# getting my dog to have fun on the sleeve



## Simon Mellick (Oct 31, 2006)

My 2 1/2 year old bouvier is training for personal protection. He's never had much use for a sleeve, so we've taken a step backward in training and just let him have fun with it. 

Here's the first clip, it's me holding the sleeve, so he's not too bad.

http://s122.photobucket.com/albums/o243/simonmellick/?action=view&current=MOV00944.flv

And here a friend of mine with the sleeve. You can already spot how he takes training WAYYYYY too seriously (just a wee bit nervy, lol), as this is someone the dog knows and is pretty neutral with.

http://s122.photobucket.com/albums/o243/simonmellick/?action=view&current=MOV00859.flv

Simon


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

First clip. 

ARE YOU WORKING OUT????? Why are you lifting the dog so much??

Second clip.

I don't get the nervy thing, was it the hesitation before the bite? Was it the vocalizing? I am not seeing what you are saying there. The dog took the sleeve and immediatly ignored your friend. What does that say???


----------



## Khoi Pham (Apr 17, 2006)

You can minimize the stress on your dog by telling your friend to not squarely face your dog like in the video and don't look at the dog, he is putting too much pressure on the dog at this stage that is why he is growling so much and not having fun as with you, you should also put him on the leash so you can run the dog after he won the sleeve so that he won't try to kill it, he already won, he needs to learn to switch drive and enjoy the win.
Good luck.


----------



## Andres Martin (May 19, 2006)

Simon...does your dog bite hard?


----------



## Greg Long (Mar 27, 2006)

If you are only training for PP,there is no reason I can think of why your dog should enjoy biting.If you just want to play with your dog then thats fine, as long as you realize it doesnt translate much to PP except to build the bond if done correctly.
As for nerve problems...I see more handlers with nerve issues than dogs. :lol:


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Greg Long said:


> .If you just want to play with your dog then thats fine, as long as you realize it doesnt translate much to PP except to build the bond if done correctly.


I do not get (I would disagree, but I'm a newb) why a good foundation in prey would not translate much to PP. This was what I was after in the PP thread a few days ago. You build grip, focus, speed, confidence, bond, and stamina...and you and the dog has fun doing it. These vids would indicate that Simon's dog could use help in some of these areas.

I understand that there's a prevailing opinion that PP work is done in defense, I also do not see the logic in claims that PP work cannot be done in prey. If an ideal PP dog is well-balanced in both of these things, why would you not want a prey foundation and then go from there?


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: If you are only training for PP,there is no reason I can think of why your dog should enjoy biting.

WOW!!!!!

Hey I might be a tard here, but when a dog bites.......how do you bust into that little brain to keep it from being a good thing???

Kinda like telling me that I don't have to enjoy peach cobbler. :lol:


----------



## Greg Long (Mar 27, 2006)

I havent much desire to get into another "prey vs. defense" discussion.All I can say is that once the dog understands when it has to defend and when it absolutely must not defend,then you have a PPD for all practical purposes.Playing tug with a sleeve or suit or tug or ball on a string can build the bond between you and your dog as long as the dog knows you are always the leader.

I stand firmly by my opinion that alot of dogs protect their owners in real situations despite their training and not because of it.

As far as the bite...are you going to critic your dogs bite while he is defending your home against an intruder?


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Why not? Our forum has like doubled in size since the last round and our search function sucks here.

My point is that it's pretty obvious to me that a great foundation in prey would translate over well to work in defense. Boxers (boxers) aren't threatened by speed bags but speed bags certainly give them skills they use in "real fights."

And I still don't know why a dog couldn't work well in prey in a PP situation, any more than an PSD could go out on a search and apprehend a suspect.

No bite critiques from me if my dog bites a threat. But I'd certainly make sure its inherent bite quality and _gameness_ were up to task before I ever had expectations of it performing in that situation. Bite quality and gameness can be developed in prey, ask Don how his Airedales are working when they are chasing pigs.


----------



## Greg Long (Mar 27, 2006)

What can a foundation in prey do that cant be achieved from working in defense besides the allmighty full calm mouthfull?

To me...purposely avoiding stress at any level in training is detrimental.

PSDs are a differrant animal than a PPD IMO.


----------



## Greg Long (Mar 27, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: If you are only training for PP,there is no reason I can think of why your dog should enjoy biting.
> 
> WOW!!!!!
> 
> ...


I said "should" !Most if not all the working dogs today have it bred into them to bite bite bite.My little Mali pup is a prime example.Its a free country for the most part so my opinion is this sport biting behavior is not correct for work.This coincides with my opinion that the training has evolved to fit the dogs we breed today and doesnt reflect the ideal training and breeding of dogs for actual work.The PSD training is no different in that respect,they have to use the methods that produce results.The dogs that are available to them will eventually affect the methods.What dogs are available?Sportdogs.What dogs sell?Sportdogs.What eventually weakens a working breed?Sportdogs.


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Greg Long said:


> What can a foundation in prey do that cant be achieved from working in defense besides the allmighty full calm mouthfull?


Fun, which is what Simon said he was looking for right now. Intensity. Repetition. Bond. Obedience from excitement, rather than obedience from avoidance. Less chance of blowing out a dog who's not had the chance to develop up. Less chance of a newb to PP screwing up a dog.



> To me...purposely avoiding stress at any level in training is detrimental.


Not saying that stress should be avoided. Just saying that it probably gets pretty old for everybody for it to be constant, and just guessing that you blow up a lot of dogs that way, so to speak.



> PSDs are a differrant animal than a PPD IMO.


Yes, the prey-based ones like Selena's, Tim's, and Gregg's sound a lot stronger, confident, and happy to me, overall, than dogs that work constantly in defense.


----------



## Greg Long (Mar 27, 2006)

Fun, which is what Simon said he was looking for right now. Intensity. Repetition. Bond. Obedience from excitement, rather than obedience from avoidance. Less chance of blowing out a dog who's not had the chance to develop up. Less chance of a newb to PP screwing up a dog. 

What does fun have to do with a dog protecting it's handler?Intensity in prey is at different level than in defense,like the difference between an NFL linebacker and soldier in Iraq.Bond is definitely built through prey/play among other things.Working through stress builds a stronger bond and trust.Odedience from excitement is not control but only the illusion of control and therefore should only be referred to as "play" or a "game" and not obedience.I agree there is less chance of revealing a dogs weaknesses by a prey foundation but how can you screw up a dog with poor genetics in the first place?The Newb [email protected]#$ is getting old Woody,step up your skills and quit dwelling on the newb stuff. :lol: Being new to working dogs does not mean you arent a capable trainer.




Not saying that stress should be avoided. Just saying that it probably gets pretty old for everybody for it to be constant, and just guessing that you blow up a lot of dogs that way, so to speak. 


I dont think you understand the concept,you work a dog through ever increasing stressful situations very gradually.You dont "blow up" a dog.You read the dog and take the dog as far as it's genetics will allow.Done correctly there isnt any forcing and you never put too much stress on a dog much less a pup.In most cases the handler is under as much if not more stress than the dog.You dont "train the dog" you "build the team".

I never said prey based/trained dogs are totally ineffective..just not ideal.My Dutchie is from Selena's stock on both the top and bottom and I have worked with an own son of Selena's "Rocky" BTW.


----------



## Simon Mellick (Oct 31, 2006)

Andres Martin said:


> Simon...does your dog bite hard?


When he is working against someone that he considers a threat, he bites really hard. Not full, but super hard.

As far as the defense vs. prey argument...

This dogs lives for defense. He'll fully commit to multiple, INTENSE attackers. He'll put up with all sorts of stuff to stay engaged that you'd never think he would when you see his nerve issues pop up in every day life. When the traditional prey foundation and training didn't take, I let him mature and then *let* him work in defense (I didn't make an effort to illicit this response, I just let him respond naturally instead of constantly striving for a prey response).

But then what? I've got a dog that serves his purpose as a guardian, but isn't very social, and doesn't enjoy the training the same way most working dogs do. So I'm stepping back from the serious training for a bit and letting him have fun. Worst case scenario, the work doesn't transfer over to the PP work, but the dog and I both have fun trying. Or, I end up with a dog that enjoys training, is more confident, and has better obedience since the bite can be used as a reward instead of a neutral thing unrelated to obedience.

"The dog took the sleeve and immediatly ignored your friend. What does that say???" 

Jeff, he only did that because that was someone the dog has known since he was a puppy, and viewed it as a game of tug. Under other circumstances, the sleeve's not even there in the dog's eyes; he only bites the sleeve if that's all you'll give him. Equipment fixation is the LAST thing I need to worry about with him, although you wouldn't know it with those clips.

Simon


----------



## Simon Mellick (Oct 31, 2006)

I've never seen a dog that impressed me much that worked in any one drive in particular. IMO, drive interaction is necessary for an effective, stable dog. Unless of course it's fight drive, which coincidentally, sounds a lot like drive-interation to me...


----------



## Simon Mellick (Oct 31, 2006)

Greg Long said:


> What does fun have to do with a dog protecting it's handler?


For that once in a lifetime occurance where my dog protects me, I couldn't care less if my dog wags his tail. But every week when I have someone light the dog up? Ya, it's important to me that the dog enjoys the training. If that wasn't what it was about, I'd just stick a knife in my pocket.


----------



## Selena van Leeuwen (Mar 29, 2006)

Greg: Dick´s Rocky :wink: 

I like prey-built dogs more, ´cause you can built (even)more confidence. 
The only breed which have seen work properly in defense, after being prey built, are GSD´s.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

A good dog is a balanced dog. I don't like the "I don't care why hes biting as long as he bites" mentality i see more and more of lately.


----------



## Greg Long (Mar 27, 2006)

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> A good dog is a balanced dog.
> 
> 
> > What exactly is a balanced dog?Can you describe a balanced dog without using "drives"?Is a balanced dog a "good" dog?
> ...


----------



## Tim Martens (Mar 27, 2006)

i think what greg is talking about is a more "hardcore" approach to a PPD. correct me if i'm wrong greg, but in essence you are saying that since a PPD will be working primarily (if not exclusively) in defense, put it in at the earliest possible stages. a genetically correct dog will not have problems with the stress and other issues involved with working in defense. if this "screws up the dog" then it isn't a dog he'd want to do PP work with anyways and he'd start over with a dog that could handle it. 

this is sound logic. the only problem i see is the person who already has a dog that they've bonded with and then wants to turn it into a PPD. if the dog can't handle it then what? you're either left with going with the traditional "build them up through prey" model and realize there is the possibility that the dog won't be there when you need it or scrap the family pet.


----------



## Greg Long (Mar 27, 2006)

Tim Martens said:


> i think what greg is talking about is a more "hardcore" approach to a PPD. correct me if i'm wrong greg, but in essence you are saying that since a PPD will be working primarily (if not exclusively) in defense, put it in at the earliest possible stages. a genetically correct dog will not have problems with the stress and other issues involved with working in defense. if this "screws up the dog" then it isn't a dog he'd want to do PP work with anyways and he'd start over with a dog that could handle it.
> 
> 
> > Thats pretty much the basic rundown
> ...


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote:I dont think you understand the concept,you work a dog through ever increasing stressful situations very gradually.You dont "blow up" a dog.You read the dog and take the dog as far as it's genetics will allow

OK, and I was taught this way as well. How many training sessions does it take before the dog realizes you are just an act???

The reason we terrible sport trainers went the way we did is that gentically correct dogs realize fairly quickly that we are full of crap and then they are not really working in defense as much as showing it, due to the early reward system of giving a bite. The bite is a reward whether you see it or not.

Training in prey gives you a better performance in the end. The problem with a lot of "defense" trainers, is the same with the anti food trainers, that never got the concept of how to correctly wean off treats, and when.

I had a lot of dogs that could not compete at the upper levels due to their start in defense. They stressed out, or took other avenues of approach. There was nothing wrong with the dog, or its training, the method was just crap and we evolved past it.

The problem with how we evolved, was that the "new" method, allowed dogs that were NOT genetically correct to do well in sport. That is the problem, not the training.

This mystical PSD stuff sickens me. They all come from "sport" lines somewhere, and we all know it. The character of the dog allows it to do the job, not the training. I know sport dogs that will hurt you bad. They are what they are. Training is not gonna change that. However, a good foundation in prey allows for higher level performance, something that "defense" trained dogs cannot compete with.


----------



## Simon Mellick (Oct 31, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote:
> 
> The problem with how we evolved, was that the "new" method, allowed dogs that were NOT genetically correct to do well in sport. That is the problem, not the training.


Mods, can we make this some kind of sticky? Every newb should read this aloud ten times before either bashing or idolizing sport dogs.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Excellent post Jeff!
At our club we compare our prey methods to teaching a kid the martial arts. If you take a 12 yr old kid and start beating the crap out of him you teach him to be defensive. The problem with that is you have a kid that goes through the world wanting to hit before he's hit by anyone who LOOKS like a threat. I don't want a kid OR a dog like that. 
Prey teaches the dog HOW to fight and builds confidence. When they are mature enough to handle a threat, THEN you add defence.
A confident, well trained fighter has a HUGE advantage over the bad ass who goes through life looking to hit first out of defence. 
Either way, if the dog or person doesn't have the heart for either, it ain't gonna happen.
My dog will play with my grand kids and still happily engage you if threatened. 
Will he stay engaged? I have no idea. That's about correct training AND genetics. I do believe that he'll at least create enough of a distraction long enough for my well trained Taurus to take over. 
C&C laws are a wonderful thing!  :wink:


----------



## Andres Martin (May 19, 2006)

> I've got a dog that serves his purpose as a guardian, but isn't very social, and doesn't enjoy the training the same way most working dogs do.


What level of "social" do you want? Why?

If you try either of the cookie-cutter approaches to dog training (strict compulsion or OC), dogs "learn" for what it gets THEM...or NOT. They either anticipate a reward, or avoid a correction...or somewhere in between. It's CONDITIONING based on repetition and most probable outcome. So the type of "enjoyment" you see frequently is simply anticipation of a bite, a tug, food or play. The behaviors displayed are a necessary PRECONDITION...only. You can get dogs to do a BUNCH of VERY FANCY CIRCUS TRICKS*, VERY FAST, like this.

Also...many times, the dogs you see ONLY come out from their lonely kennel to get CONDITIONED, and so are either high strung from pent-up energy...or genuinely happy to see the "conditioner" for that single time each day.

There is some distance between a dog's "enjoying" the training and the two instances I described before.

Bond building is a different topic, IMO, and PLAY is great for that, along with feeding, grooming, romantic quiet moments, night work and STRESS.

If you have a serious and stable dog, good for you. If it ain't broke...don't fix it.

*jeje


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Simon Mellick said:


> Jeff Oehlsen said:
> 
> 
> > Quote:
> ...


We already used up the last sticky on your "Pet Rock as the ideal dog" post. Seriously, that was the funniest thing I ever read here. I still laugh about that.

Simon, do you ever try out the tug game interaction stuff, the Balabanov-type sport training? I realized in retrospect I'd been doing a half-assed version of it all along, but the DVDs and my club's similar methods really made it more enjoyable for both of us. Would be curious to see how your dog (if your dog) might adapt to it, whether it would be fun for him.


----------



## Khoi Pham (Apr 17, 2006)

"romantic quiet moments, night work and STRESS. "

Hey Andres, what kind of romantic quiet moments are you talking about man? I will make sure that you will never get near my dog.


----------



## Simon Mellick (Oct 31, 2006)

Andres Martin said:


> > I've got a dog that serves his purpose as a guardian, but isn't very social, and doesn't enjoy the training the same way most working dogs do.
> 
> 
> What level of "social" do you want? Why?
> ...


In case I ever bump into anyone from this forum, I better clear this up before I look foolish... 
Serious? Absolutely. 
Stable? Bob Scott's "bite first, ask questions later" example might be more acurate.
Nervy as hell, and I'm under no illusions that playing more tug's going to change that. But at worst it builds a little bit more confidence.

As far as what level of social do I want? I'll take a dog that I know will bite over one that may very well wag it's tail and look confused should the need for protection ever come up. But it would be nice if he didn't want to eat *everyone*. Much more practical as a layer of protection if I can take him out with me.

Simon


----------



## Simon Mellick (Oct 31, 2006)

Woody Taylor said:


> Simon, do you ever try out the tug game interaction stuff, the Balabanov-type sport training?


Since he was 9 weeks old. When he's in the mood it's a great game and fun for both of us. But prey items don't always hold enough value to him to be of much use for an obedience reward. He'd often rather pee on a bush than get a tug reward.

Simon


----------



## Lyn Chen (Jun 19, 2006)

Simon Mellick said:


> Jeff Oehlsen said:
> 
> 
> > Quote:
> ...


I gotta say, Jeff's posts really make this board worth visiting.


----------



## Woody Taylor (Mar 28, 2006)

Lyn Chen said:


> I gotta say, Jeff's posts really make this board worth visiting.


How much did he pay you for that comment?

But...I have to admit that's a pretty great post. Even a broken clock is right twice a day! :twisted:


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Your still a Mod??


----------



## Lyn Chen (Jun 19, 2006)

Woody Taylor said:


> How much did he pay you for that comment?
> 
> But...I have to admit that's a pretty great post. Even a broken clock is right twice a day! :twisted:


Non yet. 

There's so much bs going around most internet forums that it's nice to see plain old honesty and common sense once in a while. Even if it's a tad tactless. :twisted:


----------



## Greg Long (Mar 27, 2006)

> The problem with how we evolved, was that the "new" method, allowed dogs that were NOT genetically correct to do well in sport.
> 
> 
> > Ive been saying this forever.
> ...


----------



## Greg Long (Mar 27, 2006)

Bob Scott said:


> Excellent post Jeff!
> At our club we compare our prey methods to teaching a kid the martial arts. If you take a 12 yr old kid and start beating the crap out of him you teach him to be defensive. The problem with that is you have a kid that goes through the world wanting to hit before he's hit by anyone who LOOKS like a threat. I don't want a kid OR a dog like that.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Simon Mellick (Oct 31, 2006)

Greg Long said:


> > That is the problem, not the training.
> >
> >
> > > If in the first statement you are referring to "methods" as "training methods" then this second statement is contradictory to the first.
> > ...


----------



## Amber Scott Dyer (Oct 30, 2006)

Here's a thought-provoking question - 

I've seen dogs (of many different breeds) who worked mostly in prey, and dogs who worked mostly in defense. (true, I personally don't like the dogs who work wholly in defense all the time.)

Do you really believe a dog that works mostly in prey and has very little defense will go civil if given the command and the opportunity? Or do you have your doubts? My sport has a civil display (ASR) but the decoy is very active. Do you think a mostly prey motivated and trained dog would really bite a threatening decoy if they were not particularly agitated?


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

If you have the right prey dog, they'll bite whatever you point at, moving or not, equipment or not. There's serious prey dogs out there too, the misconception is that "prey is play". I'd rather own a super confident prey dog that bites what I point at for the sake of biting, than an overly defensive dog that's closer to flight under stress.


----------



## Simon Mellick (Oct 31, 2006)

To me, the "prey is play" misonception goes like this... Prey drive directed at a conditioned prey item is pretty common, and not seen as very serious since you can take just about any family dog and get it to play tug. It's the few dogs that either look at a human as a prey object (conditioned or not), or want to make prey so badly that they just don't care, that can be serious dogs in prey.

Watch Cops or Disorderly Conduct, and you'll see just how often even a "civil" police dog is happy just tearing off someone's coat or pantleg. Not a knock on police dogs, but rather testament to how few "monsters" there are out there. 

So in the case of a PPD... To those that say my defensive dog is closer to flight during a confrontation than a more stable, balanced dog... I figure the likelyhood of my dog running probably isn't that much higher than the likelyhood of a more typical working dog wagging its tail, barking, and generally looking confused during a real life confrontation.

I'll take the confident monster over my defensive nut any day, but I see WAY to many "stable" dogs that just don't have it in them to hurt someone on purpose.

Simon


----------



## Lyn Chen (Jun 19, 2006)

I believe my dog's civility comes mostly, if not fully, from prey. He does not need movement to bite. You just point and he bites and has fun doing it; and if you're not asking him to bite he's looking for a reason to bite to the point that he can be a handful. I would rather trust a dog who bites because he enjoys it (doesn't mean he's playing--I'm pretty sure taking a deer down is prey too), and he can turn into defense that way if the going gets tough--rather than a dog who bites from defense in the get go, because when THAT barrier is taken down, what's next? Flight.


----------



## Andres Martin (May 19, 2006)

Simon says (jeje)...


> But it would be nice if he didn't want to eat everyone. Much more practical as a layer of protection if I can take him out with me.


...as you well know, having fun with the sleeve will do next to nothing for this issue. You'll have two options available: desensitize or correct your dog, while keeping the concept of "threat" clear, or the cue for biting, or whatever else you use for biting.


----------



## Greg Long (Mar 27, 2006)

[Simon Quote]The two elements are not mutually exclusive. Just because the system teaches weaker dogs to bluff their way through a confrontation doesn't mean that it's an incorrect method for genetically stronger animals


> What specifically is your definition of a genetically stronger animal?I would bet my description is very different.
> 
> [Mike quote]If you have the right prey dog, they'll bite whatever you point at, moving or not, equipment or not. There's serious prey dogs out there too, the misconception is that "prey is play". I'd rather own a super confident prey dog that bites what I point at for the sake of biting, than an overly defensive dog that's closer to flight under stress
> 
> ...


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote:If a dog is chasing a deer intent on killing and eating it, it is for survival.

I have seen a single dog try a deer on for size for survival. The dog didn't make it. Seemed serious enough. I have seen packs of 4 dogs get punked by a single buck. Seemed serious.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood (Mar 27, 2006)

Serious Prey = Defense???? What the....!?!? How the heck did you draw that conclusion?


----------



## Greg Long (Mar 27, 2006)

Thats not exactly what I meant.I dont believe a dog can look at a person and certainly not an inanimate object as real prey.All you get is intense play at best (like the football player).They are still capable of hurting and dominating an opponent.If you are calling it "real prey" and it is directed at a person then it is either defense or an intense desire to dominate.So the definition of "prey drive" does not come into the picture at all.Even play prey is not really "prey" drive.Its just play...my definition of "prey" would be the desire of the dog to chase,catch and kill a prey animal so it can eat and survive.I cant add anymore to it than that.Well...unless of course people have bred a dog so stupid it actually does think it can catch,kill and eat a human.  Wait..I guess we have bred dogs like that...dogs that would even chase a ball right over a cliff.  I actually have a couple that might fit into THAT category. :x 

So its much more simple to talk about a dog that's mindset is either serious or not serious.Simple training terms for my simple mind..   8)


----------



## Lyn Chen (Jun 19, 2006)

So basically you're saying all your arguments are due to semantics/being unable to understand the others' arguments? :twisted:


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Kevin Sheldahl had a really good post on Leerburg about our terminology. I can't find it, but maybe the research guru Connie can. He was stating that the term "drive" is not quantative and cannot be explained to a resonable end, or some crap like that. 

I figured the word Quantative would get me what I wanted in the search, but I am useless at searching that site.

Basically the more you try to explain "prey drive" the more muddled it becomes instead of getting clearer. I wish I could find that post, I think it was pretty helpful.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

I remember that thread.

I might have it book-marked. Will check as soon as I get back from training.


----------



## Connie Sutherland (Mar 27, 2006)

I did have the thread bookmarked, and found his post, if this is the one:

http://www.leerburg.com/forums/ubbt...+Kevin+Sheldahl&topic=0&Search=true#Post76409



If it's not the right one, I have several of his posts about drives and terminology bookmarked.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

yep thats the one. the more you try to explain a drive the messier it gets.


----------



## Chip Blasiole (Jun 7, 2006)

Simon,
If your goal is to get your dog to have fun on the sleeve and to get him to work more in prey, have you gone back to some of the basics? For example, does your dog activate/drive the helper into movement with his bark at the beginning and throughout the session? If not, I'd try working on getting the dog to drive the helper, and then read the dog's bark. If you hear a defensive bark, or see defensive posturing in your dog, the helper is not presenting himself and the sleeve in a way that will trigger the dog's prey. This is obvious, but is easily overlooked in the training. Does the helper put any movement in the sleeve? Do you let the dog immediately win the sleeve after a bite and make prey? You might try a session where you use the dog's bark as your guide, keep the helper's actions and actions of the sleeve in prey, and have the helper slip the sleeve immediately after the bite and allow him to carry until he is ready to drop the sleeve. The helper should leave the dog alone while he has the sleeve, and should not agitate the dog after setting up for the next bite. The helper stands sideways (less defensive posture) and wait for the dog the drive activate the helper. When the dog barks, he flushes the sleeve with the helper showing some movement to the sleeve while he moves somewhat laterally toward the dog. Read the dog's bark . Also, does the helper present the dog with misses on the sleeve to build frustration and to stimulate prey? You can try these things, but a lot probably has to do with the breed and type of dog you have.


----------



## Simon Mellick (Oct 31, 2006)

I've only just taught him to bark in the last few months (you wouldn't believe all the weird things I've done to try and illicit a bark...), and him learning that he can get the decoy to move by barking has helped his confidence a lot. Definitely had more of an impact on him than I would have thought.

Appreciate everyone's input, it's been really constructive.

Simon


----------

