tonight and am going to have sex for my survival as a man. You should try it yourself. Might help you understand some of this. BUT, tomorrow I will pick your other post apart about the wild dogs that you have no damned idea of what you are talking about. Fair enough?


 
Don are you going to wear those red suspenders and keep your boots on...that must be a sexy picture...:razz:


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Doug keep yr hormones in check.


----------



## Doug Zaga (Mar 28, 2010)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> Doug keep yr hormones in check.


Are you Don's kid?


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Couldn't say for sure, you his lover?


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> So how much else of this pack structure stuff is BS as well, ceaser never shuts up about it when analysing pet behaviour.


There are social implications to training. But I think basing your entire training program on heirarchy is stupid.


----------



## Doug Zaga (Mar 28, 2010)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> Couldn't say for sure, but I love Don?


Weirdo


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Well James, you are one slow learner, but I am at the GF's tonight and am going to have sex for my survival as a man. You should try it yourself. Might help you understand some of this. BUT, tomorrow I will pick your other post apart about the wild dogs that you have no damned idea of what you are talking about. Fair enough?


Well, if you did not have sex...I am guessing you would not die. So you go have sex to save your life. If you think that's what keeping you going. 

pick it apart, Go ahead. The further away I get from your line thinking, the better off I am.


----------



## Sally Crunkleton (Jan 13, 2012)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> So how much else of this pack structure stuff is BS as well, ceaser never shuts up about it when analysing pet behaviour.


I for one believe pack structure to be very important. That is not BS. By nature if there is no leader, someone will try to step up. Success of taking over may include what we would call fight drive, but instinctually for a canine it goes back to rank and survival.

Either way, I agree that dogs don't care. We like to label things, but a dog just either follows or takes over. I personally make sure mine is a follower since he could take me out if he wanted- I just try to make sure he never knows that


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

I think James is pretty damn accurate regarding the wild dog analogy
....i happen to have a "somewhat Ex" wild dog ...most likely a hybrid and no longer matters but DEF not 100% domestic and it's drives and temperament are not like any other dog i've ever been around
i saw/read the police reports on its bites (requiring sutures) when i got it...not much "beef" about what triggered the bites, but clearly not because the dog wanted to bite or enjoyed biting/fighting

anyone, including Cesar who tries to explain/fix all canine behavior based on one reason is usually wrong imo...and just my opinion


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

Doug Zaga said:


> Don are you going to wear those red suspenders and keep your boots on...that must be a sexy picture...:razz:


\\/ love it!


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

So fight drive doesn't exist in wild dogs but we selected for it anyway, random mutation!!!

Wild dogs and domestic dogs are apples and oranges, but entire training empires are built on the premise that the traits are inherent.


----------



## Doug Zaga (Mar 28, 2010)

julie allen said:


> \\/ love it!


LMAO...I knew you would :mrgreen:


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

:-k ........I thought this was about the Fire Dept. Go figure! :wink:


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> So fight drive doesn't exist in wild dogs but we selected for it anyway, random mutation!!!
> 
> Wild dogs and domestic dogs are apples and oranges, but entire training empires are built on the premise that the traits are inherent.


Your obviously more astute than most on this thread Peter. Pack behavior is indeed what training is based on....Sorry....

GF's calling again....:grin:

Beats the hell out of sitting in a chair teaching the dog to attack computer chairs Joby. :grin:


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

Bob Scott said:


> :-k ........I thought this was about the Fire Dept. Go figure! :wink:


Me too Bob.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Bob, ask Connie for her own interpretation of FD, coming off Jack's thread.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Sorry....got a fire to put out.


----------



## brad robert (Nov 26, 2008)

Obviously its a manipulated trait i cant see why don and others want to keep going back to dogs in a pack these dogs have not lived in a pack for freaking generations they have been manipulated by man to serve a purpose.

Do wild dogs hunt or fight like pitbulls or do they herd like a border collie no its all been done by us so we can put what ever the fuk label we want on it because breeders did it to distinguish traits so let them label it and find the traits they want and continue for it.If you dont like the labels tough shit for you get the fuk over it.


----------



## Sally Crunkleton (Jan 13, 2012)

rick smith said:


> anyone, including Cesar who tries to explain/fix all canine behavior based on one reason is usually wrong imo...and just my opinion


Agreed...I like Cesar, but it is usually the owners that need fixing.

Just so I am not misunderstood, I believe in the pack leader concepts mainly for home life and OB. I do not restrain my dog's urges to bite/fight during protection training since it would defeat the purpose for him to "follow my lead" right up to the bad guy (with the exception of the control needed for trailing purposes). If it were a real life threat I would not want him to wait for me to say its ok....I would want him to just do what he needs to do.

Not sure how this got off the topic of fight drive.....but Cesar stuff has nothing to do with that. 

Maybe we as people complicate this...could be as simple as why some guys will bow up and stand their ground vs some avoid conflict- one knows he will probably win and the other is afraid to get hurt. With dogs, outside of genes, health, etc.....imo, its how we train to build that confidence and let the dog think he always wins.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

brad robert said:


> Obviously its a manipulated trait i cant see why don and others want to keep going back to dogs in a pack these dogs have not lived in a pack for freaking generations they have been manipulated by man to serve a purpose.
> 
> Do wild dogs hunt or fight like pitbulls or do they herd like a border collie no *its all been done by us so we can put what ever the fuk label we want on it because breeders did it to distinguish traits so let them label it and find the traits they want and continue for it.If you dont like the labels tough shit for you get the fuk over it.*


that is exactly why I asked Don to make up his own terms for all the different traits...

but he may actually think the entire thing is bullshit, that all of these traits, that have these goofy labels do not really exist, that it is all BS...
after all Brad, the dog does it or it doesnt....

I guess if you are only looking at hunting that may be true, but I doubt it is that simple even for hunting...


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> So fight drive doesn't exist in wild dogs but we selected for it anyway, random mutation!!!
> 
> Wild dogs and domestic dogs are apples and oranges, but entire training empires are built on the premise that the traits are inherent.


Not a random mutation but instead selective breeding, as Brad says. One dog shows a stronger desire to fight than another so that one is bred (maybe even to a female that also shows a stronger desire to fight) and out of the puppies that are produced, the ones with even stronger desire to fight are bred and so on and so forth. Of course, I'm not a geneticist and I am going to assume the desire to fight isn't as easy to predict as eye or coat color, but I don't believe it was a random mutation that one day produced a dog with "fight drive" as it's defined today. I would guess it was a matter of slowly emphasizing one trait.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Sally Crunkleton said:


> Agreed...I like Cesar, but it is usually the owners that need fixing.
> 
> Just so I am not misunderstood, *I believe in the pack leader concepts mainly for home life and OB*. I do not restrain my dog's urges to bite/fight during protection training since it would defeat the purpose for him to "follow my lead" right up to the bad guy (with the exception of the control needed for trailing purposes).* If it were a real life threat I would not want him to wait for me to say its ok....I would want him to just do what he needs to do.*
> 
> ...


so you dominate your dog right up untill the point yr about to get yr butt kicked into the pavement and then hey presto yr number one now pal.


Cesar single handedly bought the phrase into the modern lexicon of of every fat brain dead TV comatose moron that owns a pet.


you know how to train a dog for sure but you know absoluetly nothing about what makes guys fight or not fight.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Ariel Peldunas said:


> Not a random mutation but instead selective breeding, as Brad says. One dog shows a stronger desire to fight than another so that one is bred (maybe even to a female that also shows a stronger desire to fight) and out of the puppies that are produced, the ones with even stronger desire to fight are bred and so on and so forth. Of course, I'm not a geneticist and I am going to assume the desire to fight isn't as easy to predict as eye or coat color, but I don't believe it was a random mutation that one day produced a dog with "fight drive" as it's defined today. I would guess it was a matter of slowly emphasizing one trait.


err so what is that primitive trait that serves no purpose in wild dogs that was the" seed-trait" for domestic dogs fight drive? and what was its purpose in a pack survival.


----------



## brad robert (Nov 26, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> that is exactly why I asked Don to make up his own terms for all the different traits...
> 
> but he may actually think the entire thing is bullshit, that all of these traits, that have these goofy labels do not really exist, that it is all BS...
> after all Brad, the dog does it or it doesnt....
> ...


I see what your getting at Joby,but i will take the terminology that the breeders and trainers of the working dogs that have been doing this for how ever long have set out.I dont really care if don doesnt like them or he thinks they are BS but he doesnt train dogs or buy dogs for training and when you are wanting to train or purchase dogs it becomes much easier when you have a vocabulary/terms in place where words mean something.

And true the dog does it or it doesnt so cull it or if its breed then try to over compensate for what it doesnt have stack the odds in your favour.Drive might just be a term we have used instead of instict or another similiar word but its whats used and its not hard to get your head around.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

brad robert said:


> I see what your getting at Joby,but i will take the terminology that the breeders and trainers of the working dogs that have been doing this for how ever long have set out.I dont really care if don doesnt like them or he thinks they are BS but he doesnt train dogs or buy dogs for training and when you are wanting to train or purchase dogs it becomes much easier when you have a vocabulary/terms in place where words mean something.
> 
> And true the dog does it or it doesnt so cull it or if its breed then try to over compensate for what it doesnt have stack the odds in your favour.Drive might just be a term we have used instead of instict or another similiar word but its whats used and its not hard to get your head around.


I know this, I just asked him to do it for entertainment


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

But not as easy to define, did you read joby's quote originally.


----------



## brad robert (Nov 26, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> I know this, I just asked him to do it for entertainment


I know you do mate!


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> here is what Helmut Raiser thinks...written by Armin Winkler (my Guru, LOL....inside joke)
> 
> *Again the question of whether or not an independent fighting drive exists has not yet been answered. Some dog-experts feel that a fighting drive must exist and that it is related to the play drive. The term fighting drive is an oxymoron. It combines the word drive refers to an inherited trait which serves to preserve life and species, with the word fight which refers to physical combat. A drive to fight would then be an internal motivation which leads the animal into a potentially harmful situation. But even in social aggression the non-physical ritualistic showdowns are much more common than the injurious physical fights. However, that argument aside, the term fighting drive is a useful description of a desirable behaviour in the dog. *


 I dont know anyone who thinks fight drive is related to play.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

You would have to ask Armin, he seems to think some 'experts' do.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Christopher Jones said:


> I dont know anyone who thinks fight drive is related to play.


I think that was as misprint..personally, but not sure...shoulda posted the rest of it..wasnt gonna change it to prey , I didnt write it. I never heard of anyone that thought it was related to play either...

Again the question of whether or not an independent fighting drive exists has not yet been answered. Some dog-experts feel that a fighting drive must exist and that it is related to the play drive. The term fighting drive is an oxymoron. It combines the word drive refers to an inherited trait which serves to preserve life and species, with the word fight which refers to physical combat. A drive to fight would then be an internal motivation which leads the animal into a potentially harmful situation. But even in social aggression the non-physical ritualistic showdowns are much more common than the injurious physical fights. However, that argument aside, the term fighting drive is a useful description of a desirable behaviour in the dog. We want to see a dog who has fun fighting with the helper. But only a dog who doesn't feel like he is fighting for his life can be unstressed and have fun. *Therefore I (Raiser) feel that fighting drive is an extension of prey drive.*

maybe unstressed and having fun while fighting is a form a play LOL...no?...but seriously I think that is a misprint....


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

If its having fun fighting its either psychotic or playing.


----------



## Sally Crunkleton (Jan 13, 2012)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> so you dominate your dog right up untill the point yr about to get yr butt kicked into the pavement and then hey presto yr number one now pal.
> 
> 
> Cesar single handedly bought the phrase into the modern lexicon of of every fat brain dead TV comatose moron that owns a pet.
> ...


I never said the word dominate. He just knows I'm in charge but can tell the difference in work and play, and when to act. This is all training, nothing more.


I never claimed to know what made guys fight, it's an analogy.


----------



## James Downey (Oct 27, 2008)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> So fight drive doesn't exist in wild dogs but we selected for it anyway, random mutation!!!
> 
> Wild dogs and domestic dogs are apples and oranges, but entire training empires are built on the premise that the traits are inherent.


I am not sure the ability for a selectively bred dog to stay in conflict with a human being is essentially the result of breeding of one single componet. First, domesticated dogs behave more simliarly to juvenile wolves and wild dogs. Who are not as a skiddish as thier mature counter parts. I am not sure you can explain that simply as your trying to make it. It seems maybe removed some self-preservation traits in the dog, exhasterbated some social ones...and we got what we got. wild dogs are not inherently social with humans. but many, many of our dogs are....what do you make of that? ball drive...where did that come from? Reactive dogs, that bite loud noises? Any wild dog would run. Though I do not have the exact answer how he got from skiddish wild dogs, to dogs that we have.....There is a difference. And your keying in one of the exact differences.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> :-k ........I thought this was about the Fire Dept. Go figure! :wink:


The red suspenders fooled you? ;-)


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I hear the wheels a turning...nope sorry, it was computers humming. No wheels turning yet. I know the link to the silver fox study has been posted several times. Might answer a few questions.


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

Not going to pursue it. I have learned the pack structure mantra is not a result of thinking through the problem,.its the result of repeating something so you dont have to think.


No wonder the early adopters that dumbed it down and packaged it for mass consumption did so well and were put on god like pedestals.


I walk amongst zombies.




James Downey said:


> I am not sure the ability for a selectively bred dog to stay in conflict with a human being is essentially the result of breeding of one single componet. First, domesticated dogs behave more simliarly to juvenile wolves and wild dogs. Who are not as a skiddish as thier mature counter parts. I am not sure you can explain that simply as your trying to make it. It seems maybe removed some self-preservation traits in the dog, exhasterbated some social ones...and we got what we got. wild dogs are not inherently social with humans. but many, many of our dogs are....what do you make of that? ball drive...where did that come from? Reactive dogs, that bite loud noises? Any wild dog would run. Though I do not have the exact answer how he got from skiddish wild dogs, to dogs that we have.....There is a difference. And your keying in one of the exact differences.


----------



## jamie lind (Feb 19, 2009)

when discussing the differences between wolves and dogs, why do people always assume that we bred the fear of humans out of wolves. doesnt it make more sense that we bred the fear of humans into wolves. without that fear wolves would not exist. when they first went back into chernybol dogs had bred with wolves and they did not fear humans. it didnt seem to effect thier survival.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Jaime, we didn't breed fear of humans into wolves....just conditioned them to fear humans by killing them. People probably still pretty much steer clear of Chernoble, but, they will eventually fear people also when people start killing them.


----------



## Ariel Peldunas (Oct 18, 2008)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Jaime, we didn't breed fear of humans into wolves....just conditioned them to fear humans by killing them. People probably still pretty much steer clear of Chernoble, but, they will eventually fear people also when people start killing them.


That's debatable. Did the wolves that didn't get killed learn to fear humans or did they survive because they were more fearful by nature while the wolves without a healthy fear of humans made easier targets?

Just read Jamie's post and realized I think I just reiterated it. Anyway, I think the argument could go either way.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Having seen wolves in areas where they are not hunted in and also have rather limited access to people, I am doubtful that their reactions to humans is a result of anything other than how they are naturally wired.

Now fox, that's another thing entirely. Two fox have become regulars around my property, so much so that they will take food from the hand. It's a breeding pair and I think it will be interesting to see what they will do with their kits. I expect there will be more of them visiting in the near future.

The coyote seems to run in between the the two.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Maybe one just has to be very familiar with the huntin of anumals and the reprocussions. Back in about 1988 they stopped hunting bears with dogs. It was back open in two years becauise of the vast property damage bears inflicted. The same people that insisted on stopping the use of dogs were the same ones with all the summer homes being demolish. Hunting started again and the bears steered clear. That is only one example. The mhunti8ng of mlions was stopped here in 1972. By nature, lions are very secretive and even living here, it is rare for anyone to see one. Since the stoppage of hunting lions, they are found walking down the streets, in garages, taking pets off the porches. We do have a lot of lions here now so it may be there is no where else for them to go. Personally, I don't think animals are stupid. When their mates are killed, they are shot at, it will create fear. Look at the fear of man that was instilled in Bambi.


----------



## jamie lind (Feb 19, 2009)

we bred them by culling the ones that were not fearful so yes we bred it into them. fox have never been a competitor with man. so there was never a reason to cull the unfearful ones.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

jamie lind said:


> we bred them by culling the ones that were not fearful so yes we bred it into them. fox have never been a competitor with man. so there was never a reason to cull the unfearful ones.


Unless you are raising chickens. :grin:


----------



## Peter Cavallaro (Dec 1, 2010)

But truly wild animals that have never been hunted or negatively stimulated are more curious than fearful.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> But truly wild animals that have never been hunted or negatively stimulated are more curious than fearful.


I know. :wink:


----------



## jamie lind (Feb 19, 2009)

Peter Cavallaro said:


> But truly wild animals that have never been hunted or negatively stimulated are more curious than fearful.[/QUOT
> 
> And if you threaten them most will run. The ones that do not run do not last long. The quicker they learn the longer they live.


----------

