# FRIENDLY discussion on a touchy subject.



## Bob Scott

I'm looking for a honest, civil (Websterian version :lol: ) discussion on a touchy subject. 
No arguements intended or desired. Just a legitimate discussion among friends. If you intend to get upset, please don't reply. That's not what this new form is all about. I've posting this question with Mike's permission.
Ok, here goes!
"Fight drive". Does it exist? Why or why not? How do you describe what others refer to as fight drive. Is it just another form of "gameness" as the bulldog people use the word? Wilingness to continue the fight even when being punished? Can this "trait" be trained? Is it genetic? 
Lets prove this is the forum we want, and know it can be. A honest discussion/dissagreement among friends who have a common love of dog training. Marquis of Queensberry rules apply! :wink:


----------



## David Frost

Personally, I feel a good discussion can even become heated. Meaning, reasonable people can be very passionate about what they believe, have experienced and have performed. What ruins a good discussion is when someone makes it personal. Having said that, two things I've learned in the years I've been a dog trainer, 1. There are many terms, often times people will be arguing different terminology, yet after some discussion they find both terms mean the same thing. 2. The only thing two dog trainers agree on is; the third one is wrong.

Yes I believe some dogs have "fight" drive. I don't believe all dogs have it. I don't think it is something that can be trained into a dog. I don't necessarily think it's genetic in the sense that a bitch and a stud with fight drive is no guarentee all the pups will have it. As far as the term "gameness" I can see where that is a case of terminology and that it may be the same thing. 

I think this could be an interesting discussion and I await the responses from other folks. I'm sure we are all adult enough to keep it clean.

DFrost


----------



## Tim Martens

David Frost said:


> Personally, I feel a good discussion can even become heated. Meaning, reasonable people can be very passionate about what they believe, have experienced and have performed. What ruins a good discussion is when someone makes it personal. Having said that, two things I've learned in the years I've been a dog trainer, 1. There are many terms, often times people will be arguing different terminology, yet after some discussion they find both terms mean the same thing. 2. The only thing two dog trainers agree on is; the third one is wrong.
> 
> Yes I believe some dogs have "fight" drive. I don't believe all dogs have it. I don't think it is something that can be trained into a dog. I don't necessarily think it's genetic in the sense that a bitch and a stud with fight drive is no guarentee all the pups will have it. As far as the term "gameness" I can see where that is a case of terminology and that it may be the same thing.
> 
> I think this could be an interesting discussion and I await the responses from other folks. I'm sure we are all adult enough to keep it clean.
> 
> DFrost


if you think it does exist, then please describe what your definition of it is. 

this isn't just meant for DFrost, but anyone who believes it exists...


----------



## Bob Scott

Thanks David! Some dogs are referred to as total prey monsters. Willing to take a lot of punishment to get the objective accomplished. That could also be another view of the term. Either one could have a genetic basis, but, as you say, no garantee all, or any of the pups will carry it. 
Some say the French ring dogs are total prey. If so, that doesn't make the bite hurt any less.


----------



## Anne Jones

Well, Bob, this should be interesting ....  Hopefully, we can all agree to disagree. 
I am somewhat new to working dogs...but I'll give it a small shot. I think that fight drive is an extension of prey drive taken to its most extreme level. I also think, that it is genetic & most mature dogs don't have it. If they did, than any mature working line dog ( asume we are referring to GSD) could be a k9 patrol dog working the streets & I don't think that is true. I also think that it is questionable as to wheather all the dogs working the street possess this trait & in the interest of public & handler safety, they should. But I also think that since not all dogs possess this trait, I think that it is hard to find dogs that do. I think that most mature dogs woking with the decoy & going between prey and, defence can slip into fight drive (if they possess it) when working with a very intense, combative, serious decoy that is pushing the intensity of the 'fight' with the dog. I am sure that many will disagree with me & that's fine....as I am still learning what these dogs are all about & am interested in what the very experienced people on this forum have to say on this subject.


----------



## Bob Scott

Tim, IMHO it's a dog that loves to fight for the sake of the fight itself. It isn't doing so out of defence, but nothing more then knowing it can win. I know a lot of that has to do with building a young dogs confidence, but as I think most will agree, some dogs will never reach this level of confidence.


----------



## Anne Jones

I should have added as I see David did while I was writting my post, is that even if genetically one of the dogs ot both that are mated posses it doesn't mean that the pups will have. By genetic, I meant that it can't be training into a dog if it doesn't have it.


----------



## Bob Scott

Tim, I know your one who doesn't believe in it. If I'm correct in that, then why not? How do you view what is referred to as fight drive?


----------



## Anne Jones

Bob, do you think that only a very confidant dog will have fight drive? Or is it just there in the dog, period & has nothing to do with wheather the dog have been raised in such a way to become a very confidant dog. Is it only that they dog knows that he can win thats makes him have 'fight' drive? I guess if that is the case, does that mean that any well raised extremely confidant dog should have 'fight' drive.


----------



## Bob Scott

Anne,
IMHO, I don't think that just being well raised and trained will give this to the dog. I also believe that even a dog with the correct genetics can also be ruined with improper training. I don't think it has to be coupled with sharpness, aggression, anti-social, rank behavior, etc, although these traights sometimes go together. 
Confidence takes many different forms. Confidence in high places, swimming, with people, etc.


----------



## Woody Taylor

Bob, when behaviorists talk about "fight or flight" tendencies, what do you think they are talking about? Do you think there is any connection between this basic animal behavior (dog or not) and the fight drive you all describe?

When I first started reading all this stuff a few months ago, I thought when people said "fight drive" they were literally referring to a physiological reaction in a dog that is very stressed out to the point of either thinking it had to kill or be killed and would, in turn, stick around or bail on the situation.


----------



## Bob Scott

Woody, what your describing is defence. Fight OR flight is a survival tactic. A wild animal will only fight when it has no other choice. Food and sex being the exception, but those two in themselves are survival. 
As Anne said, she feels fight drive is an extream extension of prey. It is also sometimes looked at as an extream extension of defence.
What I believe to be fight drive, wouldn't be productive in nature. That's one of the reasons it's so elusive in most dogs.


----------



## Lou Castle

I believe that fight drive exists, just as do prey and defense. Here is my definition of those three combat drives. 

Prey drive - involves the catching, killing and eating of prey. It's satisfied by killing the prey or in the case of a decoy, having him become motionless. 

Defense drive - Involved in survival of the individual. A dog defending himself from a perceived thread. It's satisfied by the dog surviving the encounter with the perceived threat. 

Fight drive - Involved in the detaining or driving off of an opponent. It's satisfied by the dog detaining or driving off his opponent. 

While there may be an overlap of these drives at any given moment, the dog is operating primarily in one of the at a time. I don't think that fight drive is an outgrowth of any of the other drives. I think it exists alone. I don't think that it's a combination of either of the other drives. While most dogs have both prey and defense drives, not all dogs have a significant level of fight drive. 

How these drives exist and how they show up can be seen in my article on Dr. P's website called "The Stakeout Test." http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/dog/LA/castle1.htm


----------



## Bob Scott

Lou, I've read your stakeout test many times. Love it!


----------



## Tim Martens

Bob Scott said:


> Tim, IMHO it's a dog that loves to fight for the sake of the fight itself. It isn't doing so out of defence, but nothing more then knowing it can win. I know a lot of that has to do with building a young dogs confidence, but as I think most will agree, some dogs will never reach this level of confidence.


lou's definition varies greatly from most people's view, so i won't even discuss it. not saying i disagree with it, but most people buy into bob's definition.

my trainer (who has been training dogs for over 30 years) would tell you that dogs only have 3 "drives" which are for food, shelter and sex. for the purposes of this discussion, i don't think we need to get into the exact definition of a "drive". if you except that prey and defense are "drives", then we'll start with that common ground.

for so many people who believe in fight drive and with the abundance of video content on the internet, why can nobody produce a video of a dog in "fight drive"? i've literally seen hundreds of videos of dogs working and nobody has said "look at the fight drive in this dog". somebody show it to me, because i'd love to see this newly made up drive.

there was an excellent discussion of this topic on the odinhaus board. i'm going to copy/paste an excellent post in that thread:

"A couple of base ideas: 

- Any time that the term drive is used, it implies a genetic predisposition to act a certain way. 

- Most ethologist believe in a specific group of natural aggresion (pack, territitorial, social, guarding (food,bounty, etc), sex, rage, defensive, prey) I am sure I left a few out. 

Now, having said that... in order to have Fight Drive, there must be a genetically acquired trait that 'drives' the dog to exhibit outward aggression in a manner that does not jive within the prey/defense paradigm. 

Prey and defensive, hunt, pack, etc drives are commonly selected, and bred for... yet fight seems to be a trait that we (humans) cannot select for. WHY?? 

Many say that it is a late-maturing trait that only crops up in adult dogs that have had appropriate training.... This sounds more like experience/confidence than a drive. Anyone else? 

If it was genetic, it would not require nuturing to manifest... all truly genetic behaviors manifest on their own... granted to varying degrees based on training/experience. 

Also, as someone else stated much earlier, if fight were a naturally occuring drive, it would be diametrically opposed to the concept of natural selection as fighting with no direct survival benefit would lead to the extinction of a line. 

I read what Bill said about man-made selection.. and I agree to a point... but in order for man to select on a trait... it has to exist... and it could not exist for the reason stated earlier... 

The only other explanation I can accept would be if fight drive was a mental retardation inherent in specific lines.... retardation and mutation are the only genetic exceptions to nature's rules. 

so, how dumb am I? "

that post was made by Matt Moore. he expanded very eloquently on one of the things i brought up about natural selection...


----------



## Bob Scott

Excellent point of view Tim. Thank you. 
This was my point on it being so hard to breed for. If it was a natural drive/trait it would eliminate that particular dog, or any species that had it. I could easily accept that it is/was a genetic flaw that man has bred for. 
I do agree totally that you wont see any videos with it stairing back at you. It would be like a Pitbull's gameness. If that was a natural trait. there would be no dogs at all. They are bred for traits. 
Thee are many lines of GSDs, Mals, JRTs even, that wont tollerate another dog around them. These also aren't traights that you'll find in a natural setting. Why then cant fight drive be bred for?! 
Again, thank you for another view!


----------



## Lou Castle

Tim Martens said:


> lou's definition varies greatly from most people's view, so i won't even discuss it. not saying i disagree with it, but most people buy into bob's definition.


My definitions are same as those proposed by the German dog trainers decades ago. They're the same as those used by such trainers as Donn Yarnall, who founded the LAPD K-9 unit over 25 years ago and they're also used by Wendell Nope of the Utah Police K-9 Academy. 



Tim Martens said:


> my trainer (who has been training dogs for over 30 years) would tell you that dogs only have 3 "drives" which are for food, shelter and sex. for the purposes of this discussion, i don't think we need to get into the exact definition of a "drive". if you except that prey and defense are "drives", then we'll start with that common ground.


I think that the only reason to even consider drives in training is to accomplish the end of training (in my case) a dog for personal protection or for LE (law enforcement) work. If you can get that done with three drives or if you need 30 to get that done, it doesn't make any difference to me. As long as the job gets done. 



Tim Martens said:


> for so many people who believe in fight drive and with the abundance of video content on the internet, why can nobody produce a video of a dog in "fight drive"?


The Donn Yarnall video produced by Dogtra called the "Guidance System" shows dogs exhibiting the three drives I've described. 



Tim Martens said:


> i'd love to see this newly made up drive.



"Fight drive" as I use the term isn't new. It's decades old. 



Tim Martens said:


> Prey and defensive, hunt, pack, etc drives are commonly selected, and bred for... yet fight seems to be a trait that we (humans) cannot select for. WHY??


Gonna have to disagree with this. 30-40 years ago fight drive was common in dog trained for SchH in Germany. It gives a great dog for real fights but prey drive gives much more of a show. A dog whose drive is satisfied by merely detaining his opponent simply won't look as good as one who needs to subdue his opponent in order that his drive be satisfied. And "looking good" is what impresses judges. So the breeding switched from producing dogs that had lots of fight drive to dogs that had lots of prey drive. Most police dogs in the US are imports from Europe where the sport people, for the most part, control the breeding. LE is only a small side business, just as it is in this country. 



Tim Martens said:


> Many say that it is a late-maturing trait that only crops up in adult dogs that have had appropriate training....


I'm not one of those people. It can show up in a dog that has had absolutely no training. 



Tim Martens said:


> If it was genetic, it would not require nuturing to manifest...


It doesn't take nurturing. It does take maturing. 



Tim Martens said:


> if fight were a naturally occuring drive, it would be diametrically opposed to the concept of natural selection as fighting with no direct survival benefit would lead to the extinction of a line.


If you use your definition you're right. But if you use mine, you're wrong. 



Tim Martens said:


> so, how dumb am I? "


Not dumb at all. If you believed in fight drive you could use it in your training, if you trained for real combat. (Pardon my ignorance, you may train dogs for real combat). If you train for sport you don't need it and it may even hinder your work if a dog has it. But if you're happy with the results of your training, then so am I!


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

OK, you sucked me in. First, Lou Castle has to limit any response to three paragraphs tops, 'cause no way can I type enough to keep up!!!!  :lol: Good to see you here.

So, I have been thinking of this for a while, and while I will never see this stupid, stupid fight "drive" I am still trying to figure what people are seeing to have come up with this. Many many times people describe drive and I have no idea what they are talking about. Just today, one of my club members was saying how his dog was medium drive. The dog has just enough to MAYBE do the work, and it is medium. WOW. So I started thinking, well everyone can only go on what they have experienced. Maybe they are seeing something more than they are used to, so it seems like something special.

So, painfully, I started thinking about fast and slow twitch muscles. Stay with me.......easy, 

We all have fast and slow twitch muscles. So why are only some of us really fast, or can jump really high????

So maybe, OH JUST maybe, there is an occasional anomolie that has exactly the right amount of ___________ and the exact right amount of __________, and __________ and _____________creating in a dog what you call "fight drive" This would explain the maturity thing, the character thing, the rareness thing, the drive thing, the not training for it thing.

I still cry BS, I am going to look at this stake out test and see what that dog is doing. He better be in "fight drive" or I am gonna be pissed. How DARE he "F" with my theory. Stupid dog.

More than likely ya'll are still full of sh...........enanagins. :lol:


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Damnit Lou, where is the stinkin video of the dog in fight drive?????????????????????? 

OK, everyone needs to get some video of a dog they think has fight drive. and not just working the decoy. Lets settle this for once and for all. If you cannot come up with the fight drive dog video, then I go back to crying BS....BS......BS and laughing at you. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: 

Also, if you are new to dog training, I would like to see what you are considering "HIGH" drive dogs. This is also something I am curious about. We got some video last weekend, but we cannot seem to figure out how to get it on the internet without it being 1/2 inch by 1/2 inch. I am also going to borrow my buddy's camera and try it and see if it works out better. 

I knew I should of studied computers out of high school. :x


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen

I agree with Lou and i´m happy he typed it so I won´t have to :lol: .


A note on the site: I hate defence drive in a working dog, for me it is a reason to get rid of the dog. 
Prey oke, fight oke but not a dog who actually want to run ´caus he is feared. 

I don´t think i´ve an example on fightdrive on tape, but i will search, other wise i can tape something soon :wink:


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote:I agree with Lou and i´m happy he typed it so I won´t have to 

Yes, that is fine, but most people do not have the same definition as Lou, so that is where it is messy.

I could agree with the detaining part.....maybe, but the rest is threat posturing to me. I look meaner and bigger and you go away.


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

These terminologies such as "drives" were made to enhance communication and understanding among doglovers, yet it doesn't seem to achieve that aim. To make matters worse, more and more definitions seem to come out just about everyday with overlapping meanings. Seems to me that talking or discussing about "drives" is the "in" thing, though nothing really fits or defines the dog's true state. 

Giving a dog some serious workouts may allow one to see a multitude of "drives" at work, switching every second till the work is done. If one definition will describe all these seen in a dog in actual work, shouldn't it be a lot easier?


----------



## David Frost

Evidently, I'm not one of most people. I mostly agree with Lou's defintions. Fight drive to me is the willingness to engage and stay engaged regardless of consequences. In fight drive the dog is not posturing. It's more of a: you wanted it, here it is, now take your best shot. 

DFrost


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

Not to entirely stray off topic here, but since people feel a dog can be explained away in a handful of "drives"... what would you consider human drives to be? Do you feel yourself switching drives in your day to day life? Or are these perhaps not drives but more a state of mind? You're driving on the interstate listening to something happy just relaxing, some idiot cuts you off, you honk the horn n yell at em n threaten to send your dog on em out the window... did you just go into defense drive? Or was that fight drive because you're a big confident guy who was serious about wanting to pound in his face? So perhaps fight drive is a state of mind exagerated by confidence?

I know dogs and humans are different... but I often wonder why people try to explain dogs away in as simple terms as possible. Perhaps there's more to it than that, like Jose said, a dog may go thru many "drives" very quickly to achieve the end result.

And as Lou said, whatever drives a dog has or you think they have, if the end result is what you are looking for then what does it matter how the dog achieves it?

I haven't seen enough dogs to make any determination about fight drive, most of the dogs I see are either very defensive or big prey monsters, few are balanced, but the hard balanced dogs are nice to see. I didn't read Lou's article yet, maybe that'll help sway me in one direction or the other.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

> A dog has fight drive when his protection work carries the forwardness of prey with the intensity of defense.
> -Ed Frawley


Ed further states that it is something genetic, and cannot be trained, and that a dog is not mature enough at one year old to have a fully developed defensive drive, therefore can not have fight drive. He believes that what is often perceived as fight drive is actually very intense prey drive. Not necessarily vicious, sharp or dangerous, a dog with fight drive can actually be very social. The dog exudes power and confidence and a willingness to engage.

Sounds believable enough to me.


----------



## Woody Taylor

David Frost said:


> Evidently, I'm not one of most people. I mostly agree with Lou's defintions. Fight drive to me is the willingness to engage and stay engaged regardless of consequences. In fight drive the dog is not posturing. It's more of a: you wanted it, here it is, now take your best shot.
> 
> DFrost


I don't want to hijack the thread with n00b questions, but this stuff is really fascinating to me...

David, is what you're describing here what I would call "gameness" in an APBT? Bob, I think you made a loose reference to this upstream.

And...if "gameness" is another flavor of fight drive, do some breeds (APBT, American Bull Dog, e.g.) have more of it than others (modern GSDs?) among their respective working, serious lines of dogs?


----------



## Daryl Ehret

This reminds me of the "Protection dog competing in sports" thread, when there was an attempt to define "character". Is there a valid resemblance?


----------



## Lou Castle

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> First, Lou Castle has to limit any response to three paragraphs tops, 'cause no way can I type enough to keep up!!!!


C'mon Jeff. You know I'm "brevity challenged." I just have too much spare time. 



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Damnit Lou, where is the stinkin video of the dog in fight drive??????????????????????


Jeff did you go to my "Stake Out Test" article expecting to see some video? Sorry it's not there. In another post I mentioned Donn Yarnall's video, "The Guidance System"." You can see fight drive there. BUT if you're one of those who think that it's a combination of some other drives or if you don't believe in it, you'll probably call it something else or maybe even you won't accept that it's being shown. It's not a requirement that you, or anyone else, believe that it exists. 

I think that one reason that some don't believe in it is that these days it's so rare. I've spent months looking for it when I went shopping for a new dog. 



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> I could agree with the detaining part.....maybe, but the rest is threat posturing to me. I look meaner and bigger and you go away.


I think that "look(ing) meaner and bigger" is defense drive. The dog is "showing hair" (piloerection [don'tcha love that word]) trying to look bigger, he's growling and showing his teeth by curling his lips back. Those are attempts to scare the opponent into leaving. A dog in fight drive does none of these. He, very calmly, drives off or detains by barking or fighting. 

It's best to see the drives in a dog with little or no training or in a situation that's foreign to the dog as in my stake out test. An untrained dog whose primary drive is prey probably won't engage a decoy who stands completely still. but one with training knows from experience that he can get that decoy to move by biting or crowding him, or at least, by taking cheap shots. 

Here's something from Donn Yarnall's website, " Still others rely on the balance of prey and defensive drives, their interactions, and how the decoy invokes them for the training advantage. The only comment I have is that there are actually two more distinct, identifiable combat drives to add; fight and rank drives (see my prior posts for definitions). It must be said that fighting drive and fight drive are two separate terms. The term fighting drive has been used for many years to describe a dogs willingness to engage in combat. However, because the term is often confused with fight drive, many trainers now refer to fighting drive as combat drive. I understand the prey/defense balance system and that there are many successful trainers that have reached the top ranks in competition by employing this system. The evidence cannot be disputed. The prey/defense system was developed several years back as a means to enhance competition and simplify the instruction of other trainers. Fight drive is not addressed in this system because it is generally not a good trait for top competition dogs. The physical manifestations do not lend themselves to the higher points in bite work. Conversely, fight drive is most desirable for the police dog. A dog in fight drive is for practical purposes every bit a tough as a dog in prey or defense but is generally much easier to control. The associated natural detaining behavior is easily exploited for those that employ the find & bark, and the bite is more than adequate to control a suspect during an altercation."

And something else from the same location, ". . . chances are if you never invoke a drive, you will probably never see it. You would be surprised at the number of dogs that I have tested that showed at least sufficient fight drive. The owners are generally very surprised, as they have never seen this behavior in their dog before. In most cases this is due to the dog being conditioned through pattern training to expect a certain type of foe  usually prey." 

http://www.donnyarnall.net/store/art.htm#FB



Jose Alberto Reanto said:


> These terminologies such as "drives" were made to enhance communication and understanding among doglovers, yet it doesn't seem to achieve that aim.


Good point Jose. 



Jose Alberto Reanto said:


> To make matters worse, more and more definitions seem to come out


This is the reason, I think anyway, for what you state in your first sentence. If we can't agree on what the terms mean we can't use them (as a group) to train or communicate. They separate, rather than unite us. 



Woody Taylor said:


> David, is what you're describing here what I would call "gameness" in an APBT?


I'd call that "fighting drive." It's not the same as "fight drive." Sometimes people use the terms interchangeably and that causes further confusion and separation.


----------



## Greg Long

To me the use of drives in training severly limits my thinking about different types of dogs.I could see what some call "fight drive" in 1 or 2 dogs when I was at a seminar that Donn Yarnall was doing his stake out test.
I still dont like to use the term because when you start thinking that a dog with "fight" drive is so good, then you start thinking any dog without it is junk.Same with prey drive,if you think thats what you need then you pass over many many dogs that might have been great.
When you become "drive fixated" you will only go so far in training.

To me if you get the desired behavior, then who cares if you use drive terminology.For me it just clouds my mind and limits my thinking about what a dog is capable of.

JMO

Greg


----------



## Guest

I guess I have to lean more toward David and Lou's definitions-or concepts- on this one. The closest term I could think of to explain to someone what fight drive is was "gameness." I don't necessarily think gameness is all "fightING" drive; I think there's some fight drive to it as well. The most dead-game dogs, to my understanding, were extremely social to people, and even ok with other dogs in a controlled environment. They exude confidence, and take it a step further with an attitude of "I'm ok to just hang out, but if you want a fight, I'll give you the fight of your life," (hoping you WILL want a fight :wink: ). I don't see it as an extension of prey or defense, and I REALLY hate using all these words to define drives. A dog doesn't think of his behavior in drives; he doesn't "think" to himself: "Well, let's see...think I'll start out in prey, then get real pissed off, fight this punk for a bit, then I'll lose and run away in avoidance." I heard an awesome summary of what I feel about drives from a guy named Eric Luke on another forum. He's with can't-remember-the-name-in Canada, and is a K9 officer of some sort. He said something to the effect of drives being more of a color continuum from black to white with infinite shades of gray, constantly moving between them, not being definable "switches" between prey, defense, etc. A dog needs and uses all to a certain degree to function. We are only setting limitations on ourselves when we try to come up with a Webster's definition on every behavior our dogs exhibit, and the motive behind the behavior.

Having said that, I think people are way too skeptical nowadays in terms of dogs' abilities and capacities for things we don't truly understand. I think it's our arrogance combined with the generations of breeding crappy (not a Webster's definition) dogs that makes it difficult to believe something outside the normal realm of terminology exists. I don't think this concept of "fight drive" is common, but I do think it exists and can be found occasionally. My Mother doesn't have it, yet I have loads of it :twisted: . Not being something that's easy to breed for, I think the term "character," (difficult to define as it may be) is a more accurate, inclusive term which could include "fight drive." Not saying a dog with character has it or doesn't; just saying that if a dog has it, it's a hard thing to pinpoint, so I think it'd fall under character-meaning those traits possessed by the dog that we can't pigeon-hole into neat little terms like prey and defense.


----------



## Tim Martens

lou, that was a nice, long reply to my post, but again let me say this: "your definition is much different than most people's so I WON"T DISCUSS YOUR DEFINITION".

that was NOT meant to slight you any way. there is a big difference between you and donn's definition and the other one out there. with your definition there is a definate goal related to the drive (like all drives). the goal to detain or drive off the opponent. with other people's definition (the dog just likes to fight) there is no goal. speaking from a genetic history perspective you can see how your definition would be beneficial to the pack. the latter idea just gets the dog killed. with your definition a dog doesn't even need to fight to accomplish the goal which is 180 degrees from the "the dog just likes to fight" definition.

i could still argue that your definition doesn't meet the criteria for a "drive", but it would be much weaker than arguing the other definition.

some people have factored in civilness into their fight drive defintion. that the dog will engage with or without equipment. because there are so many different opinions as to what it is, it cannot be taken seriously as a "drive". prey is easy to see. dog chases ball, rag, sleeve, high pitch bark etc. defense is easy to see. hackles up, teeth showing, deep bark. others will blame helper work or training methodology for not "bringing out" the "fight drive". sounds like snake oil to me....


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

OK Bob, so now that you started this, why in the name of "F" all do you need it????? And, would you recognize it?

AND WHERE ARE MY VIDEOS???????????????? DAMN YOU PEOPLE HORDING THE VIDEOS. :twisted: :twisted: 

Jenni, you don't have fight drive. Trust me, that is not it


----------



## Greg Long

Drive this! Drive that! :x :x :x This is driving me crazy :roll: :roll: :roll: 

So what if your dog doesnt have fight drive or isnt a real high prey drive dog?Does he get the needle and the magic carpet ride?

How many PSDs actually on the street have fight drive?

Also,the stake out test is done without a handler.I have seen dogs react much differently with a handler verses without.

Im not argueing that this trait doesnt exist but do you have to have it for an effective k9 team?

Just curious

Greg


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

If it's driving you crazy then don't read this thread. It's not your job to educate the world with your views, Bob simply asked who believes in it, who doesn't, and why you believe or don't believe in it, as well as what you believe it to be if you do believe in it. This doesn't have to turn into a discussion about "my dog with fight drive is better than your dog without fight drive", that's not what the purpose was of this thread.

I let Bob post this thread in hopes that people could give their views without their hair turning gray because their passion for their ideas overrides their ability to state their opinion 

If you feel your hair turning gray then please don't feel obligated to continue posting in this thread, because usually gray hair is followed by baldness n there's enough bald dog trainers in the world as it is :lol:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> ....If you feel your hair turning gray then please don't feel obligated to continue posting in this thread, because usually gray hair is followed by baldness n there's enough bald dog trainers in the world as it is :lol:



Oooooooh! I'm telling!


----------



## David Frost

<<<gray hair is followed by baldness n there's enough bald dog trainers in the world as it is>>>

Hey wait a minute. I thought this was not going to be a mean discussion. Being follically challenged myself, I think I've just been insulted. 


DFrost


----------



## Greg Long

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> If it's driving you crazy then don't read this thread. It's not your job to educate the world with your views, Bob simply asked who believes in it, who doesn't, and why you believe or don't believe in it, as well as what you believe it to be if you do believe in it. This doesn't have to turn into a discussion about "my dog with fight drive is better than your dog without fight drive", that's not what the purpose was of this thread.
> 
> I let Bob post this thread in hopes that people could give their views without their hair turning gray because their passion for their ideas overrides their ability to state their opinion
> 
> If you feel your hair turning gray then please don't feel obligated to continue posting in this thread, because usually gray hair is followed by baldness n there's enough bald dog trainers in the world as it is :lol:


What part of my comments is causing a problem?I thought I asked legitimate questions.
I thought this forum was all about different viewpoints.

Hey Ill stay out of it no problem.Not trying to educate anyone..just discussing on a discussion forum.

The driving me crazy remark was a joke to all the "thin skinned" individuals out there.

Greg


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

Greg Long said:


> The driving me crazy remark was a joke to all the "thin skinned" individuals out there.
> 
> Greg


I'm not saying I had a problem with your posts, absolutely not. The post was directed at people in general not just you. But it sounded like you might be getting frustrated  I actually think this thread is going quite well.


----------



## Patrick Murray

Greg Long said:


> [Hey Ill stay out of it no problem. Greg


Now, now Greg. Don't let a little miscommunication get in the way. Get back in here and tell us what you think!


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

David Frost said:


> <<<gray hair is followed by baldness n there's enough bald dog trainers in the world as it is>>>
> 
> Hey wait a minute. I thought this was not going to be a mean discussion. Being follically challenged myself, I think I've just been insulted.
> 
> 
> DFrost


haha 

I was meaning more that training dogs is stressful in its own n people who train dogs for a living are probably more succeptable to gray hair and baldness from stress  We don't need a message board to add to it right? I know, sometimes my thought process isn't very clear, forget I said anything... I'm having enough drama issues today, I'm getting sick of it. Seems like everytime I open my mouth someone else is mad at me, so I'm gonna go buy some duct tape.


----------



## Guest

Jeff, I guess I'm just a bitch, then! :twisted: :lol: 

I guess I still have a problem with using drives to explain everything because there are so many definitions out there for different drives. I don't even agree with half of people's definition of prey drive. I think play and prey are often interchanged, and sometimes dogs are written off as having low or no prey, when in fact, the dog is not interested in play. Saying that you won't discuss someone's definition of a "drive" seems counterproductive because there are LOTS of different definitions out there. It would seem to simple-minded me, that "fight drive" must exist, because of a certain individual's perception of it. Perhaps someone else just calls it something else. Example: If I want to call prey drive "X" drive instead, someone may tell me that "X" drive doesn't exist. It's not the drive that doesn't exist; it's the fact that we're not speaking the same language. Which all comes back to why it's so hard to talk about drives. It would be nice to have a chart of definitions that everyone would adhere to, but until that happens.... :x


----------



## Lou Castle

Greg Long said:


> How many PSDs actually on the street have fight drive?


All of mine. 



Greg Long said:


> Also,the stake out test is done without a handler.I have seen dogs react much differently with a handler verses without.


That's the point. A police dog will often find himself alone with the crook. It's what he's made of at that time that's important. Most dogs are much tougher when their handler is present. If a dog folds under the pressure of finding himself alone with the crook I wouldn't want him on the street with one of my handlers. 



Greg Long said:


> Im not argueing that this trait doesnt exist but do you have to have it for an effective k9 team?


It's the major drive that I look for when I'm testing a dog. If a dog doesn't have pronounced fight drive I'm not interested in him. Most of the dogs that I don't select become police dogs elsewhere, so others obviously have different standards than I do. Are mine better? Are theirs? Don't know. As my test says, "Im not advocating this test for everyone. I use it because it lets me select a dog that fits into my style of training." If it doesn't fit into your style of training then it won't have much, if any, meaning for you.


----------



## Greg Long

Lou,

For the sake of discussion,if you were testing a potential dog.Would you take a dog that had good fight drive but little to no prey drive?

I remember Donn saying that a dog working in fight drive was much easier to control than one working in prey.

I know that Donn's test is a bit different than your's Lou.

What I remember most from watching the stakeout test was a Presa that was tested to have pretty good fight drive.While a few of the PSDs wanted no part of it.
Also, Donn said that no amount of training could change the way the dog reacted during the stakeout test.

Greg


----------



## Bob Scott

HEY! No fair! I'm already gray and balding. :lol: 
First, I'd like to thank EVERYONE that has posted on this forum. It has gone well and I've heard a lot of different opinions on "  THE SUBJECT"!
I'll try and answer a few of the questions that were asked of me.
Jeff: "Why do you need it"? For sport (unfortunately) it's not needed. It's the high prey dogs that win points. Can I personelly recognize it? I have to be vague on that answer. I can't recognize a game dog
just by watching it. 
EXAMPLE: As some of you know, I do earth work with my terriers. My old Border Terrier was people soft, very friendly with other dogs, BUT, I retired him from earthwork because he totally refused to back down from ANY quarry underground. His gameness got him tore up, yet he would come out wagging his tail like he just had a big birthday party. All who ever hunted with him said he was absolutely game to the core, yet, you couldn't see it in the sweetheart house dog he also was. 
Same with fight drive in man work. IMHO! 
The willingness to fight is in a lot of dogs. It's that special dog that stays in it because he LIKES the fight. Not necessarilly out of prey or defence. 
Greg! "How many PSDs actually on the street have fight drive"? 
I'm not LEO, but from the ones I've discussed this with, the answer is "Not enough:! In their opinion, to many PSDs today will bail under to much pressure. David and other Leos her can give their oppinions on that. 
I agree 100% that the stake out test is different with some dogs depending if the handler is there or not. Handlers are often nothing more then an umbilical cord to many dogs. Sport, PPD, PSD. MANY Dogs just don't have the brass BBs if mommy or daddy ain't right there. Also, dogs that have any bite training, will show a different face during the stake out test. It's the totally green dog that impresses me. Sport or otherwise. 
My own dog is great at what we've trained for. He's shown to be more then willing to be civil with anyone that confronts him without equiptment on. Does he have fight drive? I have no real idea without testing him more. Since I have no need for a PPD or a "real" bitting dog, I'm more then happy with what I've got. Besides! He found my keys the other night when I lost them in the woods. All his training paid off! :lol: :lol: :wink: 
Greg! I felt no insult intended by the "driving me crazy" remark. I'm pretty far down that road myself.


----------



## Tim Martens

Jenni Williams said:


> Saying that you won't discuss someone's definition of a "drive" seems counterproductive because there are LOTS of different definitions out there.


i was trying to keep the conversation focused on the one definition that caused the most controversy on a previous thread, but thanks for the analysis anways...

to the "the dog likes to fight for the sake of fighting" people....a question. does a dog with this drive EVER have environmental issues? in other words we've all seen the prey monster on the field, melt on slick floors. does this ever happen with a dog with high "fight drive"? i'm going somewhere with this....


----------



## Lou Castle

Greg Long said:


> Lou, For the sake of discussion,if you were testing a potential dog.Would you take a dog that had good fight drive but little to no prey drive?


Yes. I only use prey drive to help build up a dog's bite or to destress him by using a ball to play with him. 



Greg Long said:


> I remember Donn saying that a dog working in fight drive was much easier to control than one working in prey.


Yes, and I agree. Prey drive is part of survival. If a dog doesn't catch and kill prey he doesn't eat and he doesn't survive. A dog that's deep into prey drive won't feel pain in the same way or at the same level that he would if he was at a "normal" level. It's very similar to when a human is in a fight. Usually you don't feel the hits until the fight is over. So trying to use pain, as in harsh corrections to get a dog, to release a bite, for example, can be counterproductive. Especially when you add in the fact that a good PSD thinks that any pain he's getting comes from the decoy. How does a dog make the decoy stop hurting him? By biting harder! Again, counterproductive. 



Greg Long said:


> I know that Donn's test is a bit different than your's Lou.


Not by much. I've watched Donn do his test about ten-twelve times. We're very similar in what we do and how we read the results. 



Greg Long said:


> Also, Donn said that no amount of training could change the way the dog reacted during the stakeout test.


Again, very true. You can do some pattern training to make the dog "look better." But as soon as he's in a situation with a "real opponent" he's likely to fold under the pressure. 



Bob Scott said:


> I'm not LEO, but from the ones I've discussed this with, the answer is "Not enough:! In their opinion, to many PSDs today will bail under to much pressure. David and other Leos her can give their oppinions on that.


One only has to watch an episode of cops where they're using dogs to see weaknesses in the dogs that can lead to the death of police officers in the right (wrong) situation. It's only because "this" crook decided not to take the advantage that he's been given that it didn't happen. Other "cop shows" also show this regularly as well.


----------



## Tim Martens

lou,

since the "fight drive" is easier to control than prey drive, why wouldn't it be advantageous for sport people to want "fight drive"? seems like it would be much easier to train and much more reliable on trial days.

also, can you explain why fight drive is easier to train (because the dog feels pain), but why prey drive folds in the real thing (when the dog wouldn't feel the pain the badguy is trying to inflict :| )?


----------



## Joe Jones

Hate to be the contrary one, but in my opinion, there is no such thing as fight drive, only prey and/or defense mixed with some form of aggression. Most of what folks look at and say "Man, look at that fight drive" is really active defense coupled with dominance aggression.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

This is what my biggest problem with this is. We all are speaking english, but the way we are interpreting the terms is different. Active defense???

Someone bust out some videos. I really want to see what some of you are calling whatever. I do not have a dog in my club that I could use, or I would. We have a couple that have an awfull lot of prey drive, but that is about it. Buko gets a little weird on a new decoy, a lot more intense and focused, but that is about it. Nothing that would really help here.


----------



## Lou Castle

Tim Martens said:


> since the "fight drive" is easier to control than prey drive, why wouldn't it be advantageous for sport people to want "fight drive"? seems like it would be much easier to train and much more reliable on trial days.


While it is easier to control a dog that's in fight drive (and when I say this I mean a dog whose primary combat drive is fight) a fight drive dog doesn't "look" as good as a dog whose primary combat drive is prey. A fight drive dog is content to merely sit quietly in order to detain or drive off an opponent. Prey drive has an element of "flushing" to it. Trying to get the prey to move so that it can be bitten. This gives you a dog who is easily trained to bark ferociously at the decoy, one who will stand on the sleeve and bark in the decoy's face in an attempt to get him to move. And since sport competitions aren't won by control, they're won by performance, prey drive is much favored. 



Tim Martens said:


> also, can you explain why fight drive is easier to train (because the dog feels pain), but why prey drive folds in the real thing (when the dog wouldn't feel the pain the badguy is trying to inflict :| )?


A dog in fight drive doesn't have the "advantage" of being "immune" to the pain that he feels from a decoy or from a correction, so much lower levels of correction can be applied to get his attention. He's calm, not frenzied. He doesn't think he has to "kill" the prey to achieve drive satisfaction. 

I also think that a handler who is trying to take his dog off a bite is introducing conflict into the situation, particularly for a dog that's in prey drive. In the wild, if a subordinate dogs makes the kill, the alpha dog won't try to take it away from him. He knows that even though the dog with the kill is subordinate, he'll fight to keep his "booty." (As in pirate booty, not a reference to Jlo's rear end). But this is something that we try to do on a regular basis, take the dog off a bite. Remember that prey drive has survival as a part of it (while fight drive does not). So it's harder to take the prey from the prey drive dog than it is from the fight drive dog. 

When trying to out a prey drive dog any movement by the decoy brings up the level of the prey dog's drive and makes releasing the bite quite difficult. Many trainers insist that a decoy stand perfectly still so they can out the dog. They do this regularly during training giving the handler a false idea of what happens on the street. I happen to think that this is rather unrealistic. It's all but impossible for someone that's being bitten by a dog to remain still, it usually hurts like hell! 

I've seen very experienced prey drive dogs fail to engage decoys that stand or sit perfectly still, in spite of being given several bite commands. Sometimes hiding suspects do this as well. If the goal is to have the dog bite the suspect this can cause problems. 



Joe Jones said:


> Most of what folks look at and say "Man, look at that fight drive" is really active defense coupled with dominance aggression.


Joe how do you account for a dog that isn't at all dominant being aggressive? It would seem to me that "active defense" is fleeing the scene. The best way for the dog to "defend himself" is to be somewhere else and if the path is clear he'll run.


----------



## Joe Jones

No, active defense is not leaving the scene. 

Below is a part of a very good article written by Armin Winkler that can help explain what we are talking about. Since he has published on the internet domain, I am assuming that cross-posting with proper credit is the correct etiquette:



**** MOD NOTE ******

Please link us to the article, Joe, with a URL. No way to know from the post whether or not this is copyrighted material.

Thanks!


----------



## Lou Castle

Joe if that's the model that you're happy with that's great. I think it's way too complicated rand way too obtuse to be put to much use. And that's why I use the system that I do. It makes it easy to consider what's going on with the dog at any given moment.


----------



## Guest

Geez, I'm agreeing with Jeff-again! What he said about us "all speaking English" is exactly the point I'm trying to make; it's all in the interpretation. I think it's really naiive to call everything either prey or defense; if this is all we feel our dogs are capable of, why do we invest so much of ourselves into them?

Lou, your voice and perspective come as a refreshing change, and I'm glad to have someone here whose posts are longer than mine :lol: . Your point about fleeing the scene and "active defense" addresses something I always question with regard to avoidance. It's nice to hear someone else who views it as a survival plan-not necessarily a show of weakness or fear. Am I understanding this correctly?

Tim, where you're going with this, I can't wait to find out, but from what I've learned about "gameness" (and I'm using this because it's a slightly more accepted term for a similar trait) the dogs are far more well-adjusted than the aforementioned prey monster. (Keep in mind that "gameness" is usually applied to a very different breed). Not to say it can't ever happen, but I will again broach the subject of the ever-elusive "character" and say that I think confidence plays a role. I don't think the majority of confident dogs fear slick floors, or any other environmental issue thrown their way. I admittedly don't have any experience with dogs who have environmental issues (luckily!), so I'd be interested to hear if someone else has a different experience.


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen

I still keep agreeing with Lou and im glad he can explain it in proper english, while i can´t :lol:

i still try to type whitout an online dictionairy..which makes me sound as a 8-yr old trying to exlain things :roll:


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Quote:Geez, I'm agreeing with Jeff-again! 

HOW DARE YOU.

Quote:I think it's really naiive to call everything either prey or defense; if this is all we feel our dogs are capable of, why do we invest so much of ourselves into them? 

I didn't get all of the last quote with the interpretation part. OOPPPSSSS

As far as investment is concerned, well, they do funny things, Love you no matter what, are interested in what you are doing ect.

The interpretation thing is much more important than people think. Some people cannot read a dog to save their lives. I think this is from misinterpretation of the written word. Why do you think their is such varience in decoys/helpers abilitys???? So many people think that a drive just sits on a dogs face, easy to see, or that prey motion ALWAYS gets a dog in prey drive. Blink, and your dog can go from prey to defense to prey. With a sad interpretation, you could reward on the defense part of the blink, when you are trying to get the prey drive rewarded.

Even worse, I hear people talk about how it doesn't matter. Are they washing out a lot of dogs? or are they doing K9 prosport? :lol: I see a lot of really nice dogs that you can see have piss poor training in the bitework. Flail and bail.

Without the same interpretation, how do we even discuss any of this?


----------



## Bob Scott

The interpretation thing is much more important than people think. Some people cannot read a dog to save their lives. I think this is from misinterpretation of the written word. Why do you think their is such varience in decoys/helpers abilitys???? So many people think that a drive just sits on a dogs face, easy to see, or that prey motion ALWAYS gets a dog in prey drive. Blink, and your dog can go from prey to defense to prey. With a sad interpretation, you could reward on the defense part of the blink, when you are trying to get the prey drive rewarded.

Well said Jeff.....and if anybody said I agreed with you, I'll deny it to my dying days. :lol: :lol: :wink:


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Thank-you.

I do hate when you try to show someone how to read a dog, and then later watch that person go thru the motions, not reading the dog. I can freely admit, that reading a dog isn't a one time and you got it deal, but ya gotta try. So many don't.


----------



## Joe Jones

At request of mods, here is the article:

http://www.schutzhundvillage.com/terms2.html


----------



## David Frost

Lou says;<<I've seen very experienced prey drive dogs fail to engage decoys that stand or sit perfectly still, in spite of being given several bite commands. Sometimes hiding suspects do this as well.>>

I'll add, it's a personal pet peeve of mine to see this happen. Call me old school, (I don't see that as a derogatory): When the dog is commanded to engage, he engages regardless of the actions of the decoy/subject. The dog remains engaged until commanded to cease. The command to cease (in training) should not be an automatic cue for the decoy to stop moving. That seldom happens in an actual situation.

DFrost


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Lou, 

Can fight drive, by the word itself, also mean hostile aggression or vigourous engagement wanting to subdue its opponent by bringing the "fight" over to him, aside from merely sitting quietly in order to detain or drive off an opponent?


----------



## Tim Martens

Jenni Williams said:


> Tim, where you're going with this, I can't wait to find out


we may never find out as nobody has answered my question...


----------



## Lou Castle

Jenni Williams said:


> Your point about fleeing the scene and "active defense" addresses something I always question with regard to avoidance. It's nice to hear someone else who views it as a survival plan-not necessarily a show of weakness or fear. Am I understanding this correctly?


I'm probably thinking too much about this but while having a survival plan is wise for a human and it may not be a sign of weakness or fear in our species, I think it is for a dog. When I'm doing my stake out test and from 40 yards away I square my shoulders to the dog and make myself as big as possible and he hits the end of the leash in an effort to get away, I think that's fear and a weakness. 

It's also a weakness from the standpoint of the police officer whose dog runs from a confrontation because the suspect is too big, too scary, or too tough. 



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Some people cannot read a dog to save their lives. I think this is from misinterpretation of the written word.


Most decoys, and that would be in LE, that I know have either been to a class or have been taught by the handler whose dog they're biting what to do. Often the instruction is something like, "Stand here. Hold your arm like this. Fight the dog a little and stand still when I tell you to." These are more "bite dummies" than they are decoys. Those kind of folks usually have little interest in learning how to read a dog. It's just their turn in the barrel or they want to be handlers and this is their ticket to the show. 

But I've come across people who really like working the dogs but still can't read them. I think there's more going on than just not being able to interpret the written word. I think it's an inability to "see" the signs that a dog's body sends to tell us what he's thinking and feeling. It's an inability to read "cross species" signals. 



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Blink, and your dog can go from prey to defense to prey. With a sad interpretation, you could reward on the defense part of the blink, when you are trying to get the prey drive rewarded.


I agree that a dog can change drives in the blink of an eye but that only happens when the decoy does something, changes what he's doing. It can be as subtle as a shift of the decoy's eyes, dropping a shoulder 1/4 of an inch or changing the angle of his shoulders. But the drive change is always accompanied by what the decoy does. You can have a dog with pronounced (fill in the drive of your choice) but if the decoy only gives him (fill in another drive of your choice) signals, that's the drive he'll go to. It's not a conscious thought on the part of the dog, it's purely a response to what he's facing. 



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> I do hate when you try to show someone how to read a dog, and then later watch that person go thru the motions, not reading the dog. I can freely admit, that reading a dog isn't a one time and you got it deal, but ya gotta try. So many don't.


I think that many wannbe decoys have good intentions but it seems to me that this is a "you got it or you don't" kinda thing, at least to some extent. Maybe the key is having a dog as a kid. Maybe it's a willingness to let go and "become the dog" (whatever the heck that means). You can stand alongside them showing them the changes in the dog's demeanor and body language but they can't see it unless you point it out. They just can't see it for themselves. 

Ya also gotta remember that most people are scared as hell at taking bites and it takes a long time for them to calm down and learn to work the dog, sometimes years. During that fear period it's hard to learn anything, especially something as foreign to most people as interspecies communication. 

Earlier I wrote:


> I've seen very experienced prey drive dogs fail to engage decoys that stand or sit perfectly still, in spite of being given several bite commands. Sometimes hiding suspects do this as well.





David Frost said:


> Call me old school, (I don't see that as a derogatory): When the dog is commanded to engage, he engages regardless of the actions of the decoy/subject. The dog remains engaged until commanded to cease.


I hope that no one got the impression from my earlier statement that this was OK. It's certainly not. I completely agree with David that when a dog gets a command to bite he does so and he stays on the bite until he gets a command to leave the bite. In some cases it's a hole in the training. In some cases it goes against the dog's instincts and it has to be worked on regularly. 



David Frost said:


> The command to cease (in training) should not be an automatic cue for the decoy to stop moving. That seldom happens in an actual situation.


Agree on both counts. A couple of weeks ago I was running an Ecollar class and asked the group if anyone had a dog that didn't out. No hands went up. These folks all worked under a trainer who emphasized the out. And so I asked if everyone's dog would out in the middle of a fight. Heads shook and I was told "Well, that's completely different." I don't happen to think it is. Few people who your dog is biting are going to be able to hold perfectly still so that the dog can come out of drive and he can release the bite. A dog should obey your commands no matter what he's doing. If he doesn't there's a problem. 



Jose Alberto Reanto said:


> Can fight drive, by the word itself, also mean hostile aggression or vigourous engagement wanting to subdue its opponent by bringing the "fight" over to him, aside from merely sitting quietly in order to detain or drive off an opponent?


Jose when I think of "hostile aggression" I think of someone who is angry and wants to fight because of that anger. A fight drive dog is usually quite calm, even in the middle of a fight. "Vigorous engagement" does occur because these dog enjoy the fight. In my definition the drive can be satisfied by detaining or driving off his opponent by barking, body posture or fighting. Any of those will make him happy.


----------



## Tim Martens

lou, can you explain why the desire to detain or drive off would be more reliable biting a passive suspect? the guy is already detained. he's not moving. and isn't barking part of driving off?

fight drive, prey drive, defense. whatever. the only contact apprehension my current dog has at this point was on a TOTALLY passive suspect. basically playing dead.

i'll ask once again....as we have all seen the proverbial "prey monster" fold on slick floors, does a dog with a lot of "fight drive" EVER fold on slick floors or other environmental pressures?

lou, i realize that you have forgotten more about dog training than i know. you always present your point of view in a respectful, well thought out manner. i'm not trying to pick a fight or instigate, i'm just trying to pick your brain. :lol:


----------



## Joe Jones

Not sure if you were asking in general, or just Lou, but I'll put in my 2 cents. If you believe that "fight" drive exists in and of itself as a separate genetic trait, then your answer should be no, a dog loaded with "fight" drive should not succumb to environmental stressors like slick floors, because the dog would necessarily be one of strong nerve. However, if you do not believe that "fight" drive exists as a separate genetic trait, and I don't, then the answer would be yes, a dog acting in the manner described as "fight" drive, is susceptible to envorinmental stressors like slick floors, engagements in tight quarters, being elevated off of the ground in a fight, being covered with plastic bags, etc..., because the nerve strength of the dog may be weak. 

I do not believe that you can have "fight" drive without strong nerves, and without strong nerves, a dog will succumb to envorinmental stressors. Therefore, a dog with "fight" drive will always be environmentally neutral and stable. In my opinion, this is one of the leading arguments against the existence of "fight" drive as a separate genetic trait.


----------



## Joe Jones

Just another quick thought to ponder on this "fight" drive thing. As Dr. Helmut Raiser points out, the term fight drive is oxymoronic. I think we can all agree that the term drive indicates some type of inherited genetic trait tied to sustaining the species. For instance, prey drive is the trait linked to seeing food, catching food and killing food. Defense, whether passive or active, is a self preservation trait likned to survival through either flight or engagement (fight). Sex or reproductive drive is obvious. I'll even accept the existence of hunt drive, as it has a natural practical application linked to species survival. The point being that all of these things are or can be tied to species survival. 

Given that, the term fight indicates some sort of violent combat. Linking those two terms would mean that a species is genetically driven to combat, which is antithetical to all of the other recognized drives tending towards species survival or preservation. The theory is simply incompatible with natural behaviors. No animal, or human, for that matter is naturally driven to combat, which would/could likely end the survival of the species. 

That is why I believe that most of what people term as "fight" drive is simply a matter of defense coupled with some sort of aggression, most likely dominance or rank based.


----------



## Lou Castle

Tim Martens said:


> to the "the dog likes to fight for the sake of fighting" people....a question. does a dog with this drive EVER have environmental issues? in other words we've all seen the prey monster on the field, melt on slick floors. does this ever happen with a dog with high "fight drive"? i'm going somewhere with this....


Tim is this the question that no one has answered? Sorry I must have missed it. I know of a few dogs that have had environmental issues but they're very minimal, easily trained for and are very rare among dogs with pronounced levels of fight drive. They amount to a sniff of the new surface (in the case of a slippery floor) or a hesitation to go up stairs that could be seen through (open grid) and were open between the steps (the horizontal view was open). I've seen the same thing with escalators, a hesitation to get on one, but I think that was because the dog couldn't figure out hot to get the thing. All these problems were cured within a few minutes and never showed up as problems again. 



Tim Martens said:


> can you explain why the desire to detain or drive off would be more reliable biting a passive suspect? the guy is already detained. he's not moving.


Dogs will do most willingly what is comfortable for them. I'm sure you've seen dogs operating outside their comfort zone; slippery floors have been mentioned. In extreme cases you can see dogs who refuse to cross the slippery floor to engage a decoy or if they do, their bite is weak and you can see the dog's eyes focusing on his surroundings instead of the decoy. Their work is seriously impaired. 

A fight drive dog who's detaining a decoy by barking or posturing is comfortable. He only needs the bite command to bite. A prey drive dog who's barking at a decoy is doing so because he's trying to "flush" the decoy, to make him move so that he can pursue and bite. That's when he's most comfortable. If he gets a bite command he'll still be most comfortable if the decoy moves. If he doesn't the dog won't be as comfortable and therefore is less reliable. 



Tim Martens said:


> and isn't barking part of driving off?


For a fight drive dog barking can be either driving off or detaining. For a prey drive dog barking is an attempt to "flush" the prey as a bird dog flushes out the bird. 



Tim Martens said:


> fight drive, prey drive, defense. whatever. the only contact apprehension my current dog has at this point was on a TOTALLY passive suspect. basically playing dead.


That's not an uncommon occurrence on the street. 



Tim Martens said:


> lou, i realize that you have forgotten more about dog training than i know.


LOL I don't know about that, but thanks. 



Tim Martens said:


> i'm not trying to pick a fight or instigate, i'm just trying to pick your brain. :lol:


Tim I haven't gotten that feeling from anyone so far. And I don't mind having my brain "picked." If we all agreed these threads would consists of nothing but "I agree" and "yep." and no one would ever learn anything. When you question me you I'm forced to think about things that I do and why I do them. That helps make me a better trainer/instructor because it enables me to pass along what I know better. 



Joe Jones said:


> If you believe that "fight" drive exists in and of itself as a separate genetic trait, then your answer should be no, a dog loaded with "fight" drive should not succumb to environmental stressors like slick floors, because the dog would necessarily be one of strong nerve. I do not believe that you can have "fight" drive without strong nerves, and without strong nerves, a dog will succumb to envorinmental stressors. Therefore, a dog with "fight" drive will always be environmentally neutral and stable. In my opinion, this is one of the leading arguments against the existence of "fight" drive as a separate genetic trait.


Remember that fight drive, like any other drive, exists in varying degrees with various dogs. One dog may have a pronounced level (the highest) and another may have a medium level of it. Most dogs have little or none. I've not seen a dog with a pronounced level of fight drive has any problem with anything that we consider to be the normal environmental stressors. They want to know whats in that bucket (of water) that's being dumped on them, they want to know about the plastic that they're being wrapped up in but it doesn't stop them. 

The presence of absence of fight drive isn't an either - or situation. It's not like a light switch that's either on or it's off. It's more like a dimmer switch that has varying degrees of being present.


----------



## Lou Castle

Joe Jones said:


> Just another quick thought to ponder on this "fight" drive thing. As Dr. Helmut Raiser points out, the term fight drive is oxymoronic.


I don't think so. I don't accept Raiser as the final word. He's too complicated for me, as I said before. Maybe that makes me dumb and him smart. LOL. This is just dog training, not rocket science. 



Joe Jones said:


> I think we can all agree that the term drive indicates some type of inherited genetic trait tied to sustaining the species. For instance, prey drive is the trait linked to seeing food, catching food and killing food. Defense, whether passive or active, is a self preservation trait likned to survival through either flight or engagement (fight). Sex or reproductive drive is obvious. I'll even accept the existence of hunt drive, as it has a natural practical application linked to species survival. The point being that all of these things are or can be tied to species survival.


Sometimes combat is necessary in the grand scheme of things. If the bear decides to eat the puppies of the pack, prey drive won't be operating as this isn't a time to feed. Defense drive dictates that the wild dogs run away as none of them can beat a bear in a fight. But fight drive means that a different kind of fight will occur. The dog won't flee, he'll do a quick in and out type of harassment that will keep the bear away from the puppies and will allow him to make the bear move on to easier pickings. 



Joe Jones said:


> Given that, the term fight indicates some sort of violent combat. Linking those two terms would mean that a species is genetically driven to combat,


It doesn't mean that the entire species is driven to combat; it just means that some _individuals _within the species are genetically driven to combat. It's an advantage to have some individuals driven to violence in just about any society, human or canine. Not everyone, just a few. Societies don't exist in peace, no matter how idealistic it's members. Sooner or later something runs short, food, water, hunting grounds, and it has to come from somewhere. Also keep in mind that fight drive is rarer in wild dogs than in domestic dogs. For the most part the wolf survives by running away. We really can't consider it's rate of occurring in domestic dogs because we've been in control of their breeding for decades. 



Joe Jones said:


> which is antithetical to all of the other recognized drives tending towards species survival or preservation. The theory is simply incompatible with natural behaviors. No animal, or human, for that matter is naturally driven to combat, which would/could likely end the survival of the species.


MANY individuals in the human species are "naturally driven to combat." Watch championship boxing or the UFC. There are quite a few breeds of dog that have been bred for combat. Pit bulls are still used (illegally in this country) to fight other dogs. Bear baiting, using bull dogs to fight bulls used to be a popular sport. Bob has a dog (sorry Bob, I can't remember what kind of dog) that goes underground for his fights. There are Fox Terriers, Rat Terriers and more that I'm probably forgetting. This isn't prey drive and it's certainly not defense or anything even close to defense. It hardly makes sense that a dog would willing go down a hole in order to find something to defend himself against. 

Rent "Old Yeller" and look at the fight scene between Yeller and the bear. This was before computer graphics and before the Humane Society had such a tight grip on Hollywood. That's a dog in fight drive, not prey and not defense.


----------



## Joe Jones

As I said, defense is a species survival mechanism. Defense of pack or young is as natural as they come. Surely you've heard of not messing with a mother bear or mother moose when the young are around? The fact that a dog would engage a bear to defend the offspring is classic defense, not fight. To say that engaging the bear would be "fight" drive, would mean that the dog would engage for a sense of self-satisfaction, instead of defending the offspring. To extrapolate on your theory, that would be akin to saying that when a mother dog goes out and makes a kill on a prey item, that is fight drive and feeding the offspring is a secondary consideration. Also, a dog that would flee and leave the young susceptible to harm is also classic defense, flight, to be safe and reproduce another day. Fight drive has nothing to do with either scenario.

As far as the UFC reference, you are anthropomorphisizing there. Animals don't have the ability to reason like humans do. By and large, humans do those things for two reasons, money and rank, hence rankings like "World Heavyweight Champion". The same behavior is seen in animals that have rank/dominance aggression issues. It is not the "fight" that drives them, it is the rank and the rewards that go with rank. Same with pack animals. Rank males get the best food, best bitches, best sleeping areas, etc... not becasue of the drive to fight, but because of the drive for rank status. 

As far as pit bulls and the like go, you are mixing generations of genetic aggression/dominance coupled with trained behavior with drive. Aggression is not drive, it is separate and apart. It is result, not a behavioral catalyst.


----------



## Lou Castle

Joe Jones said:


> As I said, defense is a species survival mechanism. Defense of pack or young is as natural as they come.


I don't think you get to have it both ways. Either the individual is defending himself or the pack, he can't do both at the same time. You'll see a dog in defense drive bite VERY hard and hold on for dear life, if he bites at all. He's got to kill his opponent to survive the situation. That doesn't work with bears. And so I don't think that a dog in combat with a bear is in defense drive. Of course when I make these statements I'm talking about the dog's primary combat drive. 



Joe Jones said:


> The fact that a dog would engage a bear to defend the offspring is classic defense, not fight. Just like a dog that would flee and leave the young is also classic defense, flight, to be safe and reproduce another day. Fight drive has nothing to do with that scenario.


I'm afraid that we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one Joe. As long as you're happy with the results of your training that's fine by me. 



Joe Jones said:


> As far as the UFC reference, you are anthropomorphisizing there.


Joe you're the one brought humans into the picture, not me. You said, "No animal, *or human, for that matter *is naturally driven to combat, which would/could likely end the survival of the species." (emphasis added). 

I merely pointed out that this statement is wrong. 



Joe Jones said:


> By and large, humans do those things for two reasons, money and rank, hence rankings like "World Heavyweight Champion".


Why do dogs strive for dominance? Privilege (mating rights, feeding rights, rights to run the pack) and rank. Just a different payoff. 



Joe Jones said:


> The same behavior is seen in animals that have rank/dominance aggression issues. It is not the "fight" that drives them, it is the rank and the rewards that go with rank.


I'd say that those are the payoffs for having fight drive. 



Joe Jones said:


> Same with pack animals. Rank males get the best food, best bitches, best sleeping areas, etc... not becasue of the drive to fight, but because of the drive for rank status.


I'd say that having fight drives gives those dogs with rank drive an advantage. 



Joe Jones said:


> As far as pit bulls and the like go, you are mixing generations of genetic aggression/dominance coupled with trained behavior with drive. Aggression is not drive, it is separate and apart. It is result, not a behavioral catalyst.


Again quoting your statement, "No animal, or human, for that matter is naturally driven to combat, which would/could likely end the survival of the species." At this time, given their breeding, these dogs ARE "naturally driven to combat." Another place we'll have to agree to disagree. LOL


----------



## Tim Martens

Lou Castle said:


> I've not seen a dog with a pronounced level of fight drive has any problem with anything that we consider to be the normal environmental stressors.


ah ha. why is it that if prey and fight are both considered "drives" would one lend itself to being susceptible to environmental stressors and the other not? from what i am hearing, there are MANY things beyond the basic "drive" that people are putting into "fight drive". 

let's take a look at theorhetical dog X. he has the following traits:
- balanced in prey/defense (medium amounts of both) during bitework achieved by both genetics and training
- strong nerves (not susceptible to environmental stressors)
- high in confidence

i say it's a good dog. you say it has fight drive. i think we're arguing semantics. i would say a dog that has a medium amount of prey drive would apprehend a fleeing decoy and once he caught him because it only has a medium amount of prey, there wouldn't be much death shake, not very hectic or frenzied and would be more willing to "out". you say fight drive. i say medium prey.

one more question lou. what is your preferred breed of dog for police/protection? you refer to the police dogs you train. what breed/breeds are they?


----------



## Bob Scott

Not trying to stop this thread for going on because it's been to good. 
I just want to thank everbody, again, for showing how we can agree to disagree without going balistic. That's what this new forum is all about. 
Has anyone's opinions changed? Doubtful! That wasn't my intention. I was looking for others views on something that seems, for good or bad, the way dog training had leaned in recient years. To me, it just means another fasinating view on what I love doing. Playing with dogs!
Hopefuly, we've listened, with our ears open, if for no other reason but to see someon elses perspective and learn from each other. 
Thanks again folks!


----------



## Lou Castle

Tim Martens said:


> ah ha. why is it that if prey and fight are both considered "drives" would one lend itself to being susceptible to environmental stressors and the other not?


An animal that can sit quietly while his opponent is threatening him, towering over him from inches away, is pretty confident. This confidence extends to all areas of his life. 



Tim Martens said:


> from what i am hearing, there are MANY things beyond the basic "drive" that people are putting into "fight drive".


Prey drive brings a high tolerance to pain. Defense drive brings a very hard bite and a deep bark. It shouldn't be hard to realize that another drive carries other characteristics along with it. 



Tim Martens said:


> let's take a look at theorhetical dog X. he has the following traits:
> - balanced in prey/defense (medium amounts of both) during bitework achieved by both genetics and training
> - strong nerves (not susceptible to environmental stressors)
> - high in confidence
> 
> i say it's a good dog. you say it has fight drive.


I'd never make such a statement unless I'd tested the dog. How would you know that he's "balanced in prey/defense" or is that a "given" in your theoretical? 



Tim Martens said:


> I would say a dog that has a medium amount of prey drive would apprehend a fleeing decoy and once he caught him because it only has a medium amount of prey, there wouldn't be much death shake, not very hectic or frenzied and would be more willing to "out". you say fight drive. i say medium prey.


Again, I'd never make such a statement based on what you describe here. Unless I'd tested the dog I have no idea what his level and balance of drives are. Based on what you describe I'd say that this dog's primary combat drive was NOT fight. There's no "death shake" in fight. It's not hectic or frenzied in any way. The dog's willingness to out might be due to good training. 



Tim Martens said:


> one more question lou. what is your preferred breed of dog for police/protection?


I prefer GSD's.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Yeah, I think Tim has hit it on the head. Medium drive dogs are exactly what you are describing Lou. Maybe with a bit higher thresholds as well. I have a dog you can tower over, and she will just sit there. She has really high thresholds and solid nerves. I get all fuckled up with the thirty page position papers you write, damn you!  By the time I am done, I am done. :lol: :lol: :lol: 

This is good stuff, and I am so glad that this can just keep going, and we can maybe get on the same page, or at least see where the other guy is coming from.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

I would really like to see a shorter answer this time Lou. My eyeballs are in serious pain from looking at the screen so long.

Off subject, but did you get married recently? It was one of those weird my cousins friends, third cousin on his mothers sides, boyfriend sort of thing. Really weird but how many dog people are named Lou Castle???


----------



## Jose Alberto Reanto

Lou Castle said:


> Jose when I think of "hostile aggression" I think of someone who is angry and wants to fight because of that anger. A fight drive dog is usually quite calm, even in the middle of a fight. "Vigorous engagement" does occur because these dog enjoy the fight. In my definition the drive can be satisfied by detaining or driving off his opponent by barking, body posture or fighting. Any of those will make him happy.


I was thinking about dogs that are "explosive", if that's the right term, one that tolerates the presence of a would-be adversary only because it respects its handler. Otherwise the dog is raring to go.

I had reclaimed such dogs, worked them and no obstacles in between him and the decoy could stop him from engaging, even first time. Well, it's anything but calm with the dog not only intent to drive off or detain its opponent, but obviously much more.

Well, if it isn't fight drive, I really don't know what fight drive is.

Just curious.


----------



## Erik Berg

Lou,

You said fightdrive-dogs and preydrive-dogs are very similar when lookin at a dog you test, the way the act, bodyposture and such. Isn´t the only difference then that a preydog are more intressted in biting his "toy", sleeve or suit, instead of the fight with the decoy itself? The term fightdrive is an old term that have been used for decades. In Sweden when we talk about a dog with fightdrive it´s a dog who likes to dominate the decoy foremost, if the decoy slips the sleeve and go passive a dog with fightdrive will push it right back at you so the fight/struggle can countinue.

Also in the bark and hold a fightdriven dog bark at the decoy with abit of an attitude to get the fight going, not only voff voff, move so we I can bite my "toy" again, like a preydriven dog does.


----------



## Greg Long

Do most of us agree that their is some characteristic that is being referred to as "fight drive"?Obviously there is something that Lou sees and selects for and he has apparently been successful in that selection process.
If we all cant agree on what its called, can we at least agree that there is SOMETHING there that can be selected for?Heck,some of us might have a dog with high fight drive and not even know it.   

Greg


----------



## Connie Sutherland

*Thread locked*

MOD NOTE:

Two posts deleted.

If your post has been deleted, then you might want to check your PMs.

Please refer to the Forum Rules at 
http://www.workingdogforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=117

QUOTE: On a related note -- this board was not intended to be a replacement for any other board, and from now on any negative comments relating to any other board will not be tolerated. I hope everyone has gotten their disgruntlement out of their system now. END QUOTE


Two posters to the thread were making "negative comment(s) relating to" another forum and its owner. We don't allow that here. 

We've opened it back up for discussion because we are getting useful information and interaction out of this thread. Carry on, and be respectful of fellow dog enthusiasts. THANK YOU.


----------



## Woody Taylor

w00t! Let's keep it going. This is great stuff to read.

Edited because I have one small request as a new dog person but as an experienced internet forum person...point-by-point responses to other posters (e.g., cutting and pasting six separate sentences out of a paragraph into separate bullet points) is tough on the eyeballs and hellacious in terms of following reasoning...it creates subthreads about subthreads...my opinion is that it's more focused if you respond to a whole post with a whole post because tone and intent and everything get screwy no matter how many emoticons you use in an "outline response." Just a suggestion and not a knock, everything you all are posting is goodness. Plus remember Microsoft gets a royalty everytime you use the CTRL key. And God kills a kitten.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

LOL! Many good points, Woody!



Woody Taylor said:


> w00t! Let's keep it going. This is great stuff to read.
> 
> Edited because I have one small request as a new dog person but as an experienced internet forum person...point-by-point responses to other posters (e.g., cutting and pasting six separate sentences out of a paragraph into separate bullet points) is tough on the eyeballs and hellacious in terms of following reasoning...it creates subthreads about subthreads...my opinion is that it's more focused if you respond to a whole post with a whole post because tone and intent and everything get screwy no matter how many emoticons you use in an "outline response." Just a suggestion and not a knock, everything you all are posting is goodness. Plus remember Microsoft gets a royalty everytime you use the CTRL key. And God kills a kitten.


----------



## Tim Martens

*Re: Thread locked*



Connie Sutherland said:


> MOD NOTE:
> 
> Two posts deleted.
> 
> If your post has been deleted, then you might want to check your PMs.
> 
> Please refer to the Forum Rules at
> http://www.workingdogforum.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=117
> 
> QUOTE: On a related note -- this board was not intended to be a replacement for any other board, and from now on any negative comments relating to any other board will not be tolerated. I hope everyone has gotten their disgruntlement out of their system now. END QUOTE
> 
> 
> Two posters to the thread were making "negative comment(s) relating to" another forum and its owner. We don't allow that here.
> 
> We've opened it back up for discussion because we are getting useful information and interaction out of this thread. Carry on, and be respectful of fellow dog enthusiasts. THANK YOU.


what a joke. i never made any negative comments or was disrespectful to ed or anyone in this thread. my deleted post contained facts about one of the major fight drive proponents (ed frawley). i said his early videos did not make mention of fight drive (fact) and that the video was made prior to mals becoming popular in the us (fact) and that when we started to hear about "fight drive" from ed it was after he had started his own breeding program using GSD's (fact). how is that negative or disrespectful? i didn't bash ed out of the blue or bash him at all. those facts that i posted are relevant to the discussion at hand. put down the eraser and let us talk without being so hyper sensitive....


----------



## Connie Sutherland

*Re: Thread locked*



Tim Martens said:


> ....what a joke. i never made any negative comments or was disrespectful to ed or anyone in this thread. my deleted post contained facts about one of the major fight drive proponents (ed frawley). i said his early videos did not make mention of fight drive (fact) and that the video was made prior to mals becoming popular in the us (fact) and that when we started to hear about "fight drive" from ed it was after he had started his own breeding program using GSD's (fact). how is that negative or disrespectful? i didn't bash ed out of the blue or bash him at all. those facts that i posted are relevant to the discussion at hand. put down the eraser and let us talk without being so hyper sensitive....


If you're trying to get me to re-post your actual comments, this won't do it. 
:lol: 

The thread is not locked. Follow the rules. Thank you.


----------



## Woody Taylor

*Re: Thread locked*



Tim Martens said:


> what a joke. i never made any negative comments or was disrespectful to ed or anyone in this thread. my deleted post contained facts about one of the major fight drive proponents (ed frawley). i said his early videos did not make mention of fight drive (fact) and that the video was made prior to mals becoming popular in the us (fact) and that when we started to hear about "fight drive" from ed it was after he had started his own breeding program using GSD's (fact). how is that negative or disrespectful? i didn't bash ed out of the blue or bash him at all. those facts that i posted are relevant to the discussion at hand. put down the eraser and let us talk without being so hyper sensitive....


I say this to you with respect for your point of view and your experience...but if that was what you'd posted, you are possibly insinuating that breeder X has made up a breed characteristic for professional and personal gain at the expense of other working lines and the people they protect. That is very negative. Even if what you are saying is true--if this timeline is true--that does not prove, causally, what a reasonable person might infer from your statement (or at least, me).

I think it's fairest to represent trainers using their latest lines of instruction. Even the New Skete Monks used to advocate alpha rolls for normal pet owners, a position they have retracted (and most trainers seem to strongly discourage). I think it's fair to say motives need to be seperated from training methodology unless there's explicit proof that a breeder has made a false statement. What you are stating is not explicit proof, it's conjecture, and doesn't do anything to flesh out this discussion. 

Which...if I can point out...seems heavily weighted to the notion that something like fight drive exists, in parallel with prey drive, in varying degrees. That's not to say that you are wrong. Just that there is support for the position advocated by Breeder X.

I think it's entirely fair for you to state to the group that you feel fight drive is the product of disgruntled GSD enthusiasts. That will probably pi$$ off a lot of GSD people here (not me, btw), but it's at least disconnected from a person (who in particular is someone most people here respect, and that nearly all here would agree 100% is truly invested in helping us enjoy our relationships with our animals).


----------



## Tim Martens

*Re: Thread locked*



Connie Sutherland said:


> If you're trying to get me to re-post your actual comments, this won't do it.
> :lol:


let me educate you on your "job" :roll: . if it was the "shenanigans" part that you took exception to, you could have edited that out. you didn't have to delete the whole post. or you even could have edited out the great ed frawley name. the information still stands on it's own. i, for one, would love to have seen lou's response that you deleted. you send me this BS pm that you were so enthralled with our debate, yet you crush it at it's zenith. yeah, some insentive to keep the discussion going...



Woody Taylor said:


> I say this to you with respect for your point of view and your experience...but if that was what you'd posted, you are possibly insinuating that breeder X has made up a breed characteristic for professional and personal gain at the expense of other working lines and the people they protect. That is very negative. Even if what you are saying is true--if this timeline is true--that does not prove, causally, what a reasonable person might infer from your statement (or at least, me).


while i certainly appreciate you towing the company line :roll: ....infer what you want. that's not on me. those facts are undisputed. if the reader decides that they paint a certain picture, then so be it.

it's too bad. this started out to be a good idea (this board), but alas it appears to be headed in the same direction of the board it was created to be an alternative to. mike, you're a good guy and i appreciate and respect your efforts, but you might want to keep a tighter leash on your people...


----------



## Woody Taylor

Ping.

So anyways. 

Quote:
gameness 

noun 

The quality of mind enabling one to face danger or hardship resolutely: braveness, bravery, courage, courageousness, dauntlessness, doughtiness, fearlessness, fortitude, gallantry, heart, intrepidity, intrepidness, mettle, nerve, pluck, pluckiness, spirit, stoutheartedness, undauntedness, valiance, valiancy, valiantness, valor. Informal spunk, spunkiness. Slang gut (used in plural), gutsiness, moxie. See fear/courage.


So to a new person like me, fight drive as many of you are using it is what sounds like gameness, specifically traditional "gameness" as a quality bred into pit bulls and working terriers (but focused at something other than humans). 

Is this fair to say? And if this is close, do you all think modern training methods (which I think it's safe to say are more positive, focused on relationship, and rewarding cooperation) watering this down by breeding/rewarding cooperative behaviors? It's interesting to me as it seems possible that by stressing alpha roles and absolute leadership over dogs we are essentially becoming their protectors (explicitly, if you read about how some people say you should "protect" your dog in public, etc.).


----------



## Tim Martens

Woody Taylor said:


> Ping.
> 
> So anyways.
> 
> Quote:
> gameness
> 
> noun
> 
> The quality of mind enabling one to face danger or hardship resolutely: braveness, bravery, courage, courageousness, dauntlessness, doughtiness, fearlessness, fortitude, gallantry, heart, intrepidity, intrepidness, mettle, nerve, pluck, pluckiness, spirit, stoutheartedness, undauntedness, valiance, valiancy, valiantness, valor. Informal spunk, spunkiness. Slang gut (used in plural), gutsiness, moxie. See fear/courage.
> 
> 
> So to a new person like me, fight drive as many of you are using it is what sounds like gameness, specifically traditional "gameness" as a quality bred into pit bulls and working terriers (but focused at something other than humans).
> 
> Is this fair to say? And if this is close, do you all think modern training methods (which I think it's safe to say are more positive, focused on relationship, and rewarding cooperation) watering this down by breeding/rewarding cooperative behaviors? It's interesting to me as it seems possible that by stressing alpha roles and absolute leadership over dogs we are essentially becoming their protectors (explicitly, if you read about how some people say you should "protect" your dog in public, etc.).


interesting take. 

to further muddy the water....it was mentioned about some other small breeds desire to go underground and engage something and what drive that would be....i think there are "breed characteristics" that don't flow between breeds of dogs. like the instinct of the pointer breeds to point. can we downgrade the GSD for not pointing when he finds something? is this the "pointing drive" that GSD's lack? i don't think so. it's a breed characteristic, thus not fair to try and put it on a GSD or any other breed. so to point to a pitbull, for instance, and say it's desire to fight other dogs is indicative of "fight drive" is a dubious argument at best...


----------



## Woody Taylor

Tim Martens said:


> to further muddy the water....it was mentioned about some other small breeds desire to go underground and engage something and what drive that would be....i think there are "breed characteristics" that don't flow between breeds of dogs. like the instinct of the pointer breeds to point. can we downgrade the GSD for not pointing when he finds something? is this the "pointing drive" that GSD's lack? i don't think so. it's a breed characteristic, thus not fair to try and put it on a GSD or any other breed. so to point to a pitbull, for instance, and say it's desire to fight other dogs is indicative of "fight drive" is a dubious argument at best...


Lots of dogs like to fight other dogs, I'm not saying that's fight drive. I'm saying the qualitys manifested by a "gold standard" Pit Bull (not the aggression shit)...the tenacity and everything you see in an American Bulldog catching pigs, a JRT in the ground...seem to be close to what you all describe as fight drive. It's just fight drive keyed to different objectives. Terriers seem to have it most because they have had historically $hitty jobs that depended on them working autonomously, and jobs that were not keyed to core survival needs (like the rat terrier that killed 1000s of rats in a few hours, can't remember where I read that). GSDs/Mals/Dutchies are selected, in some way, based on their ability to interact with a human operator. Puppies who retrieve are an example of this.

My own take on what you all are describing is "selfless and selective confidence focused on potentially threatening humans." I'm just saying it sounds an awful lot like quality terrier characteristics, even if those terrier characteristics are keyed to somethign other than threatening humans.


----------



## Tim Martens

Woody Taylor said:


> Tim Martens said:
> 
> 
> 
> to further muddy the water....it was mentioned about some other small breeds desire to go underground and engage something and what drive that would be....i think there are "breed characteristics" that don't flow between breeds of dogs. like the instinct of the pointer breeds to point. can we downgrade the GSD for not pointing when he finds something? is this the "pointing drive" that GSD's lack? i don't think so. it's a breed characteristic, thus not fair to try and put it on a GSD or any other breed. so to point to a pitbull, for instance, and say it's desire to fight other dogs is indicative of "fight drive" is a dubious argument at best...
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of dogs like to fight other dogs, I'm not saying that's fight drive. I'm saying the qualitys manifested by a "gold standard" Pit Bull (not the aggression shit)...the tenacity and everything you see in an American Bulldog catching pigs, a JRT in the ground...seem to be close to what you all describe as fight drive. It's just fight drive keyed to different objectives. Terriers seem to have it most because they have had historically $hitty jobs that depended on them working autonomously, and jobs that were not keyed to core survival needs (like the rat terrier that killed 1000s of rats in a few hours, can't remember where I read that). GSDs/Mals/Dutchies are selected, in some way, based on their ability to interact with a human operator. Puppies who retrieve are an example of this.
> 
> My own take on what you all are describing is "selfless and selective confidence focused on potentially threatening humans." I'm just saying it sounds an awful lot like quality terrier characteristics, even if those terrier characteristics are keyed to somethign other than threatening humans.
Click to expand...

problem A: fight drive proponents profess that it is a "drive" that cannot be bred for. a dog either magically has it or they don't. breeding two dogs with "fight drive" does not ensure that all or any of the pups will have it according to them.

problem B: "selfless and selective confidence focused on potentially threatening humans." lou described how the "fight drive" dog was better suited to apprehending a PASSIVE suspect than the prey drive dog. how is a PASSIVE suspect "threatening"?


----------



## Woody Taylor

Tim Martens said:


> problem A: fight drive proponents profess that it is a "drive" that cannot be bred for. a dog either magically has it or they don't. breeding two dogs with "fight drive" does not ensure that all or any of the pups will have it according to them.
> 
> problem B: "selfless and selective confidence focused on potentially threatening humans." lou described how the "fight drive" dog was better suited to apprehending a PASSIVE suspect than the prey drive dog. how is a PASSIVE suspect "threatening"?


Last post from me and then seriously I want to go back as a spectator. I am not qualified enough in either working dogs or genetics to go alot further here. However....

If A is true, that's because working dogs have not been consistently bred over time for fight drive. Other traits have been favored, or perhaps, other traits have been more economic or "passable." If "gameness" is fight drive then yes, I think you can breed for it. It might be difficult, but I'm sure the first time somebody pointed at a badger the terrier trotted back to the dog house.

B: No idea. You guys are the LEOs, do you ever turn a dog on a non-threatening suspect? I hope not. I'd think the fact you did turn a dog on a passive suspect would indicate to the dog that something might be wrong with that person. In that case, yeah, I can see Lou's point as my dog--which is a prey nut--responds primarily to movement and agitation.


----------



## Lou Castle

Tim Martens said:


> problem A: fight drive proponents profess that it is a "drive" that cannot be bred for.


I've never heard this. As far as I know it's like any other instinct. If you breed two dogs together that have it, especially at pronounced levels, there's a better chance that the offspring will have than in a breeding where only one or neither parent has it. 



Tim Martens said:


> a dog either magically has it or they don't. breeding two dogs with "fight drive" does not ensure that all or any of the pups will have it according to them.


There aren't any guarantees in breeding no matter what trait you're looking for. 



Tim Martens said:


> lou described how the "fight drive" dog was better suited to apprehending a PASSIVE suspect than the prey drive dog. how is a PASSIVE suspect "threatening"?


A suspect who is standing perfectly still yet pointing a gun at you appears passive to the dog, yet he's a threat. Someone who has assumed a fighting stance and is waiting for your next move will appear passive to the dog, yet he's a threat. Someone who's holding a knife and is ignoring your commands to put it down will appear passive . . . I'm sure you get the point.


----------



## Woody Taylor

Heh, Lou, simultaneous posts that lined up pretty well!


----------



## Tim Martens

Lou Castle said:


> A suspect who is standing perfectly still yet pointing a gun at you appears passive to the dog, yet he's a threat. Someone who has assumed a fighting stance and is waiting for your next move will appear passive to the dog, yet he's a threat. Someone who's holding a knife and is ignoring your commands to put it down will appear passive . . . I'm sure you get the point.


i think you missed the point. i was talking from the dog's perspective and how you believe that the "fight drive" dog is better suited to apprehend a passive suspect than the prey drive dog (which would contradict woody's definition about a "threatening human".

as far as "fight drive" being bred for, i think this is where your and the other definition (the dog just likes to fight for fighting sake) split once again. i have heard people who prescribe to the latter say it cannot be bred for.


----------



## Lou Castle

Tim Martens said:


> i was talking from the dog's perspective and how you believe that the "fight drive" dog is better suited to apprehend a passive suspect than the prey drive dog (which would contradict woody's definition about a "threatening human".


I addressed this earlier when I talked about dogs wanting to be in their comfort zone. It's my second post on Page 4 of this thread. 



Tim Martens said:


> as far as "fight drive" being bred for, i think this is where your and the other definition (the dog just likes to fight for fighting sake) split once again. i have heard people who prescribe to the latter say it cannot be bred for.


I call that "fighting drive." I think both drives can be bred for but I'm no expert on breeding.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

The more I follow this topic the less I am inclined to believe in the existence of fight drive.

A "drive" should be defined as a motivational tendency to react in a certain manner. Chase a rabbit, find a mate, hunt for food. A _*dynamic*_ reactivity to enviromental stimulus. To fulfil a need, attain a goal.

It is my belief that the so called fight "drive" is not actually a drive at all, but rather a manifestation of "character".

It is stated by some that fight drive is only revealed through experience and maturity (approximately two to four years).

Strong character could be defined as a measure of resolve (courage and confidence) attained through life's experience (hence, the need to mature). The animals' self-perception is a *static* quality of self assurance.

JMO


----------



## Tim Martens

Daryl Ehret said:


> The more I follow this topic the less I am inclined to believe in the existence of fight drive.
> 
> A "drive" should be defined as a motivational tendency to react in a certain manner. Chase a rabbit, find a mate, hunt for food. A _*dynamic*_ reactivity to enviromental stimulus. To fulfil a need, attain a goal.
> 
> It is my belief that the so called fight "drive" is not actually a drive at all, but rather a manifestation of "character".
> 
> It is stated by some that fight drive is only revealed through experience and maturity (approximately two to four years).
> 
> Strong character could be defined as a measure of resolve (courage and confidence) attained through life's experience (hence, the need to mature). The animals' self-perception is a *static* quality of self assurance.
> 
> JMO


couldn't (and haven't) said it better myself...


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Character? Character? you really need to be putting me down in your bibliography if you are going to use my definition, Dangit.! :lol: 

Drive as a term. Can it be quantified??? There is no fight drive. It is character, and only character. The reason it can't be bred for is the same reason we can't produce Congrssional medal of honor winners. It is a combination of environment, and genetics, and in who knows what combination.

My stupid dog will bite whether you move or not. He doesn't have fight drive. However, like his owner, he is a character.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51DEzRuEYTY 

Now you can watch the twitchy F^ck#r yourself. Currently we are argueing that heel is not in front of me, or underneath me. :roll:


----------



## Al Curbow

Cool video, that dog is just waiting to go, how old is he?


----------



## Lou Castle

Daryl Ehret said:


> A "drive" should be defined as a motivational tendency to react in a certain manner. Chase a rabbit, find a mate, hunt for food. A _*dynamic*_ reactivity to enviromental stimulus. To fulfil a need, attain a goal.


My definition *is *dynamic. Both detaining and driving off are "dynamic." It is a reaction to an environmental stimulus. It fulfills a need and attains a goal. Looks like it fits all of your requirements. 



Daryl Ehret said:


> It is my belief that the so called fight "drive" is not actually a drive at all, but rather a manifestation of "character".


If I could let a dog bite me and then show you three completely different body languages depending on what I did, do you think that would influence your opinion. 



Daryl Ehret said:


> It is stated by some that fight drive is only revealed through experience and maturity (approximately two to four years).


I don't say that. Experience is completely unnecessary. Maturity is. 



Daryl Ehret said:


> Strong character could be defined as a measure of resolve (courage and confidence) attained through life's experience (hence, the need to mature). The animals' self-perception is a *static* quality of self assurance.


It doesn't sound as if it makes a difference if you call it character and I call it fight drive. As long as it can be used in training. 



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> The reason it can't be bred for is the same reason we can't produce Congrssional medal of honor winners.


It can be bred for and used to be on a regular basis. Just like CMH winners, there needs to be the right situation for it to come out. 



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> It is a combination of environment, and genetics, and in who knows what combination.


*Everything * is a "combination of environment and genetics." (BTW if it has anything to do with genetics, it CAN be bred for). Drives can be manipulated by training designed to enhance or suppress them. 



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> My stupid dog will bite whether you move or not. He doesn't have fight drive.


No one has ever said that a dog must have fight drive to bite a passive decoy. Virtually any dog can be conditioned to bite a decoy who's passive. The difference is what happens during real fights, not in training and not on a sport field. It's interesting that it's usually people with a sport background, where fight drive may be a liability, who don't believe in it; while people with a law enforcement background, (people who engage in combat with their dogs for real) do believe in it to a much larger degree. 



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Now you can watch the twitchy F^ck#r yourself. Currently we are argueing that heel is not in front of me, or underneath me. :roll:


I'd suggest that you do some tight circle work and walk faster.


----------



## Daryl Ehret

In my words...

Threshold- the level of stimulus required to attain awareness.

Focus- attention span, the ability to maintain an awareness.

Character- measure of self perception, knowledge of self-capability (strong, moderate, weak).

Instinct- urge or desire, a motivational push to reACT (i.e., Self-Preservation Instinct - Fight or Flight, to engage or avoid).

Drive- enviromental engagement of an activity, propelled from instinct, derived from character.
____________________


Lou Castle wrote:


> If I could let a dog bite me and then show you three completely different body languages depending on what I did, do you think that would influence your opinion.


"propelled from instinct, derived from character." Biting through agression, defense, fear. Every engagement will come from instinct backed by a quality of character.


Lou Castle wrote:


> I don't say that. Experience is completely unnecessary. Maturity is.


These two go hand in hand. Experience can occur in an instant (though I didn't mean it in that way). Maturity is the collection of experiences with the advancement of age. Can't mature without experience.


Lou Castle wrote:


> It doesn't sound as if it makes a difference if you call it character and I call it fight drive. As long as it can be used in training.


That's probably true. I prefer to think it's all connected "intent to engage, propelled from instinct, derived from character."


----------



## Guest

Am I the only one who thinks we're playing a really long game of semantics  ?

Daryl and Lou, and even Jeff, reiterated something I'd said (or tried to say) earlier: I don't think it's the existence of the *quality* that is up for debate. It's whether it's a drive or a component of character, or whatever person x feels like calling it that is debatable. My point is similar to Lou's: Who cares what people want to call it as long as they find a way to make use of it in training? :?


----------



## Lou Castle

Earlier I wrote: 


> Experience is completely unnecessary. Maturity is.





Daryl Ehret said:


> These two go hand in hand. Experience can occur in an instant (though I didn't mean it in that way). Maturity is the collection of experiences with the advancement of age. Can't mature without experience.


I'm using the word "experience" to mean "experience in being trained to bite." A dog can be kept in a run his entire life. He'll mature but won't have the kind of experience we're talking about here. If you're talking about experience as merely being exposed to the environment, in the abstract sense then of course he'll have "experience;" but I don't think we're talking in the abstract. Even if he's never been taught anything, if he has fight drive and it's invoked, it will show. 



Daryl Ehret said:


> I prefer to think it's all connected "intent to engage, propelled from instinct, derived from character."


Hey Daryl, as long as you're happy with your results. so am I!


----------



## Tim Martens

jeff,

nice video. where have i heard that music before? hmmm. lemme think...oh yeah i think it was from Rambone or was it Hump for the Red October? lol. definately some early 80's porno music goin on there...


----------



## Daryl Ehret

> Am I the only one who thinks we're playing a really long game of semantics Smile ?


I think this is one of the biggest hurdles anyone who trains must face. If there was a unified theory of canine behavior, one that encompassed all of the models of behavior, we could be better off. Even the words themselves within a specific field of training cannot be agreed upon, much less translate equivalently between the fields of sport, PP and service work.

Personally, I lack the experience in training that most of the members of this board have the benefit of. I just hope my _maturity_, what I have drawn from the experiences I find relevant or related can be of some help. I'm offering the perspective of a novice, because sometimes what others may know _and assume_ from a lifetime of experience can blind them to the way things appear to someone on the outer edge who wants to learn and understand.

But certainly, if what you believe works, then by all means use it. No "model" for understanding behavior can adequately define the "truth" or reality anyway. It's only the *map*, and not the *territory*.


----------



## Guest

This thread has gotten really long. Tim's had time to search his 80's porn collection to see where Jeff got the tunes, Lou's had time to type that many charactgers (nevermind read all the posts in the first place), and we have 104 replies. A ton of good info has been exchanged. I said earlier that we need a chart of detailed "drives" or "characteristics" or whatever with definitions that everyone adheres to, whether they like the terminology or not. That way, when a dog is evaluated, at least there's a better chance someone else understanding what that dog really is...whether it's HOW YOU would classify it or not. It's like how some breeds call a certain color a different name than the exact color or pattern on another breed-gets a bit confusing :roll: . Some kind of universal system would be great. As usual, Daryl, I like the way you put things.


----------



## Bob Scott

I think we've had some great input from both sides of the discussion and we're probably at the point where it's only going to get repetitious. 
I think it went 99.9% well, but maybe time for retirement.
Thank you all!


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Hell NO it's not over! :twisted: 

I cannot EVEN keep up with Lou.

My buddy put the music on there, not my choice. At least it wasn't stinky rap music.

Buko has ALWAYS been one to bite whether there was movement or not.

I can do tight circles till I am dizzy. I am doing something wrong but have tried pretty much everything anyone has said. Without a docoy, he (of course) doesn't give me any problems at all. With the decoy, corrections pump him skyward, and I lose him mentally. I have started holding the leash really short, and letting him correct himself. It is not what I would have anyone else do ever, and I am always telling people to loosen up the leash, but it is working, and he hardly bangs on the collar at all.

Walk faster? Not that day :lol: My knees were KILLING me that day. Bad enough I am old and fat, I gotta deal with sore knees????


----------



## Lou Castle

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> I cannot EVEN keep up with Lou.


Not anything I'm proud of. I just have too much spare time. 



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> With the decoy, corrections pump him skyward, and I lose him mentally.


Have you tried using an Ecollar at low stim level? I've found that this "getting more excited" when corrected is pretty common. I think it's because the dog's drive is frustrated by the correction so the level of the drive increases and that makes it more difficult to control. But it seems to me that it occurs because the restraint that the leash and correction brings is external. That is, it's outside the dog. Ecollar stim, when taught as I advocate, has the dog associating the correction with his behavior, rather than coming from the handler. This may allow you to correct him back into position without escalating his frustration. 



Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Walk faster? Not that day :lol: My knees were KILLING me that day. Bad enough I am old and fat, I gotta deal with sore knees????


Stop whining and suck it up. Do you want a trained dog or not? LOL. On a serious note, except for the forging, the work looked very nice.


----------



## Bob Scott

Yes sir Mr Oehlsen! :lol: :lol: 
Just remember to play nice everybody! :wink:


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

In a perfect world, if we all got together to train, discussions like this would make everything a bit easier because maybe we train differently, but we understand where the other is coming from.

Be kinda cool to all get together sometime and spend a weekend training. Be interesting to SEE the different ways we train and pick stuff out we liked.


----------



## Guest

It _would_ be cool. Organize it, Jeffy.


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen

Cooolll..who´s is paying my ticket :lol: :lol: or is it a dutch treat?!?!


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Selena van Leeuwen said:


> Cooolll..who´s is paying my ticket :lol: :lol: or is it a dutch treat?!?!


Dutch treat, definitely.

(By the way, that phrase has morphed into "The Dutch people pay for everyone else," in case you aren't up on American dog-forum slang. 


:lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

Connie Sutherland said:


> (By the way, that phrase has morphed into "The Dutch people pay for everyone else," in case you aren't up on American dog-forum slang.
> 
> 
> :lol: :lol: :lol:


So that's why everyone makes me pay for dinner!


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Oh...........hi, Mike.

I thought you were gone somewhere.


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen

oh well count me out then *very dissapointed face*


----------



## Guest

Mike, would you like to have dinner?


----------



## David Frost

Me thinks this thread has gotten a bit off track, this is just a gentle reminder.

DFrost


----------



## Guest

Me thinks this thread is pretty much over anyway, but Mr. Oehlsen has closure issues.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

I'll have to think about organizing something. Maybe for the fall.


----------



## Christopher Jones

I do believe there is such a thing as fight drive. I have heard it described as "Active Aggression", "Social Aggression" and even "Prey Aggression". What ever way people call it, it is a different motivation (Drive) than prey/play drive and defence.
There is one good way I have seen it, and heard people also mention it.
I would say that 99% of all high prey drive IPO dogs would also have lots of ball drive. 
You get alot of KNPV dogs who have little to no ball/play drive and yet have tons of intense drive to the decoy. And these dogs are NOT working in defence. 
These dogs also will bite the decoy in a suit, without a suit. They are anyone anywhere dogs. 
This to me is what I call fight drive. The dog is motivated by the challange of someone and enjoys it when the fight goes on. Its like the dog is keeping a body count and he wants to add to it. :lol:
Thats why on stud dog adverts in the KNPV they make a point of mentioning that the dog has ball and retrive drive, because not all hard hitting dogs in the KNPV have crazy ball drive.
So, sorry for bringing up an old post but it is a question thats always going to come up.


----------



## Max Orsi

The people that I have tried to learn the most from in bitework, never use the multitude dog drives to describe a dog biting or to help a dog learning to bite.

They always told me a dog likes to bite or it does not.

If you believe the drives correctly describe the Actions and state of mind of a biting dog
We have to agree that:

When working in pray drive the decoy, animal or (insert whatever you want here) is moving away from the dog in an attempt to avoid being captured by the dog.

When in defense the dog is being aggressed and because the flight option is removed from the picture, the dog is forced to bite.

How would you describe the drive in the dog that actively engages a decoy, other dog or animal that is standing is ground (not trying to evade) while challenging the incoming dog?

I would call the above fight drive, because is not prey, not defense and the only reason for the dog to engage would seem to be the joy of the fight itself.

Happy training


----------



## Matthew Grubb

OMG… I can’t believe I missed out on 10 pages of this discussion!!! Here is my take… Unless the propper genetic foundation is there, you will never see fight drive. 

That said… you build and build and build prey through training. You then start adding incrimental bits of defense in the dog. You start to teach the dog that he can defeat any opponent regardless of what gets thrown at him. As time progresses, you start to see confidence soar and the dog makes effortless work with passive encounters and other challenging activities. The dog learns that he brings the fight… that he will make the decoy fight with him. 

When your dog reaches a plain through training that he looks like a prize fighter, you have fight drive. The bell rings… he comes out fighting.


----------



## David Frost

Max, I have to tell ya, that's probably one of the best descriptions of "fight drive" I've ever heard. 

DFrost


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

But then again, if it was a drive, all dogs would have it, and that is not true.


----------



## Max Orsi

Just like not all dog like to chase-Prey drive-

Or bite to defend themself-Defense drive-

If all dogs had the same drives there would be no need to selective breeding.

I could just pick any dog of any breed and, if I had the skills, train it to perform any tasks in a manner that fulfill anyone desire and expectations.

Some time the motivations on animals, just like in humans are intrinsic to itself.

If I try to think at all the motivators I had to do what I have done in my life, I cannot explain it and some had and have no apparent reason at all.
Can you give a foundamental (survival) goal to everything you do?

Happy training


----------



## Gillian Schuler

I'm also convinced that not all dogs have this. 

The dogs who have "fight drive" have a heart for the fight. The high drive dogs are ready to bite but if anything untoward happens, they won't fight to the bitter end. I think you can see it when they're coming in for the bite - no hesitation whatsoever. Some dogs go through fire to bite - some don't, despite the drive. I also think the "fight drive" can diminish somewhat as the dog gets older.


----------



## Sue DiCero

And sometimes what people see as fight drive is really possibly slight nerves.......


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

I think my biggest opposition to this term is the word drive.

I have been thinking a lot about the importance we put on terminology, and discussions of "drive" get pretty muddy. However, the term thresholds seems to be something I have been thinking of more and more, and they do not get as muddy in my head.

I prefer to think of "fight drive" as more of a character trait, something the dog has or has not. I think that using the term "drive" makes people think that all dogs have it, it just has to be brought out, or "tapped into".

I do not remember any of the dogs that had this "fight drive" needing any tapping to get it out.

However, I have seen dogs go through a lot of abuse, trying to "tap into" this "drive".

Maybe if I persist in thinking of all this, I can come up with a clear way to describe things.............in twenty years or so. :-D :-D :-D


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Jeff, I don't think it has anything to do with drive. Drive can be extinguished by various threats or pain, fear, etc. which has a higher issue as drive in my opinion.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

That is what I am trying to say, it is not a drive.


----------



## Gillian Schuler

So, we're on the same page at last. IMO it can't be a drive - drives can be driven or blotted out.


----------



## Brigita Brinac

Hi Bob

From my own experience...I would not define it as a 'drive'...but rather a trait that a dog is born with (genetic component). You cannot TRAIN this into a dog. It is what I term as 'social aggression' and most people will never see nor own a dog like this. These are dogs whose 'genetic blueprint' doesn't allow them to succumb...they will die before they ever submit.

I have owned 2 such dogs and they are not easy. Most couldn't handle (nor want to) dogs like these. IMO, you can NOT train a dog to have 'fight'. They're either born with it or they're not.

Again JMO. Good topic BTW.


----------



## Bob Scott

Max said;
"How would you describe the drive in the dog that actively engages a decoy, other dog or animal that is standing is ground (not trying to evade) while challenging the incoming dog?"

Max, this is why some dogs are bred to be baying dogs in the ground and some are bred to "eliminate" the quarry. Both types of dog have the option to leave the quarry. One is bred to stay and fight. One is bred to stay close enough without engaging and "harass" the quarry. Many of either type will often leave. These are out of the breeding program in one way or another.
It's a bred for "genetic component" as Brigita commented on. 
"Drives" as most of us use the term, are bred for "genetic components". Not all use the term but they know what they are breeding for. 
Hey Brigita! :wink:


----------



## Matthew Grubb

Brigita Brinac said:


> you can NOT train a dog to have 'fight'. They're either born with it or they're not..


I agree the dog is either born with or without the genetic ability to develop fight drive. I really think though that without the proper training you will never see it develop.


----------



## Max Orsi

This is a definition of “drives” I found in one of the internet dictionary:

A strong motivating tendency or instinct related to self-preservation, reproduction, or aggression that prompts activity toward a particular end.

Bob I Agree with what you said. 
The problem when talking about drives is that everybody calls the same action, drive or whatever you want to call it in a thousand different ways, that’s why I like the Belgian/French way of keeping it simple. Dog likes to bite, dog does not like to bite and degrees of decoy pressure on the biting dog.

Everybody who has been working biting dogs and has kept his eyes and mind open has observed what I described as “fight drive” and like all other drives comes in various degrees, from absent to pronounced and with all the different degrees in between. 

I totally agree on the genetic factor of “fight drive”, same as for all the other drives.

Happy training


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Matthew Grubb said:


> I agree the dog is either born with or without the genetic ability to develop fight drive. I really think though that without the proper training you will never see it develop.


Unfortunately, you can condition them so well that in a Schutzhund trial, they will nearly all get "Fight Drive - pronounced" on their scoresheets. The only way to test this is in training with an uncompromising helper.

I see the dogs in protection and then have to enter the results on to the computer from the judge's handwritten notes. I can't remember an "absent" and also very few "presents" but mostly they are "pronounced". If they forget to enter it, I look at the score - over 90, so "pronounced". I obviously check with the judge.

In a way, it's insulting for the relatively small number of dogs who really have a "pronounced" "Fight" drive.


----------



## Butch Cappel

SchtzHund became the largest Protection dog system in the world, not because they offered a system of scenarios with a judging standard for dogs, but because they had a plan that showed everyone that was interested, how to make a dog into a protection dog.

As Mathew stated Belgium (and French) ringers and trainers will say, “A dog bites, or it doesn’t.” But the early SV SchH trainers applied scientific study and came up with a blueprint that any one could read, and follow to make a protection dog. And that blueprint was based on the application of the scientifically defined survival instincts of DRIVE. 

If you look up instinctual drives as applied in psychology you will find there are three defined drives, Sex, Prey, & Defense and these all have very clear definitions. I can find no definition, scientific or otherwise for a ‘Fight’ drive. Not in science or on this board, or in this thread.

There are tons of _descriptions_ about prey drive as when Lou writes; “Fight drive - Involved in the detaining or driving off of an opponent. It's satisfied by the dog detaining or driving off his opponent.” That is not a definition, it is a description, a good description, but _not_ a definition. 

A definition must give the components, or make up, of the term it is clarifying. So for a clear definition of ‘fight’ drive you would have to give a purpose. As I believe Tim Martens has said; “Drives are defined as a Species preserving instinct” The purpose of Prey drive is to obtain food, Defense is to protect the pack, and Sex is to reproduce. 

If you think you can define (not describe) Fight drive you must first give the species preserving benefit? So first question “How does “Fight’ drive preserve the species?

Second, each drive is engaged by a specific stimulus. That stimulus causes a specific hormone to enter the body and prepare the body for THAT task of preservation. Example; Man sees woman in thin, pink, thong. There is an involuntary reaction that with a little luck and the right line, leads to… well you know what it leads to.

Now if the same guy sees a GO-rilla in a thin, pink, thong, you know it aint causing the same reaction! The stimulus MUST be specific to that drive, to trigger the correct hormone.

If you stand in front of a dog and just stare in a threatening manner his hackles go up when he feels challenged, Defense.

If you stand in front of a dog and wave and wiggle a sack or throw it at him and jerk it back, his tail goes up, Prey.

If you stand in front of a dog with a Gyp in heat… something else goes up, but you can’t get that to go up if you are threatening the dog, right? 

The stimulus must be specific to the drive. What specific stimulus is used to engage “Fight’ drive?

The third component of a ‘Definition’ of a drive is the involuntary, identifiable, response. As each drive is triggered by a specific stimulus, which releases a specific hormone, each drive has a unique identifiable response. A dog feeling ‘defensive’ will be salivating; a dog in ‘prey’ will be straining forward, a dog in ‘sex’ drive? well he may be straining too but not with the same dignity. 

So I have yet to see a _definition_ of ‘Fight’ drive, only _descriptions_. That does not mean it does not exist, it only means if it does? The scientific types, that gave us all this drive stuff in the first place, have not discovered it. And as they discovered the originals, I would think we should play by their rules, even if this is America. 

Oh, yeah one last thing. Some oe stated that "Fight drive" is a very old training term. Though I was well aware of the benefits of balancing Prey & Defense a long time ago, I don't remember hearing the term 'fight' drive until the mid eighties.

In casually researching Mike McCowans "Dog Sports" magazines back to the seventies I find no reference to fight drive before the eighties (granted I have not looked at every page of every issue but I looked closely)

Also in Gary Patterson's original "Protection Training the SchutzHund Dog" there are references to balancing Prey and Defense not 'Fight' as well as Susan Barwig's original SchutzHund book. Not saying the term has not around been around very long, just that I can't find it referenced more than fifteen or twenty years past.


----------



## Tim Martens

Matthew Grubb said:


> OMG… I can’t believe I missed out on 10 pages of this discussion!!! Here is my take… Unless the propper genetic foundation is there, you will never see fight drive.
> 
> That said… you build and build and build prey through training. You then start adding incrimental bits of defense in the dog. You start to teach the dog that he can defeat any opponent regardless of what gets thrown at him. As time progresses, you start to see confidence soar and the dog makes effortless work with passive encounters and other challenging activities. The dog learns that he brings the fight… that he will make the decoy fight with him.
> 
> When your dog reaches a plain through training that he looks like a prize fighter, you have fight drive. The bell rings… he comes out fighting.


i believe that this is most people's definition of it and being that you have to inject training and experience to get it, it's obviously not a drive...

i'm still not sure how social aggression fits in to all this. i think i do...


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen

Butch, there was a guy that used to go to seminars and video tape them, and then he would write a script, and just say what he wanted you to hear, and not necessarily what the guys/guy giving the seminar where saying.

That was the first time I had heard this term. Most people use it, as his website back in the 90's was like 2000 pages. The whole BS was the "melding" of prey and defense to "create" the mystical "fight drive" leading most people to believe that if they wack on the dog enough, they can get this mythical drive to appear. 

That is my big problem, the amount of dogs I have seen abused in the name of "fight drive".


----------



## Gillian Schuler

Thanks Butch, interesting post. I learnt a lot about dogs from two very good trainer/helpers and probably they learned a lot from their trainers. No mention of drives was made and still isn't used much in these circles. Even at the trials, the report is usually about the force with which the dog went in for the bite, how he took up the fight with the helper and whether he loosened the grip under pressure.

I dug out Helmut Raiser (not literally) and in the 2nd edition of his book Der Schutzhund which came out in 1981 he states:

(Mine's in German so I've translated it as best I could)


The question as to whether there is a separate fight drive has by no means been settled. Some canine experts assume that an especial fight drive must exist, that is similar to the “play drive”. I am of the opinion that the definition of the fight drive is a word bastard. The definition of drive describes a genetic coordination, which serves to preserve life and species.

A drive to fight implies a determination to harm or destroy the opponent and the risk of harming oneself in the process.

Even the aggression drive can be attributed to the survival of the species. Injurious fights are inhibited by rituals. Apart from this, one sees from the fact that many joustiing fights using much stronger force and time up to the deciding moment than the injuring and killing inter-species fight does (such as prey drive) how strong the selection pressure must be as ooposed to the development of fight forms that do not injure.

Despite all this, I think that the definition fight drive is a useful description for a desired behavior in the dog. We’re looking for the dog that has fun in fighting the helper. Fighting for fun can only be done by a dog that is not under pressure and not always fighting the helper for his life. That’s why I think we can describe fight drive as resulting out of play drive.
End


----------



## Don Turnipseed

Some great posts that cause a lot of thought. The simplest and the way mopst hunters look at it is the dog hunts or he doesn't. No special terminology to muddy the waters as to why. Since my dogs are used for large, dangerous game, in many ways there are similarities to manwork in as much as the dog is facing superior odds. What I see isn't a drive for survival. Quite the opposite. It is a need to dominate the prey. It is a challenge and they are compelled to take it at all costs, even life. That makes it a need in specific dogs much like social aggression between some dogs and other dogs or handlers. There is one element I think has to be lacking for a dog to be like this and that is they have to lack a strong suvival instinct. Like people, dogs that are worried about getting hurt or killed will never have this kind of fight. Out in the woods, the dog can bail at any time but specific types will never quit. When they are seriously hurt one day, they become more intense the next time because they need to dominate. I think it is more of a need than a drive. I have always referred to them as the "ultimate" dog. From what I see, this need to dominate over rides any drive so while it appears to be a real strength, it may be a weakness by jeapardizing their survival.


----------



## Max Orsi

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKDha0PUwK4&feature=channel_page

the above is the best example of what I call Fight Drive. Subject is not running away, nor the dog is defending itself.

Also fight drive can be learned by a dog in a "Familiar ground,with FamiliarDecoy, or Familiar stile of work", That' why is important to test it in trials, without "warm up bites" or ground practices, unless you are a LEO, like the one above, who should not have doubts about this misterious drive being present.

In my opinion, more than constantly trying to psychoanalyzing dogs, you should ak yourself:

Is the dog doing what I expect him to do? How I expect him to do it?

Have I ever worked dogs with the characteristics I think my dog is missing?

What is he lacking to do the job better? 

...and most of all by onest with yourself.

Dogs don't lie, they bluff but don't lie

Max


----------



## Don Turnipseed

I don't think I have ever seen a dog of this nature bluff.


----------



## Matthew Grubb

Max Orsi said:


> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKDha0PUwK4&feature=channel_page
> 
> the above is the best example of what I call Fight Drive. Subject is not running away, nor the dog is defending itself.
> 
> 
> 
> Max


Excellent example…. Again goes to show how important training and experience are in molding the final product… “Fight”. I have seen many police dogs get to that level, but none that started out that way.

 I want credit for this one…. “Fight… not a drive but a state of being.”


----------



## Brigita Brinac

*D. Social Aggression*

_Social aggression is the dog's desire to establish pack hierarchy (alpha/leader). ...However, it is an instinct which can give the dog an added strength because it is not reactive aggression (defense/self-preservation) and, therefore, it does not have the potential disadvantage of flight behavior. Since social aggression has no flight counterpart, the dog does not perform under the same level of stress as in reactive aggression. _
_Social aggression is characterized by a dog that demonstrates a deep grumbling bark. This type of dog also generally expresses itself in a very dominant manner. Social aggression is almost exclusively a male characteristic. It can be the determining factor in a protection dog successfully facing a life threatening situation (i.e., police dog, personal protection dog, military dog, etc.). _
_As breeders/trainers, we stress a mild level of social aggression because the potential drawback of an excessive level of social aggression is constant struggle for authority thereby hampering trainability. 
_


_This was taken from: http://workingdogs.com/dom1.htm_


_I have written posts in the past on 'fight drive'' on different boards and over time; I still stand behind them:_


_______________________________________________________________________________________


I've had to understand this behavior as I have 2 males which are socially aggressive and to understand and train them I HAD to understand what I was dealing with. The approach is entirely different than that of a sport dog. Wouldn't trade/sell them for anything. Invaluable as breeding dogs and priceless as working dogs but man what a responsibility and a lot of work! But they taught me more about behavior than all the dogs put together that I've trained and lived with. To understand them is to appreciate them. Their intensity and focus is unsurpassed as is their work 'ethic'. It's always 100%. I've had both injured and continue to fight on 3 legs and when younger (before extensive control was incorporated), even though injured; had to be 'dragged' back to the vehicle as all they wanted was to re-engage and finish the 'job'...No thought to injury or pain.

>>I also agree that to get some aggression you have to breed dogs with alot.

I agree as do the European breeders whom I've spoken with and visited. As one world renown Mal breeder/judge/competitor said: "The sire is extreme and serious and will 'battle' to the end...difficult, tiring, and dangerous dog to work and certainly no fun--not for the handler or for the decoy or anyone else who might get in the way...but this is the dog for breeding as he will never score high points but will produce those who can...we don't breed to anything less...Such a dog can produce street or sport dogs depending on the female (and later the training) but either way you are going to get aggression in the progeny--but to different levels...If such a dog can produce good working progeny...then he is a 'good' dog; but if he can produce himself or better yet outproduce himself, then he is a 'great' dog..."


----------



## Erik Berg

Nice sound effetcts on the video

The term fightdrive/fightingdrive is an old term, it´s been used for decades in selectiontests for servicedogs and also in civilian mentaltest here in sweden, IF it is what you americans call fightdrive that is. The definition is a dog that enjoys the struggle/battle and a challange but without showing any overly signs of aggresion, close to what some call prey/play, but it´s more about the struggle and responding to a challange and not only biting for the fun. Some dogs bite sleeves,suits and hidden sleeves because it´s just a part of the game, but if you put pressure on these dogs than is unfamiliar to them then a dog without a solid fightdrive may not be able to handle this, a dog with a solid fightdrive will on the other hand just struggle even more. 

It´s close to defence but not related, often dogs shows a combination of both defence and fightdrive when put in a threathfull situation, but a dog doing attacks more out of his defencedrive will show more signal of aggresion and anger, while a dog working in fight seems more motivated by the actual challange and wanting to bite/struggle. Compare a pitbull facing another dog and a ovcharka facing a threath, both will bite their opponent but are doing so from different motivations, the pit shows no real anger, the ovcharka on the other hand are showing that its´real angry and serious.

A dog is a makeup of different drives, so I think what counts is the combination of traits and the whole picture the dogs shows,and not trying to describe every single bit of a dog´s drive. At 9.20 in this video from a swedish korung there is a situation which is supposed to see the fightdrive of the dog, if he responds to the challange from the person. I think this is what you call fightdrive in US what this dog shows, the dog has a touch of aggression but it´s not going into defence and real seriousness, correct me if I´m wrong, 
http://skyddshund.se/Korning_judas.wmv


----------



## Don Turnipseed

What I see happening is with the males only. Whenever they are exposed to large groups of dogs, they seek out the one they perceive to be the most dominate in the situation. They go straight to them and position themselves in front of the "dominate dog" and silently stare at it. They won't move until the dog submits, flees, or steps up to the plate and fights. While this resulting behavior is being called fight drive, they don't have to fight. Quite the contrary, they have to dominate and will willing fight to be dominate.....but they don't "have". I sometimes think they prefer the other dog to answer the challenge but they seldom do. 

What I have described is not an occassional thing. It is predictable behavior that happens every time with all my males. The behavior is directed to other dogs and any prey they are hunting, and, each other.
Fortunately, it has not been directed towards people. They males never actually start a fight except with each other because no one is going to take the back seat. I wouldn't have them if they included people in this dominace need. As it is, the predicability is a plus, the fact that other dogs always submit is a plus, the extreme confidence is a plus, the fact people are not included is a plus. There is no downside to them. They are the ultimate dog.


----------



## Butch Cappel

Gillian,
Thanks for the Raiser reference, that's pretty much the time frame I have been able to verify.

Jeff you have solved the biggest mystery in the whole fight drive theory for me. I could never figure out how one day we were all trying to "balance the dog" and the next every one was looking for 'fight' drive 

I didn't know what a web page was back then, so I don't know who you are talking about but that would certainly explain how it got so widespread so fast. Thanks for the info.

Butch Cappel
k9ps.com


----------



## Michelle Reusser

Interesting thread, glad it is back from the grave. Still see some argument over if it's a drive, character or bunches of stuff thrown together. I'm not sure who is right if anybody but glad others are seeng these types of dogs and in a good light. There was alot of head nodding for me as I was reading all 150 some odd posts, most I agreeds with and have seen, very few things were what I call "off", didn't make sense or were not what I have seen to be true. 

Overall great thread, it kept me busy for a good 2 hrs this morning. 

Erik, I think it would be great if you could kind of describe what is going on on that video you posted, did the dog exibit good, why and do these unequiped people ever get bitten during these tests? Looks interesting, I'd like to know more.


----------



## Tim Martens

Brigita Brinac said:


> *D. Social Aggression*
> 
> _Social aggression is the dog's desire to establish pack hierarchy (alpha/leader). ...However, it is an instinct which can give the dog an added strength because it is not reactive aggression (defense/self-preservation) and, therefore, it does not have the potential disadvantage of flight behavior. Since social aggression has no flight counterpart, the dog does not perform under the same level of stress as in reactive aggression. _
> _*Social aggression is characterized by a dog that demonstrates a deep grumbling bark.* This type of dog also generally expresses itself in a very dominant manner. Social aggression is almost exclusively a male characteristic. It can be the determining factor in a protection dog successfully facing a life threatening situation (i.e., police dog, personal protection dog, military dog, etc.). _
> _As breeders/trainers, we stress a mild level of social aggression because the potential drawback of an excessive level of social aggression is constant struggle for authority thereby hampering trainability.
> _
> 
> 
> _This was taken from: http://workingdogs.com/dom1.htm_
> 
> 
> _I have written posts in the past on 'fight drive'' on different boards and over time; I still stand behind them:_
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________________________


the only thing i don't agree with is the bolded part. the very few dogs (3) i've seen that were high in social aggression.....i don't think i ever heard them bark. didn't need to...


----------



## Brigita Brinac

Actually I agree with you...mine didn't display that either. But again, I was only quoting the definition...I didn't agree with that part of it. Just a 'copy and paste' to give others a 'GENERAL' ideal.

B


----------



## Brigita Brinac

Bob Scott said:


> Max said;
> It's a bred for "genetic component" as Brigita commented on.
> "Drives" as most of us use the term, are bred for "genetic components". Not all use the term but they know what they are breeding for.
> Hey Brigita! :wink:


*hey you! *


----------

