# 43 Drives



## Greg Long

I was told not too long ago that there are 43 canine drives.I was wanting to see if anyone here can name them all.. :? 

I dont want definitions or explanations..just name them will do nicely.. :lol: 

This has really been bugging the @#$% out a me... :x


----------



## Guest

:roll: :roll: :roll: Oh Lord! How many forums do you need to provoke?  

I find this interesting, too, as the basis for the assertion is completely ridiculous. Even if the statement that there are 43 drives were true, saying that not every dog has all of them just contradicts everything; if they're there, they're there. It all goes back to the definition of "drives" too. I hate the word, personally, b/c I think it confuses people. No one agrees on what a "drive" is or if certain ones exist. I'd like to hear 10 of the drives, just to start with. Then I'm going to bed because I'm tired. Or maybe I have excellent sleep drive  .


----------



## Tim Martens

ok...not saying i agree with all of them, but here are exerpts from an article my trainer provided in a manual (i think he wrote it). it's on different aggression drives:

Affective:

1) territorial
2) pain induced
3) fear induced
4) intermale
5) social (dominance)
6) protective
7) maternal
8) learned
9) redirected
10) irritable

Non-affective
11) sexual
12) predatory
13) play
14) idiopathic

ok. i just looked again and these aren't labeled "drives" but "Types of Canine Aggression". i believe my trainer believes in 3 drives (food, sex and shelter). yes, just confirmed it. these are the 3 "drives" that he believes in for dogs.

if anyone wants the definitions for any of the above listed types of aggression, i will type it out (too much to type all of them)...


----------



## Greg Long

Cool...keep em coming.I wont sleep till I know all 43... :x 

I think Ill stop training dogs till I have a grasp on all of them... 8)


----------



## Guest

That's exactly what I mean about drives vs. types vs. instincts vs. whatever....

Those, to me, an idiot, seem more like types of stimuli causing aggression. Territorial-someone has stimulated the response by invading his space. I don't call this a drive. He's not out looking for invaders; it's a reaction to stimuli. 

However, this list (food, sex, shelter) sounds like a much more reasonable basis to go on if we MUST break down drives and their effect on canine behavior into freeze-frame images. I hate these discussions, but they're like a bad car accident....

These three are all, IMO, inborn into all creatures for the continuation of the species. Food is necessary, procreation is necessary, and shelter is necessary. This reminds me of Maslow's (it was Maslow, wasn't it?) Heirarchy of Needs.


----------



## Bob Scott

And they'll fight for food, fight for sex and fight for shelter. 
 :lol:  Did I say that with my outloud voice?! 
Sorry! I just got carried away.  :wink: 
I would think all the "different" drives that are talked about would come from those three basics.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Here is one list:
http://www.leerburg.com/drives3.htm


----------



## Guest

Bob, I totally agree! I think they're more or less off-shoots from the truly basic needs/drives.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

And
http://www.canismajor.com/dog/drives.html


----------



## Tim Martens

Jenni Williams said:


> Those, to me, an idiot, seem more like types of stimuli causing aggression.


i retracted my statement that they were "drives". if you read at the bottom of my post, they are listed as "types of aggression" and not "drives"....


----------



## Guest

Uh-oh...that said "fight drive"....


----------



## Bob Scott

Although I do train in what I look at as different drives, I think they are kinda like the stars. When someone sees one that nobody saw before, they feel the need to name it. It was always there but it was never "discovered".


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

There's no such thing as fight drive.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> There's no such thing as fight drive.


Yes there is, shut up, you don't know what you're talking about!!!


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> Mike Schoonbrood said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as fight drive.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is, shut up, you don't know what you're talking about!!!
Click to expand...

Wow, what a compelling argument, I guess we should agree to disagree.

OK now that we've gotten that out of our system... back to 43 drives...


----------



## Tim Martens

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> Mike Schoonbrood said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike Schoonbrood said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no such thing as fight drive.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there is, shut up, you don't know what you're talking about!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, what a compelling argument, I guess we should agree to disagree.
> 
> OK now that we've gotten that out of our system... back to 43 drives...
Click to expand...

if you'll notice, i didn't even go there 8) ..


----------



## jay lyda

I think that I'll have to disagree with some of these so called drives like discribed on the Leerburg site. To me these things seem more like character traits rather than drives. Lets not get carried away here trying to break every little thing down and classifying it to its each little catagory. Getting tuned into a dog is not that difficult because they are not that complexed. We all know the basic things that will motivate a dog. I prefer to stick with these basics and try not to confuse myself and not get a headache while trying to train. Not trying to upset anyone, just my opinion and how I feel. I just like keeping things simple.


----------



## Andres Martin

All the 43 narrow in to ONE...just like the 43 Commandments.

It is 43, right?

Here's my view of THE ONE.

SCRATCH DRIVE...'cause that's what I find my dog doing when he reads lists of drives.

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

Needless to say, I have a VERY smart dog...due to his amazing Following instinct when he was a puppy.

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


----------



## Debbie High

I haven't met an animal yet that couldn't be controlled/trained/managed etc. in some manner using their basic needs in a positive or negative way. I'm with Jay.....I like to go by the KISS method(Keep It Simple Stupid). Who gives a rip what the drive is as long as the dog shows the proper innate behaviors to get the job done. Innate behaviors that insure their survival!

We probably can come up with 43 drives that stim from basic needs if we all put our heads together! Can most likely think of some that aren't in the books  .

Debbie


----------



## Greg Long

Im afraid Im not as smart as or not much smarter than my dog.I can only tell when he is serious or not serious.  

I asked him about what drives he has and his official answer was, "I am unaware of any such activity and if I was,I would be unable to discuss said activity". :?


----------



## Debbie High

Andres Martin said:


> Needless to say, I have a VERY smart dog...due to his amazing Following instinct when he was a puppy.
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


This is a key component, a strong trusting bond. After all, dogs are pack animals.....the simplest and most efficient way to survive!

Debbie


----------



## jay lyda

Well there's his drive; unable to be rattled under interrogation!


----------



## Andres Martin

Greg wrote:


> I asked him about what drives he has and his official answer was, "I am unaware of any such activity and if I was,I would be unable to discuss said activity


...well...the democrats will NEVER get that info from him...just name, sport title ( :lol: :lol: ) and rabies vacc number!


----------



## Greg Long

Well,hes been watching c-span again...wierd dog. :? :roll: 


When I was told about the 43 drives,I was also told that this is based on research going back 100 years.I then ask another question;how long has man used dogs for help in their daily lives as well as in war.I think it goes back many 100s of years.
Does anyone think that we are better at getting dogs to work for us now than ever before?Were there more capable dogs and handlers in the past?Just curious.. :wink:


----------



## Guest

Tim Martens wrote:


> i retracted my statement...if you read at the bottom of my post..."


Tim, you totally misunderstood _my_ post. I was agreeing w/that list's sway toward a simpler definition...more like needs, and those others to be more like reasons or aggression-provoking stimuli or types of aggression. I know you like to argue almost as much as I do :wink: ...but in this case, we were in agreement. Sorry. :lol: :lol: 

Greg, I think that handlers were probably more capable in the past due to necessity. For example, how many modern day shepherds do you know (people-not dogs)? 

I run into a lot of people who are just blown away by the kind of relationship that's possible with the right kind of communication. They gives dogs no credit. They're treated like children who know nothing and are incapable of anything. Therefore, they totally miss all the capabilities that their dog may actually possess. When I work with Caleb, people actually stop and watch us. Half of them have dogs. Of the half of them that have dogs, probably 90% say something to the effect of "Wow, I wish my dog could do that. " It kills me. HE COULD!!! 

Sorry if I strayed a little bit, but we're not getting any better as a whole, IMO. I think there are more pets out there than anything, and they're grossly underestimated, understimulated, underworked, and underappreciated.


----------



## Andres Martin

> Does anyone think that we are better at getting dogs to work for us now than ever before?Were there more capable dogs and handlers in the past?


Comparing the best to the best...We're better now, I think. Back then, dogs were used for alerting, hunting and killing in much less complex environments...and NO laws. The guys in ancient times harnessed dogs' instincts and didn't shape much. Now, the uses are more sophisticated...and you can get your ass sued off. ooops, I wrote ass. Sorry. But the point is shaping occurs much more today.

I suspect dogs live longer and healthier, too.

Of course, there are problems...but I've been "shaped" to focus on the positives... :lol:


----------



## Guest

Andres, do you (or anyone else) think this is geographical? I really don't see that around where I live; I'm quite disappointed in the *general* outlook on dogs, actually. Of course, if you're really in an area where real working dogs are the norm (military, etc.) then I see where it would seem that things have gotten better.

I disagree that they live healthier, BTW. That might be an interesting topic in itself...


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

He was referring to the best of today compared to the best of the past, I think that overall the handling skills, understanding between dog and handler, communication and training methods have far evolved now. I don't think we're talking about pets here, I wouldn't classify them as "the best" :lol:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> ....the best of today compared to the best of the past, I think that overall the handling skills, understanding between dog and handler, communication and training methods have far evolved now. ...


I don't think there's any real question about it. 

Watching old training videos is illuminating.


----------



## Andres Martin

> I don't think there's any real question about it.
> 
> Watching old training videos is illuminating.


"Cryptic Connie" at work... :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Guest

They've evolved in some ways, but in others, I think we've merely overcomplicated them. I think a lot of people have what should be working dogs, but they're kept as "pets" and this does a disservice to the animal. I'm not talking about them living in the house or basics like that. I'm referring to keeping dogs like GSDs and treating them the way you would a Pomeranian, and ignoring their need to work. I think they really do have a need to work, and not taxing them mentally and physically is unjust. 

Why do we see so many "high-drive" dogs in shelters? B/c they make bad pets. Because people don't understand how to communicate with the dog, and make the dog understand what we're asking. Look through a shelter and see how many of these are shepherds of some sort; they're there because people don't understand their needs or are not willing to accomodate them. 

So, I really don't think we've gotten that much better. We're a society with a "throw-away" mentality, and I think it trickles down to our treatment of the dogs, unfortunately. **I do agree, however, that the people interested in truly communicating with dogs have found much more effective ways to do it.** We just need to expand.


----------



## Andres Martin

> We just need to expand.


Are you referring to selective breeding?


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


----------



## Tim Martens

Jenni Williams said:


> Andres, do you (or anyone else) think this is geographical? I really don't see that around where I live; I'm quite disappointed in the *general* outlook on dogs, actually. Of course, if you're really in an area where real working dogs are the norm (military, etc.) then I see where it would seem that things have gotten better.
> 
> I disagree that they live healthier, BTW. That might be an interesting topic in itself...


i absolutely think it's geographical. look at the stereotype people in the world have of americans. fat, lazy and spoiled. not too far off from the majority of our pets as well. 

i can't comment on other countries as i am far from a world traveler. i can only go on what i'm told. the other day i was in the park and a neighbor of mine told me about her dog bit her not too long ago. it was a food aggression thing. she went on to tell me that the dog sleeps in her bed with her. i just sat quietly as i knew there was nothing i could say that would convince her to become a leader. sadly, i don't think that is all that uncommon in this country with our pets...


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Andres Martin said:


> I don't think there's any real question about it.
> 
> Watching old training videos is illuminating.
> 
> 
> 
> "Cryptic Connie" at work... :lol: :lol: :lol:
Click to expand...

I meant commercial videos....... my own training methods, of course, always were and remain impeccable.* :lol: 

Even basic obedience videos from the 1970s and 1980s are funny today..... and every single one I watched has since been updated to reflect (as Mike puts it) superior "handling skills, understanding between dog and handler, communication and training methods" ----- and that's only a 25-35 year span. 

Training is evolving. 

* :lol: :lol: :lol: :wink:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

P.S. JMHO!


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Tim Martens said:


> .....the other day i was in the park and a neighbor of mine told me about her dog bit her not too long ago. it was a food aggression thing. she went on to tell me that the dog sleeps in her bed with her. i just sat quietly as i knew there was nothing i could say that would convince her to become a leader. sadly, i don't think that is all that uncommon in this country with our pets...


Too true!

But we're talking about the best training then versus the best training now, right?


----------



## Guest

Tim, damn it, we're agreeing again! Couldn't have said it better myself...well probably could've, but I won't go there! :lol: 

Connie, yeah, that's what I was trying to say. The people who are doing it are doing it better, we just need more of them.

Andres, absolutely :lol: . Just eliminate everyone we deem to be idiots. :lol: :lol:


----------



## Tim Martens

Connie Sutherland said:


> Tim Martens said:
> 
> 
> 
> .....the other day i was in the park and a neighbor of mine told me about her dog bit her not too long ago. it was a food aggression thing. she went on to tell me that the dog sleeps in her bed with her. i just sat quietly as i knew there was nothing i could say that would convince her to become a leader. sadly, i don't think that is all that uncommon in this country with our pets...
> 
> 
> 
> Too true!
> 
> But we're talking about the best training then versus the best training now, right?
Click to expand...

jenni commented on the "general" outlook of dogs. i replied to her. if you would like to direct me to the thread that is specific to the "best training versus the best training" i will be happy to stay out of that thread and not draw your ire :roll:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Tim Martens said:


> .........jenni commented on the "general" outlook of dogs. i replied to her. if you would like to direct me to the thread that is specific to the "best training versus the best training" i will be happy to stay out of that thread and not draw your ire :roll:


Oh, Tim, you could NEVER "draw my ire" !! :lol: 

Mike mentioned the best of today compared to the best of the past, and I was commenting on his post. 

But you guys are right; there are definitely two important tangents here: The best versus the best and general versus general.


----------



## Lyn Chen

I like to view the basic "drives" as merely terms which can help the *human* learn about dog training and how to apply it. Sort of like when you were in kindergarten and your ABCs were huge and page-sized. It's easier after all to say "prey drive" rather than repeatedly saying, "When the dog wants to chase something..." And so on. It makes it even easier to explain these things to a beginner. I know when I was starting out that the terms helped me understand the very basics of the dog's behavior in this type of training. It's not 100% complete or even true, but it set the path towards my understanding. Over time, experience should override this initial foundation (again for the human, not the dog). 

I do think that 43 "drives" is a little cutting it, and I don't necessarily agree on what a "drive" truly is (and yeah, what drives "exist" and "don't exist"). Dogs mix all of these up and they certainly don't think in terms of drive. I don' think anyone is claiming that, in any case. :roll: For my purposes it's only a 'theory' that gives me an insight on how a dog's mind *MAY* work, and it provides several possible options I could go about with training the dog to do a particular job. Kind of like science, maybe. I'm sure the electrons don't think "Well, that object lacks charge, maybe I should move over there to neutralize it"...we just come up with these things to make it easier to understand them, and then be able to explain them to someone that has even less of an idea of what they are.


----------



## Bob Scott

The best vs the best is much better. 
General vs general has decayed. 100 yrs ago the average dog was expected to do what dogs did. Watch the house, catch the cows, kill the varmits, chase the boogy man away from the kids. 
Today, for the most part, the "general" are all $#%^&*g furbabies. :evil:


----------



## Greg Long

I think that the best vs best for sport is at its highest level ever.I do not believe we are improving in the work category though.Its a combination of factors including handlers,trainers,genetics/breeders and soceity.
JMO but I think the dogs are getting weaker and weaker and the people are gradually getting softer.Our soceity relies far too much on technology and on someone else to do the job for us.I see a growing lack of common sense and mechanical skills as well as dicipline which IMO has a negative effect on our soceities' ability to understand and implement animal behavior and training.
I know I know , you all are going "HUH?" but Ive trained horses for a living for many years and I see it there too.


----------



## Lynn Cheffins

I think Bob and Greg have made good points. People used to be more in tune with animals because they had to depend on them for livelihood and lived in closer contact with them. Animals were judged more on what they could do rather than how they looked, etc.


----------



## Lou Castle

There are as many drives as you can find a use for in training. I know someone who's got three pages, single-spaced, listing drives. He thinks that ball drive is different from stick drive is different from Frisbee drive is different from Kong drive is different from fender drive. (You can continue this as much as it is useful). 

He rates each drive depending on how strong it is in the dog. A dog that was extremely driven to chase a ball would get a 10 in ball drive. If he was very driven to chase a stick, but not as heavily as the ball he'd get a 9 in stick drive. By rating each of these he can reward the dog with a "better" toy as he progresses in training.  He'd save the 10 toy for a "jackpot reward."


----------



## David Frost

Little ole archiac me, I just let the dog pick the one he likes best. But in my defense, I get all those mixes and left overs that can't read numbers. Interesting concept though, ball, stick, frisbee etc, etc, drive. I can see how that could become a very long list. But then, I'm one that still uses prey/kill rather than "fight" drive. That's what we called it "back in the old days". It worked for me then, so I just keep using it.

DFrost


----------



## Daryl Ehret

The following is sort of my take on drives. It could easily be picked apart, but it makes more sense to me than many of the behavior models I've seen...

Drive: Formulation of mindset to reach an obtainable objective, an urge, a call to action or reaction, to fulfill a need or desire. And sometimes inclusively described, the magnitude of such; the measure of intensity or expenditure of energy to do so.

Dynamics: Focus, Thresholds & Magnitudes of each Drive
(focus and distractibility, thresholds and sharpness serve to determine the manner in which an actual drive will manifest itself)

Attributes that are qualities, not drives as sometimes described: temperament, courage/confidence, hardness/softness, trainability

Drive Types: Proactive, Reactive, and Neutral

Aggression/Proactivity/Lure/Attraction
~Sex drive
~Hunger
~Power/Rank Domination/Competitiveness(Fight Drive?): of handler, of decoy, of pack
~Pack Drive(social): need for social presence, praise, or approval, companionship/fellowship, (retrieve)
~Defense/guard: of self, of companion/pack (maternal), of territory
~Track/Prey(predation): locate, chase/pursuit
~Possesiveness: of food/toy/(wealth)/shelter

Neutrality/Negligence/Aloofness
~learned (simulated pack behavior enacted to avoid correction, not to earn praise)
~boredom/preoccupation (digging, chewing, running fence, etc.)

Avoidance/Reactivity/Distaste/Repulsion
~Survival/flee danger - fear based
~Subservience/subordinance: kiss-ass, to make social amends, soothe conflict, to supplicate


Sidenote; Vocal Tonalities: a linear scale
CORRECTIVE TONE < AGITATIVE TONE < COMMAND TONE > PERMISSIVE TONE > PRAISE TONE


----------



## Andres Martin

That's pretty good. Interesting. Is there bibliography behind that?


----------



## Daryl Ehret

Just me, I guess, with help from Frawley's list above

Kevin Sheldahl's Canine Psychology For Service Dogs.
http://www.k9services.com/CaninePsychology.htm

Armin Winkler articles
http://www.schutzhundvillage.com/drives.html
http://www.schutzhundvillage.com/terms1.html
http://www.schutzhundvillage.com/terms2.html


----------



## Daryl Ehret

In the drive categories mentioned above, each can be manifested differently. For example, the same dog may have a strong drive for the toy but not so strong for the food. And the stick/ball comparasin before mentioned in this thread is similar in the way that a particular dog may strongly favor one toy over another. Much of that probably has to do with it's earlier association of positive or negative experience with each toy, the possessiveness being different for each. Another example is with dominance. A dog-aggressive dog might not be people-aggressive at all, or the the other way around. Context of the current stituation and experience of previous association is the key.

When I feed, all dogs are present together in the same room, and kind of how Cesar Milan does, I feed the most patient first. They soon learn that they will not go hungry, and what behavior sets the standard for reward, so that dogs that were aggressively possessive for food tend to mellow out in that respect. Is this good for training purposes? Maybe not, but I'm not a firm believer in bribing my dogs for correct behavior. I use "food drive" somewhat, but ultimately I want them to respond with "pack drive", the desire to please me. I'm not too liberal with coercive correction either, I don't want avoidance behaviors to cut training sessions short.

Each of these behaviors are somewhat genetic/inborn/instinctual AND learned from positive and negative associations with experience. Training can help to establish the form in which these drives take, to build them or break them down.

As Armin Winkler states on drives:


> What are drives? Unfortunately, people have forgotten what the term is meant to describe. It shouldn't be used to give a name to every little thing a dog does. Drives are the internal impulses and urges that motivate animals-- in this case dogs-- to take certain actions. In order for something to be classified as a drive there has to be a drive specific stimulus, drive specific action, and a drive goal. We can manipulate the drives in our dogs during training to suit our purposes and to get them to perform tasks that are the results of these manipulated drives. However, we should never lose sight of the fact that a drive has biological significance for the animal and its species. It is this biological significance that is specific to every drive that gives us a better idea of what we can and cannot achieve by manipulating the drive. Drives can be split into two main categories. The criteria that create the division are the drive goals. One category contains the drives that lead to the gain of something positive or pleasurable; for example: sex drive, prey drive, pack drive (in this case the desire to be with members of the same species). In this category there is a tone of excitement and lust during the drive action and deep satisfaction when the goal is reached. The other category contains the drives that lead to the prevention of something negative or harmful; for example: defense drive, flight drive, the desire to remain unscathed. In this category there is a tone of stress and tension during the drive action and relief when the goal is reached.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

A dog with strong food drive and little guarding instinct may work well on the SchH field, but probably won't keep strangers away from my property, and could potentially be poisoned if easily subdued with food.

I will use food drive initially, to train certain basic commands which, once learned are transitioned to the tug for reward. All the while associating with vocal praise and touch, which ultimately is the overall reward for correct behavior. The simple imparting of knowledge that "I am pleased". This, to me is "pack drive".

Conversely, physical correction is used with over-dominance issues, to establish pack order or rank, but not used for much else. Not too early on, and adjusted according to the sensitivity and maturity of the dog, accompanied with appropriate vocal tone, later a certain level of negative vocal tonality is sufficient. Again, to instill a desire to please me, knowing my level of displeasure.

In the end, food is approached somewhat neutrally, and my commands neutral in tonality, not as coaxing. Drives have been shaped, and the real work is in the focus of energy. This is what is more important to me, not the shape of drives present, but the magnitude of energy inherent in the dog, and the ability to tone it down or turn it off on command (easier said of a GSD). This is certainly very much, but not all, genetic. I suspect it has most to do with the dog's metabolism, some to do with diet, and of course, temperament. Temperament can be a bit helped in the shaping, but the real intense and energetic dog recieves this in its genetics. Equally important as energy, is focus and the thresholds for stimulus, but I'm "worded-out" for now.


----------



## Greg Long

Wow  

Ok,Ill give it a go.My original post was part curiousity and part joke.I think we overanalyze dog behavior.

I dont think about what drive the dog or pup is in.Initially I just give the pup the command and then show or guide it into position.Then praise for correct positioning.So it is direction and then correction.Corrections dont have to be stressful or abusive.I incorporate obstacles in the training from the very beginning.It doesnt take much and the pup or dog starts to take direction from the handler.Vocals are very important and change according to the situation or the dog.This is the foundation and all other activities stem from this.
Bitework is the same.It is basically an excersise in obed.Show the dog what you want and then praise for the desired behavior and then build confidence in the excersise.If I tell the dog to bite,he bites.All bitework is serious.In fact if you were to try and decoy my dogs with an attitude that wasnt serious,they wouldnt do much.The more real of a threat the decoy is,the more aggressive my dogs become.They escalate the fight based on the threat level and seriousness of the decoy.My dog Shooter will bite the sleeve as long as the fight doesnt get too serious,in which case he tries to go around the sleeve because he is well aware that hes not doing any real harm to the decoy.So my dogs are free to fight, all I do is tell them when and when not to.
Tracking is the same.I just either turn it on or off.If I tell the dog to track,he tracks.He is free to track naturally.He understands what I want and he does it.Of course I just track for fun. :wink: 

So I dont think about drives when working my dogs.They work enthusiastically enough for me but they probably arent flashy to sport people.If I tried to break down all 43 drives,I wouldnt get much accomplished.Maybe you dont agree but I know Im much much happier doing it this way than when I did build drive, and reward with food and tugs and balls.Frankly, I find drive-rewarding very limiting but very flashy.


----------



## Greg Long

Furthermore,the indentification of and subsequent use of different drives in training has led to selective breeding for increased drives.Primarily prey and or ball drive which has led to so many dogs being unbalanced.To think that a dog without high ball drive cant be used for real work is rediculous.Now sport is a different story.I dont think you can get that level of flash and speed without high ball or prey drive and I think the high prey drive is needed to get the points in protection work.It has little to do with a dog biting in a real situation.


----------



## Tim Martens

Greg Long said:


> Furthermore,the indentification of and subsequent use of different drives in training has led to selective breeding for increased drives.Primarily prey and or ball drive which has led to so many dogs being unbalanced.To think that a dog without high ball drive cant be used for real work is rediculous.Now sport is a different story.I dont think you can get that level of flash and speed without high ball or prey drive and I think the high prey drive is needed to get the points in protection work.It has little to do with a dog biting in a real situation.


so how would you get a dog to do scent work (drug, explosive, cadaver, etc)? the dog just loves the handler so much, he finds the drugs to please the handler?


----------



## Daryl Ehret

I guess I don't think all that much about drives either. It's the matter of "context" for the drive that is learned. Not whether it's present or not, but how and where it's energy is focused...

"Yeah! Alright, rip that decoy apart!" or "No! You better leave that small child (or cat) alone!"

That's the "learned" part for the dog, because I think more emphasis should be placed on energy levels. Vocal tonality directs the level of intensity or energy used.

There are numerous levels in which we commune with animals, simultaneously, consciously, and subconsciously. Namely with physical contact, vocal tonality, body language and posture. Trainers who train very well, may very well be unaware of what it is exactly they do that gains such great performance, they're just "naturals". By observing these trainers, some clues may be deciphered as to what cues they subconsciously give while training. And just as importantly, how they "transition" them through development. I don't personally know alot of trainers, and I haven't alot of experience myself. So, it's important to me to emulate the best from what I know. Dean Calderon was one such accomplished person, who was generous to write an article of his understandings.

http://www.schutzhundsportdogsinc.com/Articles/Protection Drives.pdf



> The Germans have a saying: "in protection a dog must work with 100% of his Prey Drive and 100% of his Defense Drives"
> 
> By working back and forth between the Prey Drives and Defense Drives the helper can position the dogs at the peak of the gauge between the Pack Leader Drive and The Civil Drives. This peak is the ultimate goal in Schutzhund training: 100 points in Schutzhund III protection.



I now tend to hold greater importance for pack drive, as I believe Dean does, and my own personal TD.

Things More Important (to me) than the other 42 drives:

Threshold: to stimulus
Focus: of attention
Energy scale: intense/pacified
Pack Drive: to please the pack leader
Temperament: and character, confidence level
Athleticism: agility/strength/endurance
Physical Health: diet, excercise, genetic well-being


BTW: I have Col. Konrad Most's "Training Dogs", and I don't see the 43 drives anywhere mentioned by that gentleman on the other forum.


----------



## Guest

Whew.  

Tim, you're too skeptical to believe it regardless of what Greg would say. And, well, yeah, he's crazy :lol: . But, if I were to jump in and give my answer (not that you want it :lol: )to your question, I'd have to say that you can direct a dog to just about anything with the right bond, communication, and direction. I don't see why searches are any different than anything else. :? What exactly do you mean?

Greg, what drive is Shooter in when he tries to disrobe women? How did you train for this :lol: ? Besides knowing serious from not serious, he has an uncanny nose for what's EXPENSIVE :x !!! Ok, enough joking...

I hate to agree with you, but I do. Who cares what drive they're in if they're doing the right thing? I think too much emphasis is placed on trying to _control_ the dog, and not nearly enough on trying to _communicate_ with the dog. I think drives are much more pertinent to a person trying to make a dog do something specific, particularly something unnatural. If they don't necessarily understand how to communicate their desired behavior from the dog, they can use drives to manipulate it. I think this is especially prevalent in training in which the handler is not the owner. My personal dog will not even acknowledge his own name spoken by a stranger or someone he has no respect for...like my boyfriend  :lol: 8) . I can't imagine him doing anything HARD for anyone else...and I don't believe that he's the only dog like this. To others, he's often perceived as aloof, unfriendly, stubborn, autistic, and even aggressive. How many dogs could be described like this? Plenty. Is this really "how the dog is?" Perhaps it's not; perhaps no one has established a working relationship with the dog. I may be crazy  , but I personally don't believe dogs respect people whom they do not trust. JMO  .

I think a bond or trust is crucial to communication. I believe my dog knows that I won't put him in harm's way intentionally. If I ask him to do something, he'll at least try whether he wants to or not, because he trusts me and I asked him to.


----------



## Tim Martens

well jenni in a different thread greg talked about a new dog he had gotten and that it was, in his estimation, potentially the best working dog he had ever seen (or something along those lines). i asked him what made him say that and he never replied. if it was indeed a new dog, i wouldn't think he'd have the time to form this magical bond that compells the dog to do whatever bidding it's master wished. so i would assume he was basing his evaluation on the dog's "drive". to that i would have responded that i didn't think "drive" would have anything to do with it because it's the dogs desire to please the handler because of the bond (as my understanding is). 

shoot, i'm not knocking it. i'd love to just go pick up any dog from the pound and get him to work without having to worry about such nonsense as "drive". then again, i don't see too many mutts in any of greg's pictures which would lead me to believe that he prefers the herding breeds for work because of their genetic makeup (aka drives)...


----------



## Guest

Tim, he was talking about Zarco. Zarco was a puppy. However, it was several weeks/months before he posted that. I think (just an opinion) that it's much easier to get a puppy to form a bond with you quickly than it is to get an older dog to do the same. A pup has not had any negativity (or certainly less than an adult), or really ANY relationship with humans yet. It seems logical to me that a young pup will form a great bond w/you very fast b/c, frankly, you're all he knows. If you make it postitive, you're on the fast track to a great working relationship.

An older dog displaced from one home into another has baggage from associations that a pup does not. Perhaps that's why my dog works well for me; I got him at 8 weeks, and I'm all he's ever known, really. My pit is from the pound, and I don't think she's ever had a real relationship w/a person, so she's bonded quickly to me-but-she does not trust me fully yet. This is clear when she suddenly balks for some unknown reason when I try to direct her. The more she does things I ask and nothing bad happens, the better she gets. Don't know if this is what you mean...but it's not "magical;" it's actually quite logical,IMO.


----------



## Greg Long

Tim Martens said:


> Greg Long said:
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore,the indentification of and subsequent use of different drives in training has led to selective breeding for increased drives.Primarily prey and or ball drive which has led to so many dogs being unbalanced.To think that a dog without high ball drive cant be used for real work is rediculous.Now sport is a different story.I dont think you can get that level of flash and speed without high ball or prey drive and I think the high prey drive is needed to get the points in protection work.It has little to do with a dog biting in a real situation.
> 
> 
> 
> so how would you get a dog to do scent work (drug, explosive, cadaver, etc)? the dog just loves the handler so much, he finds the drugs to please the handler?
Click to expand...

 Well,Im not an expert in scent work but I have done enough to know it works.First both handler and dog have to be a team.The handler shows interest in the search and the dog follows.The dog works because he is a working dog and the handler just directs this natural ability.It takes work on both the handler's part as well as the dog's.I saw a 4 month old puppy do a search off leash for explosives scent once.It was an elevated hide and he searched for probably 4 or 5 minutes under direction from the handler until he finally located and indicated.This pup was trained the way I described with no reward other than praise.
I dont believe dogs feel love but they can be dedicated.If a dog is searching totally for a reward,he is working totally for himself and on his own.That does work but a dog working for the handler without ball or toy reward will keep working under stress and will be able to search longer IMO but as I said before..Im no expert and you guys in the field have do what you feel is best and what gets the job done.


----------



## Greg Long

Tim Martens said:


> well jenni in a different thread greg talked about a new dog he had gotten and that it was, in his estimation, potentially the best working dog he had ever seen (or something along those lines). i asked him what made him say that and he never replied. if it was indeed a new dog, i wouldn't think he'd have the time to form this magical bond that compells the dog to do whatever bidding it's master wished. so i would assume he was basing his evaluation on the dog's "drive". to that i would have responded that i didn't think "drive" would have anything to do with it because it's the dogs desire to please the handler because of the bond (as my understanding is).
> 
> shoot, i'm not knocking it. i'd love to just go pick up any dog from the pound and get him to work without having to worry about such nonsense as "drive". then again, i don't see too many mutts in any of greg's pictures which would lead me to believe that he prefers the herding breeds for work because of their genetic makeup (aka drives)...


Tim,
The dog I was referring to in the previous thread was an older dog.I said he possibly had more potential than any of the dogs I have worked with but because of his negative previous environment he is nearly ruined as a working dog.
The reason I said he had so much potential is he seemed to have some of the things I like such as seriousness,will to please,calmness.

They do have to have what I refer to as a "will to work" if you call it a particular drive then so be it.I just dont look at it that way.

There is nothing magical about the dogs or the training.Its hard work and I have a long way to go as a trainer.I understand your skepticism though...I was the exact same way. :wink:


----------



## Guest

Whoops. I thought Tim was referring to the Zarco talk w/the early pics of the obstacles. That's not exactly what was said. Greg was misquoted, so I thought it was about the pup. I must've missed that comment regarding the other dog. Or, more accurately, I was so enraged at the ruin of these dogs that I forgot about everything but how pissed I was. :evil: 

Now I remember that thread, but I don't see that it changes much; it was a hypothetical, rhetorical statement; we'll never know how he would've been if he'd had a decent foundation...  What we do know, however, is how much better all these dogs are after only a short time in a different environment. Maybe their potential is not equal, but the potential they have is at least being used to it's fullest capacity. I find it very sad that so many people will never see their dogs at their best.


----------



## Andres Martin

Sheesh, guys! How can any self-respecting person NOT jump in to this one! :evil: :evil: 

I don't think anyone questions that drives exist. Nor do I think anyone questions that motivators exist. Nor do I think people question that motivators are hierarchical.

The use of all this in dog training, IMO, is simple. The more you understand, the more you can manipulate to serve your own purposes. If one doesn't want to expand and understand, but simply stays with what has worked so far, albeit well, one is by definition a non-innovator.

The VAST majority of dogs work better, MUCH better, with OC...with the positive reinforcement side randomized, and the negative reinforcement, negative and positive punishment sides PERFECTLY constant.

The ONLY way to get these dogs to give themselves 100% is using OC...

...but if you are fortunate enough to have superior genetics AND education in your dog, you can use other "rewards"...and the more real you make it, the better. To this type of dog, work must mean "survival" or "furtherance" of the pack.

And so, I think you have to mix and match, depending on your needs and your dog. Most importantly...your dog.

Greg writes:


> All bitework is serious.In fact if you were to try and decoy my dogs with an attitude that wasnt serious,they wouldnt do much.


This is interesting to me. Greg, what will your dogs do if you send them to bite a passive and puposefully "limp" subject? e.g. one that is kneeling sideways to you, with a rifle in his hands pointed at you. Will they bite and keep on biting, or will they loose interest after biting a suit if there is no fight?

On a sidenote, will your dogs retrieve anything? If you toss an uninteresting article into tall grass, how long will your dogs hunt for it without ANY handler assistance (in minutes)?

My take on the whole matter of drives and work...of rewards, bribes, pack, etc. is that you can't do everything with only one set of tools. You need to consider your needs, your abilities, and more than anything else...your dog.

One last item for yuz alls consumption: the more "dog"matic you are, the more "dog"matic you are.

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


----------



## Lyn Chen

Andres, I like the way you put it.

One question: wouldn't teaching a dog to search for drugs or explosives using only handler direction lead to more 'false' alerts as the dog only understands he wants to please the handler?


----------



## Daryl Ehret

Hi Lyn,

I saw this problem on a MWD documentary (National Geographic Channel, I think). But do they actually correct the dog for false alerts? It didn't appear so. If motivation was to please, then displeasure must be expressed.


----------



## Greg Long

Greg writes:


> All bitework is serious.In fact if you were to try and decoy my dogs with an attitude that wasnt serious,they wouldnt do much.


This is interesting to me. Greg, what will your dogs do if you send them to bite a passive and puposefully "limp" subject? e.g. one that is kneeling sideways to you, with a rifle in his hands pointed at you. Will they bite and keep on biting, or will they loose interest after biting a suit if there is no fight?

On a sidenote, will your dogs retrieve anything? If you toss an uninteresting article into tall grass, how long will your dogs hunt for it without ANY handler assistance (in minutes)?

Well, that scenario would have to be serious also.The handler's attitude would have to be serious and the dog will feed off of that.The only way I know to get even close in that situation is to have the person with the rifle use a paintball gun and the handler only has a face mask so their is a serious edge to it(paintballs hurt  ).Then the attitude of the handler will be more serious and the dog will bite serious even without a big fight on the handler's part.Although my dog will bite if I tell him to.I should mention that the handler stays in communicational contact with the dog even when on the bite.So the dog and handler are working together or at least communicating at all times.

My dogs will retrieve and stay on the hunt as long as it takes but not without assistance from the handler.The handler is always telling the dog "good search" or whatever.Its always a team effort.I would not tell my dog to "find it" and just stand there like an idiot.


----------



## Andres Martin

> My dogs will retrieve and stay on the hunt as long as it takes but not without assistance from the handler.The handler is always telling the dog "good search" or whatever.Its always a team effort.I would not tell my dog to "find it" and just stand there like an idiot.


 Let's say you need to find a small .38 in a big field of tall grass? You MUST stay in one place because it's too slow to walk next to your dog for the entire search, plus it's also a bit wierd to be yelling, "Good search!", from 100 yards away...Also, it may well be tactically un"sound". :lol: 

On the bite, what if you can't communicate continuously...because you're busy wrestling some knife-wielding anti-social, while your dog is attached to someone that you haven't searched yet, but is already "submitted"? In a real conflict your mouth dries up AND IT'S MUCH HARDER TO SPEAK. In a real conflict you also get TUNNEL VISION, which makes it MUCH HARDER to be rational about your surroundings.

Regarding the retrieve, another very interesting issue is, will your dog retrieve something small and difficult to pick up...like a coin? How long does it take for your dog to give up trying? How many DIFFERENT attempts at picking it up will your dog perform?

My first point is that there is no end-all, be-all...

...and my second point is, after you've answered my questions, IF you read anything of value that may help you enhance your admittedly excellent communication, ergo results, with your dogs...it's not copyrighted material.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Greg Long

Well you have excellents points and I will have to say that I just dont know because I dont have the experience.I will definitely keep the discussion in mind though.Maybe Ill learn something! :wink: 

Copyrighted material??HUH?


----------



## Lyn Chen

He means it's okay to steal it. :twisted:


----------



## Guest

He's saying it's not copyrighted...in other words, if something seems valuable, use it. At least that's what I think he's saying...but I'm just a girl.


----------



## David Frost

<<<...but I'm just a girl.>>>

That concerns me. On occasion we have adult conversations or language. Do you have parental permission to participate in such a discussion?

DFrost


----------



## Andres Martin

My humble opinion...is that *it's too soon to cull this puppy*.

There are a few "schools of thought":

1) Those that don't want their dog to be "sluts", for lack of a better word (Can I write that?  ), because they view food and tugs as payment, in the realization that dogs can "do more", "be more", for "better" reasons...from a philosophical perspective; and from a practical perspective, don't want the dog to work for himself, or to look for food on a track;

2) Those that don't care, as long as the BEHAVIOR is performed;

3) Those that reward certain things in a random fashion, while demanding their performance always.

From the OP's view of 43 drives, motivation, hierarchy of needs/wants, OC, whilst these may exist, they don't really matter.

So...do DETAILED descriptions of drives, motivations, thresholds, serve a training/working purpose?

In other words...ARE THERE ANY CONVERTS???? Greg??


----------



## Guest

Greg Long said:


> Greg writes:
> 
> 
> 
> All bitework is serious.In fact if you were to try and decoy my dogs with an attitude that wasnt serious,they wouldnt do much.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, I read this 4 times and still don't understand what you are trying to say.
Click to expand...


----------



## Guest

Oh David, my parents gave up on me years ago! It's fine; I assure you. :lol:


----------



## Greg Long

Gerry Grimwood said:


> Greg Long said:
> 
> 
> 
> Greg writes:
> 
> 
> 
> All bitework is serious.In fact if you were to try and decoy my dogs with an attitude that wasnt serious,they wouldnt do much.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm, I read this 4 times and still don't understand what you are trying to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The situation in training has to be serious and not just fun and games.The attitude of the handler and decoy affect the way the dog works.The decoy initially has to present a serious threat and over time this can be refined to the point where the dog views different things to be serious threats such as a passive decoy holding a gun.
> All excercises have to be built up and refined.Just like the article search which I should have clarified earlier but my brain was starting to hurt.Initially the dog relies on the handler but that too can be refined to the point it isnt needed as much.
> Genetics also play a crucial role in the success and limitations of this type of training.Many dogs can only go so far but with good genetics the dog will eventually be able to work on it's own and the communication can be refined to the point that only a change in the handler's attitude generates a response in the dog.
> 
> Do I work my dogs in prey,defense,hunt,and "pack :x " drive???Yes :wink:
> 
> Am I converted?????    No :!:
> 
> But you put up a good argument :lol:
Click to expand...


----------



## Woody Taylor

David Frost said:


> <<<...but I'm just a girl.>>>
> 
> That concerns me. On occasion we have adult conversations or language. Do you have parental permission to participate in such a discussion?
> 
> DFrost


I warned you about this, Officer Frost. Suggest you contact admin to implement the CELTic (Carob-Elmer-Lyka-Thunder) protocol. There are things at stake here.


----------



## Guest

Ok, I think I got it now Greg, 

Please correct me if I'm wrong but you are talking about sport dogs, right ??

When I think about appropriate levels of aggression coming from a dog, be it towards another person specifically I would have another scenario brewing in my head.

Specifically, once I took one to the head whatever the dog might do after the fact would be be of little use to me.

Gerry.


----------



## Andres Martin

> Am I converted????? No
> 
> But you put up a good argument


Gimme some more time... :twisted: 

I'm already getting to you...the following must have hurt you as much as giving birth...


> Do I work my dogs in prey,defense,hunt,and "pack " drive???Yes





> the dog views different things to be serious threats such as a passive decoy holding a gun.


 The dog should bite the living crap out of whomever YOU tell it to bite. Non-stop, until you recall him...or out him. The gun is not part of the required picture. This is accomplished by teaching the dog that the ONLY time he can "drop his guard" is when YOU say so...and if you don't say anything, the dog must fight until the target is down...and his jaws can't squeeze anymore.



> Genetics also play a crucial role in the success and limitations of this type of training.Many dogs can only go so far but with good genetics the dog will eventually be able to work on it's own


 Hear! Hear! This kind of dog's drive for the HUNT has to be built up though...and the way it gets built up is by finding stuff...which is EUREKA: THE REWARD!!!!

So while you think you're not "rewarding", you in fact ARE.

Handler praise is certainly a crucial component...but it's not the important one, which IMO is handler subservience...which tells the dog to follow the command in WORK mode..."Drive satisfaction" is what reinforces that handler subservience...and drive satisfaction only comes from...PRIMARY REWARD: finding the man; biting; finding an object. Stress and the relief of stress is great for STABILITY and subservience...not for stellar performance, for speed...and I mean on the job...not on the sports field.

The following may (or not) illustrate my point regarding rewards:

Can you describe how you get your dog to retrieve an object it REALLY doesn't want to put in his mouth?
Do you play with your dogs? If yes, how?


----------



## Tim Martens

well said andres...


----------



## Lyn Chen

I second that.  Nothing like watching someone with experience tackle this subject.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

Andres,

I remember a previous thread where you mentioned assisting the young dog in "beating the crap out of the decoy". When you first start a dog, you don't train it on an inanimate or prone target, you transition the training to get to that point. The same thing can be said with vocal tonality, if you take in regard the "linear scale" I mentioned earlier. The "praise" tonality eventually transitions to one of neutrality, after the initial habits are formed in the training. The same way you would eventually stop helping the dog beat the decoy. Throw in the occasional random elements, and random rewards, but the pack behavior established should remain consistent (I think). I think you and Greg are agreeing to the same concept from different ends of the scale.


----------



## David Frost

<<<The dog should bite the living crap out of whomever YOU tell it to bite. Non-stop, until you recall him...or out him.>>>>

I can only say AMEN. It's for this very reason I refuse to teach bark and hold. In my world a dog sits when I tell him, stays when I tell him and bites when I tell him. Those behaviors continue until I tell him to do something else.

DFrost


----------



## David Frost

Andres has done an excellant job on this discussion. I wish I would have gotten involved in it earlier. I would like to make a comment though. One poster mentioned a "gun" on a couple of occasions. The proper response from a dog, relative a gun is; no response. The gun doesn't matter. Whether it's carried, brandished, fired or thrown, to the dog it does not matter. The dog continues doing what he had been commanded to do.

DFrost


----------



## David Frost

<<my parents gave up on me years ago!>>>

I was just being protective of the forum. The last thing we need is an irate daddy complaining his little girl is being subjected to unimaginable harm.

It's good to know that won't be the case.

DFrost


----------



## Greg Long

Tactically,I know just enough to get me in real trouble..or killed..  So I really dont feel comfortable commenting any more than I have on things like a perp with a gun but what if the dog sees a guy with a gun pointed at you but you dont see the guy?

Andres,my dogs would pick up what I told them to pick up.I dont know what you mean by play?I dont really "play" with even puppies.

I think we are pretty much on the same page with several things.I agree with Andres,Daryl and I certainly agree with most of what David says.This is one reason I dont like to talk about training dogs in terms of "drives" .We can all be talking about the same things and be mad at each other.It just clouds the discussion and the training field.Im afraid I may be in the category of "whatever gets the job done".

Andres,do you build prey drive like most people?With a tug or ball?Do you "play" with your dogs?


----------



## Daryl Ehret

> In my world a dog sits when I tell him, stays when I tell him and bites when I tell him. Those behaviors continue until I tell him to do something else.


I love that quote. Nothing boils my blood more than direct disobedience.


----------



## Andres Martin

> do you build prey drive like most people?With a tug or ball?Do you "play" with your dogs?


I do NOT build prey AT ALL. My dogs have always had abundant prey drive to begin with. I do NOT build it at all.
However...I DO play with my dog a bunch. This is great for bond building and tons of fun. I play after work or training. In fact, my family plays with my dog too. There's no point to having a dog if you can't have him around you and yours, in a stable manner.
If you don't mind, I'll post the play part on the other thread to keep things organized.

Greg, will your dog pick up a coin on a hard floor? If you haven't tried it, give it a shot...
Will your dog pick up something with a bunch of rust on it?
Why don't you play with your dogs?


----------



## David Frost

<<but what if the dog sees a guy with a gun pointed at you but you dont see the guy?>>>

As you said, this is situational. As for the gun, are you saying your dog can distinguish between a camera, cell phone or any other object a person may be holding in their hand? The gun means nothing. The correct response is no response. Even if this person is hidden, depending on the situation, the dog should not attempt to attack, because he's not been directed to do so. A dog and handler will encounter many people during a tour of duty. The dog, while being attentive to his surroundings will not "alert" his handler the presence of everyone they encounter unless the dog percieves a threat.


DFrost


----------



## Greg Long

Andres Martin said:


> Why don't you play with your dogs?
> 
> 
> 
> Because Im a mean hateful SOB who has a lot of anger pent up inside... :lol: !
> 
> I dont go out of my way to do stuff like "play" or "drive building".Im not saying it doesnt happen,just that I dont do it on purpose and my dogs never see a ball or tug.
> 
> I will try the coin on the hard surface and hmmm let me see if I can find something "rusty" around here.. :lol: Why are you so adament about this particular excercise?
Click to expand...


----------



## Greg Long

Andres,I had never asked Shooter to pick up anything like that before.I took a nickel and threw it on the kitchen floor.I had to show him what I wanted at first but I got him to pick it up several times.It took about 3 to 4 minutes.I will try it on a couple other dogs later.Havent tried the rusty nail yet.


----------



## Andres Martin

> Why are you so adament about this particular excercise?


Because there are some dogs that will shut down if you try to put stuff in their mouth that they don't want in there...even if they are solid retrievers. So you must shape those behaviors...or use compulsion. Your dog is obviously a good dog.


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen

Andres Martin said:


> Why are you so adament about this particular excercise?
> 
> 
> 
> Because there are some dogs that will shut down if you try to put stuff in their mouth that they don't want in there...even if they are solid retrievers. So you must shape those behaviors...or use compulsion. Your dog is obviously a good dog.
Click to expand...

even if a dog retrieves naturally i teach it with compulsion, to make the excercise really reliable :wink:


----------



## Konnie Hein

A word of caution on the coin tricks - I tried that once with Riot. He sure picked up the coin quickly. And then he proceeded to swallow it!


----------



## Greg Long

Actually Shooter(Dutchie) is not that great of a dog but he does have more foundation work on him than the rest of mine do.He is about 18 months old now.He had no problem picking up the rusty nail but did have a little trouble finding it in the grass.I tried a dime on hard surface also and he had no trouble.

I also just tried it with my Czech GSD "Blaster".He picked up the coin but didnt seem to get the hang of it as quick as Shooter did.It took about 5 minutes... :x. I dont see why this excercise would be a problem if the dog has a good foundation.
Since I havent done this excersise before with either dog,how have I shaped this behavior?I certainly didnt try to force them to pick up the coin.Of course it would need to be refined but they completed the task.I also cant see me being able to this with one of my other canine residents that doesnt have the foundation work.I find this very interesting. 8)


----------



## Andres Martin

Konnie wrote:


> A word of caution on the coin tricks - I tried that once with Riot. He sure picked up the coin quickly. And then he proceeded to swallow it!



Did he give you change?


----------



## Konnie Hein

Andres wrote:


> Did he give you change?


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


----------



## Guest

Just to be a troublemaker :lol: , I'm going to jump in and give my opinion that while Andres is so eloquently making his point, he and Greg are really not disagreeing on much other than semantics, provided that I'm understanding them both correctly and clearly. Specifically, the recurring theme I see is the idea that "while you think you're not rewarding, you in fact ARE." 

This caught my attention b/c I don't think it's NOT rewarding that Greg is so adamant about; I *think* it's OUTSIDE rewards like balls, tugs, treats, etc. If I get Andres' point right, he's saying that the dog *is* rewarded-but he's rewarded with the *find*.

Ok, then how is the idea that you ideally want the dog working (let's say tracking for argument's sake) for the sake of working-for the find at the end, and not for a treat really so different? It's all semantics, like the word "drive" itself. We can argue and argue, but I think we're closer than we think; we just are seeing it in different terms. My guess would be that Greg's dog and Andres' dog would perform in a somewhat similar manner, and Andres' little coin experiment showed that. If Greg says they like to track b/c they like to work, and Andres' says they like to track b/c they're rewarded, then ain't it the same, senors???  

Ok, now I'll sit back and wait for the $#!+ to hit the fan... :lol: 
Hope I didn't misquote anyone. I want clarification, damn it! :x

BTW-Shooter is NOT that great of a dog. Of course he'd steal change; he steals womens' clothes.


----------



## Andres Martin

Greg is coming around well, as can be evidenced by:


> Do I work my dogs in prey,defense,hunt,and "pack :x " drive???Yes :wink:


and he quickly became squirrely about it when he changed his signature to


> Its still not too late to come over to my side!


 so yes it seems we're agreeing... :lol: :lol: :lol: ...and he's promoting prey, defense, hunt and pack drives!

Now, seriously...first of all the question of drives and their use. If you anthropomorphize a bit, and think of yourself...there are things you prefer...you may prefer jet airplanes to Cessnas, or you may prefer excercise to TV, or you may prefer ping pong to crochet, or watermelon to grapes. I can use your preferences and inclinations to describe you to other people...and this would make it easier for other people to "get to you". It's the same with a dog's drives. They describe the individual, and facilitate working with that individual.

Many dogs will find it preferrable to retrieve a tennis ball, than a recently fired gun; many dogs will prefer raw chicken necks to a head of broccoli; few dogs will hunt for something unseen without handler assistance longer than 10 minutes; few dogs have high degrees of social aggression and high prey drive, and so on. So people use drives to describe a dog, and wise trainers will use those individual's characteristics to "gradually" increase the level of difficulty of the behaviors they train for, and train the commands using those "easier", "preferrable", items (rewards). For example, teach the retrieve with a tennis ball, and then move onto progressively more difficult items.

The point is this: the more the dogs wants what you can provide, or wants to avoid what you can provide, the faster he'll learn. With few dogs, bond and praise are enough...but with the VAST majority...other rewards do the job, and allow "those" dogs to equal or surpass the level of the pack driven dog. It depends on the dog, the need, and the handler's capabilities.

Dogs, like all animals - including humans - are goal seekers; be it rest/comfort, safety, play, food, sex, dominance. If you understand which goals your dog prefers, you can start from a clearer platform, and move to more difficult or less preferred tasks/activities.

External rewards have a place, as do compulsion, play, praise, "down" time together, walks, agility, stress, etc.

Now...with bitework the plot thickens...because for a GOOD dog, almost any bite will turn into a prey bite...even if the decoy is looking mean, directly at the dog's eyes, and has an overbearing posture, whatever. Almost any bite will turn into prey...as the dog's confidence increases. The only way to stop that from happening, is to teach the dog that all bites are fights, that all fights are painfull, and that fights are won when the adversary is down and out. You need a good dog with a strong desire to fight.

You need fight drive.

8) 8) 8)


----------



## Greg Long

Well, I think your headed in the right direction but there are things that come into play here that we are overlooking.I think we are generalizing a bit too much.Genetics have a huge effect on why the dog works or what the dog is working for.

As for Shooter stealing women's clothes...Jenni just thinks he is really in tune with his handler! 8) 8) 8) Could be.. :?


----------



## Guest

Andres, I might be wrong, or it could be that Greg's not as eloquent at explaining his perspective :twisted: , but I don't think anyone's "coming around." No one was denying that these exist or are important...again, I think we're playing semantics. 

Something else that I keep tossing around in that little squirrel cage I call my brain....

Different handlers, based on their philosophies and goals, will choose VERY different dogs. I don't see, for example, Tim picking out the same dog that Al Reanto would pick, or Greg would pick, just as I don't see myself choosing the same dog that an LEO might pick. What's desired depends on the handler, and from what I see, one school of thought desired drives out the wazoo, whatever those drives may be, while another school desires a more serious dog that may not even chase a ball. So, having said that, these people all have animals that are motivated by different things. I think this is the principle difference and reason for these disagreements, however civil and fun they might be. 

If someone wants a dog that can do some problem-solving on his own, he probably doesn't go for the prey monster, I'd bet, and a guy who wants no chance of a dog thinking for himself is probably gonna choose the dog just about guaranteed to follow commands for the reward of choice, and not take things into his own hands. 

The dogs chosen by these respective individuals can hardly be compared, IMO. We are speaking of extraordinarily different animals with different genetic makeup. I don't see how they could possibly be trained in similar manners with any positive outcome, which I believe is what's fueling this skepticism of others' methods. We instinctively relate these methods we hear to our *own* dogs, and if it's something that we think would never work w/our dog, we blow it off or become skeptical or doubtful. We need to keep in mind that people choose dogs for a reason; they feel right to that person. Another's training methods, regardless of their relative or apparent success, if not firmly believed in ourselves, are useless.

Greg, the damn dog still owes me $130. :x


----------



## Lyn Chen

> If someone wants a dog that can do some problem-solving on his own, he probably doesn't go for the prey monster, I'd bet, and a guy who wants no chance of a dog thinking for himself is probably gonna choose the dog just about guaranteed to follow commands for the reward of choice, and not take things into his own hands.


This is kind of an unfair comparison...does this mean my prey monster can't problem solve on his own? :roll:


----------



## Greg Long

Lyn Chen said:


> If someone wants a dog that can do some problem-solving on his own, he probably doesn't go for the prey monster, I'd bet, and a guy who wants no chance of a dog thinking for himself is probably gonna choose the dog just about guaranteed to follow commands for the reward of choice, and not take things into his own hands.
> 
> 
> 
> This is kind of an unfair comparison...does this mean my prey monster can't problem solve on his own? :roll:
Click to expand...

It doesnt mean he cant but a dog bred almost entirely for his intensity and desire to chase things like a ball will often react first and think later or not at all.


----------



## Guest

It can mean what Greg said, or it can mean what I meant :roll: which was that THIS dog, the prey monster, is going to probably be snatched up by someone who wants to use that insane "drive" to get this dog to do exactly what it's told, *regardless* of his own thought. Most LEOs I talk to want prey monsters b/c they're easier to get to stop thinking about anything but the reward at the end...the damn toy. Less likely to be affected by extreme stresses, blah blah blah, whatever the reasoning...

It does not mean that, ball in or out of scenario, that this dog *can't* think, and I don't see how that could be derived from the given scenario I used for example purposes only.

Although my personal opinion is half of those prey monsters would walk right INTO a jet engine after that blasted ball. :lol: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:


----------



## Andres Martin

> one school of thought desired drives out the wazoo,


This is for me. ALL drives out the wazoo. I'll shape that how I want if I get it as a pup. I want an intense and very fast dog...as an adult. Stable, intelligent, aware as well.


> If someone wants a dog that can do some problem-solving on his own, he probably doesn't go for the prey monster


This is not necessarily correct. A dog that REALLY wants a prey reward, will offer a bunch of different behaviors to get it, and pretty soon will associate "problem solving" with primary reward; will also associate secondary reward to primary reward; and will finally associate "problem solving" to secondary reward...pack, praise, etc.
I don't use prey development to get obedience, but it's easy to do with my dog. I don't use food, but again, it's easy with him. But I taught the commands with food, reinforced them occasionally with play, corrected the snot out of him for choosing his own agenda over mine. He lives in my house as part of my family, and we all play a bunch.

I'm sure we're all well aware that predators play together, hunt together, go through scary stuff together, succeed together, and form bonds that way.



> I don't see how they could possibly be trained in similar manners with any positive outcome


This is the crux of the matter. Each dog's drives are different, each handler's needs are different, and each handler is different. Out of all those differences, the ones from dog to dog are the most important...and dictate what you can and can't do, and when.
Each dog must be assessed as an individual and must be educated as such.



> Operant conditioning SUCKS!


 :lol: :lol: :lol: I think in one way or another, it's ALL Operant Conditioning...even for humans. Read Maslow. You're a tough nut to crack. I'll give you that.
8) 8) 8)


----------



## Andres Martin

> a dog bred almost entirely for his intensity and desire to chase things like a ball will often react first and think later or not at all.


So true. Breed for balance. Not sport crap.


----------



## Greg Long

I guess Im a little crazy then.I agree with SOME of what is being said.This is what we all see and we work with what we see and hopefully get the job done.I am a little radical I suppose as I believe there is much more which we do not see.Man is a very arrogant creature,he thinks he can sort out and understand all things by reasoning(drives).There are things that defy human reasoning yet are very natural.I do not believe we were meant to understand all things in the natural world.If we can simply accept a few things as they are, then they become more clear.I believe the natural bond between man and dog is one of these things.
I am not trying to say there is some magical training method in which rewards are not needed.I am saying that, for me personally,I look at dogs in a much different way than I used to.It really is more of a philosophy than a training method.Dogs have in many ways changed my life.They have been the reason I have met some of the most important people in my life.I owe it to them to find the best way to train and to go beyond if possible.


----------



## Andres Martin

Greg...

That was deep...and I mean it without arrogance or demerit.

I concur.

Three times my dog has saved my life. Twice one dog, once another. There's a lot more going on than what meets the "virginal" eye. The level of mutual subtlety is VERY high.

Some dogs have high HERO DRIVE!

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Tim Martens

i'm always a post or two late on this thread. every time i read something and want to reply, i read a few posts down and andres has already said it. with that, i'll throw in my .02...



Jenni Williams said:


> Different handlers, based on their philosophies and goals, will choose VERY different dogs. I don't see, for example, Tim picking out the same dog that Al Reanto would pick, or Greg would pick, just as I don't see myself choosing the same dog that an LEO might pick. What's desired depends on the handler, and from what I see, one school of thought desired drives out the wazoo, whatever those drives may be, while another school desires a more serious dog that may not even chase a ball. So, having said that, these people all have animals that are motivated by different things. I think this is the principle difference and reason for these disagreements, however civil and fun they might be.


not saying this is the case with you jenni, but i think you may have fallen into the trap. people with dull or low drive dogs always want to say their dog is "serious" and that a dog that will chase a ball, conversely, isn't "serious". many criminals have been bitten by these "non-serious" dogs. my dog who will chase a ball all day long hasn't had a problem getting "serious" when the time arises. these are not mutually exclusive traits here. 



Jenni Williams said:


> If someone wants a dog that can do some problem-solving on his own, he probably doesn't go for the prey monster, I'd bet, and a guy who wants no chance of a dog thinking for himself is probably gonna choose the dog just about guaranteed to follow commands for the reward of choice, and not take things into his own hands.


andres addressed this beautifully when he described a dog learning through his desire of the primary reward. i will also add that in many cases, you are right. i don't want my dog "thinking". i want him doing whatever the hell i tell him to. if i tell him to search, i want him to search balls to the wall until he finds the guy or he's dead tired, not when he decides he's searched enough. i don't want my dog trying to decide who the "threat" is. i don't feel like giving my house to some idiot because my dog decided he was a threat. if i'm going down, i want it to be for a choice that I made. not a dog. so yes, in my line of work, "thinking" is not all that highly looked upon. plus, when I only have a short time to decide between a bunch of dogs and you've got the drive crazy dogs going balls to the wall and the vendor says, "yeah, but you should see this one think", i don't believe that would be a very good sales line....


----------



## Guest

Tim, that was my whole point about LEOs not wanting dogs to think or interpret threats or do much of anything on their own. There are a million legit reasons for this, among them, LIABILITY. You officers are the ones who need to do this; the dog needs to do what you tell them. That was precisely my point. 

I wasn't saying they were mutually exclusive traits, just that different people will choose dogs who generally lean one way more than another. Dogs are multi-dimensional and it would be quite arrogant to say that one "type" is "better". Better suited to a specific purpose, maybe.

My personal experience leads me to the conclusion that prey-based trainers do not always know how to work with a "serious" dog. Yeah, I know you think the word serious is a cop-out, but what else do you call a dog who won't engage in a game with a stranger? Why do they insist on shaking rags in the dog's face, when all that's needed is to stare at him for a few seconds??? :? Who cares WHAT works, as long as it works? This is my biggest problem in dog training-the insertion of egos. :x 

Which leads me to THE TRAP: Regarding the trap, well I wish I'd fallen a little deeper into the trap. My dog is, ugh, pains me to say it...  sleeve happy  . Plenty of drive to earn some [cough, vomit]...titles...BUT---he looks at a stranger who tries to get him to play a game as if they're some alien creature, and not a very bright one at that. He plays like a maniacal moron with me, and a select few, but outside, he's kind of serious. Or maybe he's just a snob. :lol: Call it what you will, Timothy.

Ugh, and balls, well, he chases balls too...drops them right in front of the lawn mower so I HAVE to stop and pick it up and throw it out of my way...and geez, if he loses his frisbee, he'll look for it well after dark and refuse to go home without it...I'm so afraid someone will see... ...


----------



## Tim Martens

Jenni Williams said:


> Tim, that was my whole point about LEOs not wanting dogs to think or interpret threats or do much of anything on their own. There are a million legit reasons for this, among them, LIABILITY. You officers are the ones who need to do this; the dog needs to do what you tell them. That was precisely my point.


ok. we're on the same page here.



Jenni Williams said:


> I wasn't saying they were mutually exclusive traits, just that different people will choose dogs who generally lean one way more than another. Dogs are multi-dimensional and it would be quite arrogant to say that one "type" is "better". Better suited to a specific purpose, maybe.


again, we agree. i'm not saying one is "better" than the other, but certainly one is better suited for the work i need the dog to do.



Jenni Williams said:


> My personal experience leads me to the conclusion that prey-based trainers do not always know how to work with a "serious" dog. Yeah, I know you think the word serious is a cop-out, but what else do you call a dog who won't engage in a game with a stranger? Why do they insist on shaking rags in the dog's face, when all that's needed is to stare at him for a few seconds??? :? Who cares WHAT works, as long as it works? This is my biggest problem in dog training-the insertion of egos. :x


don't confuse "doesn't know how to work with" with "don't want to work with". if you're talking sport dog trainers, they don't have time to get into "the right mindset" to work a dog like yours. at least that's what i suspect. if i was the TD at a club and saw behavior like you're describing, i'd tell them the same thing you've been told. get another dog. not that he's not a terrific dog, but for sport takes too much work to get him in the mood. work that takes away from the other dogs. if you're talking PPD type stuff, then sure, the TD should do whatever you pay him to do and do what it takes to get your dog working.

[quote="Jenni Williams]Which leads me to THE TRAP: Regarding the trap, well I wish I'd fallen a little deeper into the trap. My dog is, ugh, pains me to say it...  sleeve happy  . Plenty of drive to earn some [cough, vomit]...titles...BUT---he looks at a stranger who tries to get him to play a game as if they're some alien creature, and not a very bright one at that. He plays like a maniacal moron with me, and a select few, but outside, he's kind of serious. Or maybe he's just a snob. :lol: Call it what you will, Timothy.

Ugh, and balls, well, he chases balls too...drops them right in front of the lawn mower so I HAVE to stop and pick it up and throw it out of my way...and geez, if he loses his frisbee, he'll look for it well after dark and refuse to go home without it...I'm so afraid someone will see... ...[/quote]

how can he be sleeve happy yet unwilling to bite one when a stranger is wearing it? or the stranger has to get him in the right mood to bite it. maybe our definitions of sleeve happy are a bit different jennifer...


----------



## Woody Taylor

Jenni Williams said:


> My personal experience leads me to the conclusion that prey-based trainers do not always know how to work with a "serious" dog. Yeah, I know you think the word serious is a cop-out, but what else do you call a dog who won't engage in a game with a stranger? Why do they insist on shaking rags in the dog's face, when all that's needed is to stare at him for a few seconds??? :? Who cares WHAT works, as long as it works? This is my biggest problem in dog training-the insertion of egos. :x


Me too, Jennifer. Hate those egos, particularly ones cultivated with a nice dash of poseur-dom and a lack of experience. My guess is you're saying your dog is a "serious" dog and just misunderstood by the vast majority of trainers with whom you've worked? 

And...even though I have as little experience as you, perhaps a bit more...or at least, I tend to listen to real experts more...I'd call a dog that wouldn't play a game with a stranger at best aloof, or at worst nervy. Which one is yours?




> : Regarding the trap, well I wish I'd fallen a little deeper into the trap. My dog is, ugh, pains me to say it...  sleeve happy  . Plenty of drive to earn some [cough, vomit]...titles...BUT---he looks at a stranger who tries to get him to play a game as if they're some alien creature, and not a very bright one at that. He plays like a maniacal moron with me, and a select few, but outside, he's kind of serious. Or maybe he's just a snob. :lol: Call it what you will, Timothy.


What's wrong with sport titles, Jennifer? Lots of here would love to title and do title (not me, yet) because we have SOUND dogs that are capable of anything, and our situation and our interests doesn't lead us to need something that behaves (cough, vomit) great with us but no one else.

Here's my issue, Jennifer: you tend to bag on anything your dog is not. Sport dog? Garbage. Lab? Garbage. Dog that's stable in different situations? Garbage. Dog that's actually friendly? Must be one for "a little girl." It gets old. You're new, as your posts indicate...you're green, as your posts indicate...and you have a very odd dog that seems incapable of what the majority of dogs on this forum are. That's not a bad thing, but the fact that your dog has this quality of "uniqueness" does not mean the rest of us are fools. You have a gift for seriously irritating people here, whether you know it or not. It's not because we're overly sensitive, Jennifer. It's because we have a tough time taking criticism from people who are painfully unaware of what they're saying.


----------



## Andres Martin

Jenni (et al),

There are a bunch of dogs that are very high driveSSS (as in prey, hunt, fight, social), that will EAT you if you stare at them. AND WHILE THAT IS GOOD RAW MATERIAL, AS A RESULT IT IS NOT A GOOD THING. There are many people who don't know much about dogs, that actually think staring is fine. Whether it be a PPD, PSD, LSD, MWD, DNA, POP, GOP, RCA or whatever, the dog needs to be able to be amongst people to do his job. So in that regard, your definition of serious as in "agression if stared at", is unworkable.

If you think all high drive dogs play with strangers, you're off there as well. Some do, some don't. A dog that WON'T play AT ALL though, is unbalanced.

Regarding "prey-based" trainers - if ALL they do is prey based, without regard for the dog - then they need to get "some more dogs" under their belt, because each dog is different, and requires different "starter" mechanisms.

A recurring assumption that is worthwhile reconsidering, is that a trainer/handler that uses food/tugs/play has a LESSER bond with his dog, or can read his dog less well. Comparing the best to the best, I don't believe that to be the case.

Also, a dog that is "serious" may be reactive up close, but non-reactive, or non-agressive at a distance. There are a few instances where you need distance. Notice I wrote "may be", as in "not always".

It's quite clear to me that a "serious" dog is more defensive and in general, a bit more lazy. By no means am I saying it won't bite the crap out of a person.

I believe all human adults that work for a living, unless they're akin to Mother Teresa, want something TANGIBLE in return...even if it's way down the line. Do you think dogs are different in that regard?

My philosophy is DO WHATEVER WORKS FOR EACH DOG. Treating a dog like a slut continually - BACKFIRES - but any trainer with GOOD experience knows that, and thus doesn't do it.

Finally, let's say you don't use food, prey, play even to teach commands...God forbid reinforce them later on. WHAT DO YOU THINK A DOG TAUGHT THAT WAY CAN DO THAT IS SO UNCOMMON? WHAT IS IT A DOG NEEDS TO *THINK* ABOUT?

*Please be SPECIFIC.*

Perhaps all we're actually defining here is that you prefer a more placid animal...

...or are you simply referring to the fact that dogs SHOULD NOT BE BRED FOR *ONE* DRIVE?


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Andres Martin said:


> .....let's say you don't use food, prey, play even to teach commands...God forbid reinforce them later on. WHAT DO YOU THINK A DOG TAUGHT THAT WAY CAN DO THAT IS SO UNCOMMON? WHAT IS IT A DOG NEEDS TO *THINK* ABOUT?
> 
> *Please be SPECIFIC.*........


You asked this question that I wanted to ask much more succinctly than I could have.


----------



## Greg Long

Andres Martin said:


> So in that regard, your definition of serious as in "agression if stared at", is unworkable.
> 
> 
> 
> Andres,Andres...such a statement is incorrect.Such a dog is not unworkable but needs work.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you think all high drive dogs play with strangers, you're off there as well. Some do, some don't. A dog that WON'T play AT ALL though, is unbalanced.
> 
> 
> 
> Please tell me why on earth a dog "needs" to play with strangers?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding "prey-based" trainers - if ALL they do is prey based, without regard for the dog - then they need to get "some more dogs" under their belt, because each dog is different, and requires different "starter" mechanisms.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A recurring assumption that is worthwhile reconsidering, is that a trainer/handler that uses food/tugs/play has a LESSER bond with his dog, or can read his dog less well. Comparing the best to the best, I don't believe that to be the case.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that the foods/tugs/balls interfere with the bond.They just get in the way.So yes there is a lesser bond and they cant read a dog as well.
> 
> {quote]Also, a dog that is "serious" may be reactive up close, but non-reactive, or non-agressive at a distance. There are a few instances where you need distance. Notice I wrote "may be", as in "not always".
> 
> 
> 
> This would be a dog that has a problem handling stress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's quite clear to me that a "serious" dog is more defensive and in general, a bit more lazy. By no means am I saying it won't bite the crap out of a person.
> 
> 
> 
> Lazy?Andres,you are starting to lose me here.You are making some very generalizing statements.This is a good example though.What you see as more lazy is just a dog that the reward system wont work as well on.Try em the other way and see what happens.Not always though because there are many other things that come into play.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe all human adults that work for a living, unless they're akin to Mother Teresa, want something TANGIBLE in return...even if it's way down the line. Do you think dogs are different in that regard?
> 
> 
> 
> Andres,you have really gone south now.HUMANS are not DOGS!!!Yes dogs are different than humans!!! :x There is no self in the canine mind.Dogs never think "I","me","my","we","our".They are instinctive and they think within the parameters of those instincts.They dont feel fear or lonliness or love.Its all instinctive.They can however detect those emotions in humans but they interpret them as instincts and react accordingly.They can be very devoted.they do not need a REWARD!!They dont even really need praise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My philosophy is DO WHATEVER WORKS FOR EACH DOG. Treating a dog like a slut continually - BACKFIRES - but any trainer with GOOD experience knows that, and thus doesn't do it.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, let's say you don't use food, prey, play even to teach commands...God forbid reinforce them later on. WHAT DO YOU THINK A DOG TAUGHT THAT WAY CAN DO THAT IS SO UNCOMMON? WHAT IS IT A DOG NEEDS TO *THINK* ABOUT?
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think a dog taught your way can do that is so uncommon?
> 
> Dogs make thousands of decisions everyday.They can think and they are capable of working on their own.If not then they would never survive.Is it lawsuits that everyone is so afraid of?Or just the possibility of being wrong?
> 
> P.S.I dont see why everyone gets so uptight about Jen's comments.She is being sarcastic most of the time.Maybe guys are just intimidated by a girl thats smarter than them...????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Andres Martin said:


> So in that regard, your definition of serious as in "agression if stared at", is unworkable.
> 
> 
> 
> Andres,Andres...such a statement is incorrect.Such a dog is not unworkable but needs work.
> 
> ..........................................
> 
> I took that to mean the DEFINITION was unworkable..... not the dog.
> 
> ..........................................
Click to expand...


----------



## Andres Martin

I'll try to not, "Greg, Greg," you... :lol: :lol: :lol: I'm genuinely interested.

First off:


> I dont see why everyone gets so uptight about Jen's comments.She is being sarcastic most of the time.Maybe guys are just intimidated by a girl thats smarter than them...????


I agree FULLY with you.

Now...onto the field of ideas.


> Andres,Andres...such a statement is incorrect.Such a dog is not unworkable but needs work.


I agree. I did not mean what you inferred.



> Please tell me why on earth a dog "needs" to play with strangers?


No need at all. I wrote, "A dog that WON'T play AT ALL though, is unbalanced."



> I believe that the foods/tugs/balls interfere with the bond.They just get in the way.So yes there is a lesser bond and they cant read a dog as well.


Can you explain how the interference is manifest...precisely?



> This would be a dog that has a problem handling stress.


That's ONE reason. Not the only possibility. Genetics, foundation, shutdown, no prey, submissive, etc. are other possibilities.



> Lazy?Andres,you are starting to lose me here.You are making some very generalizing statements.This is a good example though.What you see as more lazy is just a dog that the reward system wont work as well on.Try em the other way and see what happens.Not always though because there are many other things that come into play.


I'm coming at you from experience. A more defensive dog is in general less active. There are exceptions.



> There is no self in the canine mind.


I disagree. Self is in every LIVING thing. Every living thing is a goal seeker. While dogs don't feel human emotions, the end result is the same: food, sex, shelter, survival, comfort, pack, defense, dominance...and did I mention sex already?? :lol: :lol: 



> What do you think a dog taught your way can do that is so uncommon?


Please don't answer a question with a question. I'm genuinely interested in the answer. You will find NO PREJUDICE in me.



> Dogs make thousands of decisions everyday.They can think and they are capable of working on their own.If not then they would never survive.Is it lawsuits that everyone is so afraid of?Or just the possibility of being wrong?


What decisions/thought processes does a dog need for work? Please give specific examples. If you prefer to handle this via PM, it's fine by me.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

QUOTE: They dont feel fear END

:?:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

I believe there is instinctive, or innate, fear. Not all fear is a learned emotion.


----------



## Tim Martens

Connie Sutherland said:


> I believe there is instinctive, or innate, fear. Not all fear is a learned emotion.


absolutely. instinctive=a dog turning tail and running or hiding behind it's handler the first time it hears gunshots. learned=dog's reluctance to get out of the car when you pull up to the vets office...


----------



## Greg Long

Andres Martin said:


> I agree. I did not mean what you inferred.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok I see now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No need at all. I wrote, "A dog that WON'T play AT ALL though, is unbalanced."
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the DIQ(dog in question) will play but not with someone he doesnt know.Not at all with someone he doesnt know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain how the interference is manifest...precisely?
> 
> 
> 
> The ball is a prop.It takes interest and focus away from the handler.A dog working ONLY for the ball or tug is a dog that is NOT working WITH his handler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's ONE reason. Not the only possibility. Genetics, foundation, shutdown, no prey, submissive, etc. are other possibilities.
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you listed is tied directly to stress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm coming at you from experience. A more defensive dog is in general less active. There are exceptions.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps they are just motivated by different things?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no self in the canine mind.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. Self is in every LIVING thing. Every living thing is a goal seeker. While dogs don't feel human emotions, the end result is the same: food, sex, shelter, survival, comfort, pack, defense, dominance...and did I mention sex already?? :lol: :lol:
> 
> 
> 
> I maintain there is no "self" in the dog's thinking process.It is all nature telling the dog when to fight or when to procreate or when to lick its A$$.A dog doesnt think "I think I would like to lick my A$$ now".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think a dog taught your way can do that is so uncommon?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please don't answer a question with a question. I'm genuinely interested in the answer. You will find NO PREJUDICE in me.
> 
> 
> 
> It can go beyond the command and control type of work and accomplish things that havent been taught.The dog reads and feeds off the handler to the point where commands are not even needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogs make thousands of decisions everyday.They can think and they are capable of working on their own.If not then they would never survive.Is it lawsuits that everyone is so afraid of?Or just the possibility of being wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What decisions/thought processes does a dog need for work? Please give specific examples. If you prefer to handle this via PM, it's fine by me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What type of work?A PSD might need to go through several LEO that it is unfamiliar with to get to the bad guy.It needs to be able to think and decide to target the suspect only..right?A herding dog has to make the decision when to put a sheep in it's place and when not to.
> 
> 
> Connie,
> 
> I dont believe a dog feels fear as we think of it.Nature tells the dog when to go into flight.It is instinct.The word fear would lead one to believe the dog fears for his or her life.When a dog goes into flight they are not thinking about themselves they just go.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Tim Martens

Greg Long said:


> I maintain there is no "self" in the dog's thinking process.It is all nature telling the dog when to fight or when to procreate or when to lick its A$$.A dog doesnt think "I think I would like to lick my A$$ now".


forgive me for being graphic, but i'm making a point. so why does the dog grind his penis into the ground or hump a human leg until he ejaculates? because nature tells him it's time to procreate with the ground or a human leg? no. it's for SELF gratification. no more, no less.



Greg Long said:


> What type of work?A PSD might need to go through several LEO that it is unfamiliar with to get to the bad guy.It needs to be able to think and decide to target the suspect only..right?A herding dog has to make the decision when to put a sheep in it's place and when not to.


you contradict yourself here. you say procreating is NATURE telling the dog what to do, but you decide that the herding dog DECIDES on his own when to check a sheep. i would maintain that it is nature or genetics as well. otherwise any dog regardless of breed could herd sheep.




Greg Long said:


> I dont believe a dog feels fear as we think of it.Nature tells the dog when to go into flight.It is instinct.The word fear would lead one to believe the dog fears for his or her life.When a dog goes into flight they are not thinking about themselves they just go.


again a statement chalked full of contradictions. you dont' think they flee because of SELF preservation? "they just go"? that doesn't fit into your model of the thinking dog.



Greg Long said:


> The ball is a prop.It takes interest and focus away from the handler.A dog working ONLY for the ball or tug is a dog that is NOT working WITH his handler.


i would argue that a dog that is as handler reliant as you seem to be pushing is more distracted by the handler than a dog that is working for the primary reward (the badguy, the ball, etc). there are many times when a PSD is working on his own completely away from the handler. a dog that needs constant communication with the handler can many times be a liability to the handler and officers on scene.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

QUOTE: I dont believe a dog feels fear as we think of it.Nature tells the dog when to go into flight.It is instinct. END

I understand what you're saying now.

But can we have it both ways? Can the dog who does not experience reasoned fear also be the dog who can "make thousands of decisions everyday. They can think" ?


----------



## Greg Long

They think within the parameters of those instincts.


----------



## Greg Long

> . so why does the dog grind his penis into the ground or hump a human leg until he ejaculates? because nature tells him it's time to procreate with the ground or a human leg? no. it's for SELF gratification. no more, no less.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong..there is no "self" involved and a dog humping a leg has nothing to do with procreation other than being dominate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you contradict yourself here. you say procreating is NATURE telling the dog what to do, but you decide that the herding dog DECIDES on his own when to check a sheep. i would maintain that it is nature or genetics as well. otherwise any dog regardless of breed could herd sheep.
> 
> 
> 
> Theoretically, yes they could but not very well..  They make decisions based on instinct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again a statement chalked full of contradictions. you dont' think they flee because of SELF preservation? "they just go"? that doesn't fit into your model of the thinking dog.
> 
> 
> 
> There are thresholds that when exceeded,lessen the dog's ability to make decisions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i would argue that a dog that is as handler reliant as you seem to be pushing is more distracted by the handler than a dog that is working for the primary reward (the badguy, the ball, etc). there are many times when a PSD is working on his own completely away from the handler. a dog that needs constant communication with the handler can many times be a liability to the handler and officers on scene.
> 
> 
> 
> That is the foundation,ultimately the dog will work away from the handler.Handler DRIVEN not handler RELIANT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Tim Martens

Greg Long said:


> . so why does the dog grind his penis into the ground or hump a human leg until he ejaculates? because nature tells him it's time to procreate with the ground or a human leg? no. it's for SELF gratification. no more, no less.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong..there is no "self" involved and a dog humping a leg has nothing to do with procreation other than being dominate.
> 
> 
> 
> so the dog is dominating the ground?
> 
> 
> 
> Greg Long said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is the foundation,ultimately the dog will work away from the handler.Handler DRIVEN not handler RELIANT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and primary reward DRIVEN, not reliant. you say the dogs motivation for the primary reward (the man, the ball, etc.) is distracting, but the handler driven dog isn't distracted by the handler? i guess i could buy that argument for something like obedience, but that's about it. for all other tasks that i use my dog for, independence is highly valued...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Andres Martin

Dogs are not BORN devoted. And "devotion", if you can DEVELOP it, is genetic.

Sheep; going through LEO; etc. is not uncommon. As with everything else, it is gradual. A million dogs do it everyday.



> A dog working ONLY for the ball or tug


...is a dog I feel sorry for; he has probably lived in a kennel fror most of his life, and does not bond beyond basic needs satisfaction. THIS IS NOT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

No-prey and submissiveness are tied to GENETICS, not stress.



> Perhaps they are just motivated by different things?


This implies a desire, and a desire implies SELF.

Interesting discussion.

Do dogs think? Or choose depending on most probable outcome??????

I "feel" my dog, and it's mutual. He knows my most subtle moves, and it's mutual. We spend SO much time together, that it couldn't be any other way. That is how a bond is formed.

I still don't read the answer to my question. What is so uncommon about the result of training without tugs or treats as starters? What can a dog do that has been trained that way, that other dogs can't? (I'm not talking about stabilization, environmental stuff, elevations, etc. because that can certainly be accomplished in many ways).

I would appreciate specifics.


----------



## Guest

Wow, thanks guys. I came into work bright and early Sunday morning, sure I was going to have nothing to do.  Great discussion we've got going. What I keep coming back to is that we're all mol in agreement here, as I see it; we're just defining or rationalizing the reasoning to ourselves differently. Andres sees a certain behavior as ____,while Greg would call it_____. 

I agree with most of what you're saying, Tim. I must not be making my point clearly. It's hard to type all your thoughts accurately all the time; things get left out, or misinterpreted or skewed. Obviously, I gave the impression that my thoughts were regarding my own dog, which they really weren't. I ws basing most of them on the K9 training that I've watched, not necessarily training I've done with MY dog. You're right; there were a few dogs that the trainer said he didn't have "time" to work with b/c they would take too much figuring out, and why bother when you've got a prey monster that can do the same thing faster? I get that. Please don't think my dog exhibits every behavior I mention or question; I'll have to change his name to Sybil  .

BUT-regarding your question about my mutt-I wasn't speaking about him in particular throughout my other posts; I should have been clearer when I _was_ speaking about him and when I was speaking in general. About sleeve happy, well, I guess I say that b/c he'll go pick up the sleeve after his "turn" is over. He's not done; he still wants to bite. I will say that when he's doing this he is NOT serious. He bites when he's pissed off, too. When he does this he IS serious. He'll bite with or without a sleeve; what he won't do is play tug with a stranger, or even someone he just doesn't like (say, my boyfriend :lol:  ). WHY??? Who knows? :? It almost seems like a bonding thing to him. He plays tug with me, my sister and my dad. He'll chase a ball if Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny throws it, though. He just can't resist. :x 

The director of K9 training (don't quote me on the title-he's the guy in charge of all the county's dogs' recert., training, buy/sell, etc.) for county near me was the first person to work with Caleb. I met him b/c he was a client of mine. His take on Caleb was that b/c he was a bit aloof, not to the point of unpleasant, but he would not be the favorite student of a young trainer whose only trick in his bag is building prey drive. He's not interested in the tug; he's looking at the guy holding it. 

He said that some of the very young PSD trainers he'd worked with have a real ego problem if they can't look like hot $#!+ in one session. He said he'd changed trainers b/c some just wanted to get in a pissing contest with the more dominant dogs...which I admit Caleb is (Although thankfully he does not "grind his penis ...," -Classic, Tim, classic!):lol: , and which are somewhat common in his profession. 

Because Caleb's kind of aloof for lack of a better word, and was young at this time, he was afraid that their egos would get the better of them and they might see the dog as an adversary to be broken rather than a young dog who needed work. These were the egos to which I was referring.

Andres, I totally see what you're saying, and I agree with most of it. I agree about the need for balance; I can't stand to read on breeders' websites about some of their empasis on crazy ____drive, and no emphasis on something else. All things in moderation.

Interesting---"dogs are not BORN devoted. And "devotion" if you can DEVELOP it, is genetic." I like your style 8). What I have a problem with, and what people seem to grossly misunderstand, is the idea that dogs are such selfish creatures incapable of thought, let alone devotion. Is it genetic? Possibly/probably. Does it exist? IMO, Absolutely. 

Also, I think your point about the dog "working ONLY for the ball or tug" is AWESOME. I read this and said "YES!!!" out loud-not kidding  . People who keep their dogs in kennels their entire lives end up with dogs who will never know a true bond, and neither will they. It is THEIR skepticism that boils my blood. I want to scream "How the hell can you expect to understand-you don't even KNOW your dog! :evil: How can one expect to understand devotion when their treatment of their dog doesn't warrant it? This, IMO, goes back to Maslow again; these dogs are still worried about basic needs; they're unable to progress beyond these. 


> I "feel" my dog, and it's mutual...that's how a bond is formed.


How come you can say something in one paragraph that I've been struggling to get across for pages???!!! :x  It's tough to explain this to a lot of people b/c many, if not most, do not have the luxury of spending nearly every minute with their dog. I'm lucky enough to be able to bring my dogs to work, in the car, just about everywhere, and I think the time spent is evident in the level of devotion.

I agree that way more is genetic than previously or commonly thought. Dominant vs. submissive, prey/play, etc. Somewhat unfortunately, in the right environment, with the right training (right for THAT dog-not right for ALL dogs), our dogs can be taken only as far as their genetics allow.


----------



## Andres Martin

We've been skirting ONE other reality in this discussion...and that is "THE BADEN K-9" philosophy of dog training.

I simply wish to go on record...IT WORKS, VERY WELL...VERY WELL...if you have the right dog and you are a subtle, patient, understanding and FIRM handler. Few people are.

In a few pm's I shared that my dad taught me "dogs" with no treats or tugs...also, no anger, just stress and patient leadership. It works. It's more difficult and subtle. How many people do we know that can handle difficulty well *and* are subtle?

I don't know that many...

So...I don't train bitework using prey, I don't train tracking using food, I teach obedience commands using food, when the dog is a puppy, ...and from there on in, it's a matter of control, which is what a dog that fires rapidly on all twelve cylinders REALLY needs. It already knows it has a nose and teeth... :lol: :lol: :lol: 

I correct using firm, not-angry voice, prongs, and electricity. I motivate with praise, finds, bites, successful defenses, stress relief, and PLAY. I play A BUNCH. Gradual increases in difficulty, patience, leadership and REPETITION are key.

I'm still interested in finding out what dogs like this can do that other ones can't... :lol: :lol: :lol: 

Step up to the plate, Greg...

Don't be shy... :roll: :roll: :twisted: :twisted: 

:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Greg Long

Why do you keep asking me that question if your training methods arent that different?Perhaps you already know the answer otherwise why do you keep training that way?

They will work more reliably under stress.Thats the only answer I can give with my own personal experience.I could speculate based on what I have been told by those I trust and have learned from but I wont.If I cant answer the question to your satisfaction then I cant.That doesnt change my mind or change how strongly I feel about all this.

So does it all boil down to just using treats to start the obed?Why?Is it faster for you that way?

Not to answer a question with a question again but why would you want to start a pup's foundation that way?To me it is far better to start them working out of respect and trust rather than for a reward.Later on if that is what you desire then maybe reward for flashier or faster behavior,not that I would do that either.Its just not needed.The dog's interest should be in working with you and not for a ball.
Try taking a six week old pup and carrying them over the obstacles with you.Get them up high and in the water at that age and around smoke and on different surfaces.Where does drive or a ball come into this work?
If you want the pup to do bitework then place it in a position to watch an experienced dog do bitework.If you want it to track then hide a few feet away out of sight and call to the pup to find you.Where does food or tugs fit into that equation?If you want it to search for something all you have to do is show a genuine interest in the search yourself,the pup will then show interest also.If you say the dog has to be rewarded then so be it(although I still dont agree fully) as long as the reward is simply working with the handler.Work should be serious and not a game.Serious at all times.That doesnt mean the dog doesnt like the work either.I hate using human examples but it is the difference between the mindset of say a NFL linebacker and a US Marine.They both can kill you and both can be very intense.One is still playing a game though.Im not saying all K9s are just playing so dont go getting all defensive on me.Many good dogs working the street are good dogs despite their training and not because of it.


----------



## Greg Long

> Perhaps they are just motivated by different things?


This implies a desire, and a desire implies SELF.


> So a dog cant be motivated by instinct?Without "self" gratification?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do dogs think? Or choose depending on most probable outcome??????
> 
> 
> 
> During WW1,German dogs reportedly would go out onto the battlefield and if they came across a German soldier they would return to get help.If they came upon an enemy soldier they would attack them.
> What kind of thought process does something like this require?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I "feel" my dog, and it's mutual. He knows my most subtle moves, and it's mutual. We spend SO much time together, that it couldn't be any other way. That is how a bond is formed.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats good,many people arent aware of this subtlety.
> 
> Another question!
> 
> If you had say an apple,an orange and a pear.You then placed them on the sidewalk.You then from some distance away from the fruit told a friend to go and bring you the apple.Your dog would then follow the friend to the fruit but wouldnt let your friend pick up the apple.He could pick up the pear or the orange but not the apple.You then tell the friend to pick up the orange but the dog wouldnt let him pick it up but would the apple or the pear.
> 
> Would this require the dog to think?Or to just follow commands?Hypothetically of course.. :lol: Would it be possible at all?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## David Frost

I swear, sometimes you folks make dog training much too difficult. Dogs don't "think" about instinctive behaviors. Secondly, a conditioned response is not a "thinking" event. It's purely a response to a set stimulus. I'm glad when I started out in this business it wasn't rocket science. I'm also glad they still make the type of dog I don't have to be a rocket scientist to train.

DFrost


----------



## Andres Martin

> Why do you keep asking me that question if your training methods arent that different?Perhaps you already know the answer otherwise why do you keep training that way?
> 
> They will work more reliably under stress.


In my view, that is the answer. They work more reliably under stress. The VAST majority of working dogs work in a groomed field, with predictable distractions, or a groomed building with fully predictable distractions as well. It's a very valuable difference.

Most dogs can't work well in the midst of other animals, garbage, SERIOUS OPPOSITION...



> During WW1,German dogs reportedly would go out onto the battlefield and if they came across a German soldier they would return to get help.If they came upon an enemy soldier they would attack them.
> What kind of thought process does something like this require?


This isn't so hard. You can condition on uniforms, soap smell, etc. I notice you wrote "reportedly". Reports are a curious monster, to wit: How many dogs did this, out of how many? How many made mistakes? How frequently? How many did nothing? Etc. To get a clear picture YOU HAVE TO *CRUNCH* THE NUMBERS.

Regarding the fruits...


> Would this require the dog to think?Or to just follow commands?Hypothetically of course.. Would it be possible at all?


I don't know. Is it? Is it possible to teach a dog to ADD?

Regarding starting pups with food...


> why would you want to start a pup's foundation that way?


Look at the alternative: say "sit", raise the pup by the collar, push the rump down, get "opposition reflex" all the way, when the dogs rump touches the ground you say, "Good sit," and you repeat it. That isn't rocket science. Food, during puppyhood, IF YOU HAVE A GOOD DOG, gets forgotten in a hurry.


> just using treats to start the obed?Why?Is it faster for you that way?


Yes. There's also NO resistance, nor opposition.



> Work should be serious and not a game.Serious at all times.


This isn't necessary. I know quite a few people who's job is very dangerous, and they use humor in the least expected places...
Greg, as long as you don't compromise the results, "some" work can be play...let's say detecting dope. I'm going to run the following by you: following your reasoning, would it not be possible for your dog to "detect" a change in circumstances - in a simple dope search - and switch from a detection game to a detection "job" under stress?


----------



## Greg Long

David,I do agree.The last fw days it seems I have spent more time hashing out theory on the PC than I have with my dogs.



> This isn't so hard. You can condition on uniforms, soap smell, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes,this is part of the training as I understood it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I notice you wrote "reportedly". Reports are a curious monster, to wit: How many dogs did this, out of how many? How many made mistakes? How frequently? How many did nothing? Etc. To get a clear picture YOU HAVE TO *CRUNCH* THE NUMBERS.
> 
> 
> 
> I was just using that situation as an example of a time when they didnt use props or "drive theory" as we know it.I wasnt there and I cant prove that it happened so I said "reportedly".
> 
> Regarding the fruits...
> 
> 
> 
> Would this require the dog to think?Or to just follow commands?Hypothetically of course.. Would it be possible at all?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know. Is it? Is it possible to teach a dog to ADD?
> 
> 
> 
> I heard of a similar incident but again I cant prove it.I dont think the dog would be adding though.Its just scent discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regarding starting pups with food...
> 
> 
> 
> why would you want to start a pup's foundation that way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look at the alternative: say "sit", raise the pup by the collar, push the rump down, get "opposition reflex" all the way, when the dogs rump touches the ground you say, "Good sit," and you repeat it.
> 
> 
> 
> It only takes a very few times with most dogs and if you use small amounts of applied stress to cancel out the stress of the obed then its even faster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That isn't rocket science. Food, during puppyhood, IF YOU HAVE A GOOD DOG, gets forgotten in a hurry.
> 
> 
> 
> just using treats to start the obed?Why?Is it faster for you that way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes. There's also NO resistance, nor opposition.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok,you do it your way..  Im not ready to start cuttin up hotdogs just yet though..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Work should be serious and not a game.Serious at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This isn't necessary. I know quite a few people who's job is very dangerous, and they use humor in the least expected places...
> 
> 
> 
> This doesnt mean they view their job as a "game".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greg, as long as you don't compromise the results, "some" work can be play...let's say detecting dope. I'm going to run the following by you: following your reasoning, would it not be possible for your dog to "detect" a change in circumstances - in a simple dope search - and switch from a detection game to a detection "job" under stress?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes,It is very possible,but why would it be better?
> 
> Also,if the dog is in tune with it's handler,it will be serious unless the handler tries to make it too much of a game.Which can bring the dog out of the work where mistakes and misses could happen.
> 
> Boy,is this thread ever gonna die??? :x
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Tim Martens

David Frost said:


> I swear, sometimes you folks make dog training much too difficult. Dogs don't "think" about instinctive behaviors. Secondly, a conditioned response is not a "thinking" event. It's purely a response to a set stimulus. I'm glad when I started out in this business it wasn't rocket science. I'm also glad they still make the type of dog I don't have to be a rocket scientist to train.
> 
> DFrost


AMEN...


----------



## Andres Martin

I have sincerely enjoyed the unfettered discussion. Multiple points of view, including the Baden K9 way...and no idea was quashed. The discussion ran it's course...and much like the "Defense Table" thread, enlightened some, ensconced some, entertained some, miffed some...

Much like the "Defense Table" thread...it's unlikely this topic will be touched on again at it's basic level. The discussion has been about dog philosophy...forum members participated. Training philosophy, subtlety, method, desired outcomes are very interesting topics to me...and I wish we had threads like this more often.

I know I have learned a thing or two...and Greg Long did......justice to his last name.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Andres Martin said:


> .....Training philosophy, subtlety, method, desired outcomes are very interesting topics to me...and I wish we had threads like this more often......


Then may I lead you over here.....? http://www.workingdogforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=1492


----------



## Greg Long

Me too!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: 8) 8) 8) 

Im too tired to start on another thread at the moment though..


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Andres Martin said:


> Is it possible to teach a dog to ADD?.....


Apparently it isn't necessary to teach it. :lol: 

I read about an experiment with two dozen dogs, wherein each dog was offered either 5 treats or 6 treats, equidistant and equally accessible. Almost every dog, far more than accountable for by chance, chose 6.

I wish I could find it, because I can't remember whether they were various breeds or ages.

P.S. Sense of self -- that might not be as cut-and-dried a "no" as we might believe. Scientific American in 2000 featured a debate on animal self-awareness, and the winning side (narrowly) of "Can Animals Empathize" was "yes." This subject matter was not limited to primates.*

In 2001, in the famous Harvard experiment on Mirror Self-Recognition (MSR), a chimp who saw a red spot on her face in a mirror attempted to remove it on her actual face....... demonstrating that she recognized the mirror image as herself. A monkey, however, tried only to remove the spot on the mirror.

This generated interesting speculation about whether the monkey (and other animals who fail the mirror test) does indeed have some self-awareness but lacks the means to demonstrate it in ways we can recognize.

Some hypothesize that a dog who is frustrated and starts chewing on his own fur or chasing after his own tail might be exhibiting signs of self punishment --- if so, this seems to indicate some sense of self.

Yes, these ideas seem fuzzy, so far, but I'm not ready to state categorically that dogs cannot have any level whatsoever of self-awareness. I guess if these researchers believe that there are undiscovered answers in this area, then who am I to say they have to be crazy? :lol: Yes, my tongue is in my cheek -- but not 100%.



*Bottlenose dolphins have also shown MSR.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

P.S. Today was training club day -- so I indulged in some dog philosophy as a reward. :lol:


----------



## Guest

What? We're done???  I just got back!!! :x 

Andres, congrats on unveiling the source of all this trouble :lol: . Ain't it funny how some people think the whole idea is nuts, and that anyone (or at least any woman :wink: )who is familiar with/believes it must be inexperienced or just plain stupid? :lol: :lol: I'll bet you Google was overloaded with "Baden K9"!:lol: . 

I fully agree w/you that it DOES WORK! Or maybe it's all just dumbass luck! :lol: But, you, sir, had the [email protected]$ to just come right out and say it. Hats off. I've been way too timid to drop the Baden bomb, but it's been oh-so-tempting a few times.  I get in enough trouble when I'm not TRYING to be controversial.  8) :roll: 

Our dogs deserve the time, patience, and understanding this philosophy requires! So what if it's difficult? Isn't everything worthwhile at least somewhat difficult? Good thread, gentlemen. :wink:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jenni Williams said:


> ........
> Andres, congrats on unveiling the source of all this trouble :lol: . Ain't it funny how some people think the whole idea is nuts,


I'm lost.  

What's "all this trouble"? 

What's "the whole idea"? Baden K9?


----------



## Tim Martens

Jenni Williams said:


> I fully agree w/you that it DOES WORK! Or maybe it's all just dumbass luck! :lol: But, you, sir, had the [email protected]$ to just come right out and say it. Hats off. I've been way too timid to drop the Baden bomb, but it's been oh-so-tempting a few times.  I get in enough trouble when I'm not TRYING to be controversial.  8) :roll:


believe it or not, i have been biting my tongue throughout this whole thread and there have been several "oh-so-temping" bombs that i was contemplating dropping, but thought better of it.


----------



## Guest

Regarding "all this trouble"- it was a tongue in cheek reference to the long discussion/debate, which I found interesting and infomative, but others apparently may not have. Sarcasm, I guess. "Trouble" was an easier way to put "the basic philosophical differences that have been evident on boards all over, and which sometimes cause rather heated, passionate debates which some find difficult, unpleasant, or offensive." :lol: I wasn't referring to just this thread, rather all the threads in which the basic philosophies of training have been wildly disagreed upon. I wasn't going to say the B-word on this board, as it is sometimes wrongly considered a bad word. :x Basically, threads like the one involving treats/no treats, and the like are where the major differences are most obvious.

Tim, c'mon, don't be shy  . Drop 'em. I thought that was the whole point of a discussion board-to discuss. :? BTW, it doesn't count when you announce that you were going to do something but didn't do it. That's like when my grandma is about to call someone fat, but instead says "I'm not going to say what I'm thinking," in a sing-song voice. We all know what she's thinking, so she may as well have said it. :lol: No points for "biting tongues!" :lol:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jenni Williams said:


> Regarding "all this trouble"- it was a tongue in cheek reference to the long discussion/debate, which I found interesting and infomative, but others apparently may not have. Sarcasm, I guess. "Trouble" was an easier way to put "the basic philosophical differences that have been evident on boards all over, and which sometimes cause rather heated, passionate debates which some find difficult, unpleasant, or offensive." :lol: I wasn't referring to just this thread, rather all the threads in which the basic philosophies of training have been wildly disagreed upon. I wasn't going to say the B-word on this board, as it is sometimes wrongly considered a bad word. :x Basically, threads like the one involving treats/no treats, and the like are where the major differences are most obvious......


OK, "all this trouble" means the long discussion or debate. "Ain't it funny how some people think the whole idea is nuts" means the Baden K9 philosophy?

I'm trying to avoid the apparently frequent failure to interpret posts, evidenced by the "that's not what my post meant" I keep reading. :lol:


----------



## Guest

Yes, the "Baden philosophy" and "trouble on forums" seem to go hand in hand. Hence the skirting (ended by our very own Andres Martin. :wink: ) Of course, I don't think anyone ever follows something to the "T," without adding his/her own "flavor" to the style. IMO, your training needs to fit your personality as well as your dog's. If you don't believe passionately in what you're doing, and that it (whatever it may be) IS THE BEST WAY, your success will be limited, IMO. So, while Baden cannot be "blamed" :lol: for _all_ of the philosophical drama, it absolutely has been the center of some serious controversy on other forums.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Jenni Williams said:


> Yes, the "Baden philosophy" and "trouble on forums" seem to go hand in hand. Hence the skirting (ended by our very own Andres Martin. :wink: ) Of course, I don't think anyone ever follows something to the "T," without adding his/her own "flavor" to the style. IMO, your training needs to fit your personality as well as your dog's. If you don't believe passionately in what you're doing, and that it (whatever it may be) IS THE BEST WAY, your success will be limited, IMO. So, while Baden cannot be "blamed" :lol: _all_ of the philosophical drama, it absolutely has been the center of some serious controversy on other forums.


I hadn't realized there was skirting going on, although now you and Andres have said so.  

I didn't realize there were only two viewpoints: Baden (or Baden with "flavorings") and not-Baden.

You learn something every day.


----------



## Guest

> I didn't realize there were only two viewpoints...


I don't know what you mean, Connie :? . Are you inferring that I or someone else said that? Certainly there are as many as the day is long, but not all of them "raise hackles" like a Badenistic (new word  ) approach, which is perhaps why it's so focused on when it's brought up or referenced. Sorry if I'm way off what you meant; I really don't understand. :|


----------



## Connie Sutherland

I mean that in a long discussion of training ideas or philosophies, I didn't realize that if there was wide divergence, then one viewpoint must be Baden-oriented.

Not until the end of the thread did I understand from posts by Andres and you that there was "skirting" involved, by not using the term "Baden K9".

Andres said:
<<< We've been skirting ONE other reality in this discussion...and that is "THE BADEN K-9" philosophy of dog training. >>>>>

You said:
<<< I wasn't referring to just this thread, rather all the threads in which the basic philosophies of training have been wildly disagreed upon. I wasn't going to say the B-word on this board, as it is sometimes wrongly considered a bad word. >>>

and 

<<< Andres, congrats on unveiling the source of all this trouble . Ain't it funny how some people think the whole idea is nuts, and that anyone (or at least any woman )who is familiar with/believes it must be inexperienced or just plain stupid? I'll bet you Google was overloaded with "Baden K9"! . .... I fully agree w/you that it DOES WORK! Or maybe it's all just dumbass luck! But, you, sir, had the [email protected]$ to just come right out and say it. Hats off. I've been way too timid to drop the Baden bomb...... >>>>>>

To me, these comments meant that there was a Baden K9 discussion going on, with the term unspoken. I had not realized that there HAD been a Baden K9 discussion going on.


----------



## Guest

Oh, okay. Thanks.  It wasn't like some secret Baden discussion from the beginning; it just leaned that way toward the very end, from what I can see, because it got harder and harder to discuss a divergent way of thinking *without*referencing a widely known philosophy/method that is similar in its basic ideals. Of course, that's just how I saw it, and if I've learned anything on these boards the last couple years, it's that you can't count on ANYTHING to be interpreted the same way by everyone. :lol:


----------



## Woody Taylor

Jenni Williams said:


> Oh, okay. Thanks.  It wasn't like some secret Baden discussion from the beginning; it just leaned that way toward the very end, from what I can see, because it got harder and harder to discuss a divergent way of thinking *without*referencing a widely known philosophy/method that is similar in its basic ideals. Of course, that's just how I saw it, and if I've learned anything on these boards the last couple years, it's that you can't count on ANYTHING to be interpreted the same way by everyone. :lol:


Getting every word parsed with an emoticon(s) can have that effect. 

I think Baden training is for morons. It's idiotic and fine for paramilitary types, though I think that time is better spent in the bomb shelter loading shells for the WW3. Is Caleb a product of Baden training? Is that an endorsement of its methods?


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

Who here has worked a dog that was bred, raised and trained by Baden K9 and sold to a *civilian* in your area? I'm not talking about a dog you bought from Baden and trained yourself, nor am I talking about a dog you saw when you were at Baden's kennels.


----------



## Guest

Just speaking as an individual/civilian, there are a number of sites out there in Canada/United States and Worldwide that will sell any person a 30-60 K USD "executive level" protection dog.

Shouldn't we just be able to see this as BS. Hey, even where I live in Canada I can buy quite a few handguns, registered or not for the lowly entry level dog price at most of these sites.

Most people up here are shot by longarms anyway, handguns are just in the inner cities and for barfights.

Sorry, but I just can't see how a dog running through smoke and fire can help you if your up against even a .270 or .338, never mind a big bore at range.

Call me an idiot, but unless the threat is right in your face or unarmed, what will this highpriced dog do that any sport trained dog cannot ?


----------



## Woody Taylor

Gerry Grimwood said:


> Call me an idiot, but unless the threat is right in your face or unarmed, what will this highpriced dog do that any sport trained dog cannot ?


Give you the peace of mind that you can only get with penis enlargement surgery and a Ford F-350 Turbodiesel. Ironically enough, both of these alternatives cost around $30K.


----------



## Andres Martin

> Give you the peace of mind that you can only get with penis enlargement surgery and a Ford F-350 Turbodiesel.





> I think Baden training is for morons.


Woody, this is disrespectful. I asked my 9 year old son just now -and for the first time - to move away while I typed. No need to explain Penis Enlargement just yet. :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: 

You want to read moronic? Read this:


> ----- loves backtie sessions. Just started this for real lately. Goes nuts to the point where I can only do it during normal waking hours...she is a normally silent dog and she goes nutty and barky, big time. I backtie her up and run into the house. Come out slowly, no eye contact, put on my vest...and then take off, get behind trees, peek out, run behind the plastic kid eqmt in my yard, slap the tug against everything, tease her out. The backtie has a bungee on it, she really gets into this.


The reason why people REALLY like this forum is because there's little to no DISRESPECT. I for one would love to see that continue. There is A LOT TO LEARN, if people are respectful and listen, ask questions, argue and don't deride. There are MANY different ways to get to a place. Try some tolerance.

You have freely admitted you know very little about dog training. If you would like to ask a specific question, THAT is a better way...

Regarding the high price of a dog, we should all think about this a bit...as follows:

Let's say your time is worth $25 per hour. You spend two hours on your dog per day, for three years...that's $54,750...plus vet bills, etc. Why do you think dogs sell for less?


----------



## Woody Taylor

Does your son get to read your sexual innuendoes? I guess it is not a genetic thing, this latin sexual machismo.

What is happening on this thread is not tolerance. It is an informed discussion by two people and one hanger-on and I am tired of the inside jokes, the mock derision, the " I didn't really mean it like that..." Buried in a sea of eye-roll emoticons.

I would share the pms with you, andre, expressing this same pov, if I didn't respect the senders. 

And please let me know what's idiotic about my backtie sessions in a pm. If you think she is working in defense, you are wrong. But please enlighten me. And give me a break about a reference to a surgical procedure messing up your kid's head.


----------



## Andres Martin

Woody...you are trite. Have a good night.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

I don't think that was a PM, I think I remember reading that in another thread. However, this is starting to turn to crap real fast. Back to the topic please, I'd still like an answer to my earlier question, I'm curious. Sometimes I wonder if the "idea" of Baden is better than just "Baden", I'd like to know who has actually worked a genuine Baden dog that is 100% Baden start to finish.


----------



## Al Curbow

What is the whole baden deal? I went to the site and looked around and it just seems like they use compulsion instead of motivation, is that the big deal? 30,000 bucks for a dog! Once again P.T. Barnum hit the nail on the head :lol: :lol: :lol: Marek would go through fire and brimstone as long as there was a cat on the other side, other wise why the heck would i send him? Marketing is an art,

AL


----------



## Al Curbow

Ok Andreas, i threw a dime on the hardwood floor and told my dog to "bring", he did, so what is the point of this exersize? Just curious,

AL


----------



## Andres Martin

Your dog will be able to get you some money!!!!

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


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen

wowwww 30 k$ for a dog     I do something wrong...

a very well trained dog who has earned his PH1 trial with good points, will here be sold to the police for a price that ranges from E 3.750-4.500 (about $4000-5000)...


----------



## Lynn Cheffins

well now - back to 43 drives and all that good stuff.....
I think all dogs work for drive satisfaction and even what is called "wanting to please the handler" and "working for praise only" it still comes down to drive satisfaction and that is a dog that has lots of pack drive (I would say "biddable but I think that is considered an old fashioned word in dog training).
I also am confused by the "otherworldy bond and communication" thing with your dog and wanting a dog that thinks - I want a dog that obeys. Do you want to do a Vulcan Mind Meld with somebody who licks his privates in public and eats cat poop? really? I would rather just figure out what motivates him and makes him tick and use that to my own ends - then we're both happy.


----------



## Andres Martin

> Do you want to do a Vulcan Mind Meld with somebody who licks his privates in public and eats cat poop?


You missed your true calling........

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


----------



## Greg Long

Woody,you dont have a clue!  But if you are ever back in Okla,Shooter and I will be happy to answer all your questions.. 8) .

I do have a F350 Powerstroke BTW.. :lol: but I cant afford the other..  .

Jenni,who is the quote in your signature by??  ...now THAT is an inside joke... :wink:


----------



## Woody Taylor

Greg Long said:


> Woody,you dont have a clue!  But if you are ever back in Okla,Shooter and I will be happy to answer all your questions.. 8) .


I'll take you up on it, you actually live in a part of that state that's pretty. The Baden statement was *sarcasm*. Wasn't that obvious? Although I cannot imagine less fun for either dog or owner than 100% defense-based training. And certainly a lousy sell for a public and a PETA that can't even handle prong collars. I will never, ever understand the appeal, regardless of its effectiveness. IIf a dog needs to be trained in defense 100% from eight weeks old...I mean, c'mon. How is that fun for anyone? Don't you all like having fun with your dogs? Seriously. Even if you're raising the baddest animals on the planet...I don't know. I guess I just see the animals differently. Not better or worse, but just differently.



> I do have a F350 Powerstroke BTW.. :lol: but I cant afford the other..  .


Quod erat demonstrandum. You can probably get hooked up--literally--on the cheap in Nogales or Juarez. I-44 to I-35 south, you know the route.



> Jenni,who is the quote in your signature by??  ...now THAT is an inside joke... :wink:


When do old cuts from Mein Kampf become inside jokes? Seriously?


----------



## Greg Long

Woody,

I am very impressed by your knowledge of European literature and south of the border..ummm hookups.  Did you sell a kidney down there or something? :lol: Your knowledge of dog training and shallow interpretation of other philosophies is a bit curious though.  

No worries.. :lol: It is all as it was meant to be..   8)


----------



## Woody Taylor

Greg Long said:


> Your knowledge of dog training and shallow interpretation of other philosophies is a bit curious though.


No question that my dog training knowledge is weak...I've been involved in it, seriously, for about eight months. But if the shallow interp of philosophies is in reference to my take on training eight-week old pups in defense...Baden or whatever you call it...I'm happily shallow. I don't need to beat my kids to know that's wrong, I don't need to visit the moon to understand that it's not made of cheese, and I don't need to beat up some pups to figure out that brand of training--regardless of its effectiveness--holds no interest for me. Trains ran on time in facist Italy; that does not mean the system, on the whole, was either sustainable or enjoyable for its population.

Happily ignorant,
Woody


----------



## Greg Long

Woody,really now cmon.... :roll: There is no beating of dogs or pups and you have no idea what drive your own dog is in judging from your posts.It was not even a year ago that you were still using "gentle leaders".
Continuing to bash things you could never hope to understand is just making you look really bad.Its like a bad trainwreck(only more horrific) and I just cant help but watch.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> Who here has worked a dog that was bred, raised and trained by Baden K9 and sold to a *civilian* in your area? I'm not talking about a dog you bought from Baden and trained yourself, nor am I talking about a dog you saw when you were at Baden's kennels.


Damnit somebody answer me :lol:


----------



## Woody Taylor

Greg Long said:


> Woody,really now cmon.... :roll: There is no beating of dogs or pups and you have no idea what drive your own dog is in judging from your posts.It was not even a year ago that you were still using "gentle leaders".
> Continuing to bash things you could never hope to understand is just making you look really bad.Its like a bad trainwreck(only more horrific) and I just cant help but watch.


Please watch. If you're not around to help out useless folks like me before we break our useless dogs because we don't understand them, just watch. It's much better than hearing about you never actually enjoying the company of your dogs, while maintaining the superiority of your training system. As well as inside jokes about Nazi writings you choose to call "European literature."


----------



## Connie Sutherland

"Things you could never hope to understand" ........... is I guess why no one answers Mike's question. :roll:



Mike Schoonbrood said:


> Who here has worked a dog that was bred, raised and trained by Baden K9 and sold to a civilian in your area? I'm not talking about a dog you bought from Baden and trained yourself, nor am I talking about a dog you saw when you were at Baden's kennels.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

Alright alright I'm getting a lil sick of this back n forth crap now, I woulda stepped in yesterday but I was sick n didn't feel like getting into anything. We're getting into subtle personal insults now, the only reason I hadn't said anything before is because I know you guys, you're all hardheaded and see the arguments as a game, but it's reaching the point where this thread is becoming pretty pointless. Either get back to the discussion at hand and leave this Baden stuff alone, take the insults and witty banter to PM's, or let me lock this thread without getting yelled at for censorship :lol:


----------

