# threshold pt 2



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

I was hoping that the threshold thread would stay on course. I am interested in how other folks define thresholds.

I consider them as such: 

High threshold-A dog that needs extra stimulus to bring the fight to the decoy ( whip, lots of agitation) When the dog outs he pay no mind to the decoy.

Low threshold- A dog that is raring to go the minute he walks out of the car on any field, any place. When he outs he is still looking for the fight.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

will fernandez said:


> I was hoping that the threshold thread would stay on course. I am interested in how other folks define thresholds.
> 
> I consider them as such:
> 
> ...


I can agree with this simple terminology if looked at in terms of bringing "the fight", but also see it a little more complicated..

Some low threshold dogs will have nerve issues that come into play when the pressure is turned up. 

Some high threshold dogs are not the sleeve suckers they may be pegged as and should still be respected.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

will fernandez said:


> I was hoping that the threshold thread would stay on course. I am interested in how other folks define thresholds.
> 
> I consider them as such:
> 
> ...


I dont see it as simple as that. I have a dog who you might class as "low" threshold, in that he wants to engage the decoy at any opportunity, and putting control into him is very difficult. However to me he has "high" thresholds. He has a massive pain threshold, massive avoidence thresholds and to change him from prey/fight to defence would take alot of pain and pressure from a decoy, as his nerves are so strong. To me these are high thresholds that I value. 
Your definition of High threshold I would call a "reactive" dog, and your definiton of Low threshold I would call an "active" dog.
A reactive dog that needs constant pressure to maintain drive I guess is what Jeff is critical of, but I cant speak for him.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Christopher Jones said:


> I dont see it as simple as that. I have a dog who you might class as "low" threshold, in that he wants to engage the decoy at any opportunity, and putting control into him is very difficult. However to me he has "high" thresholds. He has a massive pain threshold, massive avoidence thresholds and to change him from prey/fight to defence would take alot of pain and pressure from a decoy, as his nerves are so strong. To me these are high thresholds that I value.
> Your definition of High threshold I would call a "reactive" dog, and your definiton of Low threshold I would call an "active" dog.
> A reactive dog that needs constant pressure to maintain drive I guess is what Jeff is critical of, but I cant speak for him.


 
I like to keep things as simple as possible. 

I agree with everything you said except the part about prey/fight to defence. I (my opinion only not trying to change any other persons mind) do not like to see defensive behavior at all. I "simply" like to see the offensive dog.


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

Christopher Jones said:


> I dont see it as simple as that. I have a dog who you might class as "low" threshold, in that he wants to engage the decoy at any opportunity, and putting control into him is very difficult. However to me he has "high" thresholds. He has a massive pain threshold, massive avoidence thresholds and to change him from prey/fight to defence would take alot of pain and pressure from a decoy, as his nerves are so strong. To me these are high thresholds that I value.
> Your definition of High threshold I would call a "reactive" dog, and your definiton of Low threshold I would call an "active" dog.
> A reactive dog that needs constant pressure to maintain drive I guess is what Jeff is critical of, but I cant speak for him.


Good post,I hope we see more like this. 

Still Jeff is not talking? First time for everything I guess.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

will fernandez said:


> I like to keep things as simple as possible.
> 
> I agree with everything you said except the part about prey/fight to defence. I (my opinion only not trying to change any other persons mind) do not like to see defensive behavior at all. I "simply" like to see the offensive dog.


Will I am pretty sure you guys agree on that point as well. He stated he likes the High threshold for defense, with strong nerves, in which case the dog would not display the defensive behavior.


----------



## Christopher Jones (Feb 17, 2009)

Joby Becker said:


> Will I am pretty sure you guys agree on that point as well. He stated he likes the High threshold for defense, with strong nerves, in which case the dog would not display the defensive behavior.


Yep. For me "defence" is weakness.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

I see alot of dogs in my field that are reactive with high pain and avoidance thresholds. I find these are the dogs that are the hardest to train to be effective.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Does anyone here do table training? If so, does it in your opinion lower the dog's threshold to engage or improve duration of the drive for _long term effect, and even after the table is no longer used?_


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Oh lord, you brought up the almighty table. Great discussion and one I've been waiting on. Any video examples. One of the latest videos was of a puppy that seemed to be very engaged, yet one person characterized her as high threshold. I wouldn't have thought so except perhaps what she did with the tug once she had it. But I'm not sure its that significant. If you're working a dog or watching a dog what will stand out in terms of how you characterize the thresholds?

Terrasita


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Does anyone here do table training? If so, does it in your opinion lower the dog's threshold to engage or improve duration of the drive for _long term effect, and even after the table is no longer used?_



Defense table?

(Before still another thread about table training starts with 4 different 
definitions ....  )


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

http://www.WorkingDogForum.com/vBulletin/f13/tables-shape-9842/


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

I have never used the table. A few people I have trained with have used it with success. However, for me, a dog that needs to be put on the table is not a dog that I would keep.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I don't at all want to get into a discussion about tables. What I want to know, is that with the defense table's intended benefits, is it anyone's experience that a permanent and lasting effect on the dog takes place in terms of thresholds and drive sustainability.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

One of the problems for me is verbalizing thresholds, or transfering what I see to the written word. 

Sometimes you see a dog that backtied appears to have real good drive, but when the control work is added, you see those dogs melt away. That is one example of a higher threshold.

In Mondio, where you can see it is in the defense of handler, and the object guard. This is where everyones "off switch" starts sucking for them hard.

The dog needs to have a threshold that allows them to stay in drive when there is no stimulus occuring. A better way is the dog needs to bring his own drive.

I think that there are thresholds for everything under the sun almost. But like I said, I have a hard time verbalizing this shit.

Some say you just train the dog, but you just cannot come up with every different scenario under the sun to do this.

This is why when people talk about table training, defense work, using the whip and what not, I start to question the dogs thresholds. WHen the video starts at a point where you can see the dog has been worked for a while, I question the dogs thresholds.

Sch is a breed test. It has gotten ****led due to our ability to train past what the dog would be capable of if we didn't have whips and tables and what not.

Even if I was NOT a sport person, I would not care for a dog that required X amount of stimuli applied for X amount of time to condition the appropriate response, ie the bite.

When people start flipping about and tell me I know nothing and I haven't done this, and haven't done that, and bla bla bla, I know that they know pretty much what I am saying is true. Their ego cannot allow them to say otherwise.

It is also a great way to sort the shitters and the nerve bags out of the multitude of people that are on a forum like this.

The people that have the guts to ask questions when I say that I do not like the dog they are showing are the people that interest me the most.

It is hard to have a breeding program, and have someone call you out on having dead fish sleeve suckers as stud dogs.

I also think that you work the dog you have, and start looking for a dog that has the appropriate thresholds immediately. LOL

I believe that all dogs have the same amount of drive, it is the thresholds that stop them from accessing it. How they get these thresholds is beyond me.

If you have had dogs for any amount of time, you will find dogs that in the classic sense of "prey" drive, they have tons and tons of it. However, it is all rabbits and birds and small animals.

Take that same dog, and try and get them to play with a tug on a line, and you will see that it is not the same intensity. Not even close, and where does that threshold come from ?? 

What is it in that dogs brain that chasing the real thing is absolute joy, and playing with you is ok at best ??

What about the dog that loves tug on a line, and is STUPID for it, but will chase rabbits and what not with equal abandon ?? What about the dog that only shows a little interest in the squirrels ??

Did we do that ?? 

THis is the shit I think about while everyone else's grabastic piece of shit ass is fart****ing about talking about mundane shit.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> The dog needs to have a threshold that allows them to stay in drive when there is no stimulus occuring. A better way is the dog needs to bring his own drive.


I'm stealing this quote for future use when evaluating dogs for USAR.



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> I believe that all dogs have the same amount of drive, it is the thresholds that stop them from accessing it. How they get these thresholds is beyond me.
> 
> If you have had dogs for any amount of time, you will find dogs that in the classic sense of "prey" drive, they have tons and tons of it. However, it is all rabbits and birds and small animals.
> 
> ...


These are some things that I wish would have been discussed more in that recent train-wreck SAR thread, because assessing prey drive is a big part of the selection process for most folks. And, this is related to why I was questioning Don about the motivations/temperaments of his Airedales when he offered to donate one for SAR.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Its what we were getting at in the Jager thread. When a dog has experienced what's real to him in the animal world, how much interest does he have in the artificial [to him]. What they have in drives was designed for how they relate and survive in the animal world. How far do you have to breed up in drives for them to have it at the surface or turned on without stimulus [or so easily accessible and satisfied with objects] and do you lose anything valuable in doing this? Its hard to think in terms of a dog that is in drive without stimulus. How does it manifest itself and how do you live with it.

Terrasita


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: Its hard to think in terms of a dog that is in drive without stimulus. How does it manifest itself and how do you live with it.

It is the same as marker training. There is a bridge built. LOL Sorry, forgot to mention that, but I did say that I have trouble verbalizing this shit.

The problem is building a bridge with improper materials. LOL This is why I am so adamant about arguing my point about that eagle dog.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> How far do you have to breed up in drives for them to have it at the surface or turned on without stimulus [or so easily accessible and satisfied with objects] and do you lose anything valuable in doing this?


I'd like to hear more discussion about this. I have an 11 year old Mal who seems to constantly seek out stimulus to kick himself into drive, much more so than any other Mal I've owned. Definitely low threshold. Once he learns that something will trip the trigger, he'll never forget it. When directed the right way, this is a great thing. When the trigger is tripped by something else, it's not, especially because he releases frustration through his mouth. Anyhow, I've always felt there's a nerve issue associated with it. Loads of drive, but the pipeline of nerves is messed up a bit. He's hectic, almost hysterical, when he's in drive. So, is that the sacrifice? Does the nerve pipeline through which drive must go always develop kinks as you lower the thresholds?



> Its hard to think in terms of a dog that is in drive without stimulus. How does it manifest itself and how do you live with it.


I think there's a big difference between a situational stimulus (in the case of a ring dog doing an object guard, the field, the basket, the command, the presence of the decoy) and the stimulus Jeff was referring to, such as the whip. So, during an exercise like the object guard, there really is a stimulus in effect, albeit a more "passive" stimulus.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: He's hectic, almost hysterical, when he's in drive

Is that drive, or how he was trained ??


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: He's hectic, almost hysterical, when he's in drive
> 
> Is that drive, or how he was trained ??


Well, I didn't train him to bark and spin in a hectic/hysterical frenzy when in a moving vehicle (he's stimulated by passing objects, like guard rails and light poles). I do have some pretty funny stories about trying to stop him from doing that though (and failing miserably). :-D 

I certainly had zero experience training a dog like him when I purchased him 10 years ago, so for sure there's a training aspect to it too, but given the example above, I think he's genetically prone to the hysteria.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: He's hectic, almost hysterical, when he's in drive
> 
> Is that drive, or how he was trained ??





Konnie Hein said:


> Well, I didn't train him to bark and spin in a hectic/hysterical frenzy when in a moving vehicle (he's stimulated by passing objects, like guard rails and light poles). I do have some pretty funny stories about trying to stop him from doing that though (and failing miserably). :-D


That's the thing about higher drive dogs, and perhaps why the "off switch" seems like an impossibility to Jeff? They _need to release that energy _in some manner, and if you don't shape those behaviors in their early stages, you can potentially end up with all sorts of obsessive/compulsive type behaviors. If I remember right, in the book The Celestine Prophecy it states that, _"attention is energy"_.

My new 12 week old pup has a lot of drive, and on three occasions in the last three days, I caught her reaching for her tail for a second or two, before I was able to redirect her attention on a burlap sack or ball. It's pretty important in my opinion to watch her closely in this stage and work with her lots, so I can shape the behaviors I want her to have.

I think equally important as energy releasing excercises, there needs to be calm and focused attention based routines as well, for developing that "passive drive". Like anyone, I begin at 1 or two feet distant sits and downs, increasing the time intervals, and gradually increasing distance from the handler, while rewarding with food or toy. What I perhaps do differently, is even the process that a reward is served gets a little more complex for teaching control and preparation to act.

The first part of general obedience work is crucial to how the pups brain harnesses control of its own behavior, develops a more persistant focus to the handler, and helps better to keep any OCD expressions at bay. I can't say with total certainty, but I would guess that a dog with hectic high drive in it's adult life was probably partly due to an imbalance of work in "active drive" and not enough in "passive drive".


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> The first part of general obedience work is crucial to how the pups brain harnesses control of its own behavior, develops a more persistant focus to the handler, and helps better to keep any OCD expressions at bay. I can't say with total certainty, but I would guess that a dog with hectic high drive in it's adult life was probably partly due to an imbalance of work in "active drive" and not enough in "passive drive".


That sounds reasonable.

Still, there must be a genetic potential for developing into that, aside from just loads of drive and an imbalance in training, don't you think? That's where I think the nerves might come in to play (?) - not nerves as in fear necessarily, but just nerves as in inability to deal with the level of drive without becoming hectic.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

I have been reading this threshold thing with interest....especially the part about the low thresholds where the dog is in drive without stimulous. There are people just like this and they are usually on medication. When they are off their meds...you see this behavior. From where I sit as a breeder, you want a bunch of dogs that have been bred as single purpose dogs because the dog being talked about are pretty much as useles as shit to even live with. They are single function dogs....of you can still call them dogs. And this is for what, the ease of training? Dogs designed for your viewing pleasure only? You can't get the same craziness out of a high threshold dog for good reason....they are stable but they are ten times the dog. You just can't work en as easily because they aren't on the brink already.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Konnie Hein said:


> That sounds reasonable.
> 
> Still, there must be a genetic potential for developing into that, aside from just loads of drive and an imbalance in training, don't you think? That's where I think the nerves might come in to play (?) - not nerves as in fear necessarily, but just nerves as in inability to deal with the level of drive without becoming hectic.


Everything's genetic potential to begin with, modified by cross-affecting genes, epigenetics, maternal imprinting, early development, imprint training, repetition training, social and environmental experiences and so on. And somewhat in that order, if not overlapping. Genes and experience = nueral patterning results.

Last month, I posted a link to an article on a study that singled out one gene the experts feel is greatly responsible for OCD behaviors.
*Canine compulsive disorder gene identified *


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> I have been reading this threshold thing with interest....especially the part about the low thresholds where the dog is in drive without stimulous. There are people just like this and they are usually on medication. When they are off their meds...you see this behavior. From where I sit as a breeder, you want a bunch of dogs that have been bred as single purpose dogs because the dog being talked about are pretty much as useles as shit to even live with. They are single function dogs....of you can still call them dogs. And this is for what, the ease of training? Dogs designed for your viewing pleasure only? You can't get the same craziness out of a high threshold dog for good reason....they are stable but they are ten times the dog. You just can't work en as easily because they aren't on the brink already.


You can get the same thing, not that you always will. I like lower thresholds, you can teach the behaviors you want easily, and raise the thresholds you need to with training. In the opposite case, training aids like the defense table are used, but whether or not it "sticks", I have no idea. IMO, it's much better to be able to access a required drive easily and teach control to suppress a drive through focus excercises, or as often said, _"easier to cap a drive, than to build it up"._

But as Joby mentioned here or another thread, when speaking in terms of thresholds, I feel that magnitude/intensity and duration/sustainability are also of interconnected but separate relevance. Also context/situation of the stimuli.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

So, Daryl, from your perspective, when you raise the type of dog I described above, you re-direct the undesirable behaviors? What else do you do (referring to your comment on active vs. passive drive here)?

Edit: I just re-read one of your posts above and saw what you said you do, so disregard unless there's more.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Konnie Hein said:


> That's where I think the nerves might come in to play (?) - not nerves as in fear necessarily, but just nerves as in inability to deal with the level of drive without becoming hectic.


I'm careful not to usually make use of the "nerves" term. Too many opinions of what it means. But, for what you're describing, I'd say yes, other cross-affecting genes _along with_ focus training helps them deal with their drives.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

I think nerves are an incorrect threshold as well.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> I think nerves are an incorrect threshold as well.


What do you mean by this? An incorrect term or ?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Well, I look at nerves as more of "when" are you gonna run away.

Some people look at nerves as you were describing them as a hyper sensitivity to movement with no ability to inhibit.

Pretty fancy right ?


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Yep, fancy.

Is there another term you would use to apply to the second description?


----------



## Chris Michalek (Feb 13, 2008)

so fight, flight or avoidance threshold is a better description?


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Daryl, you said recently on one of these threads that you wanted to breed a multi purpose GSD. That requires a stable dog. The lower the thresholds the less stable the dog is IMO. GSD's, have always excelled at bitwork and been very tractable without acting like a mal. Why? Because they were stable. They could still turn it off. That is why they were seeing eye dogs and everything else that required stability. If everyone keeps breeding solely for sport work and single purpose dogs, eventually working breeders are going to be classed right up there with show breeders...breeding for a single purpose and rendering the breed after breed useless for any thing but that single purpose. I say this because I had a yard full of dogs at one time that may as well have been hounds. I was losing the airedale that was the peoples dog. Took a long time to straighten that out.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Konnie Hein said:


> So, Daryl, from your perspective, when you raise the type of dog I described above, you re-direct the undesirable behaviors? What else do you do (referring to your comment on active vs. passive drive here)?
> 
> Edit: I just re-read one of your posts above and saw what you said you do, so disregard unless there's more.


I hardly see (or want to) any undesireable behaviors, I was generalizing about OCD type behaviors. I think whey you're working with the desireable behaviors, the attention energy is focused on that, so that the undesireable behaviors take a back-seat relevance for the moment, and eventually any neural programming for them weakens and dissapates, while the desireable behaviors strengthen in time and repetition, and therefore become a auto-programmed response to a situation.

If my older dog needs to release some energy, rather than chase his tail or something wierd, his first response is to bring me his toy, and we work on passive drive training. Based on his past experience, I've offered him the relief he needs when we do this. Whatever has proven to be a viable and satisfying result based on past experience, is what the dog will initially attempt. Puppies can be really creative or imaginative, and you shape their experience, while adults tend to go for what's known to work well in the past.

Keen awareness/observation skills on the handler part are important for handling low threshold dogs, seeing things before they happen, and if not, knowing what your response will be ahead of time as they do happen. I suppose quick reflexes are a plus too, especially with a malinois more often than a gsd.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Daryl, you said recently on one of these threads that you wanted to breed a multi purpose GSD. That requires a stable dog. The lower the thresholds the less stable the dog is IMO. GSD's, have always excelled at bitwork and been very tractable without acting like a mal. Why? Because they were stable. They could still turn it off. That is why they were seeing eye dogs and everything else that required stability. If everyone keeps breeding solely for sport work and single purpose dogs, eventually working breeders are going to be classed right up there with show breeders...breeding for a single purpose and rendering the breed after breed useless for any thing but that single purpose. I say this because I had a yard full of dogs at one time that may as well have been hounds. I was losing the airedale that was the peoples dog. Took a long time to straighten that out.



I think you're right. I'm trying to find the right balance that I prefer, in drive _and other temperament characteristics_, and think it helps to start with a low threshold dog for foundation stock. They're not so abundant as is, and there are already too many dogs with high thresholds that would make difficulty improving their contribution to your lines with.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

The dog I was talking about above was a kennel dog until 18 months of age when I got him. Probably no fixing what was wrong at that point (in the way you're describing). 

What about breeders who leave pups in kennels or tied out (that was talked about in a different thread recently) until they are a bit older? I would imagine that these pups would develop undesirable OCD issues unless they had significantly higher thresholds. To me, it seems doing that would automatically be a selection process for dogs with higher thresholds since a dog with lower thresholds would be a mess after months in a kennel as a pup.

I'm with you, Daryl, I like a dog with lower thresholds for kicking into drive (at least based on the description of that term here).


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> One of the problems for me is verbalizing thresholds, or transfering what I see to the written word.
> 
> Sometimes you see a dog that backtied appears to have real good drive, but when the control work is added, you see those dogs melt away. That is one example of a higher threshold.
> 
> ...


Thanks Jeff....for attempting to verbalize it...even though it wasn't for me :razz:

I can see why it is difficult to explain.

Thresholds by the classic definitions are complicated enough, without throwing in all the variables you lump into the discussion. I got a better picture of what you are talking about when you say thresholds now. 

I personally don't agree that all dogs have the same amount of inherent drive, I don't see it as a threshold thing in my mind, but to each his own...


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: The lower the thresholds the less stable the dog is IMO. 

NOPE. Sorry, it would seem that way, but stability has nothing to do with drive. There are lots of dogs out there with tons of drive, low low thresholds and GREAT stability.

You can lay down right next to Buko when he is all hyped up from doing drag ins and what not, and he will scoot over and put his head in your lap to be petted, or scrub his face on yours.

This sort of "that dog is reactive so he must be a nervebag" or "I prefer a more stable dog" is the last bastion of a lot of breeders for protection sports.

Of course sometimes it is true, but the difference between Buko and Esko is quite large, and I don't think Eskos thresholds are that bad. Esko looks like he has no interest sometimes and then he has bitten, and bitten with force. A good example of this was we were working on the escort the other day. I never though he was going to bite, he looked asleep. Then of course when he looks awake, he is nibbling or biting when he is not supposed to. It is a big difference.

Buko is way more stable that Esko in the way that people use the word stable. Esko is a bit of a bully, and goes into avoidance when he is made to do what he is asked.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

You had to quote the entire thing to be sure that I knew what you were talking about ??

Quote: I personally don't agree that all dogs have the same amount of inherent drive, I don't see it as a threshold thing in my mind, but to each his own...

Ok, then explain it. I personally don't see you as much of a dog trainer, so it better be pretty good.

You don't quote the whole ****ing thing, say that you get it, which obviously you don't and then dismiss it as if you have a clue. 

Dismiss it by explaining how you see things, other wise you are just another internet bitch boy using my experience for your own gain.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> I have been reading this threshold thing with interest....especially the part about the low thresholds where the dog is in drive without stimulous. There are people just like this and they are usually on medication. When they are off their meds...you see this behavior. From where I sit as a breeder, you want a bunch of dogs that have been bred as single purpose dogs because the dog being talked about are pretty much as useles as shit to even live with. They are single function dogs....of you can still call them dogs. And this is for what, the ease of training? Dogs designed for your viewing pleasure only? You can't get the same craziness out of a high threshold dog for good reason....they are stable but they are ten times the dog. You just can't work en as easily because they aren't on the brink already.


A working dog is single function. It has to work. Be it police, search and rescue or cadaver. OCD in work is not necessarily a bad thing.

Working dogs are not pets. They dont have to be many things to many people. They only have to fullfill their duties.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Spoken like a true show person Will....except they would have added that there dogs can still do everything else. Also, it is getting confusing...are sport dogs really working dogs? Can they do the work for real or is it just a fun thing? Seems to be two camps here. I thought civil dogs were working class dogs...but sport dogs.....


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> You had to quote the entire thing to be sure that I knew what you were talking about ??
> 
> Quote: I personally don't agree that all dogs have the same amount of inherent drive, I don't see it as a threshold thing in my mind, but to each his own...
> 
> ...


Sorry jeff. I'll work on the internet protocol for quoting you, and I'll try real hard to post in a certain way to avoid you actually commenting on way that I post on here..which is kinda ridiculous. Have several thousand posts to make before I become the posting guru that you are..

I was actually just thanking you for trying to put it into words. As it seems there is a lot going on in your mind when the word threshold is used, that was it. Wasn't trying to be confrontational actually. I merely stated that what you think of thresholds is a complicated thing, and I appreciate you attempting to put it on paper. 

When I hear the word threshold, I don't lump all of the complicated issues that you do into it. There are a whole slew of other mundane words that go along with the classic terms for the issues you bring into the term thresholds.

Not dismissing anything. I got it...

take a chill pill


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Spoken like a true show person Will....except they would have added that there dogs can still do everything else. Also, it is getting confusing...are sport dogs really working dogs? Can they do the work for real or is it just a fun thing? Seems to be two camps here. I thought civil dogs were working class dogs...but sport dogs.....


Well I do like to prance around for my wife.....

I think it depends on the what you want to achieve in sport. There are some people just happy to compete and their dog also functions as a pet. However if you are a serious competitor I am sure that working at the sport would be the single function.


----------



## Max Orsi (May 22, 2008)

Here are my 2 cents on the subject.

Thersholds can be defined as the level of stimulation a dog can substain or require in order to react.

There are thesholds for everything from salivating at the presence of food to urinating on the presence of stress and everything in between.

Unfortunately the reaction of the dog to a given stimulus is not only dependent on threshold only but is a multi factor result, therefore dogs with the same treshold can respond to the same stimulus in a totally different manner.

I adere to the principle KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid).

As I learn training with some very accomplished trainers here and over sea, just look at the big picture.

Everybody should have some standards on how they want their dog to work, some like a lot of power and aggession some like playfulness and clear minds, all should strive for a sound confidence with environmental and human stimulus (at least in working dogs)

If your dog perform to your standards (the most important ones), because no dog is perfect, keep it, train it, breed it and be happy, if not find a dog that fits your standard instead of breeding it in the hope of "winning the lottery" producing something that genetically is not on the dog.

Just be honest with your dog assesments and have fun.

Happy training

Max


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: When I hear the word threshold, I don't lump all of the complicated issues that you do into it. There are a whole slew of other mundane words that go along with the classic terms for the issues you bring into the term thresholds.

Yet you say that you "got it".

I love when people quote the amount of times you posted as some sort of a sign that they know more, as they just "keep it secret" or some shit.

I think I was a member of this forum from pretty early on. Maybe you could think that MIGHT be a factor in the number of posts, compared to lets say you, who have been a member for a week.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

will fernandez said:


> Well I do like to prance around for my wife.....
> 
> I think it depends on the what you want to achieve in sport. There are some people just happy to compete and their dog also functions as a pet. However if you are a serious competitor I am sure that working at the sport would be the single function.


Fair enough. There are several single function dogs out there already Mals, DS's and a few others that are perfect for that. I believe, you can correct me if you want, that most of these single function breeds are offshoots of the GSD that have been intensivly breed into the single function category. If this is true, why keep trying to breed the GSD away from the totally stable dog it was? It was one of the top multifunctional dogs at one time. Now the labs and goldens have taken over much of what the GSD's used to do. Why? To be competative in sport work? Eventially they will devolve into a dog much like the ones already there. Low thresholds, walking around in drive all the time not needing a trigger. A "sport" dog should be able to key down and go home like a proper GSD. I am saying this for one persons benefit Will as this person can make a difference.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

What do you mean single function ?? Do you think that a Mal cannot hunt hog ??

I have seen some nice big Mals with more than enough aggression that you could have hog hunting Mals in no time at all.


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> If this is true, why keep trying to breed the GSD away from the totally stable dog it was? It was one of the top multifunctional dogs at one time. Now the labs and goldens have taken over much of what the GSD's used to do. Why? To be competative in sport work?


What jobs are you talking about? Seeing eye or detection or ?


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

AHHHHHH...since I am totally confused now (absolutely normal for me) I am looking forward to Jeff being here and explaining what my dogs thresholds are....LOL 

AL....you explained it well to me on the phone the other night and then I had to read all of this.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: When I hear the word threshold, I don't lump all of the complicated issues that you do into it. There are a whole slew of other mundane words that go along with the classic terms for the issues you bring into the term thresholds.
> 
> Yet you say that you "got it".
> 
> ...


Jeff,

Trust me I GOT IT....Even though I am sure you don't think a guy like me can understand your attempt to explain your inhumanlike understanding of dog behavior to us mere mortals, I GOT IT.

I just keep the word threshold simple as in terms of what the classic definition is. There are other terms for all the other crap.

Again was attempting to thank you for describing how you view the term threshold, as it was unclear, since you lump all the stuff into the word threshold. I can see why it was difficult to put on paper when you define it that way.

NOT DISAGREEING. just look at it a little differently, and verbalize it differently...

*I do, however, think it is ridiculous that you have now stooped from insulting my knowledge of dogs, to actually insulting my manner of posting on a forum.*
And then somehow use this as evidence in your assessment of my overall intelligence level..

You are one eccentric dude.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Fair enough. There are several single function dogs out there already Mals, DS's and a few others that are perfect for that. I believe, you can correct me if you want, that most of these single function breeds are offshoots of the GSD that have been intensivly breed into the single function category. If this is true, why keep trying to breed the GSD away from the totally stable dog it was? It was one of the top multifunctional dogs at one time. Now the labs and goldens have taken over much of what the GSD's used to do. Why? To be competative in sport work? Eventially they will devolve into a dog much like the ones already there. Low thresholds, walking around in drive all the time not needing a trigger. A "sport" dog should be able to key down and go home like a proper GSD. I am saying this for one persons benefit Will as this person can make a difference.


 
But here is the thing...a clear headed, lo threshold dog is the multifunctional dog. It can excel at any one single function at superior level. (to include hog hunting)


----------



## Donna DeYoung (Jan 29, 2010)

ok, new here. what is a sleeve sucker?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Donna DeYoung said:


> ok, new here. what is a sleeve sucker?


LOL....A dog that has no interest in biting the man, only the sleeve. 

His fight is a battle for the sleeve, instead of a battle against the man himself.


----------



## Chris Michalek (Feb 13, 2008)

Sleeve Sucker Training

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icKPCjPnH8c

Training NOT to be a sleeve sucker

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLRzcUHu8xA


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

will fernandez said:


> But here is the thing...a clear headed, lo threshold dog is the multifunctional dog. It can excel at any one single function at superior level. (to include hog hunting)


Possibly I have Konnies description stuck in my head....a dog that is always ready to go off, or something similar. I would say from you multifunction aspect, rather than "low" thresholds how about "balanced" thresholds. Obviously they can be to high also.
Myself, I like high threshold dogs. Very even keeled, no surprises. You see a situation and you know it is one that will trigger the dog. I can't imagine having a dog around that triggered on anything. Terrasita brought up Jager. By my definition, he will be a high threshold dog. Only a few things will trigger him but when he is triggered it will be serious. Might not be what people want in a sport dog, but, maybe they are not sport dogs.
As for the low threshold dogs being able to hog hunt....not unless they got a heck of a high pain threshold.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: ok, new here. what is a sleeve sucker?

*...mod edit ....
*
No guts, hangs off the sleeve like a dead fish, and the only reason you know they are still alive is the back feet move.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Don

If we keep it simple and not get confused with descriptions or breeds, I believe that we would like the same kind of dog. Once you see, have or work a good dog you never forget what it is and will judge all other dogs on it.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

can we see the uncensored version ....please


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

will fernandez said:


> can we see the uncensored version ....please


lol


----------



## Carol Boche (May 13, 2007)

will fernandez said:


> can we see the uncensored version ....please


_*NO *_

](*,):mrgreen::mrgreen:


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

I gotta finish reading the thread but Don you hit the nail on the head for me. I feel like we are at the point of having the generic sport/military/police dog and don't want to sacrifice the other breed characteristics for the single this single purpose function. For this function and this function alone, do what KNPV has done [screw breed purity] and open up the sport venues for working pedigrees regardless of breed designation and registration.

Terrasita



Don Turnipseed said:


> Daryl, you said recently on one of these threads that you wanted to breed a multi purpose GSD. That requires a stable dog. The lower the thresholds the less stable the dog is IMO. GSD's, have always excelled at bitwork and been very tractable without acting like a mal. Why? Because they were stable. They could still turn it off. That is why they were seeing eye dogs and everything else that required stability. If everyone keeps breeding solely for sport work and single purpose dogs, eventually working breeders are going to be classed right up there with show breeders...breeding for a single purpose and rendering the breed after breed useless for any thing but that single purpose. I say this because I had a yard full of dogs at one time that may as well have been hounds. I was losing the airedale that was the peoples dog. Took a long time to straighten that out.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Don, I was in a bit of a rush at the time I agreed with that post. Rereading it, I have to disagree with _"The lower the thresholds the less stable the dog is IMO."_ Two different qualities, IMO. Lower thresholds are useful, but I like a dog that can _"turn it off". _The thresholds become controllable in the sense that the dog learns proper "context" for a response to a given situation, and learns which situations the proper response is _"not to turn it on, to start with"._


----------



## Maria Janota (Sep 24, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Daryl, you said recently on one of these threads that you wanted to breed a multi purpose GSD. That requires a stable dog. The lower the thresholds the less stable the dog is IMO. GSD's, have always excelled at bitwork and been very tractable without acting like a mal. Why? Because they were stable. They could still turn it off. That is why they were seeing eye dogs and everything else that required stability. If everyone keeps breeding solely for sport work and single purpose dogs, eventually working breeders are going to be classed right up there with show breeders...breeding for a single purpose and rendering the breed after breed useless for any thing but that single purpose. I say this because I had a yard full of dogs at one time that may as well have been hounds. I was losing the airedale that was the peoples dog. Took a long time to straighten that out.


Again Don, couldn`t agree more - must like same `kind` of dogs.
We don`t have many good dogs here - we have just IPO and dog training is... well not popular here. So there is no understanding of a `good dog`in terms of nerves, thresholds etc (some people has it but noone talks about it in public and most of them is sure that prey drive itself makes a working dog). It wasn`t like that 10 years ago, you could have find nice dogs here then. Most sport dogs have low thresolds and nerves not strong enough - it is an effect of breeding for sport, like we are just getting the second sort. Those dogs are overreactive and really not nice to be around (obvieouslly, they can do IPO). Ofcourse it is a lack o awareness that`s causing this situation here, because imported dogs also turns this way very often, but I consider it as a side effect of breeding for low thresholds, am I right? And it is something that will occure because noone can breed only the strong nerved dogs?


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Well it is pretty hard having a discussion like this. One person sees low threshholds as being ready to fire 24/7. The next person says "Oh no, they can key down completely". The one after that has another story. I don't care if it is low threshholds or not so we can solve that. It is an imbalnced dog if it is keyed all the time just like people walking down the street hollering at people waving their arms around. They put people on meds that go through the environment keyed like some of these dogs. Whether they are low threshhold or high threshold....I don't care what anyone wants to call it....they make look crazy doing sportwork but that may be because they are. To be clear here, Dogs have been bred specifically with this temperament. Use em. I have no problem with that. It does bother me to see how far down the GSD has gone from what it once was. Show breeders started the decline, sport dogging is trying to finish it. And this is related to the search for the lower threshhold...ff anyone can decide what it really is


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Really am trying to understand this but it does seem to me that the point is to get the combination of low threshold AND good nerves you can have something truly excellent. 

Daryls point about working with the dog to control and cap is maybe key to working with these dogs. I know my dog really benefits from settling before we work [detection] to increase his focus because he can be very hectic if we don't and I have put much more time into control recently than in anything else. 

I have seen other dogs you have to pump up by getting them excited and pumping their sides before search work whereas with him I have to make him down or sit and stroke him before hand in order for him to focus and slow down. I will be the first to admit I don't know whether or not this is related to the discussion or not. Don't really know that much about this topic but want to learn more.

Ok, my dog is constantly ready to go go go, but he is very stable around people. I have only seen him perceive a threat one time and we think that was a bear [the one time his hackles ever went up] other than that - agressive dogs, strange people etc. dont seem to faze him so in that response maybe he does have a high threshold. I really don't know. We don't do bitework. He goes ballistic when he sees runaways though.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I think low threshold and "stable/good nerves" is superb. The REAL problem comes when breeding with that dog. Low thresholds seem easy to reproduce on if you don't water them down, but "stable temperament" is more multifaceted, and not a guarantee that the progeny will be stable themselves. You can end up producing dogs that are a liability in the wrong hands very easily, and that's probably what often happens. Not to stereotype, but the thought gives me a mental picture of some of the dutchies I've seen.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Whatever it is, it has balance Daryl. Max Orsi said on one of these threads. someting like" Find a dog that you truly like and can life with....workem breedem do whatever but it has to be a dog that you like...not what someone else likes." This is what makes different, distinct lines.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

reading this very fast.......my head is spinning .........

I guess I prefer to look at as how accessible is the drive? If the drive is easily accessible not sure what that has to do with nerve? not sure what that has to do with being hyper active? 

Maybe you guys can dissect this so I can understand.

I have a dog here that has won as oscar playing the part of a "couch potato" if you met him outside of work you may not think he had any drive at all. 

Open the door and he is running full speed to the tree line to hunt squirrels and maybe running up a few trees for fun.

say a single word and his is on his tippy toes in full alert ready to explode.

can be easily worked with food, ball, toy, voice, tug, leaf, rock, stick, etc. just as intense for any of them.

now in certain situations to release some pent up energy in training he has redirected, he may shiver/ shake (which is funny cause his face is totally calm). take this away and he is back to the worlds greatest actor. so the drive is accessible, it is always there and easy to reach.....I guess I dont know if I am understanding as some say it makes a dog nervy/ restless/ what have you and I dont really see that as condidtions of whatever term we are using today as much as "other" issues.

so would the dog above be low, med, high? 

t


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

I think how it plays out can be breed specific. I think my friend Lynda's bulldog Rook has easily accessible drive. My doggie passion most of my life has been the GSD. Don has put it perfectly how I feel what is going on with the breed. Ulf Kintzel said it best. You have the show crowd on one end of the spectrum and the sport crowd on the other. Its up to the herders to save the breed. [Exclude AKC A Course trial herding]. Its that balance we need. We deal with the same nerves and drives. We need the same innate sense of territorial guard. How the dogs are trained for protection seems to be the guiding force. I've heard of WG prey happy dogs that have no sense of territorial guard. This is what I mean in single selecting for prey, what do you lose. We know that the more prey we have in LGDs the less we have in instinct to remain home and guard their territory. A lot of the triggers had to do with the dog's sense of territory and pack. They won't have that for the sport game so you have to try to get those responses some other way. This seems to be either putting them in defense [bbbbaaaaaddddd] or breeding them so high up on prey they are triggered by what could be called an artificial stimulus. Max Orsi is the only one I've seen that refers to the dog's character. That seems to be lost in the discussion and if you bring it up everyone thinks in terms of the PPD crowd. NOT! Since when should you have to TRAIN a GSD to guard and protect his person or his territory. The OG is innate or it used to be. I can understand the need for the single purpose dog for military and police---develop that dog. But I realllly don't want the GSD or bouvier for that matter to lose the characteristics that distinguish it in the name of creating low thresholds for sport. I was hoping some of the LE guys would chime in because I'm curious regarding what they feel they need in a dog for their training and performance on the street and if that has changed over time. For the GSD if the thresholds are so low he demonstrates no stock sense and can't be developed for large flock [200+ head], then you are detracting from what he should be. Within that ability is an innate sense of guard of his territory, master and anything belonging to his master, rock solid environmental/people nerves and judgment. One thing to watch for in the HGH work that we see today is prey driven dog that has be taught to run that border and stay off the sheep. The sheep are so trained its getting very difficult to see whether the dog truly has any stock sense or if its trial mechanical placement. There is a difference. 

BTW, from a GSD perspective, you never hear discussion of the Humphrey & Warner Fortunate Fields experiements in terms of breeding and selecting for working traits. 

Terrasita


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Terrasita, I have heard quite a few say Uwe Kirschental was probably the last GREAT herding dog with the characteristics of the ideal GSD.

Of course the Kirschental lines have now gone to show and the last one I saw was a nervebag spook. But that we don't WANT the GSD to be a malinois. The malinois certainly has its place but so does the GSD.

But since thresholds are being discussed - what thresholds are relevant for what kinds of application? I would assume good nerve and good prey drive is paramount for all of them.

Sports
Patrol
Detection
SAR
Herding
Other


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

I am sure it comes to personal tastes-different lines of each individual breed allow everyone to create there own super dog.

For where I work the low threshold dog is ideal. 

When I participate in sports it would be a low threshold dog because I find them to be the easiest for 

me to train and live with. .


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

For Patrol and Detection I have found the low threshold dog to be best suited.

But that is only speaking for myself.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Daryl Ehret said:


> I think low threshold and "stable/good nerves" is superb. The REAL problem comes when breeding with that dog. Low thresholds seem easy to reproduce on if you don't water them down, but "stable temperament" is more multifaceted, and not a guarantee that the progeny will be stable themselves. You can end up producing dogs that are a liability in the wrong hands very easily, and that's probably what often happens. Not to stereotype, but the thought gives me a mental picture of some of the dutchies I've seen.


I am of the opinion that most working type dogs should be a liability if they end up in the wrong hands. 
Stable is a subjective term. A certain type of dog in one person's hands can be stable, in another an extreme liability. There should be a select market for these types of dogs, a market of experienced dog handlers.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Nancy, that's interesting, that ws the feel I got regarding Uwe and I've tried to find out more bout him. I feel the same way about Kirschental now---show and realy more hyper and/or nervy. Bob's dog Thunder has done SAR work, is a SCH III and has stock sense and drive for stock sense to burn. Thats the balance for me. I think the GSD should have it all. In herding real vs. trial can make all the difference. My guys are just right for the farm and all that we encounter. For the trial stock around here they are really low threshold or too much in terms of reactivity or their need to gain control. It took me a long time to figure out I was selecting against the trial dog. I have to be fairly creative in my training.

Terrasita



Nancy Jocoy said:


> Terrasita, I have heard quite a few say Uwe Kirschental was probably the last GREAT herding dog with the characteristics of the ideal GSD.
> 
> Of course the Kirschental lines have now gone to show and the last one I saw was a nervebag spook. But that we don't WANT the GSD to be a malinois. The malinois certainly has its place but so does the GSD.
> 
> ...


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

I'd just like to say Tracey, that your dogs nerves are strong enough that he only expresses a shiver, imagine if he barked non stop while in drive or spun like a maniac. At least yours has an off button but many low threshold dogs do not, they beat their tails to death in their kennel because they wont/can't lay the hell down, they chew their tails off because they don't get excersized enough (who knows what enough is anyway?), they can't keep weight on because they don't have the couch potatoe switch, your lucky yours came with.

Daryl is saying I guess, that if caught in time, with redirection this stuff can be stopped or molded into something else. Personally, I'd rather not have to, just to live in peace. I'd pfrefer a higher threshold and deal with jacking him up in drive. At least then, the dog is still a decent pet for someone if it doesn't have enough mojo to get the points. 

I don't have the flashiest dog but he has enough drive to do whatever I ask of him and he isn't too annoying to live with. I find myself agreeing with Don on this thread. I lived through a period of time with an EX that loved extreme dogs and they drove me insane. No way in hell I could take a lifetime of those types of dogs. No way I could breed purposefully for that and subject a handler or the dog to a lifetime of wadded up spaz like that. Yes they had lower thresholds, yes they bit, yes they did high energy OB but God did it take some steel patience to get them there and to live with them. 

I'll gladly trade off a little speed for easier trainability, a smarter dog, one that thinks instead of reacts. Along with my higher threshold comes environmental stability, real stability, not drive that pushes the dog through. 

How accessible is the drive? Your dog sounds pretty accessible with many stimuli. 

Nerve has to do with how your dog handles himself when in drive and out.

When you give your dog the "word" explain allert and ready to explode? I get allert from my dog but he doesn't explode, unless there is something there to stimulate that, he will stand up, look around but not bark like a fool at nothing.

I'm with you trying to listen to degrees of thresholds, nerve and drive to better understand my own dog and where to place him in all of it. All I know is he's easy, 100% stable and I wouldn't chance screwing with those good points to lower his thresholds when he works just fine the way he is.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

Michelle Kehoe said:


> When you give your dog the "word" explain allert and ready to explode? I get allert from my dog but he doesn't explode, unless there is something there to stimulate that, he will stand up, look around but not bark like a fool at nothing.quote]
> 
> 
> Thanks for the conversation Michelle. I love talking about these things but we each view it different, different terms, etc.
> ...


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

tracey delin said:


> Michelle Kehoe said:
> 
> 
> > When you give your dog the "word" explain allert and ready to explode? I get allert from my dog but he doesn't explode, unless there is something there to stimulate that, he will stand up, look around but not bark like a fool at nothing.quote]
> ...


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Like before mentioned, I hate to incorporate the terms "nerve" and "stable", for what I'm describing, but yes, that's what makes a low threshold dog a success or failure. And Terrasita's mention of "character" fall under the "temperament" category for me.

That being said, although I like a low threshold dog for myself, I do not want to breed for quite that extreme, ideally. My low threshold dog is not my preferred choice in herding/tending, for example. I want to produce dogs that can fit all manner of sport, real work, and family social situations. The SchH, SAR, Herding/Tending, do-it-all-dog with across-the-board-great though not too extreme overall success in each endeavor.


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

will fernandez said:


> tracey delin said:
> 
> 
> > But dont you find the capping of all that energy so much easier than having to build it or try to create it.
> ...


----------



## tracey schneider (May 7, 2008)

I guess in thinking about it more........ I like a low threshold dog but I would not tolerate a dog that would chew his own tail......spin excessively in the crate/ car etc. I think Id have to kick it :twisted: Then I also wonder how much of that could be "fixed" or not show the same in different hands.

t


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Like before mentioned, I hate to incorporate the terms "nerve" and "stable", for what I'm describing, but yes, that's what makes a low threshold dog a success or failure. And Terrasita's mention of "character" fall under the "temperament" category for me.
> 
> That being said, although I like a low threshold dog for myself, I do not want to breed for quite that extreme, ideally. My low threshold dog is not my preferred choice in herding/tending, for example. I want to produce dogs that can fit all manner of sport, real work, and family social situations. The SchH, SAR, Herding/Tending, do-it-all-dog with across-the-board-great though not too extreme overall success in each endeavor.


Gotcha. 

I just have a huge problem with watering down so many of the working breeds to make them easily owned and handled by inexperienced people, or to make them ideal family dogs for idiots. This trend takes hold and popularity increases and the decline starts, especially in America. Not saying that this applies to you Daryl, just speaking in general terms.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

tracey delin said:


> :twisted: Then I also wonder how much of that could be "fixed" or not show the same in different hands.
> 
> t


I agree


----------



## Randy Allen (Apr 18, 2008)

Joby,
What makes you think breeding for balance is watering down the breed?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

I think it is an issue of hyper vs. drive and then what someone said about pain threshold avoidance threshold; although the latter has always been about fight vs. flight for me. You can have all the prey in the world but if he's more given to flight, its over. My friend has two types of ABs. One she would lablel as accessible drive/low threshold and I would swear as he comes into her bubble he goes into drive. I think he's perfect for competition. He's oblivious and won't be affected by handler nerves. He's gonna do what he is conditioned to do regardless. Heeling 300 paces is just like heeling 50 and ya don't even have to play variable reinforcment games. Her other dog is tail beating, more hyper and given to swallowing socks and such. She is highly trainable, very social and fun---maybe a slight nerve component if I were being hypercritical. If we were nitpicking choosing, we would both pick the drive accessible male. She and I discuss this all the time and I hope she doesn't mind me using them as examples. 

I've not had hyper dogs and prefer a dog that can chill out when not working. In the herding trialing world, mine would definitely be lower threshold. They are intense control freaks which can kill you on the trial field. I've looked at the capping threads. Haven't had much success with that from a do it because I say so perspective---conflict city. I've had better luck with marker training. Yet, I don't really care that much about the points. Bob is laughing because Khira is a point dog if ever I had one. She's also the most low threshold load and expload type I've worked. It is not a good idea to build frustration with her. However, I don't want to sacrifice what the dog is supposed to be for getting a point dog. I would never work a dog on livestock that I have to cheerlead and build drive. I may have it easier because I [Don also] use instinct, not just drive. 

Daryl: I'm curious why not herding for the lower threshold dog [Huck].

Terrasita


----------



## Konnie Hein (Jun 14, 2006)

will fernandez said:


> For Patrol and Detection I have found the low threshold dog to be best suited.
> 
> But that is only speaking for myself.


Ditto on the detection part, for SAR purposes (HRD and disaster SAR).

My training methods for both are specifically geared towards dogs with a low threshold for kicking in to prey/hunt drive.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Randy Allen said:


> Joby,
> What makes you think breeding for balance is watering down the breed?


Didn't say that. I have nothing against a balanced dog.
I said..
I just have a huge problem with watering down so many of the working breeds *to make them easily owned and handled by inexperienced people, or to make them ideal family dogs for idiots. * and also stated that I wasn't referring to Daryl in this case.

When this is done, things start to disappear, that in some breeds are harder to get back. Things like dominance,social aggression and sharpness come to mind.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Thats the trouble. There has never been enough working homes. I can remember early on a trainer's comment regarding our male bouv Thor---"in the wrong hands, that dog would be dangerous." Who are those pups gonna go to? The thresholds thing comes in degrees, hence Don's reference to balance.
It would be nice to hear from some if you have a low threshold dog: 1) what characteristics does it have that you consider make it low; 2) breed; 3) type of work; and 4) training; 5) kennel vs. house 6) social tolerance; 7) environmental stability.



Terrasita


----------



## Randy Allen (Apr 18, 2008)

10-4 Joby,
I misunderstood the context.
It was more of a question then anything else.

Don't you think though the same kind of thing happens when the dog is bred toward just one attribute, say like a low threshold prey.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Randy Allen said:


> 10-4 Joby,
> I misunderstood the context.
> It was more of a question then anything else.
> 
> Don't you think though the same kind of thing happens when the dog is bred toward just one attribute, say like a low threshold prey.


Sure the other things would get lost too, if all the breeders worked towards only one attribute. I can't think of any I know that do this though. I can think of plenty of the other kind, I mentioned.

wasn't taking it personal, just clarifying..


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> Didn't say that. I have nothing against a balanced dog.
> I said..
> I just have a huge problem with watering down so many of the working breeds *to make them easily owned and handled by inexperienced people, or to make them ideal family dogs for idiots. *and also stated that I wasn't referring to Daryl in this case.
> 
> When this is done, things start to disappear, that in some breeds are harder to get back. Things like dominance,social aggression and sharpness come to mind.


My dog transferred aggression to my arm once, walking off the field after he didn't get a bite. TD said no bites until he worked/barked for it. But as soon as he had ahold of my arm, he let it go and knew he ****ed up. Once he got scrambled, at about 14mos and bit my leg when I kicked the sleeve away, that is as far as unstable or unlcear as he ever got. I don't really blame him for that, he was getting his balls and still very immature.

I'm not for watering down anything or purposely breeding for pets but my dog doesn't need to be whiped into a frenzy to kick it into drive, he'll work but he just isn't as high energy as alot of dogs I see in sport or police work. However if he was accidentally placed in a pet home, I wouldn't say he'd be dangerous but, he'd maybe not be making friends. He needed a firm hand growing up so as not to dominate any of the family members. At 3.5 he is still jacking my husband around but he knows I don't take the shit. 

So he wouldn't be killing children, just humping them and bossing a "pet" type person around. If a person had some dog background and wasn't a total lap dog moron, they would probably get away with my dog just fine by setting their rules. I think this is what the original dogs of the breed were. If they weren't easy to handle, how did they get so damn popular in the first place?

This is turning into a pretty decent discussion/thread, I hope someone doesn't come along and stop it in it's tracks.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

The quote of the day,


> If they weren't easy to handle, how did they get so damn popular in the first place?


Precisley Michelle! In the 50's, everyone had a collie or a GSD...family dogs with a stable working background. Collies went downhill with the show breeders. GSD's went downhill via the working breeders. Both camps think they made better dogs out of them. Collies no longer work, GSD's are no longer family dogs. I would say it has been a good 10 years since I have seen either a collie or a GSD riding in the car with a family. GSD's ruled multiple venues in those days. Maybe this is evolution pure and simple.


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

LOL. Ah Don, too bad you missed my Excursion full of daycare kids and 3 dogs in the back with their heads hanging out. Parked out in front of the school, I got the funniest looks.


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Michelle Kehoe said:


> So he wouldn't be killing children, just humping them and bossing a "pet" type person around. If a person had some dog background and wasn't a total lap dog moron, they would probably get away with my dog just fine by setting their rules. I think this is what the original dogs of the breed were. If they weren't easy to handle, how did they get so damn popular in the first place?


Although I think when people talk about the dogs of the past there is an element of "when I was a kid I walked 5 miles to school in the snow, up hill both ways", but I also do think dog owners in the past were a lot harsher with their dogs then now days. Dogs were pets, but they were not "fur kids". My dad had hunting dogs before he had kids, but after the kids came along the dogs became just pets, we were definitely just a pet home. And I remember more then once hearing our new pup getting the CRAP kicked out of it because it pottied in the house. Obedience training was yank and jerk. And that was the norm that I saw around me. And I know that was how he was raised. Go back even further, to around the time the breeds were becoming breeds and there was less of a "pet" status and more of a "working" status. Most people had dogs because they had a job for them, even if it was just to protect the property. People were much less likely to put up with a dog who couldn't do the job, or was to much of a pain to have around. And the concept of a "furkid" or "purely positive" training wasn't even a concept. So although I suspect the earlier dogs were "easy to handle" for their times, I suspect they were actually a stronger dog then the average dog now, because they lived in a much rougher environment. 



Don Turnipseed said:


> Collies no longer work, GSD's are no longer family dogs. I would say it has been a good 10 years since I have seen either a collie or a GSD riding in the car with a family. GSD's ruled multiple venues in those days. Maybe this is evolution pure and simple.


I see GSD down here all the time with families, just saw one hanging it's head out the window of a car with kids in it on the way home to work this afternoon. I only really noticed because it was kind of an ugly one LOL But I do see them in family situations a lot.

Regarding thresholds and drive. I agree with the person who said low thresholds doesn't equal bad nerve. On the flip side though I do think bad nerves usually means lower thresholds. Note, lower, not low. I think a dogs nerves can lower the threshold they would have had if they had better nerve, which is why I think you do see many dogs who are low threshold and thin nerved. Especially in Malinois where many times I think they learn to deal with life through their drive vs their stability. It's their blessing and their curse, since you can do so much to improve the dog through it's drive (blessing), but then when the dog is an adult people tend to forget what the "genetic dog" is, vs the "made dog", or they never even know (curse).

Personally I like a lower threshold dog who is stable, but I'll go a little higher in threshold if it means keeping the stability. I don't want a dog I have to build up or cheerlead into working, but I don't want a dog who is nervy out of drive either.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> I've not had hyper dogs and prefer a dog that can chill out when not working. In the herding trialing world, mine would definitely be lower threshold. They are intense control freaks which can kill you on the trial field. I've looked at the capping threads. Haven't had much success with that from a do it because I say so perspective---conflict city. I've had better luck with marker training. Yet, I don't really care that much about the points. Bob is laughing because Khira is a point dog if ever I had one. She's also the most low threshold load and expload type I've worked. It is not a good idea to build frustration with her. However, I don't want to sacrifice what the dog is supposed to be for getting a point dog. I would never work a dog on livestock that I have to cheerlead and build drive. I may have it easier because I [Don also] use instinct, not just drive.
> 
> Daryl: I'm curious why not herding for the lower threshold dog [Huck].
> 
> Terrasita


There's no happy medium, he goes from calm to intense, from still to quick. Sort of "explosive" in all manners, low thresholds and high magnitudes. Whether or not I could make him slooow dowwn, I myself am uncomfortable of the idea of forcing that on him. You're aware of how spontaneity and promptness like that affects the livestock.

He doesn't pace himself naturally, he's very alert, very prompt, very intense. I just don't want to force him to behave unnaturally. My instinct is, it would cause a wide manner of issues in the work. He can take great physical pressure and punishment, but I don't want to weaken the strength of our relationship with concerns that he'd shutdown on account that he's very sensitive of my verbal instructions, affirmations and corrections.

I would have probably explored the circumstances further, if it weren't for the girls showing much more promise for my level of skill at the time. Appearantly there's no opportunity for herding at my new home (at least with professional instruction), and I'm just beginning my probationary membership with the local SAR groups.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> When this is done, things start to disappear, that in some breeds are harder to get back. Things like dominance,social aggression and sharpness come to mind.


What is sharpness, if not a low threshold for defense, or low thresholds in general? That's the way I look at it anyway, and minus "nerve" issues often attributed to "sharp" dogs.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Michelle Kehoe said:


> My dog transferred aggression to my arm once, walking off the field after he didn't get a bite. TD said no bites until he worked/barked for it. But as soon as he had ahold of my arm, he let it go and knew he ****ed up. Once he got scrambled, at about 14mos and bit my leg when I kicked the sleeve away, that is as far as unstable or unlcear as he ever got. I don't really blame him for that, he was getting his balls and still very immature.


My low threshold dog hasn't ever shown displaced aggression toward the handler. Is that 'clear headedness', or just a constant awareness of the handler? Maybe it's the focus intense obedience we do, that helps prevent him from making the unintended mistakes other dogs can make when they have less control of their own drives. He made numerous attempts to bite innocent/oblivious people stimulating his preydrive however, when prior to 15 months age. Self control came with maturity, and reminders from an alert handler.



Michelle Kehoe said:


> However if he was accidentally placed in a pet home, I wouldn't say he'd be dangerous but, he'd maybe not be making friends. He needed a firm hand growing up so as not to dominate any of the family members.


Before my dog attained good self control of his own drives, particularly of any prey drive stimulus, he probably would have been 'incidently' dangerous, but now completely safe since the 12 to 15 month range. And interestingly before that age, he was always completely aloof toward other people, but now shows a friendlier side I never expected. He's never needed a firm hand, never displayed dominant behaviors at all toward family, but has recently begun to show dominant behaviors toward males dogs past puberty (He's now 2&half yrs. old).


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> Personally I like a lower threshold dog who is stable, but I'll go a little higher in threshold if it means keeping the stability. I don't want a dog I have to build up or cheerlead into working, but I don't want a dog who is nervy out of drive either.


This fits my desires. I like the low thresholds for training and working, because it makes things easy...but what the dog is like when NOT in drive is just as important to me. If I can get both the low thresholds AND stability in my next dog (mal)...I will be thrilled.


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> Although I think when people talk about the dogs of the past there is an element of "when I was a kid I walked 5 miles to school in the snow, up hill both ways", but I also do think dog owners in the past were a lot harsher with their dogs then now days. Dogs were pets, but they were not "fur kids". My dad had hunting dogs before he had kids, but after the kids came along the dogs became just pets, we were definitely just a pet home. And I remember more then once hearing our new pup getting the CRAP kicked out of it because it pottied in the house. Obedience training was yank and jerk. And that was the norm that I saw around me. And I know that was how he was raised. Go back even further, to around the time the breeds were becoming breeds and there was less of a "pet" status and more of a "working" status. Most people had dogs because they had a job for them, even if it was just to protect the property. People were much less likely to put up with a dog who couldn't do the job, or was to much of a pain to have around. And the concept of a "furkid" or "purely positive" training wasn't even a concept. So although I suspect the earlier dogs were "easy to handle" for their times, I suspect they were actually a stronger dog then the average dog now, because they lived in a much rougher environment.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Michelle Kehoe said:


> ... When I say a dog is pushing through in drive, you described that. I see alot of Mals that have to function that way, out of drive they don't have the nerve/stability/courage, whatever you wanna call it to get through. That is why I say alot, that *they react instead of think, if they thought, it wouldn't get done*.


I'm curious about how many Mals you've owned/known. I ask this because I would have said that the ones I know up close and personal can indeed "think." Of course, they have to have the opportunity to do so. 

I like watching a dog thinking his way through a knotty problem.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

I think that alot of the great dogs in the old days were low threshold stable dogs that had "a bit of the tiger taken out" (to steal a quote)


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

I am really banking on the fact that Mals can indeed "think"....I hope I am not wrong](*,)


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

You mean to say that all mals aren't, well y'know....."shallow"?


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> You mean to say that all mals aren't, well y'know....."shallow"?




LOL!!!!!!

Shallow .....


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

I dont know about the thinking part but you wont be disappointed if you pick the right one


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Daryl Ehret said:


> There's no happy medium, he goes from calm to intense, from still to quick. Sort of "explosive" in all manners, low thresholds and high magnitudes. Whether or not I could make him slooow dowwn, I myself am uncomfortable of the idea of forcing that on him. You're aware of how spontaneity and promptness like that affects the livestock.
> 
> He doesn't pace himself naturally, he's very alert, very prompt, very intense. I just don't want to force him to behave unnaturally. My instinct is, it would cause a wide manner of issues in the work. He can take great physical pressure and punishment, but I don't want to weaken the strength of our relationship with concerns that he'd shutdown on account that he's very sensitive of my verbal instructions, affirmations and corrections.
> 
> I would have probably explored the circumstances further, if it weren't for the girls showing much more promise for my level of skill at the time. Appearantly there's no opportunity for herding at my new home (at least with professional instruction), and I'm just beginning my probationary membership with the local SAR groups.


 
Daryl,

That would describe several of mine, especially Khira-bouv. This is the harder dog to start with. Will & Konnie can you describe your mals in terms of thresholds and how it figures in regarding the training and the work. 

Terrasita


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

Michelle Kehoe said:


> I'm glad you wrote the second paragraph above. Not sure why I was too retarded to express that myself. When I say a dog is pushing through in drive, you described that. I see alot of Mals that have to function that way, out of drive they don't have the nerve/stability/courage, whatever you wanna call it to get through. That is why I say alot, that they react instead of think, if they thought, it wouldn't get done.


I probably didn't phrase it quite right, I think I implied most Malinois are like that, and I didn't mean "most". But I do see some Malinois that are like this.

I also see, and actually own, a couple of dogs that people might think are like this if they saw them working because the drives are so high, and the dogs have a tendency to kind of "loose it". But both of these dogs are actually very stable out of drive, environmentally and socially, and with very good "off switchs" at home or in non-working situations. Their thresholds are just low enough that they can go from 0 to 100 with almost no stimulus, and they have a tendency towards hecticness depending on how they are worked.


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

My dog is a social dog. He is very low threshold dog when it comes to patrol work and detection. He is not a rank dog but a very willing partner. He has no regard for his body and does everything with abandon. If he was a sportdog he would not win many competions but you would consider him a good dog. He is to me and the many who have met him a excellent police dog.

I am sure I sound like a newbie who is blinded by the ability of their dog but so be it... you asked.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Have I mentioned that Thunder is perfect? :-D
In all seriousness I believe that the GSD is being pulled in so many directions it's crazy.
Some want/need that sharp, watch out for everything dog. Some want/need that happy go lucky, play all day dog. 
I DO believe that the GSD described by von Stephanitz would fit all these needs. 
The problem? It all boils down to interpritation. 
One breeder is going for the killer dog and believes he/she is correct and the other breeds the happy, sporty dog and believes he/she is correct. 
The simple fact that there are discussions about what is correct is probably good for the breed. We're not going in one particular direction.
The GSD that can guard the house, play with the kids, find my lost keys and tend the stock is what I want and have.
Even then I'll bet a dollar to a doughnut that people will look at him and claim shitter for one reason or another.:-D :wink:
I vote the dog that has the thresholds to be a good, all around farm dog/truck dog is the winner.\\/ :razz:


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Kadi Thingvall said:


> I probably didn't phrase it quite right, I think I implied most Malinois are like that, and I didn't mean "most". But I do see some Malinois that are like this.
> 
> I also see, and actually own, a couple of dogs that people might think are like this if they saw them working because the drives are so high, and the dogs have a tendency to kind of "loose it". But both of these dogs are actually very stable out of drive, environmentally and socially, and with very good "off switchs" at home or in non-working situations. Their thresholds are just low enough that they can go from 0 to 100 with almost no stimulus, and they have a tendency towards hecticness depending on how they are worked.


Do you find the that their hectiness is a result of the handler stimulating them further as opposed to trying to calm them in there work.


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

Connie Sutherland said:


> I'm curious about how many Mals you've owned/known. I ask this because I would have said that the ones I know up close and personal can indeed "think." Of course, they have to have the opportunity to do so.
> 
> I like watching a dog thinking his way through a knotty problem.


Connie I wasn't actually only thinking of Mals when I wrote this, my EX also had a little black GSD bitch that fit this description, freaky thing is, she's a 1/2 sister to my stable, calm, higher threshold male. I also know Bulldogs, Dutchies and GSD, that have more drive than brains. Goes back to breeding for sport I guess.

I love watching dogs think, solve problems and watching how fast they learn. Of course any and all dogs can "think" but how often they choose to do so, is the difference. 

I know alot of Mals, almost everyone I train with has them. I haven't owned anything but a GSD in 18 yrs and I don't see a reason to change. They are still working for what I want.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Michelle, I don't believer that dogs choose to think or not. It more about what they are allowed to do OR can get away with. JMHO :-D:wink:


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Well, after all this, I have come to one conclusion. I think Joby said this in the beginning. I think reactive vs non reactive is more assimilable than low and high threshholds. Reactive vs non reactive is much more self explanatory. Just like high pain tolerance is better than a high pain threshhold.


----------



## Don Turnipseed (Oct 8, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> Michelle, I don't believer that dogs choose to think or not. It more about what they are allowed to do OR can get away with. JMHO :-D:wink:


I gotta agree with the first part Bob...I don't think they "choose" to think.....as in stopping and thinking to themselves, "I need to stop and think about this for a minute". No I think they just do when it needs to be done. When I tell mine to do something they don't want to do, I can tell from the way they are looking at me they are thinking...and I can tell what they are thinking by the look in there eye. You have any idea what they are thinking when they look you in the eye the whole time they are turning and walking away. I would wash their mouth out with soap if I could catch them right then.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> I gotta agree with the first part Bob...I don't think they "choose" to think.....as in stopping and thinking to themselves, "I need to stop and think about this for a minute". No I think they just do when it needs to be done. *When I tell mine to do something they don't want to do, I can tell from the way they are looking at me they are thinking..*.and I can tell what they are thinking by the look in there eye. You have any idea what they are thinking when they look you in the eye the whole time they are turning and walking away. *I would wash their mouth out with soap if I could catch them right then.*


Ah-hahahahahahahahahaha!


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Don Turnipseed said:


> I gotta agree with the first part Bob...I don't think they "choose" to think.....as in stopping and thinking to themselves, "I need to stop and think about this for a minute". No I think they just do when it needs to be done. When I tell mine to do something they don't want to do, I can tell from the way they are looking at me they are thinking...and I can tell what they are thinking by the look in there eye. You have any idea what they are thinking when they look you in the eye the whole time they are turning and walking away. I would wash their mouth out with soap if I could catch them right then.



BUT, the key is they do it because you don't allow them not to. 
That's my point Don. The dog may think/decide/whatever that it's going to refuse you BUT, depending on it's training AND your leadership it will or wont. By training I will include respect for leadership since that's where training begins, IMHO!


----------



## Kadi Thingvall (Jan 22, 2007)

will fernandez said:


> Do you find the that their hectiness is a result of the handler stimulating them further as opposed to trying to calm them in there work.


In the case of my dogs, no. It's a reaction to the stress put on them by their handler (me). I also think there is an element of hecticness to them genetically, one dog I'm talking about is Mac, the other is his daughter Nexxus so there is a family relationship there LOL But they are both dogs that load when you stress them so we tend to get into a cycle, they load, I correct for disobedience, they load more, I correct more. 

So I guess the answer to your question is actually "yes" LOL I am stimulating them, although probably not in the way you meant.


----------



## Michelle Reusser (Mar 29, 2008)

Bob Scott said:


> Michelle, I don't believer that dogs choose to think or not. It more about what they are allowed to do OR can get away with. JMHO :-D:wink:


Bob, I'm sure your right, they don't choose they just do or don't. 

I have an uncle that freezes up under stress. Some people don't think, they just react in emergency situations, like an auto pilot, then look back after and go...I didn't think about what I was doing.

I guess some dogs are wired that way too, they either think and do, react without thinking or shut down alltogether.

I'm a thinker, never shut down before but I do pause and "think" holy shit, I need to do this, this and this to best suit this situation. I'm always thinking in my head, my next move. My mom is a reactor, she explodes into situations liek car accidents and just takes over. Me I need that pause, hey that guy needs this, I need to grab that. I make a plan of action before I get myself hurt. My uncle, he's still seatbelted in the backseat of our car, drooling on himself. Not sure it's an allowed response or anything we get away with, it's just in us.


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Michelle:

I've actually labeled dogs analytical vs. expect/react. Kadi/Will's discussion of handler pressure causing hectic behavior is dead on too but there is also genetic hectic as Kadi alludes to. I like a dog that can handle handler direction/input without stressing and becoming hectic or worse shut down. But inappropriate handler interference can screw up even the best ones. I think there is too much emphasis on "the dog has malice in his heart" and got up that morning thinking to screw with his handler and be disobedient. I've actually had a dog look me dead in the eye with an uhhhhh, no refusal on the trial field and I had to laugh. By nature I'm not that given to robotic obedience probably since I've had several episodes of doggie obedience save me. Too often in stock work the dog is right. Its that old "trust your dog" instead of thinking robotics will make it happen. 

Will are you sacrificing any desirable traits with the lower thresholds with your mal?

Terrasita


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Don Turnipseed said:


> Just like high pain tolerance is better than a high pain threshhold.


I agree with this totally. What happens when the pain is finally felt?? That is the question. Of course a high threshold with a high tolerance is even better in my opinon.

This can relate to the threshold for defense too, if the dog has strong nerves and high prey and has not been exposed to defense work, then what happens when a dog actually gets pushed into defense, if that threshold is met, how does he handle the stress?



Daryl Ehret said:


> What is sharpness, if not a low threshold for defense, or low thresholds in general? That's the way I look at it anyway, and minus "nerve" issues often attributed to "sharp" dogs.


Daryl I am quoting Armin's definition, as this is how I see it, and he already put it into good words.

"The term used here is "Mannschärfe," which translates into man sharpness. The definition of this quality states the following. The quality in the dog that leads him to actively confront any apparent (or feigned) or actual *threat* from a person in a hostile manner. If I were to use terminology I have already discussed in this article I would say that sharpness could be equated to showing an active defense reaction to a real or perceived threat.

I did a fair bit of research and could not find anything written that stated that this quality has to come together with a low stimulation threshold for threat. So in fact how easily a dog is triggered does not seem to be a factor by definition."

This is how I define it in my mind, the actual willingness to engage forcefully with "active" forward aggression, and biting a man when a threat is perceived. regardless of the threshold level for the defense response. A dog that explodes quickly to attack, with little or not warning. Bite first, growl or bark later.
The term gets twisted all around...too some people it means a nervy dog or a dog with very low thresholds for defense.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Or, almost sounds like "civil" drive as well. It's a tricky business trying to all get on the same page with terminology, and find unified groups of concepts without any redundancy or overlap.

I'm sure hardly no one thinks of sharpness in the way I've described above, just me. One depends on stimulus and thresholds (mine) and the other on pre-wired reaction and intensity (everyone else's).

But then, it's said that for every action, and equal and opposite reaction occurs. So, do you think that the two concepts are inversely proportionate to each other? Or, is the comparison more like Kadi's mention of _"low thresholds doesn't equal bad nerve, though bad nerves usually means lower thresholds", _which would be interelated, but not inversely proportionate?


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> I'm sure hardly no one thinks of sharpness in the way I've described above, just me. One depends on stimulus and thresholds (mine) and the other on pre-wired reaction and intensity (everyone else's).


I think what led me to this, was the term "sharp senses", being equated in my mind as "fine sensitivity."


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Or, almost sounds like "civil" drive as well. It's a tricky business trying to all get on the same page with terminology, and find unified groups of concepts without any redundancy or overlap.
> 
> I'm sure hardly no one thinks of sharpness in the way I've described above, just me. One depends on stimulus and thresholds (mine) and the other on pre-wired reaction and intensity (everyone else's).
> 
> But then, it's said that for every action, and equal and opposite reaction occurs. So, do you think that the two concepts are inversely proportionate to each other? Or, is the comparison more like Kadi's mention of _"low thresholds doesn't equal bad nerve, though bad nerves usually means lower thresholds", _which would be interelated, but not inversely proportionate?


Daryl most people probably do think of it the way you do. 

I view a sharp dog as a dog that has the propensity for extreme violence, without warning. 

I think most people do view it as a threshold thing, I can live with that. So its not like I am saying you are wrong, just my terms..

Was stating that this trait is getting rarer and rarer, the way I see it.

I do view the thresholds (for defense/ aggression..whatever) 
excluding prey, or true balanced fight. as a nerve thing. 

I think that some dogs with lower thresholds "thinner" nerves, have plenty of nerve to stay in a fight, but may not hold a full grip, or may transfer the bite under extreme pressure.

I also think that *all* "nervy" dogs will have a low threshold, some may bite, but few will bite with conviction, and even fewer will stand up to pressure, let alone "more" pressure.

Again I am reffering to defensive thresholds. Not prey or "willingness to fight" thresholds. 

I have very little experience in training dogs for pure sport. I am sure my views are different than most people on here. Not better, just different. And wasn't really focusing on the GSD, just working dog breeds in general. The typical gaurdian type breeds...except maybe in the FILA BRASILIERO lol lol....those dogs are a unique breed for sure...


----------



## will fernandez (May 17, 2006)

Will are you sacrificing any desirable traits with the lower thresholds with your mal?

It depends on how you define desirable traits. Is my dog a pet for the family...no. Could he be a pet for a active single person..I think so. He is a happy dog with alot of energy...... That through the cues of working as a police dog knows when to turn it on. Although when not at work, I am very aware of what the cues are.


----------

