# Threat recognition



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Is a dog that doesn't recognize a threat capable of Police work? One example would be a 100% prey driven dog who shows no true aggression. My belief is that he can be trained to bite somebody for real if brought up properly to do so. Now if that same dogs pain tolerance/fight drive is at a level where he never comes off a bite even when tested in the hardest ways possible, does that make him stronger than a dog who shows aggression? Based on the belief that people correlate aggression with fear, if that's even true. I'm asking this cause I'm looking to get other ideas to formulate an opinion.


----------



## Eric Read (Aug 14, 2006)

I think there are a lot more variables that make dogs tick than we can fit nicely into our neat little "boxes". 

Like Dave always says, you'll never hear a criminal say "that didn't hurt, it was only a prey bite"

I don't know that I could say one dog is better than the other for that reason alone, since I think there is much much more that goes into it. I think a dog that is in more prey is more clear in thinking, and easier to train and handle overall. 

Show me the dog, I'll tell you if I like them or not  Like my opinion matters much, but I'll give it anyway.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

If Frank Mir breaks a guys arm calmly and methodically in the octagon, I would still say he did it in an aggressive manner...


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Eric, I like that. Ask the bike rider how it feels to be attacked by a prey driven mountain lion is the other saying I've heard Dave say. 
A dog in prey seems to be in the drivers seat, no? 


Eric Read said:


> I think there are a lot more variables that make dogs tick than we can fit nicely into our neat little "boxes".
> 
> Like Dave always says, you'll never hear a criminal say "that didn't hurt, it was only a prey bite"
> 
> ...


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> If Frank Mir breaks a guys arm calmly and methodically in the octagon, I would still say he did it in an aggressive manner...


So is prey drive in itself a form of aggression?


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Timothy Stacy said:


> Is a dog that doesn't recognize a threat capable of Police work? One example would be a 100% prey driven dog who shows no true aggression. My belief is that he can be trained to bite somebody for real if brought up properly to do so. Now if that same dogs pain tolerance/fight drive is at a level where he never comes off a bite even when tested in the hardest ways possible, does that make him stronger than a dog who shows aggression? Based on the belief that people correlate aggression with fear, if that's even true. I'm asking this cause I'm looking to get other ideas to formulate an opinion.


 
sounds like you are talking about Non-Classical Prey drive. A dog that sees a man as prey and doesn't appear to be threatened by men, at all, ever. Personally I don't think a dog like this is desireable as a police dog. Too much to handle for most people. 

Prey aggression is still aggression. Dogs bite prey to kill it and may do so, never feeling any threat.

I have worked one powerful dog like this, a few times in a suit, almost ten years ago. Just looked and drooled. It's a little unsettling the first time you see it, suit or no. I wouldn't have gotten that dog out of a kennel if you would have paid me a million bucks. He was one of two I have ever been around that I would NOT handle for any reason. 


In my opinion, if that same dog has fight drive (defense drive =fight, flight or displacement) then you have now taken a totally prey driven dog and shown that he is not totally prey driven. If you put pain on a dog that is prey only, the reaction is that they bite harder, from my experience.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Dave, that's interesting and I need to take my shoes off and think about that.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Timothy Stacy said:


> Dave, that's interesting and I need to take my shoes off and think about that.


 
haha. not sure what that means but it made me laugh. 

tell me what you think. change my mind. enlighten me. agree. whatcha got shoeless one.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Its what I prefer personally..How often do police dogs need to recognize a threat...My dog is released by me..I help him acquire the target..he bites it...person fights he tries to overpower it....

You can teach him to bark at a person to activate a prey response...


----------



## Timothy Saunders (Mar 12, 2009)

Heard of a dog that was so confident that he never felt threatened. He would bite you if put on a person or attacked by someone. think he would have made a good police dog.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Dave Colborn said:


> haha. not sure what that means but it made me laugh.
> 
> tell me what you think. change my mind. enlighten me. agree. whatcha got shoeless one.


Here's my follow up. Do you think you can train a high prey drive dog who shows no aggression to be civil? not aggressive but civil? Through good training and manipulation? Tricking the dog by using its prey drive, showing a sleeve and then throwing a hidden leg sleeve in there face and by other methods?


----------



## Daniel Lybbert (Nov 23, 2010)

I have a dog that is not mean or agressive. He is not intimidated by people not threatened at all. He loves to bite everything. I believe if I sent him on an unsuited guy he would bite the hell out of him. Just for the simple fact he doesnt know any different. He would just bite because he loves to have something in his mouth.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Daniel Lybbert said:


> I have a dog that is not mean or agressive. He is not intimidated by people not threatened at all. He loves to bite everything. I believe if I sent him on an unsuited guy he would bite the hell out of him. Just for the simple fact he doesnt know any different. He would just bite because he loves to have something in his mouth.


I'd like your dog by that description.


----------



## Daniel Lybbert (Nov 23, 2010)

especially cuz he was free!


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Daniel Lybbert said:


> especially cuz he was free!


Best things in life


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Biggest problem with a high prey drive dog is teaching him who not to bite...


----------



## Dan Bowman (Nov 8, 2012)

Eric Read said:


> I think a dog that is in more prey is more clear in thinking, and easier to train and handle overall.


This is incorrect. A dog working in the correct drive (not prey) is easier to control. That said a prey element being present when the dog is aggressing or biting doesn't mean the dog is working in prey.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

There is a correct drive?


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

will fernandez said:


> There is a correct drive?


I didn't know that either


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

Timothy Stacy said:


> I didn't know that either


 
and what is it? Do tell...


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I thought prey drive was the correct drive.... confused now


----------



## Dan Bowman (Nov 8, 2012)

will fernandez said:


> There is a correct drive?


Yep. It's called I'm going to kick your ass drive. To be distinguished from I'll hang off your buttocks drive.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Is hang off your butt drive stronger than run off the field drive? I know for a fact that Blow your anal drive can be deceptively useful for clearing rooms.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Timothy Stacy said:


> Do you think you can train a high prey drive dog who shows no aggression to be civil?
> 
> Prey aggression is agression. I think a high prey dog like you mentioned before is rarely seen. Civil aggression can be trained in this dog, as he sees the man as a bunny. Of course he'll bite with no equipment. And he'll do it with no recognition of threat to himself.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Dave Colborn said:


> Timothy Stacy said:
> 
> 
> > Do you think you can train a high prey drive dog who shows no aggression to be civil?
> ...


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Timothy Stacy said:


> Dave Colborn said:
> 
> 
> > I agree
> ...


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Dave Colborn said:


> Timothy Stacy said:
> 
> 
> > well. lets train a dog then. put your shoes on.
> ...


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Oh geez, just say your in PA


----------



## Dan Bowman (Nov 8, 2012)

Joking aside. I thought you were asking about the typical sport dog working in prey on equipment, or even a PSD working in prey.

There are dogs working in what appears to be prey drive that have no problem biting a man real bad, and also aggress when challenged, to be differentiated from dogs that will bite in prey but not when challenged. I know because I owned such a dog. The biggest problem with this dog was to get him to bark or visibly aggress on cue. He would just stand and look, or lunge when he thought there was a chance to get at the man. He would pick the time to aggress, and he would pick right, very stable and clear headed dog. It didn't matter to him bite suit or flesh. I think he would've made an excellent PSD, maybe too dangerous as the bite power was exceptional and IMO would do too much damage if there's such a thing in police work. The down side was that the dog had zero suspicion, wouldn't bark when people came to the door, and then would just want to be petted. As such I felt an important part of a protection dog was missing. But the discretion and stability of the dog compensated for this a lot. I felt very safe leaving him with my wife and kid when I was away, knowing he'd react the moment either would behave as a person under threat does.

To answer a question that was brought up, can a dog like this be made civil. If by definition a civil dog would bite a man with no protective gear, and fight him until the man is no longer a threat, then this dog is already "civil". But if the meaning is to bring out a defensive edge in such a dog, as a decoy my fundamental idea is how could it not be done. All it would require is to put the right amount of pressure on this dog in the right way, and then reinforce the behavior. In reality it's very sensitive work, because you have to break the dog down completely, and build him up again in the right drive. I couldn't find a capable enough decoy to do this, I loved the dog and didn't want him hurt, because you do have to hurt this kind of dog to bring out the defense. He was very good as is so I left him.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Dan Bowman said:


> Joking aside. I thought you were asking about the typical sport dog working in prey on equipment, or even a PSD working in prey.
> 
> There are dogs working in what appears to be prey drive that have no problem biting a man real bad, and also aggress when challenged, to be differentiated from dogs that will bite in prey but not when challenged. I know because I owned such a dog. The biggest problem with this dog was to get him to bark or visibly aggress on cue. He would just stand and look, or lunge when he thought there was a chance to get at the man. He would pick the time to aggress, and he would pick right, very stable and clear headed dog. It didn't matter to him bite suit or flesh. I think he would've made an excellent PSD, maybe too dangerous as the bite power was exceptional and IMO would do too much damage if there's such a thing in police work. The down side was that the dog had zero suspicion, wouldn't bark when people came to the door, and then would just want to be petted. As such I felt an important part of a protection dog was missing. But the discretion and stability of the dog compensated for this a lot. I felt very safe leaving him with my wife and kid when I was away, knowing he'd react the moment either would behave as a person under threat does.
> 
> To answer a question that was brought up, can a dog like this be made civil. If by definition a civil dog would bite a man with no protective gear, and fight him until the man is no longer a threat, then this dog is already "civil". But if the meaning is to bring out a defensive edge in such a dog, as a decoy my fundamental idea is how could it not be done. All it would require is to put the right amount of pressure on this dog in the right way, and then reinforce the behavior. In reality it's very sensitive work, because you have to break the dog down completely, and build him up again in the right drive. I couldn't find a capable enough decoy to do this, I loved the dog and didn't want him hurt, because you do have to hurt this kind of dog to bring out the defense. He was very good as is so I left him.


Very good post. What kind of dog and what level of prey drive in comparison to a french malinois? IHave seen a GSD in the dog you described but his prey drive was not at a high enough level when compared to other dogs. Yes dogs like you described usually lack suspicion.


----------



## Jay Quinn (Apr 1, 2012)

will fernandez said:


> Biggest problem with a high prey drive dog is teaching him who not to bite...


i'm with you on this one Will - my oldest mal is a damn nutcase, he lives for the fight... is the sort of dog that would be happy to break up a riot every night of the week for the rest of his life... 

my problem with him is that because he loves it so much anyone displaying any kind of animated behaviour or aggression he will fire off, like the young drunk guy going "bring it mofo! come over here so i can kick your arse!" - only he will if you do... LOL

he is a total pain in the behind but i know with 110% confidence he will NAIL anyone i tell him he can, no matter what they are doing at the time... 


my middle boy i am fairly confident he would take a live bite - but he is much calmer and most of the time i need to cue him to react to idiots who are still at a distance while we are working... but tbh i am much happier at work with a dog that i need to turn on, over a dog that i am constantly trying to turn off......


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dan Bowman said:


> Joking aside. I thought you were asking about the typical sport dog working in prey on equipment, or even a PSD working in prey.
> 
> There are dogs working in what appears to be prey drive that have no problem biting a man real bad, and also aggress when challenged, to be differentiated from dogs that will bite in prey but not when challenged. I know because I owned such a dog. The biggest problem with this dog was to get him to bark or visibly aggress on cue. He would just stand and look, or lunge when he thought there was a chance to get at the man. He would pick the time to aggress, and he would pick right, very stable and clear headed dog. It didn't matter to him bite suit or flesh. I think he would've made an excellent PSD, maybe too dangerous as the bite power was exceptional and IMO would do too much damage if there's such a thing in police work. The down side was that the dog had zero suspicion, wouldn't bark when people came to the door, and then would just want to be petted. As such I felt an important part of a protection dog was missing. But the discretion and stability of the dog compensated for this a lot. I felt very safe leaving him with my wife and kid when I was away, knowing he'd react the moment either would behave as a person under threat does.
> 
> To answer a question that was brought up, can a dog like this be made civil. If by definition a civil dog would bite a man with no protective gear, and fight him until the man is no longer a threat, then this dog is already "civil". But if the meaning is to bring out a defensive edge in such a dog, as a decoy my fundamental idea is how could it not be done. All it would require is to put the right amount of pressure on this dog in the right way, and then reinforce the behavior. In reality it's very sensitive work, because you have to break the dog down completely, and build him up again in the right drive. I couldn't find a capable enough decoy to do this, I loved the dog and didn't want him hurt, because you do have to hurt this kind of dog to bring out the defense. He was very good as is so I left him.


Correct me if I'm wrong. You describe a very confident dog that has instinctive guard/protect of his pack and can detect a threat and will respond. What he lacks is territoriality. Why would he "need" a defensive edge?

T


----------



## Dan Bowman (Nov 8, 2012)

Timothy Stacy said:


> What kind of dog and what level of prey drive in comparison to a french malinois?


He was a Rott. I can't really compare to a mal because I haven't worked with them, although I've seen plenty of video and can figure out a lot from that. To try and give you an idea, he was very hard to hold on leash when in drive, but then that was 115lb. At some point I attempted to make him bark by stopping him from putting his energy into lunging, and force him to channel it into barking instead. So I tried to correct him into not getting ahead of me when the decoy approached. I used a large size prong with a choke collar back up, and gave the strongest corrections I could. I'm 6ft 230lb and considered strong. I'd jerk the leash as hard as I could and the corrections had no effect whatsoever, it served to load the dog instead. This should give you an idea of the drive level. Needless to say it wasn't working so I stopped quickly.


----------



## Dan Bowman (Nov 8, 2012)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong. You describe a very confident dog that has instinctive guard/protect of his pack and can detect a threat and will respond. What he lacks is territoriality. Why would he "need" a defensive edge?


I gave up on trying to define this particular dog along those terms, I've dealt with many dogs and he was the first with this set of behaviors. Yes he was very confident, in his normal day to day behavior, and when he was turned on/perceived threat. Which is kind of a paradox because how can he perceive threat if he's so confident  That's why I think in a protection situation his first trigger would be aggressive movement from a man, which we can attribute to prey type behavior IDK. But then he'd also turn on sometimes reacting to strange noises around the house at night, still never to someone coming to the front door of the house, or to the fence of my back yard. Like I said before I also couldn't set a trigger for him to aggress. For those things to happen I believe a defensive edge is necessary. But we're getting a bit off track from the original subject of this thread.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

re: "Biggest problem with a high prey drive dog is teaching him who not to bite..."

for SURE ... as in plus ONE ! 

so maybe it is true that dogs are too stupid to be able to properly conduct and rapidly process a "threat assessment" and act on it ?? //lol//

isn't that a big reason why we TRAIN em ?


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Dan Bowman said:


> I gave up on trying to define this particular dog along those terms, I've dealt with many dogs and he was the first with this set of behaviors. Yes he was very confident, in his normal day to day behavior, and when he was turned on/perceived threat. Which is kind of a paradox because how can he perceive threat if he's so confident  That's why I think in a protection situation his first trigger would be aggressive movement from a man, which we can attribute to prey type behavior IDK. But then he'd also turn on sometimes reacting to strange noises around the house at night, still never to someone coming to the front door of the house, or to the fence of my back yard. Like I said before I also couldn't set a trigger for him to aggress. For those things to happen I believe a defensive edge is necessary. But we're getting a bit off track from the original subject of this thread.


I think you are making sense but its hard to describe certain things. Perhaps a protection instinct would kick in. However I can't imagine a Rott having the level of prey drive I'm trying to describe but then again I havent owned a high prey drive Rott


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dan Bowman said:


> I gave up on trying to define this particular dog along those terms, I've dealt with many dogs and he was the first with this set of behaviors. Yes he was very confident, in his normal day to day behavior, and when he was turned on/perceived threat. Which is kind of a paradox because how can he perceive threat if he's so confident  That's why I think in a protection situation his first trigger would be aggressive movement from a man, which we can attribute to prey type behavior IDK. But then he'd also turn on sometimes reacting to strange noises around the house at night, still never to someone coming to the front door of the house, or to the fence of my back yard. Like I said before I also couldn't set a trigger for him to aggress. For those things to happen I believe a defensive edge is necessary. But we're getting a bit off track from the original subject of this thread.


I don't think threat perception is based on fear or prey necessarily--particularly where the pack is concerned.

T


----------



## Dan Bowman (Nov 8, 2012)

Timothy Stacy said:


> I can't imagine a Rott having the level of prey drive I'm trying to describe but then again I havent owned a high prey drive Rott


It's not hard when you know the breed. Think of a pit bull catching hogs, the dog can have its stomach torn open and still keep going, then die later, that's drive. A rott can be like a big pit bull, except he can direct this drive unto a man, and throw some social aggression into the mix. Rotts just normally don't have a lot of stamina, maybe because their owners keep them overweight, or because they weigh more, or because they put so much effort into the attack. So if by drive you mean to keep going and going, then no rotts don't appear to have drive like the herders. I was talking about the intensity, without regard to how long it lasts.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Dan Bowman said:


> It's not hard when you know the breed. Think of pit bull catching hogs, the dog can have its stomach torn open and still keep going, then die later, that's drive. A rott can be like a big pit bull, except he can direct this drive to a man, and throw some social aggression into the mix. Rotts just normally don't have so much stamina, so if by drive you mean to keep going and going, then no they don't appear to have drive like the herders.


You are describing fight drive in the pit or gameness, not prey as I understand it. I'm not good at describing anything so I'll let someone else do it


----------



## Dan Bowman (Nov 8, 2012)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I don't think threat perception is based on fear or prey necessarily--particularly where the pack is concerned.


Interesting. If you care to explain further I'd like to know.


----------



## Dan Bowman (Nov 8, 2012)

Timothy Stacy said:


> You are describing fight drive in the pit or gameness, not prey as I understand it.


To me game pit bulls exhibit an extreme form of prey drive. I know the dog fighting fans don't like to hear that, they prefer to think of gameness as something that stands alone. I don't think so but that's just my opinion. If gameness was such a stand alone thing they wouldn't be mixing pit bull blood into DS and mals.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dan Bowman said:


> Interesting. If you care to explain further I'd like to know.


Goes back to intinct and guard/protect and the abiity to discern. Animals read certain behaviors, intent or pressures if you want to call it that. There is more to the dog than what is used in terms of prey/defense for training artificially--or so I think. Does your Rott guard the car? Just curious.

T


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

gameness...both below seem to fit for me...

Gameness is the willingness or drive to complete the task at hand regardless of pain, fear, or any other circumstances.

or what this guy said on a pitbull board...lol 

"the best way I've seen gameness depicted came form an episode of Star Trek Deep Space Nine when Worf was taken prisoner by the Jem-hadar (sp?) And since the klingons were known to be a race of superior warriors they made him fight their warriors over and over again... and finally when he was hurt beyond the ability to continue but he got back up and waved for the jemhadar to bring it on...the Jemhadar guy stopped and the guy staging the fight said finish it! And the Jem-hadar said "I cannot defeat this Klingon...I can only kill him".... to me that is game.. cannot be defeated only killed. (Yes I am a giant nerd)

gameness is no quit, in my mind it is what causes a 42 lb dog to pull over 7000 lbs, or a 75 lb dog to pull over 13000 lbs..


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Timothy Stacy said:


> Oh geez, just say your in PA


Not quite


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I don't think threat perception is based on fear or prey necessarily--particularly where the pack is concerned.
> 
> T


 
Ok, if as you say threat isn't based on fear, then what is threat based on.

I think DEFENSE in dogs is based on a dogs reaction to threat. So it's fear based, initially. Please discuss how it's not. Then learning gets on top of that, and dogs respond how they know they'll get what they want. IE a dog is scared, and it has a choice to fight, flee or displace. After a few successful fights or scaring off of threats, the dog learns that fighting wins what it wants. It's why we always let the dog win. Doesn't mean we treat them gently, but successively approximation in training until they can take on the strongest thing they can and having the knowledge to quit before they reach that point. 

Have to remember dogs are not a five fingered death punch and as the army says "employ your unit within it's capability." Lots of great dogs cant do some kinds of work. Let the work define the dog you need

Prey has nothing to do with threat. It is a desire to chase, catch, kill (and eat)


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> Ok, if as you say threat isn't based on fear, then what is threat based on.
> 
> I think DEFENSE in dogs is based on a dogs reaction to threat. So it's fear based, initially. Please discuss how it's not. Then learning gets on top of that, and dogs respond how they know they'll get what they want. IE a dog is scared, and it has a choice to fight, flee or displace. After a few successful fights or scaring off of threats, the dog learns that fighting wins what it wants. It's why we always let the dog win. Doesn't mean we treat them gently, but successively approximation in training until they can take on the strongest thing they can and having the knowledge to quit before they reach that point.
> 
> ...


I think dogs respond to certain behaviors and some more offensively and it doesn't have anything to do with training or conditioned responses.

T


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> "the best way I've seen gameness depicted came form an episode of Star Trek Deep Space Nine when Worf was taken prisoner by the Jem-hadar (sp?) And since the klingons were known to be a race of superior warriors they made him fight their warriors over and over again... and finally when he was hurt beyond the ability to continue but he got back up and waved for the jemhadar to bring it on...the Jemhadar guy stopped and the guy staging the fight said finish it! And the Jem-hadar said "I cannot defeat this Klingon...I can only kill him".... to me that is game.. cannot be defeated only killed. (Yes I am a giant nerd) QUOTE]
> 
> 
> What a lovely description of what I want in a dog that bites people, no matter what you call it.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I think dogs respond to certain behaviors and some more offensively and it doesn't have anything to do with training or conditioned responses.
> 
> T


OK. How does a dog react to threat, no matter what it is. What are his choices in broad definition?

Would you agree he can fight, flee or displace?


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Originally Posted by *Dave Colborn*  
_Ok, if as you say threat isn't based on fear, then what is threat based on.

I think DEFENSE in dogs is based on a dogs reaction to threat. So it's fear based, initially. Please discuss how it's not. Then learning gets on top of that, and dogs respond how they know they'll get what they want. IE a dog is scared, and it has a choice to fight, flee or displace. After a few successful fights or scaring off of threats, the dog learns that fighting wins what it wants. It's why we always let the dog win. Doesn't mean we treat them gently, but successively approximation in training until they can take on the strongest thing they can and having the knowledge to quit before they reach that point. 

Have to remember dogs are not a five fingered death punch and as the army says "employ your unit within it's capability." Lots of great dogs cant do some kinds of work. Let the work define the dog you need

Prey has nothing to do with threat. It is a desire to chase, catch, kill (and eat)_



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I think dogs respond to certain behaviors and some more offensively and it doesn't have anything to do with training or conditioned responses.
> 
> T


What is threat based on in your dogs? What do they feel when threatened? What are all dogs options when fearful?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> OK. How does a dog react to threat, no matter what it is. What are his choices in broad definition?
> 
> Would you agree he can fight, flee or displace?


 Uh huh and the key word is choice and gets even more interesting in his response regarding behaviors towards others and not necessarily himself. I've seen the whole defense/fear correlation for years and my belief is that there is an aggressive response that isn't necessarily prey or fear based (and some that are). People use the word "threat." Maybe a better word is "challenge." I might would have to think in terms of Joby's social dominance. Whatever label you want to put on it, I don't think its all about threat or fear.

T


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Uh huh and the key word is choice and gets even more interesting in his response regarding behaviors towards others and not necessarily himself. I've seen the whole defense/fear correlation for years and my belief is that there is an aggressive response that isn't necessarily prey or fear based (and some that are). People use the word "threat." Maybe a better word is "challenge." I might would have to think in terms of Joby's social dominance. Whatever label you want to put on it, I don't think its all about threat or fear.
> 
> T


The dog has three choices to threat (challenge is uneeded). you said UH HUH, so you agree. Dog is confronted with threat and it can fight, flee, or displace. There is also talk of dogs that don't see threat readily. they are not for this discussion, but can be trained/learn to react how you want to a "threat" stimulus.

Your belief is already covered under fight. Dog is threatened. He chooses to fight. What do you see different?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> The dog has three choices to threat (challenge is uneeded). you said UH HUH, so you agree. Dog is confronted with threat and it can fight, flee, or displace. There is also talk of dogs that don't see threat readily. they are not for this discussion, but can be trained/learn to react how you want to a "threat" stimulus.
> 
> Your belief is already covered under fight. Dog is threatened. He chooses to fight. What do you see different?


 Maybe the dog isn't personally threatened. How do you know there is a "fear" response? What "fear" behavior do you see? Personally, I think there is a "make my day" and 'how dare you pissed off' type category. Dogs that are worried, yet forward aggression vs. the ones that spring with steely look in the eye. People discuss a prey/fight, no defense type of dog. Where's the fear if that dog acts aggressively? State of mind is hard to prove one way or the other. Some dogs have a certain feel/look and nothing gives the impression of fear, even initially. Just my take on it.

T


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Maybe the dog isn't personally threatened.T


Then that's not what we are talking about. The dog can't feel threatened for you. If he is territorial or resource guarding, then he is being threatened for his space or resource



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> How do you know there is a "fear" response?


Dogs display behaviors to let us know they are fearful. If you miss what they are, and there are a lot of them, then you'll ruin a dog when working him, or at least cause problems. That is why this is such a big deal to me. In bitework, you should never push a dog past where they are comfortable, IE in defense, they are threatened, but never pushed to the point of backing down. You should always try and raise their avoidance threshold in a defense session.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> What "fear" behavior do you see?


In what?? Dogs in general, their posture will change their carriage, their mouth, eyes and ears. Read them like they read us. The simple answer, is you look for a dog that is hitting the end of the line and trying to bite. If you get something else with a youngster, you are too close to early, or he is unsuited for work. Unsuited for the work, if you are European.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Personally, I think there is a "make my day" and 'how dare you pissed off' type category.


I disagree. Explain what that is.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Dogs that are worried, yet forward aggression vs. the ones that spring with steely look in the eye.


Dogs at different stages in training can be like this. Typically, worried but forward agression would be a fear biter, but it could also describe a young dog, learning the steely look. No doubt, good genetics and good raising brings a dog with a steely eye out. 



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> People discuss a prey/fight, no defense type of dog.


The reason I don't think fight is a drive, is that it has to be taught in dogs. They don't come out of the womb ready to fight. They learn it, albeit quickly in some cases. 

A prey, no defense type of dog, and I have seen but one. He saw humans on a scale most dogs see small prey animals. You can't convince me otherwise. I don't know if any other decoy elicited fear in that dog, I know I did not. No way, no how.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Where's the fear if that dog acts aggressively?


This is why defense scares people. They think if their dog is defensive, then it can't work or are less of a dog. Not true. Defense is the reaction to threat. Fight flight or displacement. Fight may be their choice to threat. not flight. Dog may be less comfortable operating here than chasing a bunny, but they still operate there, and do it well. training raises the threshold where they show avoidance, and lowers what they see as a threat to make them useful to us.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> State of mind is hard to prove one way or the other.


Sure.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> *Some dogs have a certain feel/look* and nothing gives the impression of fear, even initially.


Ok. so your reaction to the dog (in bold) proves he has no fear. A look you see. Read your own statement, one statement up. State of mind is hard to prove. How do you know it has no fear, or wasn't trained by the way you think he looks. To me, this would be a dog that naturally has a higher defense threshold. Takes a lot to get him ready to fight flee or displace.


----------



## Dan Bowman (Nov 8, 2012)

I know what you're talking about Therasita. To me it's something akin to assuming responsibility or ownership of an area or persons. If something happens that is out of order, that's the trigger, the reaction is not fear rather aggression. A sort of "how dare you" just like you said. The dog that's doing this is not conceiving that it can get hurt, or that it's at risk. It may also measure it's aggression according to the threat, and stop on its own when it feels the threat is dissipated. We're not talking about a dog doing bitwork here, but about a dog that's taking initiative at the right moment, a natural protector. This dog is also to be distinguished from a reactive or sharp dog. There's no reason why a dog like this can't be taken further with training, they will excel done right.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> Then that's not what we are talking about. The dog can't feel threatened for you. If he is territorial or resource guarding, then he is being threatened for his space or resource
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Dave I'm too lazy to do the quote for quote thing. You deal in trained/conditioned responses. I deal on instinct and what was described as the raw dog. People post videos all the time pressuring dogs into the very initial stage of avoidance and I find it aggravating. When I'm speaking of dogs, I'm not talking about the bitework training/conditioning. I will readily agree with the Raiser/Winkler prey/defense type training. You can only judge fear by outward behaviors. What if there aren't any? You started out saying its defense/threat/fear. My response is "not always." Some dogs show fear/worried/conflicted behaviors. Some don't. We actually agree on that. Actually, I'd love to see a thread with videos of raising the defensive thresholds. 

T


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Dan Bowman said:


> If something happens that is out of order, that's the trigger, the reaction is not fear rather aggression. A sort of "how dare you" just like you said. The dog that's doing this is not conceiving that it can get hurt, or that it's at risk. It may also measure it's aggression according to the threat, and stop on its own when it feels the threat is dissipated. We're not talking about a dog doing bitwork here, but about a dog that's taking initiative at the right moment, a natural protector. This dog is also to be distinguished from a reactive or sharp dog. There's no reason why a dog like this can't be taken further with training, they will excel done right.


Please describe a dog and a situation where this might occur. When you allow a dog to determine a threat AND TAKE INITITIVE, you assume a greater level of liability than just having a dog in the house that bites. A dog that takes initiative on his own in a majority of situations is killed shortly after. They are in the news all the time, eating children, biting neighbors, etc.. And most of them aren't taking initiative. they are reacting how they have learned to get what they want...

As far as not conceiving it can get hurt, we are talking about something entirely different, as dogs that appear to have no concern for their personal safety, aren't exlusive to "natural protectors". Dogs appear that way in lots of circumstances, based on the dog. 

One flawed bit to most thinking I see on here is that a dog old enough to perform as a "natural protector" hasn't had training. or an 18 month old hasn't had training.

They have had learning going on since they hit the cold tiles after birth. It illustrates to me that people think training and learning only go on when we say so....flawed thinking...


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> Please describe a dog and a situation where this might occur. When you allow a dog to determine a threat AND TAKE INITITIVE, you assume a greater level of liability than just having a dog in the house that bites. A dog that takes initiative on his own in a majority of situations is killed shortly after. They are in the news all the time, eating children, biting neighbors, etc.. And most of them aren't taking initiative. they are reacting how they have learned to get what they want...
> 
> As far as not conceiving it can get hurt, we are talking about something entirely different, as dogs that appear to have no concern for their personal safety, aren't exlusive to "natural protectors". Dogs appear that way in lots of circumstances, based on the dog.
> 
> ...


No some of them distinguish children and babies and neutral behavior from non-neutral behavior. Its not that deep to understand what types of behaviors will trigger the "initiative" dog and to train obedience. You ike a dog that will fight man with kill/game instinct, yet you call an initiative dog a liability. One dog--a bouv I did label liability and we trained the hell out of him. LOVED kids and babies though. You learn what type of behaviors will trigger him. "Reacting how they learned to get what they want." Really???? Back to that again. I can have 5 dogs in the house and only one is the so called initiative/instinct dog. How come he learned it and the others didn't? Never mind, we've been down this path before.

Dan, you spend 10-15 years with a dog of this type and read him in a variety of situations and you can see it--unless you refuse. You also know the ones that have it and the ones that don't and it isn't TRAINED/LEARNED behavior. And the guide dog people talk about a separate trait that you can't train--the dog that assumes responsibility. Otherwise Khira should have learned by now that I really would like it if she would let me know if someone is approaching the castle. Somehow she has not picked this up by osmosis or learned it from the other dogs that have a clue or learned it from me. 

So Dan, does your rottie guard the car??
T


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Dave I'm too lazy to do the quote for quote thing


OK. Then stop posting in the thread. And others. If you really are just lazy, and it's not just your desire to quit as you are starting to see some sense in what I am saying, and if you answer item by item your arguement looses steam. you are lazy but you posted immediately in another thread. Sounds like you are similar to a dog. Opportunistic predator, choosing what will get you the most satisfaction and staying away from something that causes you no joy, even discomfort.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> You started out saying its defense/threat/fear.
> 
> T


I never said defense/threat/fear. please point it out, if you are still posting.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> OK. Then stop posting in the thread. And others. If you really are just lazy, and it's not just your desire to quit as you are starting to see some sense in what I am saying, and if you answer item by item your arguement looses steam. you are lazy but you posted immediately in another thread. Sounds like you are similar to a dog. Opportunistic predator, choosing what will get you the most satisfaction and staying away from something that causes you no joy, even discomfort.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said defense/threat/fear. please point it out, if you are still posting.


Haven't you figured out yet what I see as sense and not? I'm pretty consistent. My argument will never lose steam because I believe what I've experienced even if you don't. I'm just not in the mood for sentence by sentence volleyball and your introducing altogether different context like bitework training which was not what the original dog/context description was all about. That last sentence of your's is hysterical. In order for me to be a predator that would make you running around like prey or is it activated defense. Dave you're a dude on a forum with a belief--nothing to do with joy or discomfort. Maybe that's why I'm lazy, I have other interests and I'm multi-tasking between threads and PMs and hubby showing me the new CO2 detector. But just so you don't feel left out, maybe tomorrow when I'm not sleepy we can do the sentence by sentence rehash. Otherwise I think its fairly clear what you and I agree on and what we don't and never will and I'm good at leaving it at that.


T


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Do you do bitework, or have you ever had a dog bite someone, when you meant for it to? Please describe your experience. I want to base my arguement to your level of experience or inexperience.




Terrasita Cuffie said:


> No some of them distinguish children and babies and neutral behavior from non-neutral behavior. T


Of course a dog can tell the difference between a threat and a baby. Where did I say otherwise. Explain the difference of neutral and non neutral behavior in YOUR experience as related to bitework.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Its not that deep to understand what types of behaviors will trigger the "initiative" dog and to train obedience.


Then frickin explain it. 



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> You ike a dog that will fight man with kill/game instinct, yet you call an initiative dog a liability.


I like a dog that will fight like warf. Can't be beaten only killed. never said kill/game instinct. DOn't know what that means in your BC circle of friends..



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> One dog--a bouv I did label liability and we trained the hell out of him.


Good for you.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> LOVED kids and babies though.


Until he didn't. And I am sure we wouldn't hear about it if he did bite.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> You learn what type of behaviors will trigger him.


Of course. this is elemental in bitework. Why we train and doon't just hope for the best.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> "Reacting how they learned to get what they want." Really???? Back to that again.


I don't know what you are talking about here. Dogs learn how to get what they want. not back to this, Terrasita, dogs haven't left planet earth and the rules that they live by.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I can have 5 dogs in the house and only one is the so called initiative/instinct dog.


So you say. I don't even know what that means or the importance. 



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> How come he learned it and the others didn't?


What is your guess, Sister?



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Never mind, we've been down this path before.
> T


You never left the path. You believe dogs are magical and what you do with them makes you magical as well. If people got ahold of simple ideas like "breeding makes more dogs", "dogs bite people sometimes and need to be put down or in a different situation", or"my dog is not a reflection of breeding myself to the bitch that had him", or"dogs learn through operant conditioning, classical conditioning, and mimicry. this coupled with genetics makes them who they are.".....we'd all be better off. 

You don't seem to have an arguement that has any merit.

What was your experience with dogs that bite again?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> Do you do bitework, or have you ever had a dog bite someone, when you meant for it to? Please describe your experience. I want to base my arguement to your level of experience or inexperience.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If I don't have an argument with any merit then why are you wasting your time. You're the almighty truth. Not just magic for me Dave--others as well. You need for everything to happen at your whim and control. Nice turn of utterly ridiculous posturing. But really Dave, not all dogs or people live by your rules which seem to be rather uncomfy for you. I do like the reference to genetics. As for the BC circle of friends--that's funny. I have a GSD circle and a corgi circle and a bouvier circle, a couple of aussies, OESs, ABs--all sorts. Don't get snobby. Ahhhhh Dave, was't it you referencing initiative dogs that eat kids, etc., etc., and have to be put down. And Dave, you can't base your argument to my level of experience because you haven't experienced it obviously and have zero objectivity. We already did this in another thread and I'm sure this one will end the same way. Why don't you leave me to my magic and I'll leave you to yours.

T


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> If I don't have an argument with any merit then why are you wasting your time. You're the almighty truth. Not just magic for me Dave--others as well. You need for everything to happen at your whim and control. Nice turn of utterly ridiculous posturing. But really Dave, not all dogs or people live by your rules which seem to be rather uncomfy for you. I do like the reference to genetics. As for the BC circle of friends--that's funny. I have a GSD circle and a corgi circle and a bouvier circle, a couple of aussies, OESs, ABs--all sorts. Don't get snobby. Ahhhhh Dave, was't it you referencing initiative dogs that eat kids, etc., etc., and have to be put down. And Dave, you can't base your argument to my level of experience because you haven't experienced it obviously and have zero objectivity. We already did this in another thread and I'm sure this one will end the same way. Why don't you leave me to my magic and I'll leave you to yours.
> 
> T


so you haven't done bitework....Roger that. Done....


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> so you haven't done bitework....Roger that. Done....


 thought we covered that in another thread and what difference does it make whether someone has done bitework or not since the original dog description and comment wasn't about trained responses? Roger that.

T


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Dave Colborn said:


> Roger that. Done....


----------



## Dan Bowman (Nov 8, 2012)

Theresita, no he did not protect the car.


Dave Colborn said:


> Please describe a dog and a situation where this might occur. When you allow a dog to determine a threat AND TAKE INITITIVE, you assume a greater level of liability than just having a dog in the house that bites.


A dog responding to command only, or only to certain trained triggers, is not what I look for in a protection dog. Although I admit a dog can be useful in this limited capacity. If you're sleeping and someone breaks into your house you don't want the dog to react? If you woke up in the middle of the night, and your voice is raspy and you cant articulate the dog's attack command, you don't want it to react on his own? If someone grabs your child when you're not present, you expect the child to deploy the dog? (yes I completely trusted my dog alone with my child). I'm not in law enforcement so I normally don't go into situations with a dog ready to work. My dog is in a relaxed state for most of the day. It is much more likely that I or my wife or my child will need the dog's protection at a moment when we're in "panic" mode and acting in self preservation, not having the presence of mind to tactically deploy the dog. It is at such moments when the dog recognizes that his people are not in the normal control position over him, when protective behavior kicks in.

In your defense such dogs are very hard to come by, so a very small percentage of dog people have met one and as such this kind of dog simply doesn't figure into their understanding of protection dogs. Much more common are dogs who do not behave in this manner, but readily respond to agitation/training which is based on the drives most of us are familiar with. The key to a good natural protector is stability and aggression. Then it's the upbringing, socializing and control training, all of which further stabilize the dog. Then the dog can be trained in bite work. But I would do it carefully so that the patterns of bitework do not override his good judgement. 

Remember that many many dogs can be trained to show some level of aggression in response to certain situations or a cue. What is impossible to train is for the dog to react with a measured amount of force to all possible situations, and there will always be situation you haven't practiced. The only way a dog will protect in all those situation is if his reaction is based on a feeling of assumption of responsibility, normally suppressed by stability and control from the handler. There are many more dogs who are reactive/sharp, so don't confuse those with the dog Theresita and I are describing.

My break down of what makes this kind of dog tick may be lacking. This is because the equation becomes more complex than a half a cup of prey and a dash of defense as applied in bite work. If this makes what I say less credible to you, so be it. The important thing is that I recognize the dog when I see it.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Dan Bowman said:


> Theresita, no he did not protect the car.A dog responding to command only, or only to certain trained triggers, is not what I look for in a protection dog. Although I admit a dog can be useful in this limited capacity. If you're sleeping and someone breaks into your house you don't want the dog to react? If you woke up in the middle of the night, and your voice is raspy and you cant articulate the dog's attack command, you don't want it to react on his own? If someone grabs your child when you're not present, you expect the child to deploy the dog? (yes I completely trusted my dog alone with my child). I'm not in law enforcement so I normally don't go into situations with a dog ready to work. My dog is in a relaxed state for most of the day. It is much more likely that I or my wife or my child will need the dog's protection at a moment when we're in "panic" mode and acting in self preservation, not having the presence of mind to tactically deploy the dog. It is at such moments when the dog recognizes that his people are not in the normal control position over him, when protective behavior kicks in.
> 
> In your defense such dogs are very hard to come by, so a very small percentage of dog people have met one and as such this kind of dog simply doesn't figure into their understanding of protection dogs. Much more common are dogs who do not behave in this manner, but readily respond to agitation/training which is based on the drives most of us are familiar with. The key to a good natural protector is stability and aggression. Then it's the upbringing, socializing and control training, all of which further stabilize the dog. Then the dog can be trained in bite work. But I would do it carefully so that the patterns of bitework do not override his good judgement.
> 
> ...


You are speaking of something I can't fathom. You are right. It seems like the stuff of dreams to me. 

I believe dogs are capable of biting without training or commands. I can relate an example third hand where an untrained (to bite) boxer bit his owners father, well, walking in the house without announcing himself and having never met the dog. The dog in my eyes was correct. Owner could have been more careful. If it would have been the pizza guy, he would have been sued. I know your dog has a guest list, and know's whos okay. After he bites my hat and I lock him in your closet, you better have another ring of security. THey are not the end all be all and thinking they are will get you and your family killed. Have a hard room, commo, pepper spray, guns, etc. Do drills in your house with your family like you would a fire drill. This will have way more mileage than bad ideas about what dogs might do, in some circumstances.

You say natural protector in one breath, then trained in bite work.

The dog wakes up the gun. Period. Mine can bite, but I'll be pushing them behind me or ahead of me if we decide to escape, using them as a last resort. I dont' want my dog destroyed for doing the right thing. 

The one thing we'll never be able to judge is how many people drive past your house and mine, and don't rob us because they see dogs. Invaluable.

You mention judgement. Dogs don't have it.

I stand by my earlier statement of a dog making a decision is a huge liability. 

As a curiosity, how do you test this dog to see if he'll bite? have someone wander in with a suit or sleeve on? 

Show us this miracle dog, Dan.


----------



## Dan Bowman (Nov 8, 2012)

Dave, the loss is yours not mine, so being antagonistic doesn't help you. I was fortunate to have such a dog in my life, he's gone now. That's what prompted me to come on this board, my first post was asking about rottweiler breeders. I feel I have the best chance of finding such a dog again in this breed. You can test it with a muzzle. As long as the dog is neutral to the muzzle and doesn't see it as a prelude to bite work. "Dog's don't have judgement" that's funny, do you think they're robots put on this earth to do as you program them? Dogs are predators and social animals, capable of making all kinds of decisions. If you have a dog without capability for protective behavior on his own, and you instill aggressiveness in it through training, you will have a dog that reacts without thinking. That's what most people have. Anyways I'm out of this thread.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Dan Bowman said:


> Dave, the loss is yours not mine, so being antagonistic doesn't help you. I was fortunate to have such a dog in my life, he's gone now. That's what prompted me to come on this board, my first post was asking about rottweiler breeders. I feel I have the best chance of finding such a dog again in this breed. You can test it with a muzzle. As long as the dog is neutral to the muzzle and doesn't see it at a prelude to bite work. "Dog's don't have judgement" that's funny, do you think they're robots put on this earth to do as you program them? Dogs are predators and social animals, capable of making all kinds of decisions. If you have a dog without capability for protective behavior on his own, and you instill aggressiveness in it through training, you will have a dog that reacts without thinking. That's what most people have. Anyways I'm out of this thread.


Dan. Most importantly, I am sorry for your loss. Even if we don't see eye to eye on what your dog was, a good one is impossible to replace. Glad you are on the board!

All I'd like is for you to explain what judgements your dog made and how his judgements would be contrary to what I said, which is that dogs that are left to their own devices are a liability.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> All I'd like is for you to explain what judgements your dog made and how his judgements would be contrary to what I said, which is that dogs that are left to their own devices are a liability.


Sometimes it's hard for folks to explain shit, I'm gonna give you a good example.... 

We used to run a business from home,, lots of 'guests' on the place from time to time,,, semi rural, and from time to time, I was often there alone.

I used to send one of my two gsds' to check someone out if I was a little uncertain before I would go and address them, particularly in falling light (winter), I had the odd undesirable come around from time to time, I used to let the younger gsd check them out when I suspected them to be an undesirable. Good chance he would take a nip and he did, he was a prelude to the threat of my older gsd . The yard was not fully enclosed,, I had it that way, I liked that my dogs were not enclosed,, you often would have met my dog(s) before you met me, particularly after hours.

I used to gauge how my dogs were with people, I trusted their unconditioned sense/intent of people, I was happy for them to take the odd nip, which didn't happen often, but certainly noted when they did. Not what I would call a liability at all, quite the contrary!


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

maggie fraser said:


> .... I used to send one of my two gsds' to check someone out if I was a little uncertain before I would go and address them .... I trusted their unconditioned sense/intent of people, I was happy for them to take the odd nip ..... Not what I would call a liability at all, quite the contrary!



This is what I call a liability (one that puts the dog in line for PTS).

No threat to attest to in court .... just whether or not the dog approved or decided to "take a nip."




Not being antagonistic at all. Maybe courts/liability/AC are very different here.

And of course all JMO.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Connie Sutherland said:


> This is what I call a liability (one that puts the dog in line for PTS).
> 
> No threat to attest to in court .... just whether or not the dog approved or decided to "take a nip."
> 
> ...


Yes, what I expected. I spoke just a little of this sort of stuff prolly back in 2008, I was trashed for it then.

Don't think there are some who will understand what I'm talking about,, but there are who will.

Interestingly, local police on the qt, didn't have a problem . I'll butt out now.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

maggie fraser said:


> I'll butt out now.


Why? It's just opinions. I respect you regardless. Also, I do think I'm hearing that there might be a different level of legal liability here ..... ?



Back to the topic, say I did want my dog to sniff out badness and that I trusted his ability to do so. Wouldn't I want him to do a great threat display that didn't involve biting?

Do I really want my dog to decide who to bite?


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Why? It's just opinions. I respect you regardless. Also, I do think I'm hearing that there might be a different level of legal liability here ..... ?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, for me with those dogs in that scenario, yeah.
On ma phone now, blind as a bat, plus it's the weekend


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

maggie fraser said:


> Yeah, for me with those dogs in that scenario, yeah.
> On ma phone now, blind as a bat, plus it's the weekend


I miss drinking together Maggie, what da ya say?


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Timothy Stacy said:


> I miss drinking together Maggie, what da ya say?


Hi Tm. Sent you a mp


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

maggie fraser said:


> Hi Tm. Sent you a mp


Is that like Military Police? Memphis Pickles? Member of Parliament?

:lol:


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Memphis Pickles? :lol:


Good cover Connie. You aren't co-dependent are you :lol:? Speaking of Memphis Pickles, I had one once and it was pretty god damned good.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Nicole Stark said:


> Good cover Connie. You aren't co-dependent are you :lol:? Speaking of Memphis Pickles, I had one once and it was pretty god damned good.



:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Is that like Military Police? Memphis Pickles? Member of Parliament?
> 
> :lol:


Malinois picture, and I enjoyed it . Lets not forget this is a dog forum 
If you want it more proper, she sent me a pm of a mp.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Timothy Stacy said:


> Malinois picture, and I enjoyed it . Lets not forget this is a dog forum
> If you want it more proper, she sent me a pm of a mp.


Good job Tim, way to bring things back on track. I don't know where that perverted mind of Connie's went when I mentioned that pickle but it really was a giant pickle with some kick to it. I hope you like your "mp".

Cheers! :twisted:


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dan Bowman said:


> Theresita, no he did not protect the car.A dog responding to command only, or only to certain trained triggers, is not what I look for in a protection dog. Although I admit a dog can be useful in this limited capacity. If you're sleeping and someone breaks into your house you don't want the dog to react? If you woke up in the middle of the night, and your voice is raspy and you cant articulate the dog's attack command, you don't want it to react on his own? If someone grabs your child when you're not present, you expect the child to deploy the dog? (yes I completely trusted my dog alone with my child). I'm not in law enforcement so I normally don't go into situations with a dog ready to work. My dog is in a relaxed state for most of the day. It is much more likely that I or my wife or my child will need the dog's protection at a moment when we're in "panic" mode and acting in self preservation, not having the presence of mind to tactically deploy the dog. It is at such moments when the dog recognizes that his people are not in the normal control position over him, when protective behavior kicks in.
> 
> In your defense such dogs are very hard to come by, so a very small percentage of dog people have met one and as such this kind of dog simply doesn't figure into their understanding of protection dogs. Much more common are dogs who do not behave in this manner, but readily respond to agitation/training which is based on the drives most of us are familiar with. The key to a good natural protector is stability and aggression. Then it's the upbringing, socializing and control training, all of which further stabilize the dog. Then the dog can be trained in bite work. But I would do it carefully so that the patterns of bitework do not override his good judgement.
> 
> ...


 
Makes my heart go allllllll aflutter!!!!! 

T


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

You sent your untrained dogs out with the intent of having it investigate humans intentions and making a decision based on what information they could sleuth up? How crazy does that sound? What evidence do you have that they didnt nip people randomly? Evidence.

And, by the by... The second time they went out, they had already had one session of training.




maggie fraser said:


> Sometimes it's hard for folks to explain shit, I'm gonna give you a good example....
> 
> We used to run a business from home,, lots of 'guests' on the place from time to time,,, semi rural, and from time to time, I was often there alone.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

I have owned one dog, a working bred cattle dog, that I think possibly falls into the category of a natural protector with reasonable threat recognition and some degree of territoriality.

She would react in 2 types of situations. If she was under threat - a guy I knew once deliberately stared her straight in the eyes and she got this steely look in hers and I could hear her rumbling in her throat and I could see her muscles getting ready for a launch and so could he, so he backed right off and she relaxed immediately. 

The second situation is if she sensed that I felt threatened. A man approached me once and started talking, my dog lay happilly at my feet while he chatted, then all of a sudden he reached his hand and grabbed me aggresively and my dog was up in split second and had launched herself at him. 

Interestingly she didnt use her teeth just launched right into his chest and snarled right up in his face, teeth bared and he ran. She was a very solid, well muscled dog with a fair bit of weight and power behind her. She watched him go and her body was in full alert, but she didnt chase, once he was out of her threat range she turned back to me and relaxed.

I think she would have been capable of using her teeth if she had to, I dont know. With cars, if I left her tied under mine if someone came to close they would suddenly find her at their knee snarling with a backoff look in her eye. I didnt leave her in this situation again because although she was just giving lots of warning I had no idea if she might bite if they didnt back off.

She is also the sort of dog I could go for a walk with and she was always out in front scouting the way, if we came across a class of kids out for a walk and she would happily mingle with them and enjoyed being petted by them. 

She was my pet dog and loyal travelling companion with no formal training at all other than the basics.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Makes my heart go allllllll aflutter!!!!!
> 
> T


ha ha, somehow that sentence fit kinda weird considering the title of this thread. Gosh, dreamy could have fit in there too I'm thinkin'. Thanks for the giggle. For some reason, after reading it again it made me blush and look away from the screen. 

Damn T, what the hell is wrong with you?!?! \\/


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Nicole Stark said:


> ha ha, somehow that sentence fit kinda weird considering the title of this thread. Gosh, dreamy could have fit in there too I'm thinkin'. Thanks for the giggle. For some reason, after reading it again it made me blush and look away from the screen.
> 
> Damn T, what the hell is wrong with you?!?! \\/


Your mind is always in that same orbit. FINALLY someone who understands character. He even uses my favorite word that I use to distinguish GSDs---judgment. How many years have I been on this forum and finally someone who gets it and is willing to put it out there.\\/\\/

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dan Bowman said:


> Theresita, no he did not protect the car.QUOTE]
> 
> I was curious because Khira guards the car. One of my major surprises when I joined this board is almost no one spoke in terms of the dog's character. Max Orsi used to post and he did. I've not had just one of these types of dogs, but several. For me, this is what a sound GSD was all about. Look at the working bitework tests and historically these were about testing instinctual traits. Now they are prey/defense trained. No one looks at a dog for his intelligence and the ability to read a situation, people and gauge his "measured" responses to deliver the amount of force necessary to achieve the goal--i.e. judgment. Part of that judgement is to know when. This is not a dog that bites indescriminately. You pretty much know the types of human behavior that will trigger him. These are herder/stock dog traits and why they made such good protection dogs. I distiguish herding dogs in terms of react vs. analysis. With that is the ability to guage the amount of pressure necessary. I mention these things and I get offered snarling defensive fools. People think you want a junk yard dog, just as you described. Its always why I never understood the PP concept. I've never had to train a dog to protect me or guard what's mine. A year or so ago I stumbled on a web site and one of the dogs was described in terms of his character--not just sport prey/defense. Sure the breeder is highly respected for sport but I think he knows and can look at his dogs in terms of character. It also helps to have people who have his dogs share that aspect with me. I can think of a couple of others that can recognize these type of inherent traits. I also have a local friend who can see this side of the dog. But you are right, they are the exception, not the rule and I think it isn't important for what they need the dog for. If I can spend enough time around the dog I can get a sense of it, like with Bob's dog. Somehow my gut says that Rotts since they are aren't the sport dog of choice may retain some of these original qualities.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> These are herder/stock dog traits and why they made such good protection dogs. I distiguish herding dogs in terms of react vs. analysis. With that is the ability to guage the amount of pressure necessary. T


The original cattle dogs were bred to obviously deal with wild cattle but also as a protection dog. The original stockmen would be on the road on horse back, droving cattle or moving between jobs, sleeping rough in the bush with only their dogs as companions and backup. I think they very much selected very loyal dogs with good analytical skills. It is something I have noticed in a couple of the cattle dogs that I have owned. However I think a lot of the original selection pressure for certain characteristics and purpose have very much been diluted out of the modern cattle dog.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Your mind is always in that same orbit. FINALLY someone who understands character. He even uses my favorite word that I use to distinguish GSDs---judgment. How many years have I been on this forum and finally someone who gets it and is willing to put it out there.\\/\\/
> 
> T


Yes. It. Is.

Or maybe that's just where yours went when I teased you about getting so giggly over what he said. Actually, I found it kind of cute.

By the way, did you forget that I have more than just one dog? I happen to understand a little more than you think. I'm ok with disagreement and I am also accepting of the fact that I don't have enough experience in most areas to offer contributions that are worth posting. But above all, I have enough sense enough to know that it's not what you say but how you say it that determines whether or not your message is received as it should be.

This is a good topic and I think from your most recent responses that you'd agree. It's certainly way more interesting than the naughty orbit of my mind.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Sara Waters said:


> The original cattle dogs were bred to obviously deal with wild cattle but also as a protection dog. The original stockmen would be on the road on horse back, droving cattle or moving between jobs, sleeping rough in the bush with only their dogs as companions and backup. I think they very much selected very loyal dogs with good analytical skills. It is something I have noticed in a couple of the cattle dogs that I have owned. However I think a lot of the original selection pressure for certain characteristics and purpose have very much been diluted out of the modern cattle dog.


Diluted is right. Someone was asking me several weeks ago about what breed for a farmer with cattle and I said ACD. The trouble is due to their independence and hardness, I wouldn't necessarily put a real one in newbie hands. If you are dealing with rank cattle you need a hard as nails dog to back you up. There is a line of dogs here and one of the owners was telling me how she got into trouble and had a bull gunning for her and a dog came through the fence and kept bull occupied long enough for her to get to safety. That type of ACD still exists. I only know of a couple of people faithful to it and won't let trialing ruin what they have.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Nicole Stark said:


> Yes. It. Is.
> 
> Or maybe that's just where yours went when I teased you about getting so giggly over what he said. Actually, I found it kind of cute.
> 
> ...


Wellllll, the orbit is kinda obvious which such phases like look away blushing. As for paragraph 2, ?????. Funny, I don't think "giggly" has ever been a word used to described me. 

But like you said, back on topic--waaayyyy more interesting than orbits.

T


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Diluted is right. Someone was asking me several weeks ago about what breed for a farmer with cattle and I said ACD. The trouble is due to their independence and hardness, I wouldn't necessarily put a real one in newbie hands. If you are dealing with rank cattle you need a hard as nails dog to back you up. There is a line of dogs here and one of the owners was telling me how she got into trouble and had a bull gunning for her and a dog came through the fence and kept bull occupied long enough for her to get to safety. That type of ACD still exists. I only know of a couple of people faithful to it and won't let trialing ruin what they have.
> T


I think real purpose bred cattle dogs here only still exist in station country and even there much of their job on pastoral cattle has been taken over by choppers and the like in many situations. Also their job has changed from one of being on the road with their stockman so their purpose and selection has changed somewhat. Certainly a good working cattle dog that can make good independent decisions in dangerous situations is worth its weight and I saw one years ago that had her stockman's back and saved his life.

Even though these dogs have a reputation as being hard and independent, outright aggression without good cause is an undesirable temperament. 

A lot of agricultural cattle farmers now use Border Collies purpose bred for cattle and also kelpies, Koolies, huntaways and crosses there of. Or they use cattle dogs crossed with one of these breeds. 

Shame the passing of some great working breeds as they originally were as the world moves on.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Timothy Stacy said:


> Is a dog that doesn't recognize a threat capable of Police work? One example would be a 100% prey driven dog who shows no true aggression. My belief is that he can be trained to bite somebody for real if brought up properly to do so. Now if that same dogs pain tolerance/fight drive is at a level where he never comes off a bite even when tested in the hardest ways possible, does that make him stronger than a dog who shows aggression? Based on the belief that people correlate aggression with fear, if that's even true. I'm asking this cause I'm looking to get other ideas to formulate an opinion.


Tim, I am curious about something. There's been a fair bit of discussion here on this topic so far and I wondered if any of it helped you put some thoughts together so that you could formulate an opinion? I know you said you were curious but was there something specific that motivated you to ask the question to begin with?


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Nicole Stark said:


> Tim, I am curious about something. There's been a fair bit of discussion here on this topic so far and I wondered if any of it helped you put some thoughts together so that you could formulate an opinion? I know you said you were curious but was there something specific that motivated you to ask the question to begin with?


Good effort to bring a threat recognition thread away from herding....hahaha. Leave it to you to see the light!!! Good judgement and leadership on your part.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

I'm going to borrow something from Kamphuis Gerben from another thread:

_I do think that everybody wants a dog that has his own caracter solves problems by his intelligence and has the nerves to carry him trough.
where do you find them just give me a call _

The perfect herding and protection dog. But the above quote makes you think what once existed, no longer does or at least not in enough numbers with the ability to quantify or test for it.


Over the years, I can't recall any of the LE people discussing dogs in terms of the ability to recognize/discern a threat. Seems they have always said the prey/fight dog with good environmental nerves. is all that they need. Its seems that the bulk of PSD work is scent? With the street dog, how often does he encounter a perpetrator that he has to fight? 

T


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

can't recall a clip ever being posted here, but seems like a lot of people have had experience with PPDs .... so how about posting links of PP dogs conducting threat assessments, either in training or for real///////i'm all ears and eyes, so no music pleeese

i did see one that came close maybe a year ago that was posted here... somebody did some bite work at a table outside somewhere in a public place, but if i remember it was REALLY clear where the threat was coming from


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> The perfect herding and protection dog. But the above quote makes you think what once existed, no longer does or at least not in enough numbers with the ability to quantify or test for it.
> 
> T


I think that is why I started on the herding path as that is the background that many of the dogs came from, to wonder at what may have passed into history and the way dogs can morph away from their original purpose. It was a very different era where people depended on their dogs for their livelihoods and sometimes their lives and selection pressure and criteria on dogs was probably a lot higher.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I'm going to borrow something from Kamphuis Gerben from another thread:
> 
> _
> 
> ...


_

In LE our dogs do make threat assessments....just like my pistol cant decide who to shoot my dog isnt allowed whom to bite.

I assess the danger...is the suspect a threat to civilians myself or other officers._


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I'm going to borrow something from Kamphuis Gerben from another thread:
> 
> _
> 
> ...


_

In LE our dogs do not make threat assessments....just like my pistol cant decide who to shoot my dog isnt allowed whom to bite.

I assess the danger...is the suspect a threat to civilians myself or other officers. He does not decide when to stop the fight..he fights til I say to stop. He bites a felon be it old,young male or female exactly the same way..he doesnt decide 
that granny looks weak so I will only do this to her...while granny takes a pistol out her bra and blows out my brains....he bites the way he was trained...._


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

will fernandez said:


> In LE our dogs do not make threat assessments....just like my pistol cant decide who to shoot my dog isnt allowed whom to bite.
> 
> I assess the danger...is the suspect a threat to civilians myself or other officers. He does not decide when to stop the fight..he fights til I say to stop. He bites a felon be it old,young male or female exactly the same way..he doesnt decide
> that granny looks weak so I will only do this to her...while granny takes a pistol out her bra and blows out my brains....he bites the way he was trained....


Would you agree that if you were assaulted he'd respond without telling him, I think he would. An example would be you having your dog on a lead and talking to somebody casually and he pumches you in the throat and a fight ensues where you cant speak for a minute.So in a way he has the ability and natural instinct. I understand you are talking of a threat from a face attack point of view.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Timothy Stacy said:


> Would you agree that if you were assaulted he'd respond without telling him, I think he would. So in a way he has the ability and natural instinct.


 
They are presented with a stimulus and react with fight, flight or displacement if they are pushed into defense.

And you don't think training plays a role in his ability, and without that training, he'll more likely head for the hills???

It's like puppys can be raised to adulthood with no training, and it will find four odors of dope, certify to USPCA national standards, and drive the car...Jebus....


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Nicole Stark said:


> Tim, I am curious about something. There's been a fair bit of discussion here on this topic so far and I wondered if any of it helped you put some thoughts together so that you could formulate an opinion? I know you said you were curious but was there something specific that motivated you to ask the question to begin with?


I don't think that having a overly confident dog is necessarily good but from a breeding stand point I think it could be very useful considering the vast majority of dogs have the opposite problem. Make sense?
Especially since I see so many people using overtly aggressive males for breeding, which I believe is some how attached to nerve problems in their offspring


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Timothy Stacy said:


> I don't think that having a overly confident dog is necessarily good but from a breeding stand point I think it could be very useful considering the vast majority of dogs have the opposite problem. Make sense?
> Especially since I see so many people using overtly aggressive males for breeding, which I believe is some how attached to nerve problems in their offspring


Yes, that does help me understand what you were after. Thank you for answering my question.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

re: "In LE our dogs do make threat assessments....just like my pistol cant decide who to shoot my dog isnt allowed whom to bite.
.... I assess the danger...is the suspect a threat to civilians myself or other officers."

so Will, are you saying your LE dogs DO make threat assessments, but you do it at the same time also and than you make the final call ?? now, i'm more confused

anyway, i still wanna see one being trained to do this no matter if it has a real job or just a stay at home protector ... i'm not much of a youtube surfer but i'm tempted to give it a shot 

Joby ... you ever seen a clip of this being trained ???
Mike ??? 
Dave ???
How about the KNPV police dog trainers ? can you train K9 threat recognition ?
.... anybody !!!


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

I left out the NOT on that one...had to type again...


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

In regards to someone rushing me....often early in a dogs career the officer cant have anyone coming over and patting him on the back or giving him an excited embrace..because it will trigger the dog...but through more experience and training the dog learns the cues of when it is appropriate to bite...but the handler must still be aware..

If I decide to drive home with my sirens on and my wife meets us at the door yelling at me....she will get bit...doesnt matter that it was her but his experience and expectations control him not his critical thinking...


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

rick smith said:


> re: "In LE our dogs do make threat assessments....just like my pistol cant decide who to shoot my dog isnt allowed whom to bite.
> .... I assess the danger...is the suspect a threat to civilians myself or other officers."
> 
> so Will, are you saying your LE dogs DO make threat assessments, but you do it at the same time also and than you make the final call ?? now, i'm more confused
> ...


A threat is presented to the DOG. A dog has a choice to fight, flee, or displace and we have to operate within these guidelines when we train a dog that is being threatened. It is important to understand this, so you can read the dog, and respond accordingly when threatening a dog. It's applicable to working dogs and pet dogs. push to hard. fight, flee or an unrelated behavior. 

Honestly, every time you see a guy standing in front of a dog, you are witnessing some stage of this unless he is a non-classical prey aggressive dog. A dog on a schutzhund field may be working in prey through his training on a courage test. But it's likely his defense was tapped at some point if it's a smart trainer, unless he has a dog that sees everything as prey.. 

WE don't get to say where they are working, defense or prey, they do. 

Wanna see a dog appear to reduce a level of force to a perceived threat, watch a schutzhund dog that come off the bite when the decoy freezes. the dog just decided that, through training, a passive guy doesn't get bit anymore. That is the appearance. In actuality the dog is anticipating an out either because it will be rewarded or non compliance is punished, the freeze up becomes the cue, and the dog outs. very common with dogs learning the out. There. he assessed the threat, bit the helper that was fleeing, and released on his own when he stopped moving. All trained, using his prey drive, defense and operant conditioning. How about an object guard when the dog lets go of the bite when the decoy gets too far from the object...trained.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Sara Waters said:


> I think that is why I started on the herding path as that is the background that many of the dogs came from, to wonder at what may have passed into history and the way dogs can morph away from their original purpose. It was a very different era where people depended on their dogs for their livelihoods and sometimes their lives and selection pressure and criteria on dogs was probably a lot higher.


Yes, and its evident from this thread what has changed. As Will mentioned experience and reactivity vs. critical thinking. As I said, I distinguish between expect/react vs. analysis in my dogs. I'd rather have the analysis in a dog.

T


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

what if your dog thinks wrong....


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

will fernandez said:


> If I decide to drive home with my sirens on and my wife meets us at the door yelling at me....she will get bit...doesnt matter that it was her but his experience and expectations control him not his critical thinking...


I don't know why but I found this visual ridiculously funny. And about that dog that is wrong? I think that's spelled liability.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Yes it s funny...also when my dog is loose or I am training in the yard...she knows she can say anything she wants to me and I cant raise my voice at her...she can yell at me to high heaven but as long as i dont raise my voice she is fine....thats why he stays in his kennel at home...


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

will fernandez said:


> what if your dog thinks wrong....


 
I expect you would factor in training as well. I mean your dog got it wrong with your wife. Surely you would expect the dog to recognise your wife. I find it interesting. 

I understand the need for a dog to be highly trained to take commands but what if things go wrong for you on the street and you are unable to speak or give commands, does the dog then run or just stand by and watch you cop a beating? What if you hurt yourself at home and yelled out, would your dog then get stuck into your wife? I know liability these days is a big thing and maybe only dogs are selected that are reliable to act only on trained commands or cues?


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

I know you guys are mainly talking threat recognition in relation to protection dogs but if I am out working station cattle, the only type of dog I want to be working with is one that has my back, will recognise a threat and act accordingly, without input from me if the situation arises.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Sara I assure you that if I am attacked and my dog is loose he will bite the right person


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Sara Waters said:


> I expect you would factor in training as well. I mean your dog got it wrong with your wife. Surely you would expect the dog to recognise your wife. I find it interesting.
> 
> I understand the need for a dog to be highly trained to take commands but what if things go wrong for you on the street and you are unable to speak or give commands, does the dog then run or just stand by and watch you cop a beating? What if you hurt yourself at home and yelled out, would your dog then get stuck into your wife? I know liability these days is a big thing and maybe only dogs are selected that are reliable to act only on trained commands or cues?


It's nice to have a dog that goes when you send it. You line up the same cues and the dog goes. Whether it be stellen, lights and siren prior, etc.. dogs learn this way. It's a shame you can't see that with herding or agility and understand how it applies in something you haven't done. You train a cue and the dog does it. If you miss a weave pole no big deal. If will misses a bite when he needs it, big deal. If the door stays shut on the car when he rolls up, no one gets bit. the positive control is there provided by a physcial barrier. 

police dogs are generally trained to attack situationally or in context. tell me this isn't how you train your dogs, sara? the context of getting assaulted as a handler will get you bit. telling a dog to go, at the start of the agility course and he goes. doesn't have to think about it. you probably never send your dog to the second piece of equipement in agility, when training to run for time. why?


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Here is the thing...there is no 100 percent reliable animal...i make the decisions because I can explain why I chose them...i cant explain his actions unless its a trained response

Thanks Dave...


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

I wonder if Wills dog is typical of what you see in LE or military. Given how he is described I would't want him acting on anything other than command. Sara, I agree. But that's why we prefer the critical thinkers ad that dog Dan Bowman describes. Been there done that and the command would have been too late. In the legal context, Will has a point.

T


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

You have to remember that for the past five years its been pavlov's bell ringing 8-12 hours a day five days a week....the associations are made whether you notice them or not...


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> It's nice to have a dog that goes when you send it. You line up the same cues and the dog goes. Whether it be stellen, lights and siren prior, etc.. dogs learn this way. It's a shame you can't see that with herding or agility and understand how it applies in something you haven't done. You train a cue and the dog does it. If you miss a weave pole no big deal. If will misses a bite when he needs it, big deal. If the door stays shut on the car when he rolls up, no one gets bit. the positive control is there provided by a physcial barrier.
> 
> police dogs are generally trained to attack situationally or in context. tell me this isn't how you train your dogs, sara? the context of getting assaulted as a handler will get you bit. telling a dog to go, at the start of the agility course and he goes. doesn't have to think about it. you probably never send your dog to the second piece of equipement in agility, when training to run for time. why?


 
David for sure I havent police dog work which is why I am asking questions to understand more. 

In a herding context which involves dangerous livestock, you can get yourself killed. There are a number of situations I could describe and have witnessed where a good dog that has good analytical skills and quick reactions can save your life in that context. I guess context here is the key word - recognising a threat in a certain context and making a decision to act without human input, (if the human is down or unconcious or doesnt see the threat coming) other than the context. You cant train a cue for everything in herding but you do have the dogs instinct and intelligence as well. 

I was wondering if this also applied to police work and it sounds like maybe it does?. 

Will's description (and my interpretation from behind a screen) was of a dog that acted only if he raised his voice and this included attacking his wife. I was interested in knowing more. He might be trapped and yelling for help, does this mean his dog attacks anyone that comes to help? I was just curious rather than being critical of something I dont know. 

Agility is a game to me, a sport I have fun with. I train to a certain extent, maybe 5 minute 3 times a week but my dogs are smart enough to understand where I want them to go from the position of my body. I keep this consistant and they figure it out pretty quickly. I always amazes me how well they do given the minimal amout of training I put into them. I dont need too many repetitions for them to figure it out. 

Probably the bond I have built with them working stock helps. They really have to use their brains because my directional commands are shit, I can never work out left from right LOL. I often leave it up to them to figure it out, which they do most of the time in the context of what they know I am doing with the stock (yarding, moving through a gate etc), and they read my body which I would think also gives them a clue as to what I want.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Sara what I was trying to explain is that my siren is a cue to go to work...my anger is a cue to go to work....attacking me is a cue to go to work...driving fast and making the engine roar is a cue to go to work...if i am just yelling it is not a cue....there are countless other ones that I know of and I am sure there are some that I am not aware of...

What I think is happening with the critical thinkers is the same as Clever Hans...the person is just giving the dog a cue and the dog reacts...but I maybe I am wrong...


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

will fernandez said:


> Here is the thing...there is no 100 percent reliable animal...i make the decisions because I can explain why I chose them...i cant explain his actions unless its a trained response
> 
> Thanks Dave...


Yes Will I can understand the reasoning. With livestock it is different, your life can be in danger, you sometimes rely on your dog to make an independent decision that could save your life and you dont have to explain your dogs actions.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

will fernandez said:


> Sara what I was trying to explain is that my siren is a cue to go to work...my anger is a cue to go to work....attacking me is a cue to go to work...driving fast and making the engine roar is a cue to go to work...if i am just yelling it is not a cue....there are countless other ones that I know of and I am sure there are some that I am not aware of...
> 
> What I think is happening with the critical thinkers is the same as Clever Hans...the person is just giving the dog a cue and the dog reacts...but I maybe I am wrong...


Thanks Will that has given me a better insight.

I personally believe that there are critical thinkers, in some cases a person may not be able to give a cue. I have seen a cattle dog desperately trying to turn running cattle away from its master who had fallen from his horse and was lying stunned in their path. Fortunately the other ringers got there to help, I cant think of a cue in that scenario. I would think that there are some dogs that are capable of this. I am not saying it is common and I think in many situations it is as you say but I wouldnt say so for 100% of all dogs.


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

This clip can explain threat recognition better http://youtu.be/8iVPBlm2rH4
Notice the release command, LMAO


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Tim, that was a little bit weird maybe it was the clothes or that Wal Mart greeter release action that he paired with the command. The good thing about you is you're always good for pulling something like this out of your hat.

Oh man, I just realized where I've seen that move before. It was from a guy who lives in a van down by the river.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbLRqJ3T4DY


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

T said
" If I can spend enough time around the dog I can get a sense of it, like with Bob's dog".

Thunder has had great character since he was a pup. Trooper is just a character! :lol: :wink:


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

Nichole, this guy invented the tight pants craz that has engulfed our youth.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Timothy Stacy said:


> This clip can explain threat recognition better http://youtu.be/8iVPBlm2rH4
> Notice the release command, LMAO


that is amazing, there is another video of the same guy taking a break from training with the police and taking out a pimp...his Karate is big...RELEASE (CHA) RELEASE (whuaaa)

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


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Sara Waters said:


> David for sure I havent police dog work which is why I am asking questions to understand more.


Sorry if I come off different than I meant to. I'd like to learn more about herding, flyball and agility at some point. When I do, I'll do the same as you and ask!!



Sara Waters said:


> In a herding context which involves dangerous livestock, you can get yourself killed. There are a number of situations I could describe and have witnessed where a good dog that has good analytical skills and quick reactions can save your life in that context. I guess context here is the key word - recognising a threat in a certain context and making a decision to act without human input


Got it. To me it doesn't matter the stakes. Police vs sport vs herding. I actually wrote my post wrong. If you miss the first weave pole, it's a big deal, is what I meant to say. It's context for us as well as a dog. If you take what you are doing seriously, then it matters when you make mistakes that cost a competition or your life. Consequences are heavier in some circumstances obviously. I have seen pet trainers put more into their dogs than some cops working. Not bashing, but how much you put in is how much you are likely to get out. 

Ok, a rancher off his horse on his back. You are saying instictively that the dog turns the herd (mentioned in another post). What I would challenge you to do is to look at everything the rancher has done with the dog on the ground that would cause that behavior. Rancher on horse vs. rancher on ground, an easily distinguishable context for the dog. I wonder if you would find that what the dog is doing would be training and not so much instinct. IE does the rancher usually call the dog to him when he dismounts. Does the dog get praise or reward of some sort for being closer to the rancher when he's on the ground. Now couple that with a startled yell as said rancher gets thrown, the dog looks, sees the rancher "dismounting", and comes back for reward or the next command. He gets there and is presented with another usual context of running beasts, which I would guess are usually turned in one fashion or another from running you over. The dog has two separate contexts (training) that he's falling back on. The importance of knowing if this is true (and it may not be I admit) is that in the event of accidents, you help yourself more, knowing this and training it more. So for me, I'd find where the dog learned it so I could use it to my advantage. 

I do know herders will herd without any training so protecting the rancher I could see a lot easier as instinct vs. training. Instinctively herding away from the resource (rancher).


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> Sorry if I come off different than I meant to. I'd like to learn more about herding, flyball and agility at some point. When I do, I'll do the same as you and ask!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Unbelievable. 


T


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Unbelievable.
> 
> 
> T


which part?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> which part?


Most. You would have to know what instincts are involved and what the default is in most working stock dogs--particularly a station bred dog. We actually kept a running tab in my training group regarding what the dog does when we are on the ground.

T


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Most. You would have to know what instincts are involved and what the default is in most working stock dogs--particularly a station bred dog. We actually kept a running tab in my training group regarding what the dog does when we are on the ground.
> 
> T


T, what is this falling on the ground stuff about? Both you and Sara have mentioned it like you guys are out there with walkers or something stumbling around like drunks. Ok, so I probably flew out of orbit on that one but really, are you guys honestly falling on the ground as often as has been suggested? That idea of that seems odd to me.

BTW what is a station bred dog?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Nicole Stark said:


> T, what is this falling on the ground stuff about? Both you and Sara have mentioned it like you guys are out there with walkers or something stumbling around like drunks. Ok, so I probably flew out of orbit on that one but really, are you guys honestly falling on the ground as often as has been suggested? That idea of that seems odd to me.
> 
> BTW what is a station bred dog?


There is a lot of uneven ground, mud, snow, water/slippery, etc. for one when you are out training, or just working the dog. We try to stay off ice but sometimes its inevitable that you have to deal with it. A club member last year had to move his cattle even with the ice, dog slipped somehow and broke his pelvis. Sometimes the conditions just suck. I know another club member that was doing vaccinations helping her neighbor. They said they were working with dogs. She ended with fractured vertebras. Years ago she showed up all black and blue and whe I asked her what happened she said they got new cattle in. Asked where the dog was and she said he ran when the cow came after her. There is a reason we only go near cattle with a certain type of dog as Sara mentioned. I don't do horseback but those that do range cattle do it quite a bit. Sometimes working those mad brash dogs and they are bringing the stock too fast, you can get taken out by a 200 lb sheep. Know of lots of blown knees and one woman with a broke wrist. In 15 years I can count on one hand how many times I've gone down. Station bred refers to the huge [acres and stock in the thousands] that you see in Australia and maybe parts of New Zealand. 

T


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Ah, I get it. I can envision that well enough anyway. I seem to be able relate to some of the things you and Sara describe but this wasn't one of them. Part of the reason behind that is because of the environment I spend a lot of time in, I do so on an ATV. I also generally carry a gun to protect me from my threats so my vision of this ground falling is clearly skewed. Now I understand.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Nicole Stark said:


> Ah, I get it. I can envision that well enough anyway. I seem to be able relate to some of the things you and Sara describe but this wasn't one of them. Part of the reason behind that is because of the environment I spend a lot of time in, I do so on an ATV. I also generally carry a gun to protect me from my threats so my vision of this ground falling is clearly skewed. Now I understand.


Its funny how some of the farmers I know are against machinery. I know I always tell myself its good exercise. But the older I get the more appealing an ATV with a little cart attachment is, and the less I deal with cattle. 

T


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Nicole Stark said:


> T, what is this falling on the ground stuff about? Both you and Sara have mentioned it like you guys are out there with walkers or something stumbling around like drunks. Ok, so I probably flew out of orbit on that one but really, are you guys honestly falling on the ground as often as has been suggested? That idea of that seems odd to me.
> 
> BTW what is a station bred dog?


This gave me a laugh! 

I have been intimately acquainted with the ground on a number of occassions LOL. 
Picture negotiating rocky terrain, long grass, rabbit holes while keeping an eye on a 100 sheep and a dog. That is why I leave a lot of the decisions up to my dogs once they have experience. I send them off to gather the sheep usually out of my line of site and wait for them to appear, hopefully with all the sheep.

I have also had young dogs push stock over the top of me. Ouch! trampled by lots of little sheep hooves.

Yards are another hazard where you have hundereds of tightly packed sheep milling around. I have had sheep leap off the loading ramp, dogs are usually on their backs keeping them in and moving, but a flying sheep can cause some injury. 

The other week I was giving my rather large lambs their final vaccination and noticed one had not been ear notched with my brand. I grabbed her and punched the brand in ear, she was not impressed and struggled really hard putting me on my back, I couldnt let go as I still had her vaccination to give and she had jumped out of the pen. I held on tight as I rolled with her kicking on the ground, trying to regain control. Got plenty of bruises and cuts from that one. I probably will end up with a zimmer frame in my old age LOL.

I have also been charged by ewes when I have to grab a lamb, although this is rare. I have a dog that deals with that situation very nicely, and I can grab the lamb. Rams are 100kg and can be unpredictable. You never take your eye off them and I always take my BC with me. He will go straight in if he has to.

In some cases you can leave yourself vulnerable to srock, rams can be unpredictable and feral cattle extremely dangerous. Good dogs and horses can be a lifeline.

A station bred dog is one that is purpose bred to work rangeland or station cattle. A station is usually upward of 3/4 of a million hecatares over which station or scrub cattle range and at certain times of year they need to be mustered, used to be mainly with dogs and horseback, a potentially dangerous occupation. Not so much these days. The cattle are often fast, unpredictable and aggressive. People have been killed in the muster, coming off a horse or trail bike while mustering cattle is always a hazard. 

I do a lot of my stockwork on my own and my handling setup is pretty rough so my dogs are really important as back up.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

I never will forget having the ground coversation with Bob when he first started and his macho response that he would just give them a nudge. I'm sure in all of his years of schutzhund and earth dog, he hadn't been acquainted with the ground in that manner. My training partner used to try to talk me into starting a dog on cattle. When I responded that I was not going to get run over by cows, she said, ohhhh, they avoid stepping on ya. Yeahhhh righttttt. I don't go near rams, ewes with lambs, cattle and particularly mama cows without the right dog. God your catch on the sheep made me laugh. The things I've done to avoid having to start over.

T


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Its funny how some of the farmers I know are against machinery. I know I always tell myself its good exercise. But the older I get the more appealing an ATV with a little cart attachment is, and the less I deal with cattle.
> 
> T


Psh, my mom said the same thing when she got up here and checked the cabin out. She said something about how ATVs tear up the terrain and create too much noise. Then she realized that without them the trip to collect water ran just under a mile and the exit route was about a mile and half out. Neither is far but from that she understood that you could either spend all day doing certain things on foot or reduce that time significantly with an ATV and accomplish more.

It's not my life but in that other part of my life, the river runs through it and it's a little bit different way of living and looking at things. Speaking of, I have been tempted more than once to purchase one of those lock on physical cams for my DDB. I'd love to know where that dog goes and what she does when she's gone off to do whatever it is that she does. After thinking about it, maybe I don't... :-k


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Most. You would have to know what instincts are involved and what the default is in most working stock dogs--particularly a station bred dog. We actually kept a running tab in my training group regarding what the dog does when we are on the ground.
> 
> T


Answer anything, please. Take a stand. Don't tell me what is wrong, tell me what is right. I can't imagine you as a motivaitonal-ish trainer with all the negative you are shooting at me. If I make a statement you don't like. Refute it. If you have a counter point, make it. Otherwise, let's go back to your last good idea for the two of us.....




Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Otherwise I think its fairly clear what you and I agree on and what we don't and never will and I'm good at leaving it at that.


I'd really like to discuss stock dogs viewing threat. Even though we've highjacked young MR. Stacy's thread.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> I'd really like to discuss stock dogs viewing threat. Even though we've highjacked young MR. Stacy's thread.


Depends on the dog. I have a kelpie whose initial instinct when first working on stock was to run from ewes that charged her. With training and support from me she is better now but is still not entirely predictable or reliable as I think it is genetic. She is not a dog I would take into a potential dangerous situation.

My Border collie will stand his ground in the face of a charging sheep and will give the sheep a few seconds to change her mind. If it persists he will nail it. If I had him in a yard with me and a ram charged he would tackle it. His motivation is control, not to save my bacon. LOL. He is acting on instinct to control unruly animals and he hates disagreeable sheep. My kelpie would be gone.

As I said before I have seen examples of dogs that have acted to actively turn stock off their handlers at great risk to themselves. I think it is born from breeding and a long association with their stockman and a load of experience working in dangerous conditions. You need a special type of dog and relationship with your dog working in those conditions and the cattle dogs I knew were undoubtably hard and independent and very one person only type dogs.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

I get what you are saying. Your dogs are bred to the purpose. I like your statment that the Border collie is in it for control (not so much trained, but genetic) and not to save you.(If someone ever mistook the way my lab looks at me for love, I can slightly move my right hand to my pocket and it is revealed that her "love" is a tennis ball) That part I believe and get. That behavior (running the sheep) can also be attributed to thinking, and it's not thinking. The dog is hardwired that way (through his defensive nature) and reacts to a threat from a ewe with a fight. Would you agree? On the dog saving the rancher that fell from his horse. How much do you think was instinct and how much was trained? do the dogs rally up when a rancher gets down normally? or was it a little bit of luck and saavy on the ranchers part, having the dog placed where it would naturally do what was needed in the event of an accident. 

I think a lot of things are placed under the guise of something unreal. The more tangible repeatable things we can do through breeding and training (testing) makes life easier with the dog and a better chance of a positive outcome in bad situations.



Sara Waters said:


> Depends on the dog. I have a kelpie whose initial instinct when first working on stock was to run from ewes that charged her. With training and support from me she is better now but is still not entirely predictable or reliable as I think it is genetic. She is not a dog I would take into a potential dangerous situation.
> 
> My Border collie will stand his ground in the face of a charging sheep and will give the sheep a few seconds to change her mind. If it persists he will nail it. If I had him in a yard with me and a ram charged he would tackle it. His motivation is control, not to save my bacon. LOL. He is acting on instinct to control unruly animals and he hates disagreeable sheep. My kelpie would be gone.
> 
> *As I said before I have seen examples of dogs that have acted to actively turn stock off their handlers at great risk to themselves*. I think it is born from breeding and a long association with their stockman and a load of experience working in dangerous conditions. You need a special type of dog and relationship with your dog working in those conditions and the cattle dogs I knew were undoubtably hard and independent and very one person only type dogs.


The bold part above, you attributed with your dog turning a sheep, with desire for control or desire to herd, correct?


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

isn't there a difference between a dog recognizing a threat to the DOG and recognizing a threat to its HANDLER ????
- i don't believe this has been clarified, or even if anyone thinks there is a difference ...

- but in all my posts i am referring to a dog being able to reliably recognize a threat to the handler and PROTECT the handler by engaging without needing a command ... that's what i don't think dogs are capable of without very specialized training .... which i have never seen

obviously to get a dog to bite someone wearing equipment reliably it has to learn to accept pressure and not be run off ... this is conditioned and the more confident the dog the easier and the more pressure it will be capable of handling ... a training issue mostly.
- for psd/mwd work it's a matter of adding street realism, changing scenarios, removing obvious equipment targets and conditioning the dog with more pressure to engage and stay in the fight when directed, and requires a dog with more intensity and desire to engage than a sport dog needs
(only talking patrol work)

my limited background :
it's been over 15years since i did any SchH training and i only trialed ONE dog ... gsd ... did it because he liked to bite and i wanted to try the sport ... only got a SchH 1 but trained for higher levels ... nothing spectacular but easy to train ... total prey drive driven and very little civil side ... never needed to put him in defense for what we were training for and never felt like he was protecting me on the SchH field ... NEVER ... which has always made me feel this is not a protection sport, but strictly OB and tracking with biting involved
- he had no problem taking stick pressure but it sure wasn't a threat to ME he was analyzing and acting on independently either 
- and i never considered him a protection dog that would protect me if needed; never even gave it a thought ... just a nice pet that liked to bite that i had good control of on or off the field

- i won't say this applies to every bite sport at every level, but i will say that for most sports i have seen, in person and on youtube -at high levels- there is still very little of this happening, as opposed to dogs who are conditioned to bite/grip on cues when a decoy is in close proximity to the handler, or when they are challenging and pressuring the dog in other ways. never seen PSA so don't know whether it would apply there
- but to be more specific i have never seen "threats to a handler" tested in dog sports and don't consider a quick move to tap a handler on the shoulder as a threat to the handler that a dog needs to recognize and act on. it grips because it KNOWS a bite is coming and expecting it - NO "protection" being displayed imo

to me it is CLEAR how all this is TRAINED, but i still say it has NOTHING to do with the ability of the dog to recognize/process/act on a "threat to the handler", as PPD's are supposed to be able to do, or as some outstanding herders are supposedly capable of doing
- but the only ways i'm hearing how this is possible is because they are "special" and/or born with it; which of course is not an arguable position 

am i way off base here ???


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

rick smith said:


> isn't there a difference between a dog recognizing a threat to the DOG and recognizing a threat to its HANDLER ????
> - i don't believe this has been clarified, or even if anyone thinks there is a difference ...
> 
> - but in all my posts i am referring to a dog being able to reliably recognize a threat to the handler and PROTECT the handler by engaging without needing a command ... that's what i don't think dogs are capable of without very specialized training .... which i have never seen
> ...


Read Kohlers book on Guard dog training. I think that is the one he lists out qualities he looks for in a dog. Responsibility, etc.

I have gotten in front of dogs (testing) that were super prey driven and some that were super civil. It is arguable that civil was trained, but, if, those civil dogs were that way with just genetics and no training, then yes, they'd react to a threat and bite. Anything. 

The magic of super protector and super social is the myth that get a lot of people needlessly bit, immediately followed by "he's never done that before."

Irresponsible owners who believe dogs can behave this way, without commands and independent thinking, are a bane to the very existence of dogs. They fit in with people who have a sense of entitlement, in my opinion and are bringing our society down. They believe that because they haven't seen their dog be nasty (all the while living alone for 3 years never encountering someone to be nasty to) that it will never happen. Unimaginative, non- Dr. Suess reading folks.

Rick-Think of a resource guarder or a territorial dog when you think of a dog biting untrained without a command. You have probably seen it a hundred times with pet dogs. The dog is predisposed to it, and has experiences to encourage it.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> Read Kohlers book on Guard dog training. I think that is the one he lists out qualities he looks for in a dog. Responsibility, etc.
> 
> I have gotten in front of dogs (testing) that were super prey driven and some that were super civil. It is arguable that civil was trained, but, if, those civil dogs were that way with just genetics and no training, then yes, they'd react to a threat and bite. Anything.
> 
> ...


I'm getting this bit ^^^! If you have a dog of these qualities,,, you allow him to do his job  !!
This has been a part of my earlier background, by that I mean, it was my father's philosophy.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

maggie fraser said:


> I'm getting this bit ^^^! If you have a dog of these qualities,,, you allow him to do his job  !!
> This has been a part of my earlier background, by that I mean, it was my father's philosophy.


yep. even encourage it.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> yep. even encourage it.


Nope,, not _even_ encourage it, _actively_ encourage it.

A particular experience (and dog) I am referring to, required very little encouragement actually, I could even relay stories of his different bites (live ones of course), dependent perhaps on his level or threat, or maybe it was just the way he was feeling at the time.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> I get what you are saying. Your dogs are bred to the purpose. I like your statment that the Border collie is in it for control (not so much trained, but genetic) and not to save you.(If someone ever mistook the way my lab looks at me for love, I can slightly move my right hand to my pocket and it is revealed that her "love" is a tennis ball) That part I believe and get. That behavior (running the sheep) can also be attributed to thinking, and it's not thinking. The dog is hardwired that way (through his defensive nature) and reacts to a threat from a ewe with a fight. Would you agree? On the dog saving the rancher that fell from his horse. How much do you think was instinct and how much was trained? do the dogs rally up when a rancher gets down normally? or was it a little bit of luck and saavy on the ranchers part, having the dog placed where it would naturally do what was needed in the event of an accident.
> 
> I think a lot of things are placed under the guise of something unreal. The more tangible repeatable things we can do through breeding and training (testing) makes life easier with the dog and a better chance of a positive outcome in bad situations.
> 
> ...


I know that my BC is not in it to save my bacon, he is hardwired to control, with a fight if required. The other example I am not so sure. A herd of feral cattle being pushed at full speed towards a chute, by horses and dogs that know their jobs. To try and turn them away is not expected, this dog was placing itself between its master and the cattle. Knowing cattle dogs as I do, I think there was something more happening. That would be my assessment as it was the people who witnessed it. 
The real answer will never be known, I try and think through it as logically as possible and it was just an unexpected untrained manouvre and it seemed pretty clear that the dog was try to guard its owner. What the dog was thinking or acting on I wouldnt be dogmatic.


I do currently own a cattle dog that looks at me with joy in her eyes and is not motivated by toys or treats, she seems to simply like doing things with me and will have a go at anything, especially what I am doing. My other dogs are much more mercenary LOL.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Sara Waters said:


> I know that my BC is not in it to save my bacon, he is hardwired to control, with a fight if required. The other example I am not so sure. A herd of feral cattle being pushed at full speed towards a chute, by horses and dogs that know their jobs. To try and turn them away is not expected, this dog was placing itself between its master and the cattle. Knowing cattle dogs as I do, I think there was something more happening. That would be my assessment as it was the people who witnessed it.
> The real answer will never be known, I try and think through it as logically as possible and it was just an unexpected untrained manouvre and it seemed pretty clear that the dog was try to guard its owner. What the dog was thinking or acting on I wouldnt be dogmatic.
> 
> 
> I do currently own a cattle dog that looks at me with joy in her eyes and is not motivated by toys or treats, she seems to simply like doing things with me and will have a go at anything, especially what I am doing. My other dogs are much more mercenary LOL.


we'll never know...my point on these types of events is that if we could pick something up, it would be useful. as it is, you just may select a dog from that line of dogs in hope of finding that something. and that's something.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> I get what you are saying. Your dogs are bred to the purpose. I like your statment that the Border collie is in it for control (not so much trained, but genetic) and not to save you.(If someone ever mistook the way my lab looks at me for love, I can slightly move my right hand to my pocket and it is revealed that her "love" is a tennis ball) That part I believe and get. That behavior (running the sheep) can also be attributed to thinking, and it's not thinking. The dog is hardwired that way (through his defensive nature) and reacts to a threat from a ewe with a fight. Would you agree? I think a lot of things are placed under the guise of something unreal. The more tangible repeatable things we can do through breeding and training (testing) makes life easier with the dog and a better chance of a positive outcome in bad situations.


Breeding and training are both important tools in getting a reliable stockdog. Much of what they do is as a result of genetic instinct with training layered on top to make it useful in the context of working stock. 

However a good sheepdog will need to be able to make good decisions independently and do some problem solving. If I am working a large mob of ewes and lambs, they tend to want to split up with ewes trying to get their lambs to safety. When this is happening I often say nothing and watch what my dogs do as they have several directional choices. 

I watch them assessing and weighing up the move they are going to make. Often they make the right choice, sometimes they start one way and then realise that there is a better option and qucikly change tack. Much of their behaviour is hardwired, but making the correct choices sometimes involves what is known as brainy stockwork where they have to be able to have some degree of problem solving ability especially when working remotely from a handler. A good sheepdog should never need to be micromanaged. 

They often make better choices than I would because they read the stock just that much faster than me, but what they do with that information is important. They need to process it in the context of what the job is trying to achieve. There are exceptional dogs and there are mediocre dogs. What makes an exceptional dog? I believe problem solving ability is part of this equation along with good instincts and good training. 

In terms of the dogs that Will works with I can understand how important it is to have a dog that is under the handlers control at all times and the handler makes all the decisions. The liability is too great to trust the dog to make the right decision.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> we'll never know...my point on these types of events is that if we could pick something up, it would be useful. as it is, you just may select a dog from that line of dogs in hope of finding that something. and that's something.


Selection pressure was and probably still is very high. These men knew how to breed good dogs, their lives and the dogs life could sometimes depend on it. These dogs were the tools of their trade and they all knew the good dogs.


----------



## Gillian Schuler (Apr 12, 2008)

isn't there a difference between a dog recognizing a threat to the DOG and recognizing a threat to its HANDLER ????
- i don't believe this has been clarified, or even if anyone thinks there is a difference







...

I have often thought about this. I think (no one can be 100% sure) that my GSD would react very promptly to a pain inflicted by someone. But don't dogs mostly do this? Very often in reflex.

My Landseer was very protective of me - it was clear to see. When someone fooled around and lifted me up, the dog grabbed the chap but only ripped his shirt. He knew him well.

I think it is not always easy to see. In our Swiss National Trials we had to walk through the woods with the dog on the loose lead and someone would spring out of the bushes and attempt an attack on the handler. I just managed to hold on to my Landseer when the chap appeared and analysing the dog promptly held a large stick which into which he bit. It is a pity that this has been eliminated, like everything else that was good.

The Briard would never have defended himself against a strong attacker, I'm sure. But out once tracking on forbidden land, I saw two men approaching us. I thought they meant us harm and stood behind the Briard. To my astonishment, he growled at them. It was their land!!

It doesn't really matter I would think. If you stand behind your dog who would fight anyone who attempted to injure him - you could be home and safe.


----------



## maggie fraser (May 30, 2008)

maggie fraser said:


> Nope,, not _even_ encourage it, _actively_ encourage it.
> 
> A particular experience (and dog) I am referring to, required very little encouragement actually, I could even relay stories of his different bites (live ones of course), dependent perhaps on his level or threat, or maybe it was just the way he was feeling at the time.


 
I was being a little tongue in cheek here, just in case....

The dog I referred to here was my first gsd, bought him in 1984, first generation WG import. He is prolly what many folks on here would describe as civil and a little reactive maybe. He wasn't just dog aggressive, he was animal aggressive too,,, he didn't start biting people until he went to live at the family home and under my father's wing whilst I was away at around fifteen months old. I had attempted to train him some nosework as well as ob via books as a puppy. 

Very trustworthy dog with the entire extended family, no-one was afraid of him and he was very popular, even non dog family members, it was through him I learned that a dog reads very quickly how you receive someone, so, very sensitive dog too. It was through the experience of this dog, that I encouraged my two subsequent gsds to develop a little discernment with people. I suppose that involved taking risks to a degree,,,, couldn't get away with doing that these days, at least unless you were very rural.


----------



## Dan Bowman (Nov 8, 2012)

It's amusing to hear that a SCH dog is not required to protect. SCH literally means protection dog in German.

Dave, I understand what you're trying to get at. You want to see the dog as a purely reactive animal, and are looking for the triggers in every situation. Looking at it this way, consider that absolutely the first thing that the dog becomes aware of is movement. In the case of cattle endangering the owner there will first be movement, and as we all know movement is highly attractive to a prey driven dog. If the dog is hard wired to engage animated movement, it will try. Based on previous experiences of having done so and deriving satisfaction from it, or receiving a negative experience (getting hurt), and the strength of his desire which could override pain, the dog will be conditioned to respond in the future. 

But even before the movement the dog would've had to be near the owner in the first place, to be able to see the cattle and intercept. What keeps the dog there? This may be what Koehler meant by a sense of responsibility. One of the basic tests he recommends is the owner taking the dog to a strange place, and seeing if when let loose the dog will stay around the handler. Another is leaving the dog's property open allowing the dog to leave, and seeing if it will choose to leave or stay. Obviously a good natural protector will choose to stay near in both cases.

To analyze what makes the dog stay near you will have to search yourself so to speak. This is what I do when I want to understand some things the dog does. You have to put yourself in a similar situation, and try feel without thinking. Staying near is something I test in all my dogs. I now have a 2 year old rottweiler bitch that I received a week ago. I like her BTW which is saying a lot. I took her to the park and let her off leash, I knew that we've already bonded and that she'll not run away. I waited for her to get busy sniffing and climbed on a low hanging branch of a nearby tree. She became aware that I was gone in less than 20 seconds. The reaction was pronounced, ears up, head high, trying to located me, running forward a few steps, sniffing the air again, starting to circle, very clearly concerned where I went. This evokes a feeling in me to know what she's going through. A sense of comfort was suddenly disrupted. A feeling that something is missing. The way to calm the feeling is to focus on finding the owner.

PSD are not chosen to operate this way. While they may or may not depending on the individual dog, they're simply not selected for this. An apprehension dog is required to have strong drives. It will also have extensive training. This training will condition the dog's response to certain stimulus. This conditioning will override "decision making" which would've been made by a raw dog. Most of the time this works for what a PSD is required to do. Other times it can work against if the dog develops a trigger that the handler is not aware of. For example going after a prostrate man.

With protection dogs owned by civilians, who knows what the dogs were conditioned to do and if the training was done in any way that allowed the dog to make conclusions about the situations it was exposed to. There are too many "trainers" out there, training weak or unstable dogs that shouldn't have had the taboo of biting a human removed.

To be clear I prefer a natural protector. But that's only the beginning. There's socialization and control training. I prefer exposing the dog to agitation and bite work in the context of meaningful "experiences", rather than bringing the dog out for a man to simply piss it off. The reason I can get away with this is because the dogs I like already naturally know how to bite hard. My only problem with this system is finding decoys who understand such a program.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

i'll have to dust off my koehler book ,,, read it a long time ago when i was still on active duty, but have changed most of the ways i train since that time ....

re: "This may be what Koehler meant by a sense of responsibility. One of the basic tests he recommends is the owner taking the dog to a strange place, and seeing if when let loose the dog will stay around the handler. Another is leaving the dog's property open allowing the dog to leave, and seeing if it will choose to leave or stay. Obviously a good natural protector will choose to stay near in both cases."

???
so that shows "canine responsibility" ?? 
since you seem like a "drive" guy, do you believe in pack drive drive ?
..that's pretty much all i see here but it would be a big leap of faith to jump to "a natural protector" based on those examples 
- seems a lot more simple to say that if you have any decent kind of bond with your dog it will want to hang with you 
- protect you too ??? lol ///// pretty big reach isn't it ? that would come WAY later
- sorry, but talking about K9 responsibility sounds like humanizing to me (or that bigger "A" word)

promise i'll keep any more koehler comments to myself til i read him again; sure there are many more steps to a koehler protection dog; just wanted to say this one doesn't seem like one of them, nor does it describe responsibility 

do you train using the koehler techniques ?

now i'll probably stick my foot in my mouth .... but :
- one of the things i do remember was how he was big on off lead work and i certainly agree with that ... but in todays urban environments it's damn hard to do. rural training isn't as available as it was when he was around and much easier to train a dog in the country, imo 
-also, i don't recall him ever writing about how you train threat recognition, or was that something already there if you get the "right" dog and is covered under "responsibility ??


----------



## Dan Bowman (Nov 8, 2012)

A lot of our disagreements are due to semantics. I don't claim to have all the "industry" terms down pat. However I am confident about what I observe in the dog, and try to describe it. Most of the terms we apply to human behavior are descriptive of the end result, not of every step that gets us there. Thus a human mother that is constantly concerned about her small child's whereabouts in the playground, and desire to keep it from putting itself in a dangerous situation, is described as being responsible. I have no problem applying this to a dog. This is not to say that all protection dogs operate in this mode, but some do depending on their relationship with the person they feel "responsible" for. It's well known that some dogs will have this feeling for children in the family. 

The vast majority of city dogs live in conditions that don't allow them to develop to their full potential, as a farm dog would. If you're blocked from making choices based on your innate qualities, you may never develop judgement/discernment. We/people live in the reality of analytical thinking for most of the time. But when put in a life or death situation our reactions are based on emotions. Emotions are the information about how to survive that was passed down to us with our genes. Given a situation that's not so critical, our analytical thinking and experience is allowed to override emotion.

Consider a situation where I find a burglar breaking into my property. Do I care about whether this POS lives or dies as compared to having my $500 generator stolen? No I don't. My instincts tell me that if I eliminate him there and then, I also eliminate the possibility of him coming back in the future. The best way to ensure my safety is to act preemptively, and I would do this with no remorse. But society dictates otherwise, and I know that I may get in trouble if I act on my instincts, so I don't shoot the POS. I just made a decision. Now he turns around and faces me with a crow bar, I feel a rash of fear or excitement, I know that now I can be considered to have fear for my life, and be justified in a court of law. I shoot to kill. However you want to label it, perhaps a reaction from fear, still a decision has been made to act. A good dog is not that different. It knows how to act preemptively to eliminate a threat. It's tempered by inherent stability, having been selectively bred to posses this capacity. And a lifetime of experiences knowing when we approve or disapprove of his actions, and the consequences of such approval or disapproval. The more critical the situation, and the more our control doesn't figure in the dog's mind (as is in the case where the handler is overcome) the more likely the dog is to make the decision to act aggressively. Responsibility, judgement, discernment, they're just words to describe the outcome as it appears to us.

I use Koehler's methods for some exercises specifically. I know where to take shortcuts and incorporate other methods. But the underlying idea of Koehler's method, in terms of how the dogs understand and responds to training, is correct and timeless.

To me discernment is dependent on inherent stability, socializing, and control training that further stabilizes the dog. Protection scenarios can be designed to mimic real life and demonstrate that the dog will react correctly on his own. A structured protection training program involving agitation and biting, I consider to be separate from this. To be used when the handler is in full control using the dog tactically. Also when the dog is guarding an area. Basically for situations where the triggers are so well defined and within the dog's capability to assimilate, that it's very unlikely the dog will react when we don't want it to.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Dan Bowman said:


> It's amusing to hear that a SCH dog is not required to protect. SCH literally means protection dog in German.
> 
> Dave, I understand what you're trying to get at. You want to see the dog as a purely reactive animal, and are looking for the triggers in every situation..


 
It's amusing to hear peoples dog will do something with NO testing and their assumptions on THEIR dog and seeing that as ok, and then being amused by hearing an individual SCH dog might not protect. Dogs may or may not bite, and if you really need one, you better have a back up plan.


Don. I want to see the dog as he is, not what people think he is. The world used to be flat according to everyone. It's not. Your ideas on dogs may not be correct nor may be mine. Looking for what is.

I'll answer more later, gotta head to work.


----------



## Dan Bowman (Nov 8, 2012)

Dave, honestly don't bother, at least for me. I saw questions in your posts that were interesting for me to address and put my thoughts into words, and I'm glad to share the info. But you don't seem to be able to differentiate between a description given in everyday language by someone experienced with both kinds of dogs, and theoretical suppositions. I got suckered in twice, so no more.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I never will forget having the ground coversation with Bob when he first started and his macho response that he would just give them a nudge. I'm sure in all of his years of schutzhund and earth dog, he hadn't been acquainted with the ground in that manner. My training partner used to try to talk me into starting a dog on cattle. When I responded that I was not going to get run over by cows, she said, ohhhh, they avoid stepping on ya. Yeahhhh righttttt. I don't go near rams, ewes with lambs, cattle and particularly mama cows without the right dog. God your catch on the sheep made me laugh. The things I've done to avoid having to start over.
> 
> T



HEY! :lol: I learned to enjoy the sight of my muddy, wet, sheep shit covered boots with the sky for a back ground8-[. Thunder took his gather very seriously and squeezed the sheep so tight around my legs it was amazing that I COULD get knocked down! :grin: :wink: 
Damn near broke my knee cap trying to "nudge" those wollies out of the way.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

rick smith said:


> i'll have to dust off my koehler book ,,, read it a long time ago when i was still on active duty, but have changed most of the ways i train since that time ....
> 
> re: "This may be what Koehler meant by a sense of responsibility. One of the basic tests he recommends is the owner taking the dog to a strange place, and seeing if when let loose the dog will stay around the handler. Another is leaving the dog's property open allowing the dog to leave, and seeing if it will choose to leave or stay. Obviously a good natural protector will choose to stay near in both cases."
> 
> ...


I think you'd have a hard time training and not doing something koehler mentioned in a book. The military leaned towards him a lot, in retrospect.

As far as drives go, I think there is prey and defense. everything else falls under social behaviors which is where the "pack drive" would fit. None of this matters with Koehler however. We all know he can train a dog, and wrote some books with sound ideas. I laughed a little when I got into some of the testing he applied (it's been a while since I read it, can't think of an example) and what he called it, but it all seemed very sound, and based on the principle of selecting a dog for the work, not trying to polish a shitter.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Sara Waters said:


> Selection pressure was and probably still is very high. These men knew how to breed good dogs, their lives and the dogs life could sometimes depend on it. These dogs were the tools of their trade and they all knew the good dogs.


Yes and part of that selection is selection for certain phenotypical character traits without compromise. Farmers have always been better about that. If you only bred dogs with certain traits, then the liklihood of offspring with those traits would increase. What you don't actively select for, you will lose. Some things aren't as given to early testing such as taking of responsibility. That is a term that I first became familiar with in guide dog selection. My life experiences with GSDs was that a sound GSD had this trait and you would first start seeing signs of it in the 6-9 month range. When I decided I wanted a working line dog, I thought if I could fine one healthy enough, I assumed it would have the typical GSD traits I was accustomed to. However, the more time I spent with sport protection people and reading this forum, I have come to believe that this type of character trait is on its way to being bred out because there is no selection for general character and to some extent there has been selection against. Selection is for drives and the ability to rely on trained/conditioned responses. I'm glad Will provided the description of his dog. It really lets you know the state of things and why people have certain frames of references and beliefs for that matter. Personally, I'd rather have the responsibility dog with analysis that will perform the trained responses. But that's me. BCs are actually more reflective of the trained response dog. They are selected for stock relationship traits and the only human involvement trait most care about is biddability. Generally temperament traits as they concern the environment and people are not considered or considered very little. For other breeds of herding dogs, instinctive character traits were part of the selection criteria. Here's where pedigree knowledge and use could help you. If I'm looking at a litter of dogs, I want to know about the sire/dam character traits. If the breeder can't tell me, I'm no longer interested. This is a huge part of why I don't own a GSD. I have owned and worked the type of dog that is more BC-like in terms of being in it for the control and they're ok but not my preference and I've limited the types of work I'll do with them. Early on GSDs were selected and tested for having certain character traits. Once the emphasis became heightened prey drive reactivity, I think other traits have been sacrificed. The closer you get to a dog like Will's and the breed is generally unrecognizable for what it was supposed to be in terms of character. 

My corgis have fallen into two camps: analysis and responsibility and expect/react. An old school corgi as my husband calls them carries an element of seriousness and responsibility. My male pup comes from a sire line of those dogs. He probably has another year of work before I'll know what he is made of. My female puppy I think of as more BC-ish--all prey drive and control for control. She will be useful in lots of different contexts but if I were a betting person, I'd say the male will be the one to watch out for me and assume responsibility. We'll see. 

T


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> The closer you get to a dog like Will's and the breed is generally unrecognizable for what it was supposed to be in terms of character. T


T, are you suggesting above that Will's dog doesn't or may not represent your expectations concerning character in a German Shepherd?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> Answer anything, please. Take a stand. Don't tell me what is wrong, tell me what is right. I can't imagine you as a motivaitonal-ish trainer with all the negative you are shooting at me. If I make a statement you don't like. Refute it. If you have a counter point, make it. Otherwise, let's go back to your last good idea for the two of us.....
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The problem is if I take a stand or disagree, you get sensitive. We've already run the gamut on herding dogs independently acting to protect their handers. If I respond, its to counter misinformation that I would hate for someone interested in stock dogs/herding to take as gospel. You'll create some hodgepodge of statements that the dog acted out of training unrelated to what occurred. Examples have been provided before and even in this thread. I don't think I have any issues with taking a stand but you will undoubtably start referring to me "shooting negativity," etc. Now you want to discuss stock dogs viewing threats when you previously congratulated Nicole on bringing the thread back on topic from herding. Seeing is believing. You need to go out with a dog and work stock and experience the dog/stock relationship. You need to have a situation occur outside of the dog's training or prior experience so that you can see that they aren't just the product of laboratory trained robotics. Then maybe you'll understand, if not accept, what has been said. 

First and foremost, protection dogs were selected from herding dogs because of utilization of the same traits and drives--threat perception is just one of those traits. For Dan and others, even if you look at herding dogs and motion, most herding dogs [not prey/chase dogs] are very job/purpose centered. Sara would probably say, and I agree, that I should qualify this by saying the good ones. If I left my corgi Rory alone with stock he was not going to spend his time moving them around--making motion, stopping motion, etc., just for the hell of it. As I watched him from a window, he would keep them in a certain place that he picked out. It became obvious that gates and the perimeter fence was a no, no. As long as the stock stayed in that area, he'd lay near a certain tree. If they started to graze, he'd move them back. Much to my disbelief from our training, he was a genetic tending dog. He was always on guard and taking care of what's mine. Corgis are not known for this. However, in their Welsh history, the saying goes that they kept their animals within their spot of the common ground and others out. I do know that with my GSDs and bouviers and this corgi, they obviously knew if I added a new animal. The day I called him a dwarf GSD was when he put himself between a ewe who from a distance was running a straight line toward my then toddler son, gripped her at the neck and when she turned, did not follow but held his ground between the flock and us. He ALWAYS assumed responsibility. Default for this type of dog is to move and hold stock toward his handler. I think the dog's level of pack drive can be related to this but that's not a hard and fast rule to me. I also distinguish between dogs bred for cattle vs. dogs breed for sheep work. Initially, the handler is their point of orientation for the gather/fetch dog. You will see this in the intiial instinct test. For instance when we tested Thunder [Bob's dog], he goes out and gathers the sheep and holds them to Bob who found out he didn't have any knee power. Some dogs in the intial instinct test will gather and hold them somewhere else--maybe in a corner or along a fence. Session 2, I typically have them gathering and holding to me. My first GSD Asta, gathered and held them to me. That same dog with no tracking training, led me to a trapped sheep in the dark at the end of 9 acres. For this type of dog it is against instinct for them to move stock away from the handler. That's generally a trained conditioned response within some dogs/breeds and within a very specific job context. Its really obvious when a stock dog has ceased herding and is guarding or doing something else---to a stock person. Anyone that works cattle, ewes with lambs, rams or just onery fight stock has a story of the day the stock decided they and/or the dog, shouldn't exist. Any herding dog can perceive a threat. Its hard wired in them. What they do about it is a different story. The confident responsibiity dog will read it and put himself between his handler and that threat and he will disobey a command to do it--same as the preferred guide dog. As Sara mentions regarding her BC, there is the control, disciplinarian type dog who will discipline unruly sheep who challenge HIS control or authority. There is a dominance hierarchy at play. However, that doesn't necessarily mean the dog is going to intervene regarding his handler. Its a fine line distinction.

There are plenty of herders who word dogs on the premise of the dog should only do what I tell you to do. There are plenty of dogs that wouldn't think of taking responsibility. We call them "mechanical" dogs. I was in New Mexico and a handler sent her dog for a flock of ducks. Handler becomes involved in a conversation. Dog went out o the outrun and started forward movement. Since the handler didn't tell the dog what to do, the dog stopped and the ducks scattered, some under cars, etc. The handler had to direct every paw step for the dog to get the stock and keep the stock from escaping. With the dog that I work, all I have to do is send it. It will deliver and hold until I tell them different. The dog would rather die than let his stock escape. Instinct/responsibility vs. trained response. So I would say, like with the PSDs, can you work a stock dog that doesn't perceive a threat to himself or his handler? Yes. But, would you want to? Some do. Some don't. 

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

rick smith said:


> i'll have to dust off my koehler book ,,, read it a long time ago when i was still on active duty, but have changed most of the ways i train since that time ....
> 
> re: "This may be what Koehler meant by a sense of responsibility. One of the basic tests he recommends is the owner taking the dog to a strange place, and seeing if when let loose the dog will stay around the handler. Another is leaving the dog's property open allowing the dog to leave, and seeing if it will choose to leave or stay. Obviously a good natural protector will choose to stay near in both cases."
> 
> ...


I don't have the book but Lynda does. Kohler was definitely about the instinctual dogs as was most people back then that had the guard breeds. You didn't train threat recognition or any of the other character traits. For those interested in testing for guard character, Kohler had his own testing scheme. Territoriality and not leaving the property/person was just one of them from what I remember. You certainly can't guard it if you leave it. One of the reasons LGD people don't want heighened prey drive because the dogs won't stay with the guard object if he's more triggered by prey drive. I've had people say they didn't like GSDs because they are always "there." A handler was describing his dog that I like to watch in bite work. This dog had an obvious hardness and certainly the prey and fight you like to see for bitework. Basically though the dog didn't have territorial guard in terms of his house, yard, or car. My bouv is high in prey [for a bouv]. Territoriality is LOW. However, she does have a sense of guarding me against what she perceives as a threat which is her saving grace. She also has stock sense. I've often asked on this board if others have observed whether they see less territoriality/guard in dogs with heightened prey. This is something that is especially interesting to me as people discuss civil/serious vs. prey/equipment focused.

T


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I've often asked on this board if others have observed whether they see less territoriality/guard in dogs with heightened prey. This is something that is especially interesting to me as people discuss civil/serious vs. prey/equipment focused.
> 
> T


This is an interesting question that might generate the right type of interest via a separate thread. I've noticed that if you change the topic in a thread that a number of participants have already decided to check out on then the new topics quickly get overlooked.

On another note, about getting the thread back on track, I speculate that Dave was merely making light of a situation that is a bit of a pet peeve with me (thread derailment). It's one thing to see that happen once you know it's run it's course where casual dialogue takes over. It's another to have multiple off topic or fringe discussions inserted into a still active topic. 

Following this one, it's clear that the original participants said what they had to say and have no longer are offering further contributions. Since Tim clarified that he has been able to draw some conclusions from the feedback he received it appears to me that while this threats in herding still crosses back into the original topic thus Dave is simply attempting to invite further dialogue.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> There are plenty of herders who word dogs on the premise of the dog should only do what I tell you to do. There are plenty of dogs that wouldn't think of taking responsibility. We call them "mechanical" dogs. I was in New Mexico and a handler sent her dog for a flock of ducks. Handler becomes involved in a conversation. Dog went out o the outrun and started forward movement. Since the handler didn't tell the dog what to do, the dog stopped and the ducks scattered, some under cars, etc. The handler had to direct every paw step for the dog to get the stock and keep the stock from escaping. With the dog that I work, all I have to do is send it. It will deliver and hold until I tell them different. The dog would rather die than let his stock escape. Instinct/responsibility vs. trained response. So I would say, like with the PSDs, can you work a stock dog that doesn't perceive a threat to himself or his handler? Yes. But, would you want to? Some do. Some don't.
> 
> T


Can you explain in a sentence or two what you think "responsibility" is in a dog? 

Sounds like the dog in New Mexico was pretty well trained for the handler to be able to direct every paw step. Impressive what training can do. Just out of curiosity. was the handler tallking to you they lost control?

It's good that you select for dogs that can work on their own, while you talk, I think. I want to do the least amount of work as well, when I work a dog. I think the best way this translates for me, is in a dogs hunting. Once turned on, it hunts for quite some time with little input from me. While you can find the hunt readily availble in a lot of dogs, it still requires training to get them to hunt where you need them and for what as hunting cars and houses is not what they are genetically predisposed to do. Probably a big difference beteen herding and police work, is that herders herd naturally in an area that is natural, and we are asking police dogs to do very unnatural tasks in very unnatural areas. 

I don't know if I am reading you correctly, but it seems like you turn your nose up at the idea of conditioned responses vs. genetics in dogs. Police dogs although having drive, won't complete most tasks needed without training, whereas it seems your opinion is that a herding dog should do it all on his own, by reading the situation.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> Can you explain in a sentence or two what you think "responsibility" is in a dog?
> 
> Sounds like the dog in New Mexico was pretty well trained for the handler to be able to direct every paw step. Impressive what training can do. Just out of curiosity. was the handler tallking to you they lost control?
> 
> ...


No, she wasn't talking to me and I'm not looking for a dog that can just work on his own when I talk. Nor is it about a dog that does it ALL on his own without handler input. If I send a dog for out of sight stock, I can't give him paw step directions as to locating them and getting them to me. If I'm worming, vaccinating, etc. and he's set up on a hold, I can't deal with said animal and give the dog paw step directions. If my back is turned to some head of stock and the stock is going to screw up the situation, the dog will see and take care of it. As Mary Alice Theriot says, "the handler is always a day late and a dollar short." The responsibility dog doesn't need paw step directions. When he sees a problem he will solve it. Will asked "what if the dog decides wrong?" With a partner dog, that has been rare or non-existent for me. Maggie mentioned using her dog to guage people. My mother used to say, "if the dog doesn't like them, get rid of them." If my dog alerts on a person, I know they bear watching. If I alert on a person, the dog will watch them. Dan and Sara both indicate that type of trait. What does a dog do when his handler indicates that someone makes them uncomfortable? I actually ran into this with Bob's dog. Someone made me uncomfortable rushing into my space and the dog was springing forward towards him as I was feeling myself tense inside. The guy read the dog and stopped as Bob was saying "platz." As the guy was telling Bob he used to have a serious dog like that who had bitten several people, I was still amazed that I had triggered Bob's dog. Thunder watched every move that guy made towards anyone for the rest of the day. I have seen Thunder in all sorts of situations--crowds, people, dogs, you name it and never seen him react to anyone. Bob had put him on a down stay next to me, which instinct triggered [over me], he was going to break. That is something in and of itself. Was Thunder wrong? For me, no. Did he have any prior experience and training with me in this context? No. And I can't remember the last time someone made me uncomfortable coming towards me. Had I not reacted to the guy the way I did, I'd bet everything he would have ignored him just like he does everyone else.

And no, you are reading me incorrectly. All of my herding dogs have trained responses, most, if not all of which are marker trained. I've had dogs like Thunder. I know how their instincts work and I train to have control over them. Work with a mechanical herding dog is limited and you had better be 100% right. A very well known trainer/handler known for her relentless obedience in her herding dogs was trialing her GSD on cattle. In a very bad spot, she gave a command for the dog to hold. If asked I'm sure most of us would have said she is incapable of a bad call. The dog got nailed pretty hard by the cow and was injured. She was pretty shaken up and came up to me and said, "Terrasita, I nearly got him killed." That's the price you pay for the mechanical dog. If I'm working a seasoned dog and he disobeys a command, I'm going to take another look. As Sara indicated earlier regarding the directionals, I have no sense of direction and my dogs know it. Its not unusual for me to give the wrong command. The dogs will ignore it or hesitate which makes me look at it again. As for natural vs. unnatural. Once upon a time before the popularity of prey and drives for training, dogs with protection instinct and analysis were used by the military and law enforcment. Just because you appreciate instinct doesn't mean that you don't utilize trained responses. 

T


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> Can you explain in a sentence or two what you think "responsibility" is in a dog?
> 
> Sounds like the dog in New Mexico was pretty well trained for the handler to be able to direct every paw step. Impressive what training can do. Just out of curiosity. was the handler tallking to you they lost control?
> 
> .


A dog like that would be a complete liability in a real working situation. As I have said a really good dog has to be able to work independently, out of sight of its owner on occassions.. 

If you are mustering from horseback in large paddocks filled with gullies and steep slopes you need a dog that has the natural ability to keep recasting out of your sight until it has gathered up and extracted pockets of stock and put them together. A dog has a combination of its natural ability (instincts), its training, experience, intelligence and its ability to problem solve to do this. 

Tully Williams describes a scenario in his book about trying out a young dog that didnt belong to him, in an unfamiliar paddock, it took off and gathered up his flock out of Tullys sight and had to negotiate a river crossing. There was only one spot in a number of kilometres of river where this was remotely possible, but by looking at the river you wouldnt have know where it was. When Tully went off to see what was happening the dog had found this spot and bought the sheep to that point.

A good dog has the responsibility to make good decisions when it is working otherwise they can cause more problems than they are worth. A sheep dog with poor natural ability is a liability. I have seen them and they can cause chaos. My belief is that a top sheepdog is born and a top handler can bring out the full potential. I am an inexperienced sheepdog trainer who is fortunate enough to have quite a good dog and I thank genetics for delivering me a dog that gets the job done despite his handler. Training counts for a lot but will only take you so far. Under pressure the true worth of a dog will usually surface as I have discovered.

Untill I started working dogs on sheep myself and heavily relying on them I think it is very hard to understand how important good natural ability and the ability to be able to trust a dog to make the right choices (assume responsibility in the eyes of the handler) is. Good dogs pay for their keep big time which is why big livestock enterprises will pay top dollar for good dogs.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Sara Waters said:


> Tully Williams describes a scenario in his book about trying out a young dog that didnt belong to him, in an unfamiliar paddock, it took off and gathered up his flock out of Tullys sight and had to negotiate a river crossing. There was only one spot in a number of kilometres of river where this was remotely possible, but by looking at the river you wouldnt have know where it was. When Tully went off to see what was happening the dog had found this spot and bought the sheep to that point.


I understand it was a new dog, but.....

Had the sheep done this crossing before??


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Was Bob's dog Thunder trained at all?




Terrasita Cuffie said:


> All of my herding dogs have trained responses, most, if not all of which are marker trained.
> 
> If I'm working a seasoned dog and he disobeys a command, I'm going to take another look.
> T


 
So if he disobeys you, it's instinct and not a lack of training....Sounds like the dog is just using his genetics and doing what he wants....

What you are describing is a partially trained dog at best.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I actually ran into this with Bob's dog. Someone made me uncomfortable rushing into my space and the dog was springing forward towards him as I was feeling myself tense inside. The guy read the dog and stopped as Bob was saying "platz." I was still amazed that I had triggered Bob's dog. Thunder watched every move that guy made towards anyone for the rest of the day.
> 
> T





Bob Scott said:


> It's just talking someone into getting close enough to make sure it's just not all barrier aggression. :twisted:
> Outside of family your one of the few that can actually open the car door when I'm not around........and that took him being convinced you would let him play with the ducks, goats and other smelly farm critters.
> Other then me your about the only one he gets *happily *excited about when you get near "his" car :lol:


Sounds like Terrasita almost got someone close enough to find out....

Seems like this is normal bevahior for thunder. Was he on leash? Or was the obedience command his barrier or cue...You think it's magic when a dog generalizes something it was already taught or knows. It's not. If I can find this out about bobs dog Thunder and pretty certainly explain his behavior, how much of the other things that you have "seen" are not what you think you saw. You get my point?

Teach a dog to find dope in one building, and in your world it's amazing when it does it in a second building or on a vehicle or a building exterior. In reality, that is how dogs work, Terrasita they generalize to get what they want. This is probably why you think your dogs are so intuitive. You train it in one context and they apply it in a similar, but different context...

just like bob's dog did....

This shows an important flaw with your training, or at least a need to change your thinking before you EVER handle a dog that bites...Bob knew it was coming, that's why he was ready with a "platz". Dogs move way faster than we do, he couldn't have been a step behind. He stays one step ahead. If Mary Alice Theriot were there, she would have missed the platz and the guy would have gotten bitten because "the handler is always a day late and a dollar short." in your world.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> I understand it was a new dog, but.....
> 
> Had the sheep done this crossing before??


I cant answer that question. I will make the assumption that the crossing had been used by the sheep before, but not by the dog.

I wont repeat the whole story word for word but given the terrain and the weather conditions it is very unlikely that the 400 sheep would have gravitated there of their own accord. The creek was too swollen with water for the dog to put them across on his own and Tully sat and watched him for awhile to see what he would do. Everytime the sheep tried to move away from the area he would put them back to that spot. The sheep didnt want to be there and the dog was working to keep them there. Eventually Tully took his team of other dogs and helped this dog put them over.

He talks about one of his best mustering dogs Georgie that he could send off in to rough paddocks with hills and creeks and a metre of grass to further limit her vision. He could send her from any point and within maybe 20 minutes she would have picked up every sheep, put them together and bought them back to him, without him ever uttering a word. He says in similar situations he has lost lesser dogs and spent hours looking for them.

My own sheep know their way around my paddocks but it takes the force and saviness of my dogs to get them up to the yards. They will take every opportunity to make bolt for it and try and not go through gates. Sheep arent stupid, they will take opportunities to try and outsmart the dogs and get away if they can. 

I think you really need to get out and work a good dog in a difficult situation to appreciate this.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Sara Waters said:


> I cant answer that question. I will make the assumption that the crossing had been used by the sheep before, but not by the dog.
> 
> I wont repeat the whole story word for word but given the terrain and the weather conditions it is very unlikely that the 400 sheep would have gravitated there of their own accord. The creek was too swollen with water for the dog to put them across on his own and Tully sat and watched him for awhile to see what he would do. Everytime the sheep tried to move away from the area he would put them back to that spot. The sheep didnt want to be there and the dog was working to keep them there. Eventually Tully took his team of other dogs and helped this dog put them over.
> 
> ...


So Tully was sitting and watching. Where from? How did the dog know to bring them accross at all? Was he sitting accross the river watching. Dog bringing them to him out of habbit?


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> Was Bob's dog Thunder trained at all?
> 
> So if he disobeys you, it's instinct and not a lack of training....Sounds like the dog is just using his genetics and doing what he wants....
> 
> What you are describing is a partially trained dog at best.


Not really. Even the best stockman have found it wise to pay attention to their dogs. What you instill in a good sheepdog is a sense of purpose. This takes training skill and is key to a good sheepdog, but the dog has to have the initial ability. Good genetics is there for a reason. Last thing you want to do is quash it. You need to nurture and harness it and attach purpose to it, not overide it

A dog can often read a situation quicker than a person who maybe preoccupied with everything else that is going on when moving larege mobs of livestock. Added to that there are often multiple dogs working with one person.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> So Tully was sitting and watching. Where from? How did the dog know to bring them accross at all? Was he sitting accross the river watching. Dog bringing them to him out of habbit?


A dog brings the sheep to his handler or in this case to a gate. The dog would have already have sussed the gates out, given that particular dog had a propensity to bring stock to gates and was where he was heading with the sheep. This is purpose. Tully had seen him from a vantage point on the otherside of the crossing, interested in watching and assessing the dogs ability and purpose.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Sara Waters said:


> Not really. Even the best stockman have found it wise to pay attention to their dogs. What you instill in a good sheepdog is a sense of purpose. This takes *training *skill and is key to a good sheepdog, but the dog has to have the initial ability. Good genetics is there for a reason. Last thing you want to do is quash it. You need to nurture and harness it and attach purpose to it, not overide it


This is exactly what we do with police dogs. Take what is there genetically, train it further and harness it! All the while not quashing it.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Sara Waters said:


> A dog brings the sheep to his handler or in this case to a gate. The dog would have already have sussed the gates out, given that particular dog had a propensity to bring stock to gates and was where he was heading with the sheep. This is purpose. Tully had seen him from a vantage point on the otherside of the crossing, interested in watching and assessing the dogs ability and purpose.


 
My thought was he had brought the dogs to the rancher before, even thought it was not this rancher, a man on a horse. But his target was a gate. So he headed the sheep to the gate and there was a stream as an obstacle. I guess I am not picturing how big this is or how you start the dog conveying where you want the sheep brought. Sussing?? But the idea is you have a dog, sheep that need gathered and brought, and you have a target? Is that correct for this situation?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> Sounds like Terrasita almost got someone close enough to find out....
> 
> Seems like this is normal bevahior for thunder. Was he on leash? Or was the obedience command his barrier or cue...You think it's magic when a dog generalizes something it was already taught or knows. It's not. If I can find this out about bobs dog Thunder and pretty certainly explain his behavior, how much of the other things that you have "seen" are not what you think you saw. You get my point?
> 
> ...


I'll let Bob respond about what he "knew." Bob was behind the dog. I was beside the dog. Neither of us expected it. We both responded as it was happening. No, I doubt its "normal" behavior for Thunder, especially in relationship to me. I won't spin the keyboard on how the relationship developed between me and this dog and I'll never believe what you think in terms of his training and generalization. I know the difference between trained response vs. intuitive and you have an inherent bias against anything intuitive. Once again, I've handled dogs that bite--since I was a kid. I would have probably been a little more aware if it had been my own because I know how I can trigger them regarding how I feel or respond to someone.

T


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> My thought was he had brought the dogs to the rancher before, even thought it was not this rancher, a man on a horse. But his target was a gate. So he headed the sheep to the gate and there was a stream as an obstacle. I guess I am not picturing how big this is or how you start the dog conveying where you want the sheep brought. Sussing?? But the idea is you have a dog, sheep that need gathered and brought, and you have a target? Is that correct for this situation?


 
Yes a welll trained dog with the right natural ability will do this most likely in lieu of commands. Its training and instincts coming into their own and probably being the dominant feature at play. The dog had to find a path though in its effort to do what it was driven by instinct and training to do. I have watched my dogs pick their way through rough terrain, their natural sharp senses and skills of observation are probably at play here
and some dogs are better than others. I dont think that the dog was reasoning as we do, it was processing what it was seeing, combined with its training and natural abiliy would be my guess. Some dogs are just much better at putting it together and coming up with something useful.

Sussing in Aussie means to scope out the paddock, so the dog had already scoped the paddock out for a gate I would say in keeping with his training and experience. There is no doubt that training combined with natural ability/instinct play a major role in the dogs ability to put everything together successfully when not under direct control of its owner. Good intelligence is probaly the icing on the cake, but is not particularly useful with out the natural instinct.

Getting back to where this all started it doesnt surprise me that dogs have a natural instinct or ability to recognise and process and then react to certain situations without training. I would think it is a survival mechanism. People then turn this into something useful by selecting for certain traits and combining this with training. 

I know with one of my dogs the way she reacted to a threat to her or me seemed part of the way she was built. She was a dog that rarely left my side except on walks where she liked to place herself deliberately slightly ahead of me and she was always alert to her environment and what was going on around her, but calm and assessing as well, but very intense. I think a lot of it was a combination of instinct and intelligence and a deep bond with me. She was an interesting dog and I felt safer with her in remote situations than any other dog I ever owned. It would have been interesting to see what she could have been with good training.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> Was Bob's dog Thunder trained at all?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bob's dog is trained in a lot of things--SAR, Sch III, CDX, herding. I've seen here where Bob questioned whether Thunder would bite outside of the trained Sch context. I know he will if he is intinct triggered. Its a dog that understands the overall purpose, not a partially trained dog. What I describe is a dog that has an understanding of what the big picture is and can read a situation. Above all, he knows me. But for you and others that believe in blind obedience, he's disobedient or partially trained. That's fine for you and how you work and relate to your dogs. That's not how I relate to mine. I rely on my dog to read a situation and tell me what's in the stock mentality-wise.

T


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I'll let Bob respond about what he "knew." Bob was behind the dog. I was beside the dog. Neither of us expected it. We both responded as it was happening. No, I doubt its "normal" behavior for Thunder, especially in relationship to me. I won't spin the keyboard on how the relationship developed between me and this dog and I'll never believe what you think in terms of his training and generalization. I know the difference between trained response vs. intuitive and you have an inherent bias against anything intuitive. Once again, I've handled dogs that bite--since I was a kid. I would have probably been a little more aware if it had been my own because I know how I can trigger them regarding how I feel or respond to someone.
> 
> T


Terrasita. Bobs dog is trained in sch and a person comes at you quickly and you are surprised when he lunges. Thats all i needed to hear. My thought that you dont understand what you see has been confirmed yet again.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dave Colborn said:


> Terrasita. Bobs dog is trained in sch and a person comes at you quickly and you are surprised when he lunges. Thats all i needed to hear. My thought that you dont understand what you see has been confirmed yet again.


I'm glad you think all trained Sch dogs respond this way in situations that don't involve any of the Sch context. Here's another one for you. Having seen the dog trained in the Sch context, I believe that his bite work training is a trained response game based on drives and is limited to that context. It had nothing to do with what was going on that day. He was demonstrating his character, not his Sch training. That dog had been around many people that came towards me and Bob quickly. This is what you don't get. There have been countless times of him laying, sitting, standing with people moving towards us and around us. He's not reactive around people or to people and motion. Mostly he is attentive to and interacting with Bob at all times and pretty much ignores all else. The DIFFERENCE was what he read in me about the guy. For the rest of the day if that guy moved toward someone else, Thunder alerted on him. He had little if nothing to do with Sandra, ever. When the guy walked toward Sandra and reached for her over the fence, Thunder responded again. It was the reaching toward her that triggered him. I lived with several GSDs and a bouvier that were not bite work trained that would have responded the same way. It is not a function of bite work training. Watching Thunder in his Sch work, I asked Bob could I test him in herding. He obviously had intelligence and analysis. He is NOT an expect/react/prior experience dog. Dan Bowman mentions "judgement." This is the dog that has it. Herding involves pressure. If you are working with either of Bob's dogs, you don't screw up in the pressure department or if you frustrate them in drive or in Thunder's case, put him in fight. Early on Sandra was watching me work with him and Bob and asked me why wasn't I afraid of getting bit. My response was #1) I can read him. #2) He is clear as a bell on where those boundaries are and he gauges. As our relationship developed, he didn't care what I did. Actually the one that is less forgiving is Mr. Dark Side, Trooper. And as for that last sentence, I feel the same way about you which is why these little exchanges are pointless. 

T


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Where I was living once and where I described my dog jumping into the chest of a guy that grabbed me, there was a short spate of these sorts of groping incidences againest women walking on the local beaches as there was an extensive area of sand dunes that provided good cover. 

Likely the perpertrator was the same guy as we all gave similar descriptions to the police. One of the women was walking her Rottie early in the morning when we think the same guy approached her. The rottie who I knew well as a mild mannered, good natured dog chased him off into the dunes when he started to get pushy. This was a behaviour also observerd by a witness standing high in the sand dunes overlooking the beach and the incident was reported to the police.

Most women walked on these slightly lonely beaches with dogs and I found it rather interesting that the pervert would approach women with dogs like rotties or in my case a cattle dog. I guess the dogs seemed civil to begin with but when things got a bit personal with their owners the dogs reacted appropriately. These dogs were not trained protection dogs. The spate of gropings passed and no one was the wiser about who it was. Probably an itinerant person passing through. But mine wasnt the only pet dog that intervened.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

[/QUOTE]


Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I'm glad you think all trained Sch dogs respond this way in situations that don't involve any of the Sch context.


Bob's dog is protective in the car + schutzhund training = a REASONABLE person believing that a dog would lunge or bite in that situation. Never said all dogs, Terrasita. But while we are at it, doesn't the dog down in a Sch routine? Isn't it believable that the dog would down outside of a schutzhund routine? Of course. So why is it so hard for someone of your touted training ability to believe that a dog actually learned what it was trained as far as biting? As far as no schutzhund context, that doesn't matter, although you had a handler, a dog, a field and a courage test. What kind of training is what matters. Dog sees something similar and responds. Even more so if he is a little defensive (which you suggest he is below by mentioning his "fight") and is in a new situation. Uncomfortable even. perceiving threat more easily.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Having seen the dog trained in the Sch context, I believe that his bite work training is a trained response game based on drives and is limited to that context.


You believe, having seen. That says it all. You have no credibility as described by yourself being surprised that a dog trained to bite a man coming at him, might actually do it. But, what was so different in the context (where he supports my argument and almost bites) other than no sleeve, scratch pants or padded stick?



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> It had nothing to do with what was going on that day.


You were there, the dog was there, the guy was there, bob was there. Had everything to do with that day.....



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> He was demonstrating his character, not his Sch training.


Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhahahahahahahahahaha. What? How can a situation be the same as training, and you THINK training isn't the cause of the dogs reaction.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> That dog had been around many people that came towards me and Bob quickly. This is what you don't get. There have been countless times of him laying, sitting, standing with people moving towards us and around us.


Oh, I get it. You missed what the guy did. Almost guaranteed since you didn't see it. THe thing is, bob saw it, or the guy would have gotten bit. Poeples minds and actions move faster than others. Its amazing to see a human with top end genetics operate. They look, well, intuitive, when they actually just read things faster than us. Watch patrick Jane on The Mentalists. Obviously a fictional character, but based on what real carnies and cons can do.

I have worked with guys that can physically react faster than me. Make me look stationary. Training and genetics. 



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> He's not reactive around people or to people and motion.


Obviously he is reactive to people. If we believed your assesment, he was reactin to YOU. Although I am pretty sure it was the Sch helper out front causing the commotion.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Mostly he is attentive to and interacting with Bob at all times and pretty much ignores all else.


Mostly. Pretty much. Till the unknowing Sch decoy shows up.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> The DIFFERENCE was what he read in me about the guy.


Ok. so he read you, but isn't reactive to people??? Explain that.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> For the rest of the day if that guy moved toward someone else, Thunder alerted on him.


Dogs will do this in a training context. See a decoy and stick with him. Sounds like bobs dog is no different.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> He had little if nothing to do with Sandra, ever.


No reaction?



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> When the guy walked toward Sandra and reached for her over the fence, Thunder responded again.


Fence? Was this the same context? the dog had a barrier?



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> It was the reaching toward her that triggered him.


Ok. so now the reaching triggered it, but the dog doesn't read people?



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I lived with several GSDs and a bouvier that were not bite work trained that would have responded the same way.


You hope or guess. but in reality, with your assesment of a trained dog.......



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> It is not a function of bite work training.


No. It is a function of training placed with good genetics.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Watching Thunder in his Sch work, I asked Bob could I test him in herding.


THis I believe...



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> He obviously had intelligence and analysis. He is NOT an expect/react/prior experience dog.


Of course he is expect/react/prior experience dog. Training motivationally, that's how he operates. His genetics coupled with bobs good training, make him seem magical to you. That's your perception, not the dogs..They generalize, Terrasita.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Dan Bowman mentions "judgement." This is the dog that has it.


Fight your own battle. Don't draw other people into your crazy point of view. Let them argue themselves. Dan has already bowed out for my poor debating skills which is a shame...




Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Early on Sandra was watching me work with him and Bob and asked me why wasn't I afraid of getting bit. My response was #1) I can read him. #2) He is clear as a bell on where those boundaries are and he gauges.


Ok. so a dog that the owner, Bob, an experience trainer had some concern of you getting bit (or he wouldn't have asked) is remarkable for lunging at a person when next to you.



Terrasita Cuffie said:


> As our relationship developed, he didn't care what I did. Actually the one that is less forgiving is Mr. Dark Side, Trooper. And as for that last sentence, I feel the same way about you which is why these little exchanges are pointless


.

Well, then do what you said you were going to do and stop answering. I feel I am providing a service showing people what misconceptions can lead to.


----------



## Dan Bowman (Nov 8, 2012)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I'm glad you think all trained Sch dogs respond this way in situations that don't involve any of the Sch context.


This is the most common misconception about protection dog sports and protection work, and demonstrates someone's level of understanding of protection work. The way the vast majority of people approach SCH training that I've seen, it's not only strictly equipment oriented but also purely situational. If one of these dogs would protect in real life, it will be in spite of the training not because of it. The training is situation specific. If there's one thing a dog is not capable of doing is carrying it over to another situation that's completely removed, it's just too far a reach for a dog relying on certain conditioned triggers. Again, if it did react in a protective way it's due to his inherent abilities and disposition. As a result of this training it's more likely to to chase after a kid running and waving his arms in the park than protect against a real threat. The dynamics of a developing situation where the handler may be at risk are completely different.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Dan Bowman said:


> This is the most common misconception about protection dog sports and protection work, and demonstrates someone's level of understanding of protection work. The way the vast majority of people approach SCH training that I've seen, it's not only strictly equipment oriented but also purely situational. If one of these dogs would protect in real life, it will be in spite of the training not because of it. The training is situation specific. If there's one thing a dog is not capable of doing is carrying it over to another situation that's completely removed, it's just too far a reach for a dog relying on certain conditioned triggers. Again, if it did react in a protective way it's due to his inherent abilities and disposition. As a result of this training it's more likely to to chase after a kid running and waving his arms in the park than protect against a real threat. The dynamics of a developing situation where the handler may be at risk are completely different.


,


A* trained* schutzhund dog having a background of being* territorial* gets approached in a rapid fashion, *simliar to training* (and to this point, we don't know how Bob trains, do we) *and what he'd* *seen in a trial*, lunges at someone. Do you think if this dog was only taught obedience vs. to bite in any context, he'd be more or less likely to lunge?

You can encourage or discourage the genetics, of course....you just have to open your eyes and acknowledge what you see...


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> Sounds like Terrasita almost got someone close enough to find out....
> 
> Seems like this is normal bevahior for thunder. Was he on leash? Or was the obedience command his barrier or cue...You think it's magic when a dog generalizes something it was already taught or knows. It's not. If I can find this out about bobs dog Thunder and pretty certainly explain his behavior, how much of the other things that you have "seen" are not what you think you saw. You get my point?
> 
> ...



Thunder was off lead and I had my back to the situation with T on the other side of the picnic bench. I heard the guy yelling and comming towards us but didn't give a thought to it until Thunder broke his "Platz". His platz is one of his most solid commands. He's never broke it in competition and maybe 2-3 times in his life. 
I expect a lot out of my dogs so my command was simply surprise and reaction. I've done the same with him when he took off after a barn cat that slapped his nose for no reason other then it walked across his path and he sniffed at it. My reactions are still pretty quick.......for an old fart. :wink:


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Dave, I can only say that having been involved with some form of dog training since the 50s and rarely having less then 2-3-4 dogs at a time, Thunder is far and away the very best dog I've ever had. That doesn't just go for training but for his character. If Von Stef wrote another book about the nature of a good GSD then Thunder would be a great subject for that writing. Yep! I'm bragging! 
I believe you are a top level trainer. Far more bite training work then I have but we have differences on how and why a dog reacts. That's natural for any two people discussing dog training. Doesn't necessarily mean either one of us is right or wrong other then in our own minds. We seem to both have a fair amount of luck/good fortune with the dogs we've had or have.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> ,
> 
> 
> A* trained* schutzhund dog having a background of being* territorial* gets approached in a rapid fashion, *simliar to training* (and to this point, we don't know how Bob trains, do we) *and what he'd* *seen in a trial*, lunges at someone. Do you think if this dog was only taught obedience vs. to bite in any context, he'd be more or less likely to lunge?
> ...



My training with Thunder has been all OC and motivational marker training. He's never been physically corrected. Never wore a choke, pinch or e-collar. Flat leather or fur saver on a dead link only!


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Bob Scott said:


> My training with Thunder has been all OC and motivational marker training. He's never been physically corrected. Never wore a choke, pinch or e-collar. Flat leather or fur saver on a dead link only!


I hear you Bob, and I agree with your previous statement about dog training and opinions. I will disagree with you one thing or another I am sure, but I would take a dog to you to get help titling in IPO way before I'd give advice myself. I have to be realistic about what I know, just like you. We both know what we know. I am sure if we sat in your living room over coffee, or on a training field, I would learn a great deal about dogs that I didn't in a short amount of time.


That being said. To me there is a clear link between your dog loading on a helper on the field and biting in Schutzhund and in TRAINING for schutzhund, and a dog loading on an individual in a similar situation where the context is similar. It's why we train dogs. To react in a manner for real that is similar to training. We all know IPO isn't the end to training, but from experience, starting dogs on a sleeve and moving them to a hidden sleeve, suit, or whatever, that they do learn context. It's why we train like we fight.



Dogs territorial in a car or behind barriers can and will do the same things under the confines of obedience. In fact, a dog trained like yours, is accustomed to getting a reward on a variable schedule for performing obedience. Had you ever given him a bite for holding a down, or heeling, or sitting next to you, or any kind of obedience that would prompt a bite on a variable reward?? Is it likely that he saw the helper running towards him talking loudly as a club/trial helper with no equipment? Ever done any drills to work on the dog being civil?

This all seems elemental to me, and not a bad dog, just one of those things that happens sometimes, requiring you to keep your wits about you when you have a protection dog. Any kind of protection dog meaning: (schutzhund or some other sport[where we can confirm a dog bites a sleeve for real at least] vs. whatever training Terrasita actually thinks that makes her dogs bite without even biting a sleeve to indicate that it would bite other than her "knowing it")


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Bob's dog is protective in the car + schutzhund training = a REASONABLE person believing that a dog would lunge or bite in that situation. Never said all dogs, Terrasita. But while we are at it, doesn't the dog down in a Sch routine? Isn't it believable that the dog would down outside of a schutzhund routine? Of course. So why is it so hard for someone of your touted training ability to believe that a dog actually learned what it was trained as far as biting? As far as no schutzhund context, that doesn't matter, although you had a handler, a dog, a field and a courage test. What kind of training is what matters. Dog sees something similar and responds. Even more so if he is a little defensive (which you suggest he is below by mentioning his "fight") and is in a new situation. Uncomfortable even. perceiving threat more easily.



You believe, having seen. That says it all. You have no credibility as described by yourself being surprised that a dog trained to bite a man coming at him, might actually do it. But, what was so different in the context (where he supports my argument and almost bites) other than no sleeve, scratch pants or padded stick?



You were there, the dog was there, the guy was there, bob was there. Had everything to do with that day.....



Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhahahahahahahahahaha. What? How can a situation be the same as training, and you THINK training isn't the cause of the dogs reaction.



Oh, I get it. You missed what the guy did. Almost guaranteed since you didn't see it. THe thing is, bob saw it, or the guy would have gotten bit. Poeples minds and actions move faster than others. Its amazing to see a human with top end genetics operate. They look, well, intuitive, when they actually just read things faster than us. Watch patrick Jane on The Mentalists. Obviously a fictional character, but based on what real carnies and cons can do.

I have worked with guys that can physically react faster than me. Make me look stationary. Training and genetics. 



Obviously he is reactive to people. If we believed your assesment, he was reactin to YOU. Although I am pretty sure it was the Sch helper out front causing the commotion.



Mostly. Pretty much. Till the unknowing Sch decoy shows up.



Ok. so he read you, but isn't reactive to people??? Explain that.



Dogs will do this in a training context. See a decoy and stick with him. Sounds like bobs dog is no different.



No reaction?



Fence? Was this the same context? the dog had a barrier?



Ok. so now the reaching triggered it, but the dog doesn't read people?



You hope or guess. but in reality, with your assesment of a trained dog.......



No. It is a function of training placed with good genetics.



THis I believe...



Of course he is expect/react/prior experience dog. Training motivationally, that's how he operates. His genetics coupled with bobs good training, make him seem magical to you. That's your perception, not the dogs..They generalize, Terrasita.



Fight your own battle. Don't draw other people into your crazy point of view. Let them argue themselves. Dan has already bowed out for my poor debating skills which is a shame...




Ok. so a dog that the owner, Bob, an experience trainer had some concern of you getting bit (or he wouldn't have asked) is remarkable for lunging at a person when next to you.

.

Well, then do what you said you were going to do and stop answering. I feel I am providing a service showing people what misconceptions can lead to.[/QUOTE]

You are providing a service. Lets me know just how deep you need to dig beyond the surface in talking to trainers before you solicit their opinion regarding a dog. I would have never dreamed someone processes information in the manner that you do. I don't draw anyone into my crazy point of view. Dan isn't bowing out because of your debating skills, he's bowing out because its not worth it. You can't believe that this board isn't composed of individuals who have the ability to have an opinion without being drawn in????? You do think that little of anyone that disagrees with you don't you. You ca't turn people into lab rats anymore than you can dogs. They have an ability to think and respond beyond what you purport to put there and control them with. You have this competitive win thing going on when its not a win/lose situation. You will die with your beliefs and really at the end of the day, no one really cares that much. You believe what you believe and you're entitled to it. Some of your statements don't even make sense. You think marker training makes that dog a lab rat and he will generalize? With marker work there is the MARKER/RELEASE. You know nothing about that dog and have never interacted with him yet you want to tell two of the people who have trained him what motivates his actions. There's no win/lose debate with you for me. I'm sure with a certain type of dog, you can train all the conditioned responses in the world. If that's all you see in a dog--groovy. But to the extent that you want to expound on herding and your statement that you can attribute most if not all actions of a dog to some sort of trained response, you're just dead wrong. All that means is that I would disregard what you say. I perfectly understand the type of dog Will describes and how he handles him but all dogs don't share that same mental capacity. The people that disagree with you will continue to do so and move on to other topics worth participating in. Great if that gives you some chest pounding thrill and you think this is some sort of boxing match where there is some referee declaring you the winner. If you are in the ring along, I guess you do win.

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> If Von Stef wrote another book about the nature of a good GSD then Thunder would be a great subject for that writing.


Yep, he could be one of the poster dogs, for sure. Hated to "draw you in" but since Ingrid and Thor have been dead for a number of years, when I think ideal character these days, I think Thunder. Khira is close but Thunder has it across every category.

T


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Yep, he could be one of the poster dogs, for sure. Hated to "draw you in" but since Ingrid and Thor have been dead for a number of years, when I think ideal character these days, I think Thunder. Khira is close but Thunder has it across every category.
> T


Is Khira the same dog that would not play tug with you a few years ago?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> Is Khira the same dog that would not play tug with you a few years ago?


 
Yes.

T


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> You are providing a service. Lets me know just how deep you need to dig beyond the surface in talking to trainers before you solicit their opinion regarding a dog. I would have never dreamed someone processes information in the manner that you do. I don't draw anyone into my crazy point of view. Dan isn't bowing out because of your debating skills, he's bowing out because its not worth it. You can't believe that this board isn't composed of individuals who have the ability to have an opinion without being drawn in????? You do think that little of anyone that disagrees with you don't you. You ca't turn people into lab rats anymore than you can dogs. They have an ability to think and respond beyond what you purport to put there and control them with. You have this competitive win thing going on when its not a win/lose situation. You will die with your beliefs and really at the end of the day, no one really cares that much. You believe what you believe and you're entitled to it. Some of your statements don't even make sense. You think marker training makes that dog a lab rat and he will generalize? With marker work there is the MARKER/RELEASE. You know nothing about that dog and have never interacted with him yet you want to tell two of the people who have trained him what motivates his actions. There's no win/lose debate with you for me. I'm sure with a certain type of dog, you can train all the conditioned responses in the world. If that's all you see in a dog--groovy. But to the extent that you want to expound on herding and your statement that you can attribute most if not all actions of a dog to some sort of trained response, you're just dead wrong. All that means is that I would disregard what you say. I perfectly understand the type of dog Will describes and how he handles him but all dogs don't share that same mental capacity. The people that disagree with you will continue to do so and move on to other topics worth participating in. Great if that gives you some chest pounding thrill and you think this is some sort of boxing match where there is some referee declaring you the winner. If you are in the ring along, I guess you do win.
> 
> T


It's not about winning T. It's about correct information and free thinking. I don't corner the market on either. I just like them both from any source. I really don't feel that you explain your side that well, and I try and ask questions to help you get to the bottom of what you are saying. Good luck to you!!


----------



## Dan Bowman (Nov 8, 2012)

Bob Scott said:


> My training with Thunder has been all OC and motivational marker training. He's never been physically corrected. Never wore a choke, pinch or e-collar. Flat leather or fur saver on a dead link only!


This sounds unlikely to me, but may be. Still even without knowing the dog I feel sure in saying that it must know when you're displeased, by the tone of your voice and posture. For some dogs possessing high willingness this is enough of a "correction".


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

here's what i would consider a valid test of a ppd's ability to recognize a threat to its handler

take your ppd to a neutral park where you don't know anyone, just before sunset
bring four people you do know that aren't scared of dogs (but people your dog has never seen before)
one adult male in hat and dark clothes but no glasses
three kids any ages, but about 8-12 yrs old
preposition them at the far end of the park; kids in a group separated from the male by 20-25 ft ... best if they can be semi-concealed

1. walk your ppd in from the opposite end, close on your hip in a controlled walk or fus, w/ a 7-8ft lead so you can let it out a bit later.
2. when you are about 50-100 ft from them, turn and walk straight towards the group....
3. when they are about 30-50 ft away, down your dog and take a few steps away from it
4. on a visual cue but without talking, have the kids run straight to the dog, talking and happily praising your dog like it's the most beautiful dog they've ever seen and want to give it a big group hug, and at the same time have the adult pull out a black water pistol that closely resembles any handgun and SLOWLY walk towards you looking straight at you giving you a major stink eye while pointing the gun at your head, but NOT talking at all 
5. observe who your dog alerts on and reacts to .....

disclaimers : 
1. if your dog has ever seen a stick or whip or faced a gun attack in any training session, this would of course be cheating 
2. there must be enuff separation to make it obvious who the dog keys on
3. no commands to the dog....we aren't judging his OB or conditioned responses, just observing/testing his threat recognition skills
4. the kids don't need to "mug" and "jump" the dog, and can slow down and just start petting it like any kids might do
5. any "practice" or dry runs would not only be GROSS cheating, but hopefully easy to recognize, so don't even think about it 

- passing score : the kids will arrive first of course, and the dog is NEUTRAL to the kids rushing in and allows them to interact but also stays focussed on the adult with the gun pointed at you, and forgets the kids and charges him with no command needed, which you of course prevent any physical contact with by using the lead once he is obviously committed to your defense and intends to bite. 
- any aggression or barking at the kids would of course be a fail
- post it on youtube 

Q1. would this be a valid test of threat recognition ? 
Q2. any further suggestions or comments ?
Q3. i feel any true ppd should be able to pass this test with ease, do you ?
fwiw, i would advise a muzzle but a good ppd wouldn't need it; plus you probably don't walk your dog in a muzzle so that's why it wasn't discussed above....


----------



## Dan Bowman (Nov 8, 2012)

To really nail it down the kids should also have a female dog, in heat and off leash playing with a ball. The threatening man should be a transvestite. Preferably the one from the Rocky horror picture show.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Dave Colborn said:


> I hear you Bob, and I agree with your previous statement about dog training and opinions. I will disagree with you one thing or another I am sure, but I would take a dog to you to get help titling in IPO way before I'd give advice myself. I have to be realistic about what I know, just like you. We both know what we know. I am sure if we sat in your living room over coffee, or on a training field, I would learn a great deal about dogs that I didn't in a short amount of time.
> 
> 
> That being said. To me there is a clear link between your dog loading on a helper on the field and biting in Schutzhund and in TRAINING for schutzhund, and a dog loading on an individual in a similar situation where the context is similar. It's why we train dogs. To react in a manner for real that is similar to training. We all know IPO isn't the end to training, but from experience, starting dogs on a sleeve and moving them to a hidden sleeve, suit, or whatever, that they do learn context. It's why we train like we fight.
> ...





All of Thunder's bite work was earned through obedience but never a down other then the escape bite and that's a prey bite because of the helper running away. No civil work other then the TD/helper we worked with teasing with no equipment and not very often. That's always been with the helper and on the training field. Familiar scenarios for the dog so I'm not really sure if Thunder looks at it as really civil

I think sitting down over coffee,etc we could both learn a lot and have a great time. We may not change the other's mind but but no doubt it would be enjoyable. ;-)


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

rick smith said:


> here's what i would consider a valid test of a ppd's ability to recognize a threat to its handler
> 
> take your ppd to a neutral park where you don't know anyone, just before sunset
> bring four people you do know that aren't scared of dogs (but people your dog has never seen before)
> ...


The only valid test I had with one of my cattle dogs now passed on unfortunately, was when I was actually threatened for real and she acted accordingly on several occassions. It didnt surprise me because of what I knew about her but you can never be really sure. If anyone looked her in the eye in a threatening manner she would move directly towards that person as one of my acquaintences discovered when he decide to try it on her. The look in her eye caused him to quickly stand down 

I look at the dogs I have currently. My Border collies and kelpie I am 100% sure would be hopeless.

I would imagine that a ppd has been selected with the right characteristics in the first place? 

I know my Border collies and kelpie would probably be hopeless even with intensive ppd training.

My current cattle dogs are a different story. Both are bold and confident dogs. Inscrutible and neutral when tradesmen call but they watch them. One tripped once and appeared to lunge towards me and one of them was up in a flash moving towards him, he found his feet and she was pressed hard up against his thigh looking directly up into his face. She came off when I called and went back to watching although she was more alert than before. But I still dont really know if either of them would protect me for real.

They both are fine with being mugged by kids LOL.

Gets back to that whole question of can a dog only save your bacon and recognise a real threat only if it is a trained dog. My own experience tells me no, I am probably only still here today because of the way one of my cattle dogs reacted to a very scary direct threat so nothing will change my mind on that one.


----------



## Dan Bowman (Nov 8, 2012)

What is protection anyways.. you walk down a path with your mutt in a forested area and surprise a mother bear protective of cubs, she rushes in and grabs you and starts to maul. The dog darts in nipping at the bear's hind quarters distracting it, making it let go of you and turn around, giving you a chance to get away, as it dodges the bear's advances barking at it. Your 100 point obedience SCH 4.5 dog may do something or may do nothing. A hard full mouth bite counts for nothing in this situation.

On the other hand if you foresee using the dog tactically, walking a dark street at night, seeing suspicious characters coming up on you from the opposite direction, you put some tension in the leash or grab the dog's collar, perhaps make some farting sound with your mouth, and the dog lunges forward all teeth. You try to make yourself look as clumsy as possible, struggling and barely succeeding in keeping the dog back, as the suspicious characters decide to change course and circle around you and your dog.

Both things work, depends how you foresee yourself needing the dog. The former is impossible to achieve with training. The latter as long as dog has drives you can work with, can be achieved with training. Personally I prefer the dog that wants to do this in the first place, then I only have to put some control in it to stop it from doing it all the time. There are dogs that really do this on their own. Then there are others with a much longer fuse. These will wait for a definite sign of aggression to turn on. For some people that may be too late for comfort, for other perfect for having the dog at work like a store, where there are people around constantly.

To force the dog into your idea of what it should be is a mental trap. Give yourself and the dog the opportunity to discover itself, and mold it accordingly. If it ain't right get another dog, or accept your dog's limitations.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

it must be a great feeling to have a dog that has actually defended you for real.

re: threat recognition :

re: "I would imagine that a ppd has been selected with the right characteristics in the first place?"
- not sure what you mean here...
a ppd MUST bite .. a person ... when needed .. anytime or anyplace

but to me a ppd must NOT bite a person who is not a threat
... which is why i think threat recognition is so important and would need to be tested whethyer you are a "ppd trainer" ... or if you're not, but feel you already have one

re: "Gets back to that whole question of can a dog only save your bacon and recognise a real threat only if it is a trained dog."
... not a question i have stated ..... i'm stuck on the threat recognition part 

a dog conditioned (or born) to bite a human threat that has already started attacking its owner is just one scenario and much easier to train for because it is happening and the threat has past - it's already an attack 

recognize a threat and DISCRIMINATE is what i was referring to and made a stupid test for...plus i've only heard how dogs were capable of it but never seen it tested and this one would seem to be a real easy way to see if you had a dog who could think and chew gum at the same time... i think it's hard for dogs to do that naturally 
- if you don't put a threat next to a non threat how do you know if the dog can recognize the diff ??
...if not, you hope for the best when you might need it, because that is what a threat is and it happens in real life that way. big difference between threats and full blown attacks

one last example :
.... back to the classic case of a late night "break in" when all the resources are asleep 
a good ppd should be able to recognize a threat and NOT attack the teenage boy trying to quietly sneak back into the house to meet his girlfriend, but should alert and wake up the parents, since he knows the guy and he's seen the guy many times before, right ???

...i submit for most pet ppd's living in a family setting there would be a bloodbath and therefore it DOES need more training than many people think :-(

and sorry, but i don't get the rocky horror drag queen thing ](*,)
if the test was stupid just say why ... i got thick skin


----------



## Dan Bowman (Nov 8, 2012)

No connection Rick, and that may be the only relevant thing about it. To me having about as much to do with testing the dog as your scenario. I just don't see it ever going down this way.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

rick smith said:


> it must be a great feeling to have a dog that has actually defended you for real.
> 
> re: threat recognition :
> 
> ...


 
Dogs are territorial. I don't expect any of my territorial dogs to allow the teenage boy back into the house once he leaves. The way my dogs work, if I let the person in, fine. If I don't admit you, the dog isn't going to let you in--or so it seems, forthose that require validation through tests. Any teenage boyfriend sneaking in in the middle of the night to meet the girlfriend needs to get bit for STUPIDITY. Does the person need to have a gun for you to consider it a valid threat?



T


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

rick smith said:


> it must be a great feeling to have a dog that has actually defended you for real.
> 
> re: threat recognition :
> 
> ...


Yes I get what you are saying. 

In terms of a dog with the right characteristics, I could think of several dogs I have owned in the past that would probably not be my first choice of investing time into PPD training with for various reasons. 

I can only really relate to my untrained cattle dogs as I have no background in PPD. My observation with them is that there would not be a bloodbath. I suspect they would only bite if the situation was severe.

I know for sure one would bite but again her MO was to give plenty of warining first and she only reacted with real force if either directly threatened by someone staring her in the eyes or if she sensed that I was afraid. My dogs would certainly not attack someone they that they knew arriving, even in the dark. Have had that scenario at various times LOL. Barking and noise that quickly settled once the identity was quickly recognised.

If any of my dogs showed the propesity to launch that type of indiscriminatory attack that you mention with the family example ona person they know well I would be looking for professional guidance and training absolutely. I would hope it never got that far in the first place. If my dogs know a person well I just dont expect that.

As to your test, I think the dog that did once save my butt would ignore the kids and focus on the guy staring her in the eyes. The guy that did try and stare her down did so amongst a group of surfers who were milling around on the beach and she just focussed totally on him. She could recognise a threat alright untrained as she was. Wish she was still around.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Sara Waters said:


> Yes I get what you are saying.
> 
> In terms of a dog with the right characteristics, I could think of several dogs I have owned in the past that would probably not be my first choice of investing time into PPD training with for various reasons.
> 
> ...


I have never referred to mine as PPDs either and would never train one as such. These types of traits were always a given, given the breed(s). Now everyone talks in term of civil or serious in the work. These were a given until they were bred out with selection for and focus on extreme prey--or so I think it goes. One of the things that is also relevent is what you mention--your response to the person. When I'm raising mine, I take them to all sorts of public places and observe how they react to environment and people. You can get a feel for the types of actions they question or respond to. Rick's test is easy enough except I never drop my dog away from me to allow kids to swarm even the ones I believe the most in regarding kids. In any situation where my dog reacted in protection mode, there were others there. Threat discrimination is not an issue ever. There are traits I expect in a confident balanced dog of a protection/guard/herding breed. From the herding perspective, there are certain types of stock I would not go near unless the dog had proven he had guard [me] in him. With the GSDs and first bouv this was a given. Khira is a little tougher to pidgeonhole and has been different at different ages but she certainly proved herself in this regard. I occasionally breed and I work my corgis. Some have guard. Most don't. So with them, I hope, but don't expect. 

There is a herding judge from Texas--Dana Mackenzie who is one of the few people that can read a dog in the moment that I've seen in herding. She said when she was asked to judge the GSD national she was a little reluctant because she didn't know any thing about them. I can't tell you how many people have asked me what in the world I was going to do with my "police dog." Dana says the impression that she came away with is how well they took care of their handlers. I told her that was the most important impression of the breed to get and understand.




T


----------



## jim stevens (Jan 30, 2012)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Dogs are territorial. I don't expect any of my territorial dogs to allow the teenage boy back into the house once he leaves. The way my dogs work, if I let the person in, fine. If I don't admit you, the dog isn't going to let you in--or so it seems, forthose that require validation through tests. Any teenage boyfriend sneaking in in the middle of the night to meet the girlfriend needs to get bit for STUPIDITY. Does the person need to have a gun for you to consider it a valid threat?
> 
> 
> 
> T


I think most dogs that bite without a command are doing it because the person is in his territory rather than for protection. I have had one dog take a live bite, which is one more than most people in the world, and it was exactly that, the guy was running from the police and cleared my backyard fence only to meet a big dog. It was a nice bite, he was literally dragging the guy by his leg and something over 40 stitches to fix it. I think a dog that can decide something is a threat is pretty rare, or maybe almost unheard of. Just my opinion, though


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this specifically, I did see it alluded to in quite a few responses. But in the whole thinking vs reacting, making decisions vs obeying training I don't think you can realistically compare protection/police dogs with herding dogs and say one group has basically lost the ability to make decisions (genetically) and the other maintained it. Nor do I think you can look at an adult dog and really know what it's abilities in this area might be.

The reality is, a PPD or police dog who makes their own decisions can be a liability if they make the wrong deicision, resulting in a legal issue that means not only could you loose a large chunk of money, but the dog could loose it's life. Most people I know training these dogs teach the dogs to respond to commands only, and if the dog is allowed to make decisions, it's taught certain scenarios and what decision it should make in those situations. I know the trainers I've worked with in the past went so far as to proof the dog against making a decision, ie dog is told to sit/stay and handler gets into a loud/rowdy shoving match with someone, or even a fight, and the dog is corrected for breaking the sit/stay. The opposite is true in the "you bite when I say, who I say" and the dog is taught that just because that person is just sitting on a bench, appearing to do nothing (dog can't see the gun in their pocket), if I tell you to bite them, you bite them. Protection sport dogs get similar training. Give a dog a lifetime of this, and I don't think you can fairly say that dog could or could not have been a "thinker" genetically, not when it's entire life it's been told it can't make it's own decisions, but must only respond to its handler's commands or trained scenarios.

Herding dogs are asked to make decisions all the time, people even have various names for it such as "intelligent disobedience". It's part of their job on a regular basis. In addition, if a herding dog makes the wrong decision, bites the livestock at the wrong time, etc generally nobody gets sued, the dog doesn't potentially loose it's life, etc. I would expect a herding dog to be more of thinker/decision maker, their raising and work has encouraged these traits. But if that same dog had been raised/trained for PPD under the training system I've seen used, you wouldn't see it making those decisions.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Rick...

The phrase PP is defined in many many ways, by various people that have various opinions.

I would not go so far as to say that your test would be wrong, but I would not require those types of things for my dogs personally.

why not also test the dog for the following.

1. exoect him to sit quietly and watch the teenage girl and her semi-stranger to the dog/non-family member/boyfriend play WWE wrestling in the living room with her and her other friends...

2. When the parents are gone and they the horny teenager decides to sneak in and wake up the daughter who is sleeping on the couch, we can also the require the dog to not react when they have a rough tussle of loud torrid teenage sex on the couch while the dog takes a nap in the living room.

3. Why not expect the dog to allow your co-worker to use your key to go to enter your house and retrieve your laptop that you forgot, because you are too busy to leave work.

4. The next day have him go to the house so he can help out the wife practice rehearsing some fight scene for a movie that your she is auditioning for. 

none one of those scenarios is a real threat either.

Point is , dogs are all different, your expectations would severely limit the selection of a dog. Most people select a dog, and then work with that dog, learn its character, it abilities and its limitations, and then create protocols on what situations to put the dog into in everyday life, and also what protocols to follow to prevent accidental bites in the handling and containment of the animal.

And I guess if going by this proposed testing theory, why would the dog be expected to aggress a guy with a water pistol that is pissed of that you decided to be a creeper and lure his children away from him, so you and your dog can interact with them, while they were having a water gun fight in the park with their dad? the guy is still not a threat, just deciding if YOU are a threat to his kids.... As far as the dog knows, this could also be what he is seeing going on in front of him. 

would it make a difference if the kids all had water pistols too? and after petting the dog realized he smelled and needed a bath, and all started spraying him with water, and rolled him over to wash his belly too? still no real threat there...


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

rick smith said:


> - if you don't put a threat next to a non threat how do you know if the dog can recognize the diff ??


it is up to the person who owns the dog, not the dog, to decide whether there is a real threat or not, and it is their responsibility to protect people from a dog, that has the propensity to bite someone, through proper handling and/or containment, in the event that a dog perceives a threat when their is no "real" threat. owning a do that is expected to fill some sort of role as a protection dog, what ever that may be, takes situational awareness, vigilance in being in control of the animal, and in not allowing others to endanger themselves by doing things in the dogs proximity.

Tell the teenage daughter that the dog will tear her BF's privates off, if he sneaks into the house at night. Tell him as well, make sure they are aware that is a real possibility.

If they are smarter than you, she will close and lock her bedroom door with the dog outside her room, and unlock a window for him...he can either crawl through it if her room is in the basement or on the first floor, or, if her room is on the second floor, she can lower him down a fire escape rope ladder to climb up, or he can park his party van close enough to the house or garage to climb up on to get on the roof and make his way into her room.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

jim stevens said:


> I think most dogs that bite without a command are doing it because the person is in his territory rather than for protection. I have had one dog take a live bite, which is one more than most people in the world, and it was exactly that, the guy was running from the police and cleared my backyard fence only to meet a big dog. It was a nice bite, he was literally dragging the guy by his leg and something over 40 stitches to fix it. I think a dog that can decide something is a threat is pretty rare, or maybe almost unheard of. Just my opinion, though


My thoughts are that some dogs can determine a threat by smell, body language etc and react. Whether it is the right decision is debateable given the situation context.

My cattle dog was triggered by a person staring aggressively in her eyes. If a person did it to get a reaction she took it as a threat regardless of whether the person was actually a threat or not, sure she didnt know. I also think if my reactions smelt or like alarm or fear she reacted - I guess I was making a decision and she was reacting. 

She was a territiorial dog and would go nuts if someone say banged on the fence. However a couple of kids once jumped into my back garden to retrieve a ball and sure she barked etc but there was no attacking or biting. It was a different story when someone did try and attack me on the side of a road, I have never seen her so aggresively motivated to drive him off and bite. I think there were a number of triggers that set her reactions in motion and the kids retrieving thier ball didnt trigger her. 
Dogs dont obviously think like we do but I think some are proably more capable than others at reading appropriate signals.

In the case of your dog he may have been reacting to motion and fear and that gave him cues that he guy was a threat.

In response to Kadis thoughts - I would agree with what you are saying. I think the thoughts were that given the need for police dogs to be trained to only respond to trained commands, has it over the years resulted in a change to that type of dog in comparison to say a similar breed that was purpose bred for livestock. So a mal or GSD purpose bred to work livestock vs those breeds bred specifically for police work or in the old days that we refer to both as a livestock dog and a protection dog when legal liability wasnt an issue.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Sara Waters said:


> In response to Kadis thoughts - I would agree with what you are saying. I think the thoughts were that given the need for police dogs to be trained to only respond to trained commands, has it over the years resulted in a change to that type of dog in comparison to say a similar breed that was purpose bred for livestock. So a mal or GSD purpose bred to work livestock vs those breeds bred specifically for police work or in the old days that we refer to both as a livestock dog and a protection dog when legal liability wasnt an issue.


 

Sara. I think you misunderstood what Kadi said. Not that the traits have gone away, but, you can't tell with a lifetime of training on top of the genetics what the dog would have been, vs. what it is. 



Kadi Said


> Give a dog a lifetime of this, and I don't think you can fairly say that dog could or could not have been a "thinker" genetically, not when it's entire life it's been told it can't make it's own decisions, but must only respond to its handler's commands or trained scenarios


.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Dave Colborn said:


> Sara. I think you misunderstood what Kadi said. Not that the traits have gone away, but, you can't tell with a lifetime of training on top of the genetics what the dog would have been, vs. what it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Kadi Said .


No I understood her , I was just asking a general question whether dogs bred for police work had a set of characteristics that were different from those bred for herding. Intelligence for instance is only usefull in a herding dog if it is paired with usefull herding traits. For a dog to make good decisions in herding it needs the right instincts. Was interested in what it takes for a police dog to be able to be trained to a top level where it has to be completely obedient to the handler who is making all the decisions, no disobedience allowed. Probably not explaing myself well but I am off to work now.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Sara Waters said:


> No I understood her , I was just asking a general question whether dogs bred for police work had a set of characteristics that were different from those bred for herding. Intelligence for instance is only usefull in a herding dog if it is paired with usefull herding traits. For a dog to make good decisions in herding it needs the right instincts. Was interested in what it takes for a police dog to be able to be trained to a top level where it has to be completely obedient to the handler who is making all the decisions, no disobedience allowed. Probably not explaing myself well but I am off to work now.


Gotcha. I didn't see a question mark, and thought it was a statement. 

When testing an a adult untrained dog, you may threaten the dog and get signs of defense. The dog when you threaten them makes a choice. It decides what to do. Let's its genetics shine through. After 500 courage tests, the thought is that with a dog that is well balanced, the dog doesn't have to make a choice, it knows that when threatened, showing aggression is the right thing to do, because it has been rewarded so many times for the behavior. Makes the behavior become a trained response, although it was rooted in the dog responding on his own to threat. I believe the dog can become so trained that there is no real threat, when threatened. This is ideal in a dog, and it is training and genetics, redacted. The chicken in this case, actually came before the egg.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I've always felt "threat recognition" was buzz word used by personal protection trainers. In the police business, it's not the dog's job to "recognize" a threat. It's the dog's job to engage when commanded or the handler is attacked. "attacked" does NOT include a perceived threat by a suspect.

DFrost


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

David Frost said:


> I've always felt "threat recognition" was buzz word used by personal protection trainers. In the police business, it's not the dog's job to "recognize" a threat. It's the dog's job to engage when commanded or the handler is attacked. "attacked" does NOT include a perceived threat by a suspect.
> 
> DFrost


And this, is one of the best answers given to the original question IMO.


_Is a dog that doesn't recognize a threat capable of Police work? One example would be a 100% prey driven dog who shows no true aggression. My belief is that he can be trained to bite somebody for real if brought up properly to do so. Now if that same dogs pain tolerance/fight drive is at a level where he never comes off a bite even when tested in the hardest ways possible, does that make him stronger than a dog who shows aggression? Based on the belief that people correlate aggression with fear, if that's even true. I'm asking this cause I'm looking to get other ideas to formulate an opinion._


----------



## Dan Bowman (Nov 8, 2012)

David Frost said:


> In the police business, it's not the dog's job to "recognize" a threat. It's the dog's job to engage when commanded or the handler is attacked. "attacked" does NOT include a perceived threat by a suspect.


You mean like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjkUXUgmHio

Please don't get me wrong, I support the police and their dogs, and do not like to see that happen. It just sometimes feels like police think they have the monopoly on dogs that will engage a bad guy. Threat recognition are just words, but they describe the end result of the dog reacting to perceived threat. Dogs have been used in this capacity throughout history. Unusual scenarios and fear of liability can confuse ordinary people and cops into making a poor decision that results in someone getting hurt, never mind dogs. Lets not pretend to have all the answers.

There is a fundamental difference between protection dogs and police dogs. Protection dogs are not revved up riding in a car on the way to a crime scene anticipating action with all the conditioned behaviors that entails. Rather they're in a relaxed state %99 of the time, and fully integrated into family life. A police dog is almost always deployed tactically. A protection dog is almost always needed when the owner is not in a position to do so.

It's really so simple I don't know why we're still chewing this old piece of gum. Have you never came to someone's place, heard a big menacing bark as you approached the door, the owner opens the door and you see a big looking at you steadily. You know instinctively that if you make the wrong move that do will nail you, so you behave real nice, and everybody's happy.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Dan Bowman said:


> A police dog is almost always deployed tactically.


 
You don't know what you are talking about. It depends where and how you work. I am guessing you have several years experience with police dogs to counter my point. 

I got my dual purpose dog out of the car more for security checks, breaks, EDD searches, etc, than deploying him tactically. Just like I got 1 bite in hundreds probably close to a thousand actual deployments. Police dogs can get into a relaxed state of mind just like a PPD. This is why there is a thinking handler on the end of a leash, and the dog has trained cues.

Just like you have to be a switched on owner if you have need for a PPD. If you are not, the battle is lost. You and your mind are the weapon, dogs are just a tool. If you aren't prepared to "stay in the fight" mentally and physically you are done.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Actually with regards to your aforementioned scenario, most lay people don't know how to react to an aggressive dog, they may freeze, they also may act the fool and jump behind you, or they may be frightened and over react, and if the dog does attack, rest assured you will lose your shirt in the ensuing lawsuit and if you live in a city where there is a dangerous dog ordinance, your dog will be destroyed. I promise no judge will give any credence to "when the person knocked on my door and saw my big menacing dog he should have known better than to panic".

I agree with David, and Dave, though I can't speak to the issue of police dogs. In "real life" t's not the dogs job to recognize and react to what it thinks is a threat, it is the dogs job to do what I tell him to do.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I don't know if anyone has mentioned this specifically, I did see it alluded to in quite a few responses. But in the whole thinking vs reacting, making decisions vs obeying training I don't think you can realistically compare protection/police dogs with herding dogs and say one group has basically lost the ability to make decisions (genetically) and the other maintained it. Nor do I think you can look at an adult dog and really know what it's abilities in this area might be.
> 
> The reality is, a PPD or police dog who makes their own decisions can be a liability if they make the wrong deicision, resulting in a legal issue that means not only could you loose a large chunk of money, but the dog could loose it's life. Most people I know training these dogs teach the dogs to respond to commands only, and if the dog is allowed to make decisions, it's taught certain scenarios and what decision it should make in those situations. I know the trainers I've worked with in the past went so far as to proof the dog against making a decision, ie dog is told to sit/stay and handler gets into a loud/rowdy shoving match with someone, or even a fight, and the dog is corrected for breaking the sit/stay. The opposite is true in the "you bite when I say, who I say" and the dog is taught that just because that person is just sitting on a bench, appearing to do nothing (dog can't see the gun in their pocket), if I tell you to bite them, you bite them. Protection sport dogs get similar training. Give a dog a lifetime of this, and I don't think you can fairly say that dog could or could not have been a "thinker" genetically, not when it's entire life it's been told it can't make it's own decisions, but must only respond to its handler's commands or trained scenarios.
> 
> Herding dogs are asked to make decisions all the time, people even have various names for it such as "intelligent disobedience". It's part of their job on a regular basis. In addition, if a herding dog makes the wrong decision, bites the livestock at the wrong time, etc generally nobody gets sued, the dog doesn't potentially loose it's life, etc. I would expect a herding dog to be more of thinker/decision maker, their raising and work has encouraged these traits. But if that same dog had been raised/trained for PPD under the training system I've seen used, you wouldn't see it making those decisions.


When I'm speaking of a dog that can perceive a threat, I'm never speaking of a dog trained to bite on command or the PPD or PSD. PPD and PSD are different situations. LE has to justify a dog's action in court. Instinct isn't going to do it. LE has said all along that instinctual perceptions in a PSD are irrelevant. The dog needs to respond, regardless, including passive bites. Like Dan states, I have owned several dogs that without training and control would have been a liability to some because of their guard instincts. It doesn't bother me in the least to give them that training and control. Some people are more comfortable with bite on command. I'm fine with a command to stop action based on instinctual perception whether its with herding or a personal protection situation involving my dog. The situations where my dog questions a person or his/her actions have been rare--maybe a few times in the dog's lifetime or for some, none. I am well aware how my dogs perceive the world around them and overt actions from people. Its not that difficult to train this type of dog for social reliability. For years I took two of those type of dogs with me to the office every day with people coming and going. They were always out and about with me in a busy restaurant/business district. Cafes, bookstores, shops, post office, you name it. I didn't have to worry about them. I pay attention to people and besides, the chance of someone doing something that would tirgger them is pretty slim. Its not any action that will trigger them. It would have to be pretty overt and/or something they picked up from me judging from history. I don't need a PPD and would never spend anytime training for one. I guess if there is a void in genetics, this is where we are. I like a dog with protection/guard genetics, environmental and people stability that has also the instinctive herding traits I want. That used to be a GSD and/or a bouvier. Maybe not so much anymore. 

T


----------



## Dan Bowman (Nov 8, 2012)

I'm not in LE and don't want to mislead anyone into thinking I am or ever have been.

I didn't have a dual purpose dog in mind, I was thinking of an apprehension dog. And in this context when I say tactically I simply mean that the handler is in a position to direct the dog. I don't know about a PSD getting complacent, I think if the dog has any experience it would know before you arrive on the scene if its anything to get excited about. 

On the contrary the presence a good protection dog allows me to relax instead of being switched on.

Susan, my kind of dog doesn't react to someone being afraid of it, it reacts to threat. If you guys don't like the word threat I'll try to find something to substitute it with. How about a couple of characters approaching me on a lonely street at night, yeah I'd like my dog to get between me and them and stack. If they had intentions guaranteed they'll hesitate to come in. I'll just put these last two sentences in a quote every time I want to mention "threat perception".


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Dan Bowman said:


> I'm not in LE and don't want to mislead anyone into thinking I am or ever have been.


 
Then you shouldn't talk about things you have no personal knowledge of. When you type like you are a SME, people may be misled into believing it.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dan Bowman said:


> Susan, my kind of dog doesn't react to someone being afraid of it, it reacts to threat.


And I'm sure you don't leave it to the dog to ultimately decide. If the dog can recognize a threat, I can't understand why its so unfathomable to people here to understand that a handler is attuned enough to his dog to know when that dog is recognizing something as a threat. Funny how in the past, I've been able to use the threat recognition dogs with kids and adults who were afraid of dogs to show them that they don't need to be. I think there is some perception that a threat recognition dog is a dog that will bite anyone for any reason and is this huge liability that everyone is afraid of. The dog that you and I speak of is not this type of junkyard dog mentaility and for me is a cull.

T


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Dan Bowman said:


> Susan, my kind of dog doesn't react to someone being afraid of it, it reacts to threat.


Your dog reacts to what it *perceives* as a threat, and that could be many people who aren't actually dangerous, from a drunk who might be obnoxious, to a loud and mouthy teenager to someone petrified by your dog and over reacting because of fear. 

You said: 

"Have you never came to someone's place, heard a big menacing bark as you approached the door, the owner opens the door and you see a big looking at you steadily. You know instinctively that if you make the wrong move that do will nail you, so you behave real nice, and everybody's happy."

What's "the wrong move"?


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Originally Posted by *Dan Bowman*  
_Susan, my kind of dog doesn't react to someone being afraid of it, it reacts to threat._




Terrasita Cuffie said:


> And I'm sure you don't leave it to the dog to ultimately decide.
> T


 
Merriam Webster - to exert a reciprocal or counteracting force or influence —often used with _on_ or _upon._


----------



## Dan Bowman (Nov 8, 2012)

Dave Colborn said:


> Then you shouldn't talk about things you have no personal knowledge of.


That doesn't stop you from talking about protection dogs  I didn't realize you were in LE, I really wish you the best in this field. I hope that our nonsense repeated so many times in this thread, although rejected now, at some time years from now will click, and you will allow yourself to see the dog as more than simply your idea of what it should be. I think you may like it better, without deluding yourself as I'm sure that's what you think we're doing.

Anyways I didn't say I don't have knowledge of PSD training. I can do whatever kind of training I want, with different kinds of dogs. The only disadvantage is that in the US we're not likely to allow the dog to experience a live bite. I had all kinds of dogs really, tough, crazy, sharp, handler aggressive, dominant, agitated to the point they were the devil reincarnate, really man you wouldn't want to stand in front of it, fear would grip you.. all the dogs I was ever interested in were for protection. I just know the kind of dog I prefer now.

Terrasita, I think part of it that people used only to dogs that react because they've been agitated, don't understand that a dog can measure its reaction. Dogs that have been agitated once they turn on they go full throttle, and if biting would not stop until outed. That would indeed be a serious liability.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> And I'm sure you don't leave it to the dog to ultimately decide. If the dog can recognize a threat, I can't understand why its so unfathomable to people here to understand that a handler is attuned enough to his dog to know when that dog is recognizing something as a threat. Funny how in the past, I've been able to use the threat recognition dogs with kids and adults who were afraid of dogs to show them that they don't need to be. I think there is some perception that a threat recognition dog is a dog that will bite anyone for any reason and is this huge liability that everyone is afraid of. The dog that you and I speak of is not this type of junkyard dog mentaility and for me is a cull.
> 
> T


Terrasita the issue isn't the dog recognizing a threat. The issue is that the dog is NOT always right, and therefore cannot be allowed to decide for itself to attack someone.

In another thread you said "*One of my favorite GSDs was a go anywhere type of dog and would play fetch with anyone. One dumb move from a friend of mine towards me and I had to pull her out of his chest.* For me a PP has sense and knows threatening behavior and doesn't otherwise react so whether or not they are social is irrelevant"

This is EXACTLY why dogs shouldn't be allowed to make the decision to act on what they perceive to be a threat. This person was a friend of yours who did something stupid, not an actual threat. In real life had your dog done damage to the person and had that person sued you, you would have rightfully lost the suit because in the end you wouldn't have controlled your dog.


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Dan Bowman said:


> That doesn't stop you from talking about protection dogs


 
I have one of those and have helped with the training on several. If you would have said herding, you would have had me. Although I bet if I could find a sheep or a goat or something, I could find a suitable teacher and do that too...It's all just behavior supported by genetics and training.

I hope that from all the repeated stuff you see my point of view. We both agree on trying to change each others way of looking at things. That's all I ask for in a discussion. Not that you do believe me, but knowing that I believe my position and hope you'll understand what I am saying. 


Ahhhh. common but different ground.


----------



## Dan Bowman (Nov 8, 2012)

I do see your point of view because I've been there. I read Jack London's books when I was a kid and had some romantic ideas about dogs. Actually depending on what level you perceive the writing, there's a lot of dog wisdom there. But that's not the way I understood it then. When I got into dog training seriously, I started to think like you Dave. This continued for about 20 years. I thought I had it ALL figured out, and lost real interest in dogs, although I always stayed in and around. I grew older and became more patient and not so pushy. Rather than a perfect heel position and a flashy finish, I came to prefer the absolute minimum obedience commands necessary. I can control a dog fully with "out" and "come". The less pressure I can put on the dog to adjust to my environment, the more room there will be for him to express his innate behaviors. My emphasis is on breeding first. Unfortunately I don't think I'm cut out to be a breeder, I can't bear to keep dogs in kennels, and I'm a one or at most two dog man. I also too soft for culling.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Bottom line
If what a trainer does works and he/she is happy with the results they are a winner. 
Discussing and disagreeing is just icing on the cake! :wink:


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> Terrasita the issue isn't the dog recognizing a threat. The issue is that the dog is NOT always right, and therefore cannot be allowed to decide for itself to attack someone.
> 
> In another thread you said "*One of my favorite GSDs was a go anywhere type of dog and would play fetch with anyone. One dumb move from a friend of mine towards me and I had to pull her out of his chest.* For me a PP has sense and knows threatening behavior and doesn't otherwise react so whether or not they are social is irrelevant"
> 
> This is EXACTLY why dogs shouldn't be allowed to make the decision to act on what they perceive to be a threat. This person was a friend of yours who did something stupid, not an actual threat. In real life had your dog done damage to the person and had that person sued you, you would have rightfully lost the suit because in the end you wouldn't have controlled your dog.


And I'll take my chances. I see no reason to breed out these traits in a dog. Probably the only reason she didn't sink her teeth into him is because she knew him. Still, given what I had told him about the dog, what would make him throw a punch into his hand next to my face??? His response was he thought the dog liked him. I don't want to see this type of dog pass away into oblivion. They aren't for everyone. Its been over 20 years and I still haven't found one like her.

T


----------



## Dave Colborn (Mar 25, 2009)

Dan Bowman said:


> I do see your point of view because I've been there. I read Jack London's books when I was a kid and had some romantic ideas about dogs. Actually depending on what level you perceive the writing, there's a lot of dog wisdom there. But that's not the way I understood it then. When I got into dog training seriously, I started to think like you Dave. This continued for about 20 years. I thought I had it ALL figured out, and lost real interest in dogs, although I always stayed in and around. I grew older and became more patient and not so pushy. Rather than a perfect heel position and a flashy finish, I came to prefer the absolute minimum obedience commands necessary. I can control a dog fully with "out" and "come". The less pressure I can put on the dog to adjust to my environment, the more room there will be for him to express his innate behaviors. My emphasis is on breeding first. Unfortunately I don't think I'm cut out to be a breeder, I can't bear to keep dogs in kennels, and I'm a one or at most two dog man.


How do I think, Dan? Just a couple sentences of your insight in to my thoughts if it't not too late on the west coast. I am sorry to hear that you lost interest in dogs and only regained it recently, but glad to have you back. 

In regards to controlling your dog how do you make a dog stay without a stay command? I mean, you could teach a dog to sit, on command, and use that as his release as well, then you'd have it down to two commands. Sit and come. Otherwise you can't leave you dog and walk away.

Do you by chance like the "traditional" heel vs. all that focus stuff that new fangled trainers use because they can't teach a dog to heel past a distraction? How do you feel about house training and crates?


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> And I'll take my chances. I see no reason to breed out these traits in a dog. Probably the only reason she didn't sink her teeth into him is because she knew him. Still, given what I had told him about the dog, what would make him throw a punch into his hand next to my face??? His response was he thought the dog liked him. I don't want to see this type of dog pass away into oblivion. They aren't for everyone. Its been over 20 years and I still haven't found one like her.
> 
> T


the guy wasn't trying to hit you, he was faking it, he was not a real threat, but your dog incorrectly thought he was, if the dog was able to correctly determine what a threat really was, she wouldn't have tried to bite him, and that's my point. Dogs aren't able to always correctly identify what is or isn't a real threat and if allowed to make the decision to attack on their own it can result in a very bad situation when the dog is wrong.

It's not about instinct so much as it is about good training, most well bred sport dogs will bite if trained correctly, that's not the hard part, the CONTROL is what it's all about.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> the guy wasn't trying to hit you, he was faking it, he was not a real threat, but your dog incorrectly thought he was, if the dog was able to correctly determine what a threat really was, she wouldn't have tried to bite him, and that's my point. Dogs aren't able to always correctly identify what is or isn't a real threat and if allowed to make the decision to attack on their own it can result in a very bad situation when the dog is wrong.
> 
> It's not about instinct so much as it is about good training, most well bred sport dogs will bite if trained correctly, that's not the hard part, the CONTROL is what it's all about.


A fist coming toward my face was threatening behavior. He was sitting next to me on a couch and turned into me throwing this fist into his hand which made the sound which made me jump. I'll give her a pass on that one. She didn't try to bite him. She was in his chest snarling. Had he continued and without me yelling no, she probably would have. She was certainly convincing enough for me and him. So the well bred sport dog has the same control issues or need? You can turn him on but its difficult to turn him off? Okay, I train the turn off. Again, you like apples. I like oranges.

T


----------



## Dan Bowman (Nov 8, 2012)

"You like to train the on, I like to train the off" I like this  Although I like to train the on too, but only if it doesn't mess with the dog's stability.

I can't stand that focused heel stuff as you call it. I think those dogs look like they could run into a pole if you walk too close. I'm all about real world obedience in the face of distractions. My last dog knew the stay command, I just can't remember using it.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> A fist coming toward my face was threatening behavior. He was sitting next to me on a couch and turned into me throwing this fist into his hand which made the sound which made me jump. I'll give her a pass on that one. She didn't try to bite him. She was in his chest snarling. Had he continued and without me yelling no, she probably would have. She was certainly convincing enough for me and him. So the well bred sport dog has the same control issues or need? You can turn him on but its difficult to turn him off? Okay, I train the turn off. Again, you like apples. I like oranges.
> 
> T


Nope, what I said was dogs are not capable of determining what is or isn't a real threat, and my example was your own story. The fact is your dog was wrong about a threat, your dog perceived something to be a threat that in reality was NOT. Whether you like the behavior or not is immaterial, the dog made a mistake, and had you not stopped her, you could have been in a world of trouble.

Easy peasy and by the way, thanks for providing such an outstanding example of how dogs can mistakenly think something is a threat that in reality is not.
=D>


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Dan Bowman said:


> "You like to train the on, I like to train the off" I like this  Although I like to train the on too, but only if it doesn't mess with the dog's stability.
> 
> I can't stand that focused heel stuff as you call it. I think those dogs look like they could run into a pole if you walk too close. I'm all about real world obedience in the face of distractions.


Ohhhh, I don't mind training the "on" for sport. I think if you stuck to sport and don't get into the area of the "look," you won't screw with the dog's wiring. You're new. A well known, now defunct personality here used to refer to that as "gay heeling." I'm a sucker for a flashy attention heel. Comes in handy on the herding trial field. If the dog is watching me, she's not locking on to the stock and loading on my way to the post.


T


----------



## Dan Bowman (Nov 8, 2012)

Susan, you have it figured out exactly in reverse. The real world simply doesn't work like that. Your trained "on command only" dog will always be too late if at all. Yours is such a theoretical view about situations that would require protection from a dog. I must conclude you've never been in a critical situation. As a man I'm better equipped than you to deal with aggression, yet I have no problem stating that in a situation where I'd need the dog I'm likely not going to have the presence of mind to deploy it.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Dan Bowman said:


> Susan, that's such backward thinking. The real world simply doesn't work like that. Your trained "on command only" dog will always be too late if at all. Yours is such a theoretical view about situations that would require protection from a dog. I must conclude you've never been in a critical situation. There's really nothing more to be said.


Actually I have been in the situation, which is exactly why I have the opinion that I have, I am speaking from personal experience.


----------



## Dan Bowman (Nov 8, 2012)

Please describe it.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> Nope, what I said was dogs are not capable of determining what is or isn't a real threat, and my example was your own story. You can try to rationalize or ad on to the story all you want the fact is your dog was wrong about a threat, your dog perceived something that was NOT a threat to be a threat.
> 
> Easy peasy and by the way, thanks for providing such an outstanding example of how dogs can mistakenly think something is a threat that in reality is not.
> =D>


Yep which is why the tests don't work either. Rick had one with a gun but its not a gun yet if the person does it a certain way then its an example of a threat recognition. All you have is what type of behaviors the dog will respond to either instinctively or trained. Like I said, you like apples, I like oranges. If this charges your batteries on your theory and what you prefer---great. I don't have to rationalize or add to the story. You went surfing to find it and didn't ask for all the details. I never said she bit him, because she didn't and dogs don't try to bite. They either do or they don't. We're back to measured responses. Like I said, I give her a pass on that one. Maybe at some point in my remaining lifetime I can find another just like her.

T


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Dan Bowman said:


> Please describe it.


No I'm not going to describe it for you. I have nothing to prove to you. Suffice it to say I have been in a situation with a young dog who bit when he perceived someone to be a threat and I was sued over it, okay? In the eyes of the law I did not have control over my dog, just as Terrasita's dog would have been wrong had she not been able to stop the dog.


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Yep which is why the tests don't work either. Rick had one with a gun but its not a gun yet if the person does it a certain way then its an example of a threat recognition. All you have is what type of behaviors the dog will respond to either instinctively or trained. Like I said, you like apples, I like oranges. If this charges your batteries on your theory and what you prefer---great. I don't have to rationalize or add to the story. You went surfing to find it and didn't ask for all the details. I never said she bit him, because she didn't and dogs don't try to bite. They either do or they don't. We're back to measured responses. Like I said, I give her a pass on that one. Maybe at some point in my remaining lifetime I can find another just like her.
> 
> T


No need to get defensive just because I used your own words to illustrate a point


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> No need to get defensive just because I used your own words to illustrate a point


 
Ohhhh Susan, never defensive--just facts. If you want to illustrate your point, the first thing you need to understand is all the facts. I'll work on training the control in the instinctual type of dog you turn off and you can go back to working on control with the the type of dog you like to train on. 

T


----------



## susan tuck (Mar 28, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Ohhhh Susan, never defensive--just facts. If you want to illustrate your point, the first thing you need to understand is all the facts. I'll work on training the control in the instinctual type of dog you turn off and you can go back to working on control with the the type of dog you like to train on.
> 
> T


lol, lol I illustrated my point quite nicely, thank you.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

susan tuck said:


> lol, lol I illustrated my point quite nicely, thank you.


For you and those that believe in your point of view. Doesn't change anything for others who don't. From what you said about control and the command dog, I don't think it makes either perfect or infallible so back to preferences.

T


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

It has made for interesting reading and I agree that for any dog it is desirable that in the majority of situations that the human is in control and that the dog is not expected to make these decisions.

However I do believe that some dogs can recognise a direct threat to their handler. I think they read or smell the body language of their handler and I think this maybe what they are reacting to. This type of dog is unlikely to bite every stranger that comes to your front door because they are reading your reactions.

This is how my cattle dog was. I have only ever been really afraid for my life once and this is where she demonstrated an aggression and complete willingness to engage that I had never seen before and never saw again at that high level. She was pretty tuned into my body language. Mind you she spent most waking hours of her life riding shotgun with me in our travels. 

I dont percieve myself as a dog trainer of great theoretical knowledge, but I have worked with horses and dogs for a very long time and my observations would tell me that these dogs do exist. I personally have only had the one and I have known a couple of others.


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

I was wondering with regards to police dogs. If an officer is walking with their dog and someone hits them from behind and knocks them out and then proceeds to assault them. Is the dog trained to automatically defend the hander despite no commands being given? Or is there always backup to assume control.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Sara Waters said:


> I was wondering with regards to police dogs. If an officer is walking with their dog and someone hits them from behind and knocks them out and then proceeds to assault them. Is the dog trained to automatically defend the hander despite no commands being given? Or is there always backup to assume control.


I believe David answered that question yesterday:

*Originally Posted by David Frost 
I've always felt "threat recognition" was buzz word used by personal protection trainers. In the police business, it's not the dog's job to "recognize" a threat. It's the dog's job to engage when commanded or the handler is attacked. "attacked" does NOT include a perceived threat by a suspect.

DFrost*


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

interesting thread.

I think it matters a lot on the character of the dog and then his experiences, to determine how it will fit into these hypothetical or life interactions. THe dog will bring its own behavioral paradigm into the mix. 

It is up to he person to decide what works for them to fit their needs, and also up to the person to keep others safe from a dog, if he is one that will be prone to act or react on his own, through OB, control work, and proper containment.

There are situations where almost any dog will react in some way without a command to do so. It is up to the handler to prevent this from happening, without the handlers permission.

Take the territoriality and social factors in some dogs. Is an ungreeted and unaccompanied stranger or acquaintance walking into your home a threat? During the day? During the night? That depends on us to determine that, what our protocol is for that. Upon owning a dog, he will display what HE perceives in these occurrences, what HIS protocol is for this, based on his character and training influences, and then it is up to us to determine how we handle and manage the dogs responses, inside or outside of our direct influence or presence, to fit out needs and requirements.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Sara Waters said:


> I was wondering with regards to police dogs. If an officer is walking with their dog and someone hits them from behind and knocks them out and then proceeds to assault them. Is the dog trained to automatically defend the hander despite no commands being given? Or is there always backup to assume control.


I am not a police man, but I would assume if you physically assault the handler, the dog would/should immediately engage. Police dogs also come in varying character packages, and can have a variety in social aspects. 

If one was to study and look at a variety of PSD.
I am sure it is a situational thing, with variables in the situations and in the dogs themselves. In some situations, with some dogs, the dogs are ready to respond to a command to engage and respond to a threat that the officer perceives, when the dogs themselves might not perceive any threat, and in other situations or with other dogs, they are waiting for a command to be allowed to engage, to threats that they perceive themselves, or even just people that the dog may be thinking it should bite, threat or no threat.

The bottom line is, like David said, it is not the dogs job to make that decision to take it upon itself to act or react, while working, under a handlers control. I could be wrong, but I didnt take that to mean that some dogs would not make that decision if put into situations where they could do so. It is up to the handler to know his dog, and train and keep the dog under control, and use proper handling and containment to keep the innocent safe. 

It is not the dogs job to react on his own, but that doesnt mean he might not do so, dogs are not machines, they do not possess the critical thinking processes, and no dog is perfect.

That is why some dogs are great PR dogs, can be taken to schools and interact with the public, and other dogs are not put into those situations at all. And some PSD when off duty, do reasonably ok in the handlers home under normal living interactions, and others need to be kenneled and crated.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Joby says: "The bottom line is, like David said, it is not the dogs job to make that decision to take it upon itself to act or react, while working, under a handlers control. I could be wrong, but I didnt take that to mean that some dogs would not make that decision if put into situations where they could do so. It is up to the handler to know his dog, and train and keep the dog under control, and use proper handling and containment to keep the innocent safe.

It is not the dogs job to react on his own, but that doesnt mean he might not do so, dogs are not machines, they do not possess the critical thinking processes, and no dog is perfect.

That is why some dogs are great PR dogs, can be taken to schools and interact with the public, and other dogs are not put into those situations at all. And some PSD when off duty, do reasonably ok in the handlers home under normal living interactions, and others need to be kenneled and crated."

I agree with every thing you stated. During training, we all strive, or at least I would hope handlers do, for perfection. We may understand "perfection" is probably not possible, a dog must still work within the standards set. 

As for protecting the handler, like other behaviors, it's not instinctive or because of certain nerves or whatever anyone wants to call it. It's because the dog was trained to react that way.We conduct exercises to simulate "threats" without actually touching the handler, the correct response is "no response". In reality the responses will vary from no response, to whining, having a hard time maintaining position, looking away as if in avoidance. All of these are acceptable as long as the dog does not break position and engage. 

DFrost


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

David Frost said:


> As for protecting the handler, like other behaviors, it's not instinctive or because of certain nerves or whatever anyone wants to call it. It's because the dog was trained to react that way.We conduct exercises to simulate "threats" without actually touching the handler, the correct response is "no response". In reality the responses will vary from no response, to whining, having a hard time maintaining position, looking away as if in avoidance. All of these are acceptable as long as the dog does not break position and engage.
> 
> DFrost


But the dog is trained to engage if the handler is being physicaly attacked and is unable to command the dog?


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Yes yez si oui yes.....


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

will fernandez said:


> Yes yez si oui yes.....


Thank you, I was out of ways to say it. ha ha

DFrost


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

David Frost said:


> Thank you, I was out of ways to say it. ha ha
> 
> DFrost




Well, THIS was vague as all heck:



David Frost said:


> .... It's the dog's job to engage when commanded or the handler is attacked. ....


:lol:


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Yes I got Davids first post and then his second one confused me a little and made me doubt. Remember I have never seen a Malinois, done any protection work (it doesnt exist in the state I live in), had anything to do with police dogs or their training, or talk to many people about dog training because of the isolated area where I live. I am primarily self taught.

I know from some of the posts that many of you know very little about training the working sheepdog, that much is clear from some of the posts, not that you really want to of course. 

I am just trying to understand more about what goes on in a discipline I really know nothing about and may at times ask for dumb claricfications. Get over it.

I quite enjoy the forum because I learn stuff about a dog world I have had zero exposure to and it gives me ideas. If I want herding training advice I go elswhere obviously


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

It is all in fun....do not be offended...no one...well most of us dont take ourselves that serious....


----------



## Timothy Stacy (Jan 29, 2009)

I think I can end this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gxYkDPqDQk


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Ah Sara I'm kinda the WDF idiot. At least you know about something related to working dogs. I don't.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Sara, I think you heard my post as having a far different tone that I meant when writing it.

I was being funny.

I thought.

:lol:

Once again, I am my own best audience.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Timothy Stacy said:


> I think I can end this!
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gxYkDPqDQk


Yep, that about puts it all into perspective. LOVE the shorts. Probably had more views and ratings than anything on YouTube. Now who has the Kumbaya video.

T


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

Timothy Stacy said:


> I think I can end this!
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gxYkDPqDQk


I wish I still had hair so I could cut it like that ;-)


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Connie Sutherland said:


> Sara, I think you heard my post as having a far different tone that I meant when writing it.
> 
> I was being funny.
> 
> ...


I did recognise your tone, I realised you were being funny. 

The unseasonal weather has resulted in some of my stud sheep and lambs going down with a poisoning and the dogs and me were up at the crack of dawn yarding sheep and counting the costs so was feeling unusually cranky and not feeling like being trifled with. 

I shouldnt have reacted to something I knew was not really meant seriously although I didnt see it like that at the time, especially given this forum can be quite blunt which I dont usually mind at all.

That video bought back flashbacks of the fashions and hairdos of my youth. Loved the "do".


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Sara Waters said:


> I did recognise your tone, I realised you were being funny.
> 
> The unseasonal weather has resulted in some of my stud sheep and lambs going down with a poisoning and the dogs and me were up at the crack of dawn yarding sheep and counting the costs so was feeling unusually cranky and not feeling like being trifled with.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, that woud make one cranky. What type of poisoning?

T


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Yeah, that woud make one cranky. What type of poisoning?
> 
> T


Strangely enough, I'm working on (editing) a sheep book right now, and in fact am on the enterotoxemia section. 

What kind of poisoning? Are they recovering?




ETA:
Sorry ..... WAY off topic. 

Over here: http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f8/sheep-poisoned-25389/#post363722


----------



## Sara Waters (Oct 23, 2010)

Moved to http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/f8/sheep-poisoned-25389/#post363725


----------

