# Threat recognition in protection dogs ( Natural protector )



## David Berraco

This topic to me is the most interesting aspect of dealing with dogs. Out of the many categories of working dogs, protection dogs are the ones I was always most interested in. Maybe because having been raised in a city that is the maximum use I could see for a dog.

I think threat recognition is an underestimated and overlooked quality by the vast majority of protection dog owners and trainers. The worse part is that it is also ignored by the vast majority of breeders.

Since I got involved with protection dogs the focus of everybody has always been bitework. The truth of the matter is that actual biting for a civilian's dog is a rare occurrence. Much more useful is the ability to dissipate situations before they escalate to a fight by an appropriate show of aggression. By appropriate I mean that a bite is not necessary when a stance and a stare or even a growl will do.

The problem with agitation is that it creates dogs that go all the way every time they are stimulated. Another problem is that the dogs recognize its time to go by going through predictable routines and real life is not predictable.

I believe that threat recognition is not something that can be trained specifically. It can be a product of the total sum of the dogs life experience but firstly it is a genetic quality. These dogs are referred to by some as natural protectors. Their show of aggression is not based on a drive outlet such as in the case of an offensive use attack dog. It is based on recognition of a threat and a defensive aggressive reaction.

I find these qualities are found more readily in the molosser type dogs. Although from my contacts with old school Russian dog handlers I understand that it's a quality that can be possessed by any breed of dog that is bred and raised in an area where aggressive dogs are a normal part of life, GSD, Giant Schnauzers, Dobermans etc.

There are advantages and disadvantages to owning this kind of dog. I believe that a good rottweiler is a dog that can do both aspects of the work. Demonstrate good in obedience and choreographed bite work and recognize threat.

Some behaviors that I have previously regarded as threat recognition such as barking inside the house at noises outside and a similar thing when the dog is in the car I now perceive more as an automatic territorial display. Although my rott after being with me for a couple of months no longer barks at the post man but still barks at other noises. This sort of thing keeps me guessing. I did know this one rott owned by a friend of mine that without a shadow of a doubt had excellent threat recognition and could work in the conventional way too. I always try to keep this dog in mind as the ideal.


----------



## David Frost

"I believe that threat recognition is not something that can be trained specifically. It can be a product of the total sum of the dogs life experience but firstly it is a genetic quality. These dogs are referred to by some as natural protectors. Their show of aggression is not based on a drive outlet such as in the case of an offensive use attack dog. It is based on recognition of a threat and a defensive aggressive reaction."

I don't exactly understand what your saying here. Sounds like you are looking for dogs with fear issues. I don't know that much about the protection business but in the police service I don't want the dog making decisions about what they recognize as a threat. They do what I tell them, when I tell them. Admittedly we may well work where there is a lot of yelling, screaming a physical movement. I cn't have a dog that reactive to all that stimulus. Aware, yes, reactive no.

DFrost


----------



## David Berraco

David, I have never worked in as a police K9 handler so I'm not aware of all the scenarios you guys face. I would imagine one of them being the handler and his dog taking a suspect into custody. If in that situation as the handler is occupied with securing the suspect he gets attacked from behind by an accomplice of the suspect, would you not want your dog to react on his own?


----------



## David Frost

In fact, that's the only time the dog is allowed to react. The reaction though not based on threat, but on contact. The dog doesnt decide what is a threat and what isn't. It was taught to respond to the contact of the handler.

DFrost


----------



## Bob Scott

David Frost said:


> In fact, that's the only time the dog is allowed to react. The reaction though not based on threat, but on contact. The dog doesnt decide what is a threat and what isn't. It was taught to respond to the contact of the handler.
> 
> DFrost


The same thing can be seen in many of the ring sports. Sometimes even the dog can take abuse. Chairs dropped on it, water sprayed in it's face. Absolutely no response is allowed until contact is made with the handler. I's all about proper training with dogs of CORRECT temperment and character. Not aggressive dogs.


----------



## Matthew Grubb

David… are you using “threat recognition” as another word for sharpness? As in the amount of stimuli a dog needs before it will react with aggression?


----------



## David Berraco

David Frost said:


> The reaction though not based on threat, but on contact. The dog doesnt decide what is a threat and what isn't. It was taught to respond to the contact of the handler.


So if a second aggressor is 20ft away from you while you're busy with one suspect, bends down and picks up a rock, and winds up to throw it at you, the dog sees this and is supposed to do nothing?


Matthew Grubb said:


> David… are you using “threat recognition” as another word for sharpness? As in the amount of stimuli a dog needs before it will react with aggression?


I am familiar with the term sharpness and handled sharp dogs. A sharp dog is quick to react with aggression to stimulus that would not make another dog react. Threat recognition in the context that I'm talking about would be closer to assumption of responsibility. It's hard to put your finger on it but it is the defining quality that makes the job of a personal protection dog more complicated than a PSD.


----------



## David Frost

David Berraco said:


> So if a second aggressor is 20ft away from you while you're busy with one suspect, bends down and picks up a rock, and winds up to throw it at you, the dog sees this and is supposed to do nothing?



and with a little levity I answer, that is absolutely correct. I don't want the dog to get caught in the crossfire. In all seriousness, Yes the dog does not respond until commanded. 

DFrost


----------



## David Berraco

We tend to want to break everything down in dog training to drives and simple motivations. These dogs work more with the emotional state of the handler. I'll give an example. A friend of mine had a few rottweilers. All were working compound dogs. He had his favorite though which was the dog I admire so much. This dog was very stable, very tough, and knew exactly when to turn on without any bite training. The first and only time he was tested with a suit he bit me on the hip no problem. Another time I tried a muzzle on him and he punched me hard without any prep work. My friend got into a serious car accident and became very weak for a few months. Another good rott that he had started challenging him. The one I like became more protective and enlarged the radius around my friend within which a person could approach without him getting in between.


----------



## David Frost

David, I don't have a clue what that means in relation to a dog recognizing a threat or responding to a command from a handler. It's difficult to cite a standard practice describing one dog. When I talk of training police dogs and how they respond, it's recognized as industry standard or what is required by most of the dogs out there. Written standards on how a dog will react given a certain situation. I can find dogs all day long that will bark, growl appear protective from their car, kennel, on leash. Generally those aren't the dogs I would be looking for. I want the one that when you rush towards me, become very attentive towards you, but stands his ground as if to say, what the hell is this all about. Not go into a tizzy barking, snarling deciding whether he should bite or run.

I guess I"m not the one to discuss this with you. You talk about a different type of dog I want in police work. You did state you were talking about PPD, something I've never really dealt with. From what you describe, I really don't think I would want to work with them. I just like a dog that is less nervous.

DFrost


----------



## David Berraco

Actually it's very good that you describe your side of it. Hopefully someone else will chime in who has experience with these dogs. These qualities are more prevalent in the molosser breeds not your typical PSD such as GSD or Mal.

These are defensive dogs and most of the time would not be suitable for police service work. I believe that like what Matthew mentioned when a PSD shows this kind or reaction you guys refer to him as sharp. Sharpness however is not what I'm talking about. I do believe that there are dogs that can function as both.

I don't think the good ones are nervous, they are very self confident. Another breed that is known to have these qualities is the Bouvier.


----------



## Andy Andrews

Sounds like you're talking about discernment. I don't know where or how it fits into anyone else's agenda, but it's something that I like very much to see in a dog. Proper foundation and obedience combined with good decision making= a beautiful thing, imo.




Andy.


----------



## David Berraco

That's exactly what I'm talking about, it is a beautiful thing. All these dogs need is obedience training. But I believe some can be cross trained and do conventional bitework too. That's the ultimate protection dog, offense and defense combined.

Discernment is very much based in self assuredness.


----------



## David Frost

Andy Andrews said:


> Sounds like you're talking about discernment. I don't know where or how it fits into anyone else's agenda, but it's something that I like very much to see in a dog. Proper foundation and obedience combined with good decision making= a beautiful thing, imo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andy.


That's why I'll bow out of this converstation. A dog making the decision, in my opinion, is some serious liability looking for a place to land. When a dog starts making the decision, in my opinion, your saying a dog can evaluate intent. Liability wise, you're saying the dog will never be wrong. I don't see it happening.

DFrost


----------



## Matthew Grubb

David Frost said:


> That's why I'll bow out of this converstation. A dog making the decision, in my opinion, is some serious liability looking for a place to land. When a dog starts making the decision, in my opinion, your saying a dog can evaluate intent. Liability wise, you're saying the dog will never be wrong. I don't see it happening.DFrost


Sounds like your training program is the same as ours... spending time taking the "decision making" off the table for the dog.


----------



## David Berraco

David Frost said:


> When a dog starts making the decision, in my opinion, your saying a dog can evaluate intent.


You bet a good dog can evaluate intent, and sometimes better than a person. Please continue with this thread. While your opinion is an opposing one it helps define the the concepts I'm talking about.

The life of a civilian is not about liability. If it were so one might never do anything even remotely unsafe. Throughout history people have entrusted their family's safety to such dogs. I think that a good one can be completely trustworthy. More so because their show of aggression is moderated, not a full blown attack at every stimulation as is the case with a PSD. Again, no need to bite when a look or a growl will do. You'd be surprised how non dog people instinctively pick up when a dog is serious. There is a misconception that a dog that is allowed to show partial aggression like a growl, if not checked will most certainly escalate the level of aggression next time. This is not necessarily the case with a good dog. Rather the dog having done the behavior is acting in a fair way, not looking for trouble as a means to find a drive outlet, but rather reacting to something that goes against his sense of order. His display causes a reaction in the person that is behaving improperly and the dog learns from this. Learns what it can do to be effective.

I'll give you this, they are rare. To the point that some people don't believe they even exist. But they do. This is why when I talk about these dogs you think I'm talking about a loaded pistol ready to go off at the slightest provocation. One that you look at and think, that person should not be handling that dog, it is an accident waiting to happen. I think these dogs most often belong to some very level headed people who understand dogs and have a good approach to raising and instilling an element of control in the dog while at the same time allowing its natural tendencies to flourish.


----------



## Tim Martens

ok david f., matthew...i'm going to say what you guys are thinking....

this type of BS is what makes people shake their heads at all this PPD stuff. snake oil. pure snake oil. 

david b, you say civilian's lives aren't about liability. spoken like someone who has never been sued because their dog made a bad decision. to even suggest that one let their dog make a decision on what is a threat and what isn't is completely ridiculous. dogs are trained through repetition. during all of those reps, control is always the common denominator. how the dog reacts on his own is almost irrelevant. how the dog acts when commanded is what should be looked at. 

whoever made us, gave us much higher cognitive abilities than that of the canine. to even think of turning that off and letting this mythical one in a million dog make decisions that could cost you a fortune and another person severe injury is just plain irresponsible. 

if you want to talk dog training, i'm sure everyone here would love to participate, but when you start talking about fairy tails involving psychic personal protection dogs, the line should be drawn. this type of BS really has no place in our world (the dog training world where we deal with actual training) and certainly no place on this forum...


----------



## Al Curbow

David Frost said:


> That's why I'll bow out of this converstation. A dog making the decision, in my opinion, is some serious liability looking for a place to land. When a dog starts making the decision, in my opinion, your saying a dog can evaluate intent. Liability wise, you're saying the dog will never be wrong. I don't see it happening.
> 
> DFrost


David, but you let the dog make the decision to bite on contact of handler? How does the dog differenciate between a slap on the back or not? How can you have it both ways unless the dog makes some kind of decision that there's a threat involved?
AL


----------



## Tim Martens

Al Curbow said:


> David, but you let the dog make the decision to bite on contact of handler? How does the dog differenciate between a slap on the back or not? How can you have it both ways unless the dog makes some kind of decision that there's a threat involved?
> AL


it's not a decision al. it's a trained response. a slap on the back? that's why we have it in our k9 policy that other officers are not to touch or engage in "horseplay" around the handler when he is with the dog.


----------



## David Berraco

As I said before the job of a protection dog that lives at home in a family setting is more complex than that of a PSD. A slap on the back from a family friend will not set off an attack from a good dog. A dog that's been agitated however will have his conditioning override his good judgment. One example of this is where a dog bites his own handler if he becomes prostrate. Oh that's right.. it's simply a training problem.

So Tim, you think that a dog is simply an automaton that you program incapable of making decisions. Well, that is why you are in law enforcement and I'm a civilian.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

David Berraco said:


> So Tim, you think that a dog is simply an automaton that you program incapable of making decisions. Well, that is why you are in law enforcement and I'm a civilian.


What does that mean?


----------



## David Berraco

Connie Sutherland said:


> What does that mean?


It's a response to this


Tim Martens said:


> if you want to talk dog training, i'm sure everyone here would love to participate, but when you start talking about fairy tails involving psychic personal protection dogs, the line should be drawn. this type of BS really has no place in our world (the dog training world where we deal with actual training) and certainly no place on this forum...


----------



## Connie Sutherland

David Berraco said:


> As I said before the job of a protection dog that lives at home in a family setting is more complex than that of a PSD. A slap on the back from a family friend will not set off an attack from a good dog. A dog that's been agitated however will have his conditioning override his good judgment.



"A dog that's been agitated will have his conditioning override his good judgment"?

Meaning that his training will ruin his innate decision-making capability? If it means something else, PLEASE tell me. I'm lost.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

David Berraco said:


> It's a response to this


But what does it MEAN?


----------



## David Berraco

Connie Sutherland said:


> But what does it MEAN?


Just to get this out of the way, what I mean by it is that PSD are governed by a set of procedures, sometimes good and sometimes not so good. A civilian is not bound by these procedures and can take the dog further. A civilian can make his own decision on whether to take a chance with the threat of liability. This may work for or against the civilian, but he has the freedom to explore and try.


----------



## Andy Andrews

Just to clarify, what I mean by good decision making is the dog's ability to identify and engage the correct target. Examples would be situations where a handler is taken by surprise, if the dog has to go around someone(say a child away from arm's reach), or bite only the badguy as he/she is assaulting someone(handler, child, neighbor).

If that's snake oil or fairy tales as opposed to the dog making a conscious decision, then call me crazy as I see my way out of this discussion...



Andy.


----------



## David Berraco

Connie Sutherland said:


> "A dog that's been agitated will have his conditioning override his good judgment"?
> 
> Meaning that his training will ruin his innate decision-making capability? If it means something else, PLEASE tell me. I'm lost.


Decision making depends on the dogs innate capabilities as you said. It also depends on how his owner raised him and his life experiences. If both those factors are well agitation could ruin his decision making. In the case of a dog that does not possess the capability of making correct decisions he would be useless as a protection dog without agitation. But once agitated he is a slave to the patterns he's been conditioned to.


----------



## Bob Scott

WOW! All you trainers out ther have been waisting your time. It natural in a dog to figure out who the bad guy is. You don't need to teach him a thing. 
David, your posts are making less and less sense to anyone here that works with dogs. 
If it is as you say, they your hero, Koehler, wasted all that time for no other reason then to make money on books.
What qualifications, other then "I started training In '90 but had a break for a few years" makes you a dog trainer. Any dogs titled, working in PDs, etc?


----------



## David Berraco

Bob Scott said:


> WOW! All you trainers out ther have been waisting your time. It natural in a dog to figure out who the bad guy is. You don't need to teach him a thing.
> David, your posts are making less and less sense to anyone here that works with dogs.
> If it is as you say, they your hero, Koehler, wasted all that time for no other reason then to make money on books.
> What qualifications, other then "I started training In '90 but had a break for a few years" makes you a dog trainer. Any dogs titled, working in PDs, etc?


Actually Koehler is the only author I'm aware of that makes a distinction in his book between the attack trained dog and the natural protector. There are a couple of chapters and he goes into it with detail. You said in another thread that you have the book and know the material but I guess you're full of kaka.

Naw, no titles, no dogs, I'm just an internet expert.


----------



## David Berraco

A natural protector is no substitute for an attack trained dog. Each have their place. This thread is about the natural protector.


----------



## Tim Martens

you keep coming back to this "PSD's need agitation" BS. no, they don't. our dogs have to bite passive suspects when told to do so, not because they made the cognitive decision that the person playing dead was still a threat, but because they are told to. 

what's curious about this assertion of yours is how do you know if your dog "has it". being that it can't be trained and you cannot "agitate" or test the dog, how do you know? when he starts beating you in connect four?


----------



## Bob Scott

Any good working line dog will have natural protection abilities. Leaving it up to them to decide when to use it is basically living with a junkyard dog.
Everyone here knows I'm full of "kaka" :grin: . That's a part of who I am. I just haven't tried to spread it around the same way your doing here.


----------



## Tim Martens

Andy Andrews said:


> Just to clarify, what I mean by good decision making is the dog's ability to identify and engage the correct target. Examples would be situations where a handler is taken by surprise, if the dog has to go around someone(say a child away from arm's reach),


again, it's a trained response. the dog will apprehend the person contacting the handler. nothing mysterious there.



Andy Andrews said:


> or bite only the badguy as he/she is assaulting someone(handler, child, neighbor).


in my world, we need trainable, testable reliability. to set up a scenario like that would involve either two people in bite suits or two people with no equipment and the dog in muzzle. i know my dog pretty well and if i set up a scenario like that, it's a 50/50 whether he nails the badguy or the child or the neighbor. so what does that tell me? i wouldn't use the dog in that situation. how would someone that owns one of these mythical creatures go about testing this? because if you cannot say with relative certainty how your dog will react, you have no business even trying. if you're just going to go ahead and try because he's made such stellar decisions in the past like which tree to pee on, then well....we see why so many PPD people are looked down on (not anyone here)...



Andy Andrews said:


> If that's snake oil or fairy tales as opposed to the dog making a conscious decision, then call me crazy as I see my way out of this discussion...
> 
> 
> 
> Andy.


no, no, no. don't get me wrong. of course all dogs make conscious decisions. the question is, do you want to rely on that in deployment situations? i don't. my community doesn't and i'm damn sure my department doesn't.


----------



## David Berraco

Tim, first of all chill out, we can have a good discussion here because everybody appears interested in one way or another. Remember I'm not casting aspersions at PSD, I'm simply talking about another option that is available to people requiring protection from a dog.

I did not say that PSD need agitation or stimulus to turn on. Even though when they are "told to" it is actually a cue not a command... I was talking about PSD receiving agitation as training. Agitation is just another word for bitework, bite development, bite training etc.

The dogs can be tested but it is more difficult because the situation has to ring true to the dog and no one wants to be bitten in the process.

I've run these mock trials more often than I should have but here's one example. I was pretty close to this dog and he tolerated quite a bit from me. On one occasion I remember sitting down in my friends den and the dog was near, I took hold of his rear legs and lifted them off the ground a little. He turned his head and looked at me like WTF's wrong with you. Anyways on another occasion I said "Emilio, let's really test him" my friend agreed. He sat down on the couch with his son in his living room and we put a basket muzzle on this dog. I still have the muzzle here with me. A really cool old Russian made basket muzzle perfect for a rott and comes off real easy when you need it, not for muzzle training. They are selling them on ebay now.. Being the first time this dog had a muzzle on he started trying to take it off. My friend told him to knock it off and the dog just lay at his feet quietly. I walked out of the room and picked up a pool noodle. I waited a couple of minutes and rushed in yelling and really pounding my friend with the pool noodle. The dog launched from the lying position and punched me in the chest with the muzzle. I backed off and my friend brought the dog under control. This dog never had agitation, never did bitework. I was able to be around him in the house for the rest of the evening with him off leash. On another occasion I took a bite in a big demanet suit from this dog. I didn't want to take any more.


----------



## Bob Scott

"The dog never had agitation and never did bite work".
Next sentence:
"I took a bite in a suit from this dog". 
I'm seeing some sort of conflicting statements here.


----------



## Tim Martens

ah yes, the old, "the dog has to think it's real". again, completely unreliable. all that means to me is there is a built in excuse if the dog fails because he must have known it was just a test and not real. 

hey, whatever floats your boat. if you trust your dog without ever actually having seen what he would do, then so be it. let him protect you and your house and property all the live long day. that's your deal, but when you start spewing rubbish about decision making and your dog's decision making, it gives me a terribly insecure feeling. i envision some n00b out there walking their dog as i go jogging in the park. a mugger tries to assault me and this n00b sends their dog because they know the dog will make the right decision and target the badguy. 

so practice your voodoo in your own backyard and not in public and everyone will be fine with you and your dog...


----------



## David Berraco

At the time of the muzzle story he never had bitwork done. However the dog would display good aggression when in my friends van. He would take him along on all his rounds at night so I'm sure he had some opportunities to bark at some suspicious people too. Now that my memory is jolted I remember at a later time taking a bit from him in the suit. I wanted to see where he would bite so I sort of walked into him without presenting an arm or a leg and he bit me in the hip. It was the least protected part of the suit and hurt a lot. That was it for that time. At another time I tried to do something more formal with him. For this I wore scratch pants under the suit and it was daytime. He was more intense then and I chickened out and didn't take a bite 

Pics of Niko, the best dog I've ever known, may he rest in peace.


----------



## Tim Martens

wow. certainly was a handsome SOB. looks good size, not like the 110lb oafs i see a lot...


----------



## Bob Scott

You "sort of walked into him and he bit you in the hip"
This is what you call a natural protection dog? Where was the threat? 
Again, a dog with natural protection instincts, left to his own discression is a junk yard dog.
It's late, I'm tired! Say good night Gracy! Good night Gracy!


----------



## David Berraco

Tim Martens said:


> wow. certainly was a handsome SOB. looks good size, not like the 110lb oafs i see a lot...


I would say he was around 100lb, his conformation was not perfect and he's not what I would call a stylish rott but man what a dog. It makes me cry that my friend was too lazy to make a serious effort to reproduce him. Believe me when I tell you Tim this dog was for real. The ultimate two in one natural protector and a killer in bitework yet a sweet dog.

I like to refer to this article about Hackel v Kohlerwald. It is an old account and of course I didn't know the dog but it rings true to me.


[FONT=&quot]To appreciate the breed you need to know something of it´s orgin. It is useful to have some idea of how the dog developed and how its instincts and capacities were modified and adapted to carry out its working role. Below is the very first dog that impressed me in the history and some comments that old breeders have told.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]I remember my very first rottweiler book of my own and the picture of *Hackel v Köhlerwald. *Hackel was bred by Weber and owned by Jakob Köpf, Head breeding supervisor of the ADRK, beeing also one of the most successful and knowledgeable breeders of all time. His comments about Hackel are very revealing:










[/FONT] *"I must mention one dog in particular, Hackel. he was the best rottweiler that I have ever known. Unfortunately I was not his breeder, but i did have the luck to own him for ten years. He was smarter than any dog that I ever had. he´s nerves was steel, he had his total freedom, did everything right, was frightened by nothing and yet was very goodnatured so that everyone could touch him. If nessessary he attacked immediately, but never seriosly hurt anyone. he sired the greatest number of Rottweilers and did so the breed great benefit. My wish: another Hackel to my life.
he does not have to be handsome as as the Köhlerwald dogs, but he would have to bring a rottweiler`s character like Hackel`s.
It is possible that other work breeds are better in this or that characterictic, but in stediness, courage and aggressiveness, none is superior to the ROTTWEIER!." ( In June 1957 )

T*[FONT=&quot]he great triple Sieger *SchH2 Hackel v Köhlerwald* passed on both looks and Character to his progeny, making him , possible the breeds greatest sire. ( cortesy M Bruns.from he book of rottweilers ) Hackel sired eighty-two litters with 375 puppies being registered. He produced over 100 champions and the greatest of dog graded "exellent" both in work and show.[/FONT]


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Please... wide photos make the text wide and make scrolling necessary.

And back to our scheduled programming.....


----------



## Connie Sutherland

David Berraco said:


> I would say he was around 100lb,


That dog was 100 pounds?

I gotta say that he looks trim and muscular and I would've guessed 85 pounds. Maybe he was taller than I can see in the photo....?


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

> Tim, first of all chill out, we can have a good discussion here because everybody appears interested in one way or another.


If I went up to a cop and told him that cops held their guns wrong, and civilians are better because they can hold their gun sideways to look cool when they are shooting, that cop would also show interest in trying to correct my stupidity.

That's all this PPD stuff is in 99% of the cases..... "the dog looks really cool doing it, but hes never actually done it".


----------



## David Frost

Al Curbow said:


> David, but you let the dog make the decision to bite on contact of handler? How does the dog differenciate between a slap on the back or not? How can you have it both ways unless the dog makes some kind of decision that there's a threat involved?
> AL


The dog is not making a decision, the bite is a trained response. The contact was the "command". It's not instinctive, it's not intuitive, it's not some smoke and mirror thought process. The dog is responding to a specific stimulus, just as he was trained to do. I can't shoot a person, just because they say they are going to kill me. I can't send a dog to bite someone just because he "looks" like he's going to run. As for a "slap on the back" I don't allow people to touch me when I'm working. In my experience, police officers don't go around slapping other police officers on the back. Particularly a canine officer. If a person is that unaware that they would intentionally approach a police officer, with a dog, and slap them on the back, they may well get bit. We have a rule in our business; an accidental dog bite should occur no more frequently than an accidental weapons discharge. 

DFrost


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

> We have a rule in our business; an accidental dog bite should occur no more frequently than an accidental weapons discharge.


Unless the recipient is really really annoying 

"Oops, my voice command slipped".


----------



## David Frost

David Berraco said:


> Decision making depends on the dogs innate capabilities as you said. It also depends on how his owner raised him and his life experiences. If both those factors are well agitation could ruin his decision making. In the case of a dog that does not possess the capability of making correct decisions he would be useless as a protection dog without agitation. But once agitated he is a slave to the patterns he's been conditioned to.


I'll be honest with you. I don't find this conversation particularly interesting. More like a bad car wreck, I just can't turn away. I would like you to explain what you said here though. The majority of us that buy dogs for law enforcement, have no idea how the owner raised a particular dog. We certainly don't know what "life experiences" this animal has had. We do evaluate for strength of character. None of the tests I've seen paid particular attention to a dog's decision making ability. I've yet to see a test that include a Skinner box or something similar. Your last two sentences make absolutely no sense to me. I'm guessing what you call a "slave to patterns" is a conditioned response. Why wouldn't that be a good thing. With a conditioned response you have measured repeatability, which I certainly want in any dog I work. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> Unless the recipient is really really annoying
> 
> "Oops, my voice command slipped".


That darned outside voice again.

DFrost


----------



## David Berraco

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> If I went up to a cop and told him that cops held their guns wrong, and civilians are better because they can hold their gun sideways to look cool when they are shooting, that cop would also show interest in trying to correct my stupidity.


I can quite comfortably go up to a cop and say that IMO the department issue side arm does not have enough stopping power and I prefer something more potent.


Mike Schoonbrood said:


> That's all this PPD stuff is in 99% of the cases..... "the dog looks really cool doing it, but hes never actually done it".


Well, to you protection work is the dog going on the field and biting a suit. To me it starts with a dog getting in between me and a person acting irrationally and escalates from there. Makes me wonder how many live bites some people had. A protection dog is a defensive dog. A large part of his job is a deterrent. If someone keeps away due to the dog putting on a display then the dog has done it's job. In the rare cases where someone is drunk or drugged and decides to come in for a bite it only takes one bite to make them back off and not want any more. I've seen dogs do this without any bite training. Some were just aggressive, and the particular dog I'm talking about here was balanced.


----------



## Simon Mellick

David Berraco said:


> I don't think the good ones are nervous, they are very self confident. Another breed that is known to have these qualities is the Bouvier.



Those without working dog experience always tell me how "protective" my bouvier is. But he wouldn't feel the need to protect himself so much if he wasn't scared of everything. 

I've chosen to use what my dog has, and i've managed to channel his defensive reactions into adequate bitework. But I don't kid myself, these dogs know the ultimate way to "protect" themselves is to turn tail and bark from 30' away.


----------



## Simon Mellick

I understand what David B is saying, and I whole-heartedly agree that PSD and PPD training can be apples and oranges, DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU WANT FROM YOUR PPD. I personally don't mind a bit of edge from my dogs, but I recognize it for what it is... Insecurity.

My low-threshold dog makes decisions all the time, so I have to over-rule him. Ultimately the decision to let go of the leash is mine.

The comment keeps coming up about a confident dog recognizing a threat... You can't really threathen a confident dog. You can challenge it, which is definitely necessary to bring a bit of reality to training, but if it is responding defensively to a "threat", then it is fear. Whether or not you choose to utilize this type of response depends on your training goals (certaily can't use it for PSD work, why would a dog track a suspect through a building if it was scared?).

I TRAIN for PPD applications. Regardless of what drives your dog to bite, you shape and control that behavior through training. Anything less is ridiculous and a liability.


----------



## Tim Martens

Simon Mellick said:


> Regardless of what drives your dog to bite, you shape and control that behavior through training. Anything less is ridiculous and a liability.


ding, ding, ding! we have a winner.


----------



## David Berraco

I don't know how to explain it in terms of drives. This is the reason why I started this thread. I was hoping that people will recognize what I'm talking about and share their own examples with dogs that they've known. But I assure you such dogs exist and no one will take this away from me because I've seen it. Fear is not a determining factor for such a dog. Whatever the motivation the dog recognizes the threat and reacts courageously.

A threat does not equal fear. You can recognize a threat and instead of fear feel a surge of aggression. This happens in a confident person as well as a confident dog. I think it depends on genetics and life experience. The animal that is afraid of nothing is mad. But a strong dog with the right make up will learn through out its life what it is capable of. The effect that his actions have on those around him. Then it becomes part of what he is. This is not to say that if it is charged by an elephant the dog will stand his ground. Dogs do think except when this is taken away from them by very strong conditioning and even then some stimuli will override conditioning.

I didn't say that such a dog does not require training. Such a dog requires proper upbringing socialization and control. The dog must have respect for the master. There is a lot of training, bonding and socialization involved even though it may be done in an informal way. My friend would spend the better part of the day and night with this dog and was an easy going person who did not crank down on his dogs. It was the kind of environment that was perfect for this dog to flourish to his full potential.


----------



## Guest

It would appear people are recognizing it, and you don't like it.


----------



## David Berraco

You've never seen such a dog and are not even aware that they exist, better for me. Way to go gang, drown out the words of the heretic by sheer numbers. Now anyone who knows what I'm talking about and would have liked to contribute will be reluctant to post so as not to be ridiculed.

What do you want to talk about? At what point to start introducing defense into bite training? Whether European bite suits provide enough protection? If a PSD should be deployed off leash? A video of some pooch humping a child? Give me a break..


----------



## Matthew Grubb

David Berraco said:


> . The animal that is afraid of nothing is mad. .


I will have to disagree here… a dog that has no fear has good genetics and his training has taken him the rest of the way. Confidence that you can beat any opponent destroys fear as long as there is no mental defect.


----------



## Guest

If someone who has dealt with thousands of dogs (silly idea...they surely don't exist here) told you that such-and-such dog is X, it turns into spin. 

It's not high-thresholds, it's "courage"
It's not avoidance, it's discernment
It's not fear, it's a tactical offensive display of dentition
It's not low-drive, it's "balance"
It's not bad training, it's "stubbornness"
It's not stress, it's excitement.
It's not escalating dominance, it's herding behavior.

Etc.

Once that breaks down, it's back to: One can't define what I'm talking about, much less someone who's brainwashed by sport dogma.

And then it starts over at a new internet forum.


----------



## David Berraco

Matthew Grubb said:


> I will have to disagree here… a dog that has no fear has good genetics and his training has taken him the rest of the way. Confidence that you can beat any opponent destroys fear as long as there is no mental defect.


I'm not talking about a human opponent. You wouldn't want your dog stand in front of a truck as it is moving towards him. That is avoidance. I guess conditioning can override such instincts. Like in the case of the dogs that were trained to run under tanks with explosives strapped to their back, but they weren't meant to live.


Steven Lepic said:


> If someone who has dealt with thousands of dogs (silly idea...they surely don't exist here) told you that such-and-such dog is X, it turns into spin.


Koehler has dealt with thousands of dogs and he writes about it. I was just fortunate enough to see such a dog. Educate yourself, spend a couple of dollars and buy the book.


----------



## Kristen Cabe

> At the time of the muzzle story he never had bitwork done. However the dog would display good aggression when in my friends van. He would take him along on all his rounds at night so I'm sure he had some opportunities to bark at some suspicious people too.


I saw a cocker spaniel in a truck yesterday at the post office barking at anyone who came within a truck-length of the vehicle, with bared teeth and all! From what you're saying, I should have waited on the owner to come back and offered to buy him because he would have made a darn good PPD! 





This is my first and last post to this thread. Just thought I'd throw some humor in.....


----------



## Guest

> Educate yourself, spend a couple of dollars and buy the book.


Ok, I will.


----------



## susan tuck

David Berraco said:


> You've never seen such a dog and are not even aware that they exist, better for me. Way to go gang, drown out the words of the heretic by sheer numbers. Now anyone who knows what I'm talking about and would have liked to contribute will be reluctant to post so as not to be ridiculed.
> 
> What do you want to talk about? At what point to start introducing defense into bite training? Whether European bite suits provide enough protection? If a PSD should be deployed off leash? A video of some pooch humping a child? Give me a break..


David, maybe you should consider the possibility you are wrong. No one has "ridiculed" you; however, your posts have seemed rather arrogant, and you have made some rather snarkey remarks towards Bob and Tim and only because they have disagreed with you.


----------



## Guest

> No one has "ridiculed" you


Well, I kinda was...

But it wasn't fair, and I'm going to read Koehler.


----------



## David Berraco

Kristen Cabe said:


> I saw a cocker spaniel in a truck yesterday at the post office barking at anyone who came within a truck-length of the vehicle, with bared teeth and all! From what you're saying, I should have waited on the owner to come back and offered to buy him because he would have made a darn good PPD!


A reliable alarm dog is a valid category of a protection dog. An alarm dog can be small and this is a good thing for some people. In some cases a small more alert dog is used together with a powerful more laid back dog to achieve a combined effect. A balanced small alarm dog is much better than a nervous one.


----------



## Tim Martens

David Berraco said:


> A reliable alarm dog is a valid category of a protection dog. An alarm dog can be small and this is a good thing for some people. In some cases a small more alert dog is used together with a powerful more laid back dog to achieve a combined effect. A balanced small alarm dog is much better than a nervous one.


i think it's time that we re-define what we are debating about. i would never bash someone on another topic because they were wrong on another. so far, what i've gathered from you is:

1) a dog that barks at strangers can be labeled a "PPD" and can be as effective as the silent, confident dog that would not bark and wait until the handler tells him to chew the guy's face off.

2) a very small percentage of dogs have a natural protective instinct that allows it to discriminate between threats and non-threats and respond accordingly using nothing but it's own judgment and doesn't need any training to hone this skill. you have seen such a dog and believe this is the goal of a PPD.

i whole heartedly agree with #1 and genuinely feel that is all 95% of the people need in a PPD.

i just as vehemently disagree with #2.


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

> Well, to you protection work is the dog going on the field and biting a suit. To me it starts with a dog getting in between me and a person acting irrationally and escalates from there. Makes me wonder how many live bites some people had. A protection dog is a defensive dog. A large part of his job is a deterrent. If someone keeps away due to the dog putting on a display then the dog has done it's job. In the rare cases where someone is drunk or drugged and decides to come in for a bite it only takes one bite to make them back off and not want any more. I've seen dogs do this without any bite training. Some were just aggressive, and the particular dog I'm talking about here was balanced.


WTH are you talking about??

How do you know how I train?

Why do people with your type of training ideas always assume that all other people do is train on a field with a sleeve?

It is not about that. It is about the FOUNDATION of the training.

I've "done" what you are talking about, I have worked plenty of dogs trained by the worlds most famous "experts" on the type of training you are talking about. I have heard every explanation that the owners of these dogs give to justify the behaviors their dogs exhibit, and quite frankly, I am tired of hearing them. There is no "winning" in this. People know better than to buy into the crap that you have fallen for.


----------



## David Berraco

With regards to #2. I repeat that I never said this kind of dog does not require training. I said this kind of dog does not require bite training or agitation or whatever you want to call it. It does require proper upbringing which includes socialization, familiarity with all aspects of human behavior good and bad. It also requires more formal obedience training as do all dogs.


----------



## Tim Martens

David Berraco said:


> With regards to #2. I repeat that I never said this kind of dog does not require training. I said this kind of dog does not require bite training or agitation or whatever you want to call it. It does require proper upbringing which includes socialization, *familiarity with all aspects of human behavior good and bad*. It also requires more formal obedience training as do all dogs.


and with that i'm outta here...


----------



## David Berraco

Mike Schoonbrood said:


> I've "done" what you are talking about, I have worked plenty of dogs trained by the worlds most famous "experts" on the type of training you are talking about. I have heard every explanation that the owners of these dogs give to justify the behaviors their dogs exhibit, and quite frankly, I am tired of hearing them. There is no "winning" in this. People know better than to buy into the crap that you have fallen for.


What is it that I am talking about that you've done?


----------



## Andy Andrews

*enter 'Jaws' music*

I'm surprised this thread hasn't been locked already. :wink: 



Andy.


----------



## David Berraco

Do threads here get locked based on content like this? I didn't think that this topic is a new and controversial idea, it's just something that interests me greatly, but if it is and this how you handle new ideas then that's not good.


----------



## Andy Andrews

David Berraco said:


> *Do threads here get locked based on content like this?*


You really think I'm brave(or stupid!) enough to answer that, don't ya? LOL :twisted: 




Andy.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

David Berraco said:


> Do threads here get locked based on content like this? I didn't think that this topic is a new and controversial idea, it's just something that interests me greatly, but if it is and this how you handle new ideas then that's not good.


Is it locked?


----------



## David Berraco

Andy Andrews said:


> You really think I'm brave(or stupid!) enough to answer that, don't ya? LOL :twisted:


Why? What's the risk? or rather should I ask what are the rewards of succumbing to popular opinion even though I don't agree with it, at least in the context of an internet forum.


Connie Sutherland said:


> Is it locked?


Thanks for the support connie


----------



## Connie Sutherland

David Berraco said:


> Why? What's the risk? or rather should I ask what are the rewards of succumbing to popular opinion even though I don't agree with it, at least in the context of an internet forum.Thanks for the support connie


Threads that go so off-topic that they become ridiculous or turn into flame-wars..... have been locked.


----------



## Andy Andrews

David Berraco said:


> *Why? What's the risk? or rather should I ask what are the rewards of succumbing to popular opinion even though I don't agree with it, at least in the context of an internet forum.*


We're afraid of those we don't speak of; the terribly terrible rogue moderator, aka 'Admin'!!   :twisted: 

*awaits punishment*



Andy.


----------



## David Berraco

Andy Andrews said:


> We're afraid of those we don't speak of


I was really LOL. Thanks for bringing levity to the thread Andy.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Andy Andrews said:


> We're afraid of those we don't speak of; the terribly terrible rogue moderator, aka 'Admin'!!   :twisted:
> 
> *awaits punishment*
> 
> 
> 
> Andy.


Andy, I'll see you after class to escort you to admin.


----------



## Woody Taylor

I do ban YAMBs ("Yams") pretty subjectively and without cause. I will admit that.


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Woody Taylor said:


> I do ban YAMBs ("Yams") pretty subjectively and without cause. I will admit that.


Yeah, in sort of a NIMBY philosophy, right?


----------



## Woody Taylor

Something along those lines, yes.


----------



## Bob Scott

Bob Scott said:


> You "sort of walked into him and he bit you in the hip"
> This is what you call a natural protection dog? Where was the threat?
> Again, a dog with natural protection instincts, left to his own discression is a junk yard dog.
> It's late, I'm tired! Say good night Gracy! Good night Gracy!


I'm still curious about this natural protection dog that bit you on the hip for nothing more then walking into it. Is this what you consider one of those mystical thinking dog?


----------



## Guest

David, real quick, before I spend money on The Koehler Method of Dog training, I would like to cross-reference this quote (if you have the book, please confirm):



> "fill the hole to its brim with water...bring the dog to the hole and shove his nose into the water; hold him there until he is sure he's drowning....repeat the experience the next day, whether the dog digs any more or not" (pages 178-179)


----------



## Tim Martens

Bob Scott said:


> I'm still curious about this natural protection dog that bit you on the hip for nothing more then walking into it. Is this what you consider one of those mystical thinking dog?


the dog obviously thought it through and came up with the following conclusion: "it's obvious that this stupid human is running a test of some sort. while i'm not sure of his intentions, if i bite him, years later he will relay the story on the internet and impress many people he has never met and my legacy will live forever"...


----------



## Bob Scott

And this was the best dog he ever met! Interesting......in a wierd sort of way!


----------



## Bryan Colletti

There are very few Molosser types left in the world that genetically retain their old Gladiator ways. That element has been bred out for more docile giants now.

The breeds to which you refer that can confidently breed a natural protective instinct are the Flock Guardian breeds, Pyrenees, Kangal, Anatolian, ETC..... I have owned Pyrs, and trust me no defense training was necessary, they would proudly chase off a butterfly in the yard.

Now in dealing with herding breeds and the much more pack driven breeds. I believe you have to be truly careful to bred to watchful of a dog. Because they tend to be protective not out of confidence, but self preservation, making them in some cases sharp and too reactive with prey drive combined. 

Flock Guardian dogs DONT possess the prey drive and sharpness combination. They simply lay down all day with the sheep, and pounce on an intruder. The herding have abundently far more information being processed in thier heads every seconds. You just dont want what you are describing in the breeds. When you have confident fight drive, and great prey, you have quite a working animal. When you have very weak nerves, and high prey drive, you have a possible dangerous dog.

When you have a Molosser type with weak nerves, you have a potential killing machine, and manslaughter charges.

Bryan


----------



## David Berraco

Bryan, thanks for commenting. When I was talking about molossers I had in mind the breeds you mention, Pyranees, Knagal, Anatolian, I'd even throw in the Newfoundland dog and there are a bunch more. I consider them long haired molossers.

I too have thought what you're saying about the separation from the herding breeds. I thought it's either one or the other, can't have both in one dog. I stayed away from owning a molosser type because they don't do flashy obedience and are hard to demonstrate as far as protection dogs. The ones that turn on easily are indeed as you say problematic. More suitable for someone who wants a dog to use force on everyone that enters a premises and for that they have no equal. I am no longer interested in flashy obedience but I do want a dog that can turn on on cue.

I have however been fortunate to see a dog where both these qualities are combined. This is the rott I mentioned. I know rotts come from molosser type dogs and I know they were also used in certain herding styles making them capable of close work with the master. I have not been able to analyze this in context of the explanation you gave which is also my own. I started this thread to explore this issue.

Of course without a point of reference my opinion is easy to brush off saying "here's another person who humanizes the dog" like the people who say "my dog knows he did something bad, I know because he looks guilty". This is not the case however. I have experienced this kind of dog myself and read accounts of similar dogs. Another breed that is reputed to have these qualities is the Bouvier, another combination of molloser and herding blood.

Their decision making is based on confidence not reactive nervousness. This I know for a fact. Special hard to find dogs created by a combination of genetics, correct upbringing and life experience.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

The german shepherd dog also has molasser dogs in its foundation stock, and was genetically put in the molasser group with that DNA study a few years ago, no?


----------



## David Berraco

As I've said before, dogs outside the molosser group such as GSD or giant schnauzer that were bred in different geographical locations than the US have been known to occasionally possess the qualities I'm talking about. It is probable that they can appear in any breed.


----------



## Andy Andrews

Nancy Jocoy said:


> *The german shepherd dog also has molasser dogs in its foundation stock*


No kidding? I just learned something new today!  lol




Andy.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy

I was not commenting about this "quality" you are attributing to certain dogs, just that there was some information gentically put the GSD into the same category as molossers even though morphologically they clearly do not appear as mollosser type dogs.

http://psych.ucsf.edu/k9behavioralg...e PDF/Sutter 2004 NatRevGen canine review.pdf

The study was done on mtDNA so does not capture paternal contributions and mtDNA would, of course come from the original motherline.

I believe some of the original stock before the studbook was established was of the molosser type, particularly the Hovawart


----------



## Bryan Colletti

Molosser types have lost their purpose over the last couple of hundred years. You must remember the Pyr, Mastiff, Rottie, Tibetin Mastiff are some of the oldest known pure breeds. Going back hundreds of years, when folks really needed an intimidating and lethal animal, to guard animals, farms, and goods going to market.

To watch my old Pyr was immensely interesting. But, he was hardly the easiest trained dog in the world. He was a self serving stubborn mother Fu#&%%$. You can not deploy dogs like for tactical purposes. Because they dont have the unique pack qualities and drive stemina to complete tasks that herding dogs have acquired over the years. 

As farmers found new uses for dogs, the breeds started changing of course, as they continue to change these days. Does the German Shepherd have sheep to chase anymore? Nope, so in this country, the breed has taken a horrific morphing. They are no longer a multi purpose farm dog. 

Some Molosser in the breed? Sure why not? Look at some of the East German dogs, they look like Akita's with their blocky heads and thick bones.

Not sure what the original topic in this thread was??
Bryan


----------



## David Berraco

I know what you mean about the pyranees. I still use a video of this one to demonstrate CD CDX as I'm kind of proud to have achieved it with him. It wasn't easy.










The topic of this thread is the ability of dogs to correctly identify and react to threat. A quality that I find prevalent in the molosser breeds although it exists in others. When it is present in its good form I think it is based in the assumption of responsibility and strength of character/confidence.


----------



## David Berraco

So what does one need to do to get banned from this joke forum?

Connie, you’re a freakin’ schitzo, I understand this usually happens after menopause.

Bob Scott, you’re a whiny girlie man.

David Frost, Tim Martens, you remind me of that scene in Men in black where J gets selected out of a group state produced automatons.

Mike Schoonbrood, did you start this forum? I guess you did it to learn something, keep going baby!

What all of you have in common that you know shit about dogs, yet you don’t let anyone’s voice but your own be heard.

To the silent majority.. you should speak up. These clowns are nobodies without the stage you provide for them.

BTW Berraco is the Cuban name for triggerfish, one that I like to hunt.

http://aycu30.webshots.com/image/39189/2001532974285302167_rs.jpg

Ciao sapingos.


----------



## Bryan Colletti

Bob Scott said:


> The same thing can be seen in many of the ring sports. Sometimes even the dog can take abuse. Chairs dropped on it, water sprayed in it's face. Absolutely no response is allowed until contact is made with the handler. I's all about proper training with dogs of CORRECT temperment and character. Not aggressive dogs.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Bob that is not entirely accurate: Yes it is ideal in many Ring sports that the dog react to contact made to his/her handler. However should contact or attack on the dog himself be made, he can react to that as well. At least in French Ring. However, it must be an attack, decoys do try to walk your dog away by walking closely to him..

Bryan


----------



## Bob Scott

Thanks Bryan! I enjoy learning something I don't know a great deal about (ring). :grin: :wink:


----------



## susan tuck

Awwwwwwwwww, he's leaving? But he was so entertaining!


----------



## Andy Andrews

David Berraco said:


> *So what does one need to do to get banned from this joke forum?*
> 
> *Connie, you’re a freakin’ schitzo, I understand this usually happens after menopause.*
> 
> *Bob Scott, you’re a whiny girlie man.*
> 
> *David Frost, Tim Martens, you remind me of that scene in Men in black where J gets selected out of a group state produced automatons.*
> 
> *Mike Schoonbrood, did you start this forum? I guess you did it to learn something, keep going baby!*
> 
> *What all of you have in common that you know shit about dogs, yet you don’t let anyone’s voice but your own be heard.*
> 
> *To the silent majority.. you should speak up. These clowns are nobodies without the stage you provide for them.*
> 
> *BTW Berraco is the Cuban name for triggerfish, one that I like to hunt.*
> 
> *http://aycu30.webshots.com/image/39189/2001532974285302167_rs.jpg*
> 
> *Ciao sapingos.*


Hey, wait, what did I miss? *confused*

Regardless, aren't we all adults here? I would think we can discuss, debate, or just plain shoot the shit here without pitchin' a bitch fit. Even when someone is flat wrong, it's still good, and constructive, to talk it out, looking at things from all sides. That, at least, helps give people the opportunity to figure things out on their own(or with the help of assholes like Jeff! I kid, I kid!! lol), rather than simply being ridiculed or remaining in denial. 

Lots of weird shit going on around here lately. Seems like it's about time I balance things out with some lounge threads!! :twisted: 




Andy.


----------



## David Frost

I still think it's a shame he can't insult any better than he could discuss dogs. he'd have never made it on the block. Wonder if he's ever heard of the dozens. ha ha. 

DFrost


----------



## Connie Sutherland

susan tuck said:


> Awwwwwwwwww, he's leaving? But he was so entertaining!


Well, Sue, I gotta admit that you called it on Day One.


----------



## Bryan Colletti

Bob Scott said:


> Thanks Bryan! I enjoy learning something I don't know a great deal about (ring). :grin: :wink:


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

For me Bob, this is the most fun I have as training decoy for my friend's Ring dogs. Each dog with it's unique drives, some too defensive and others prey monsters each present different ways you can play with them in the defense of handler. I love a high fight dog, you can mess them like crazy and pull them away from their handlers. I also love those clever decoy that lull dogs to sleep and tap the handers. Beautiful to watch!!

Be at peace
Bryan


----------



## Bryan Colletti

I think this nothing more than a baited dog behavior question. Baited in the sense that an insecure person wanted a way to talk about his experiences, but disguised it in the form of a generic question. The mistake was making it a personal story to which others were free to comment on.

Over the years, I have said some dumb things about dogs truly believing that I was somewhere in dog experience that clearly with due hindsight I wasnt. Now framing your question with your own experiences can make you a bit defensive I suppose. I hope he stays. I have no hard feelings and hope he stays on long enough to see what I have come to learn about some folks here.

Bryan


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Bryan Colletti said:


> I think this nothing more than a baited dog behavior question. Baited in the sense that an insecure person wanted a way to talk about his experiences, but disguised it in the form of a generic question. The mistake was making it a personal story to which others were free to comment on.
> 
> 
> 
> Bryan


That's an interesting point. 

I do feel bad for any dogs he gets his hands on and any "clients" he manages to sucker. But maybe the whole thing was made up....... I hope.


----------



## Bob Scott

Bryan Colletti said:


> I think this nothing more than a baited dog behavior question. Baited in the sense that an insecure person wanted a way to talk about his experiences, but disguised it in the form of a generic question. The mistake was making it a personal story to which others were free to comment on.
> 
> Over the years, I have said some dumb things about dogs truly believing that I was somewhere in dog experience that clearly with due hindsight I wasnt. Now framing your question with your own experiences can make you a bit defensive I suppose. I hope he stays. I have no hard feelings and hope he stays on long enough to see what I have come to learn about some folks here.
> 
> Bryan


I think the difference was the fact that we kept getting "Yes, but" type responses. WE were ALL wrong. 
Probably very few here take motivational training to the limit I do. I've acknowledge that. In particual with the "real world" dog trainers. discussing difference is how we all learn. We listen, then make decissions based on expierience, common sense, or just what appeals to us as individuals.
His biggest problem was the constant conflicting statements about his own "methods", or art  , as he called it. A good bull$#!++er has to have a good memmory for past bs. :wink:


----------



## David Berraco

http://www.workingdogforum.com/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=627


David Frost said:


> My experience with GSD's herding is only observation. I did get a lot of opportunities to observe however. When I was stationed in Germany, the local shepherd had grazing rights on the air base. The control of the flock, probably 100 to 150 sheep, was entrusted with the shepherd and 3 dogs, all GSD's. He would frequently move the flock toward the kennels. When he did, he and I would discuss everything from WWII, current events and of course dog training. Watching him over a period of 3 years was very interesting and kindled an appreciation of herding in me. One I propose to pursue when I retire from the highway patrol. (26 months but whose counting). Generally, two dogs kept reign on the flock. The third dog stayed with him. It was kind of a reserve should a problem arise. These weren't hobby dogs, they were actual working dogs, that each day controlled a sizeable flock of sheep. The two dogs basically stay on the perimeter and ensured all the sheep stayed in the flock. Grazing sheep don't move very fast, so there was very little pressure put on by the dog. On rare occasion, the third dog may be sent out to direct a wayward sheep back to the flock. Mostly, it was very casual, sort of an ambling down one side of the runway and back up the other. He had a pen at one end of the runway where the sheep were kept at night. then the process was repeated during the day. It was very interesting. I don't recall the dogs ever actually making contact with the sheep. Each dog was controlled by a different whistle sound. Same whistle, just different toots meant different things to each dog. He told me, the biggest problem was remembering which dog got which toot for a specific movement. It was interesting to watch though.
> 
> DFrost





David Frost said:


> Ahhh yes, getting paid for it. However it was also the site of my most memorable brain fart and one of the most embarrassing episodes with dogs I've ever had. But that's for another time perhaps.
> 
> DFrost





David Frost said:


> Alright. One day, the shepherd was close to the kennel, so I went out and to shoot the bull. We had been talking for about 45 minutes, and I had to leave for a meeting. The third GSD I mentioned, was sitting at his side as usual. A really good looking and rather large bitch. I noticed her several times, just watching the flock and then looking at us. As I was readying to leave, I reached over and patted Herr Schmidt on the shoulder, actually more of a slap on the back. The bitch shot straight up for the underside of my bicep. He said "AUS" and dropped his staff down in front of me. As I stood there, knowing how close I had come to being bitten, he looked at me and said: "you've been working with dogs how long?". Needless to say, I was very embarrassed.
> 
> DFrost


 ROFL


----------



## Andy Andrews

Dude, I thought you were banned? What gives?? 



Andy.


----------



## David Berraco

I had a vision of Herr Schmidt and his dog, Herr Schmidt senior in a bite suit and mrs. Schmidt on the horn training the defense of the handler while in attendance at their monthly pro shepherds of Germany French ring meet (PSGFR). The power of the vision brought me back.


----------



## Justin Eimer

Holy Sh!T! Where was I when all this started???

I think everyone on the forum knows that I am a staunch supporter of PPD training. Having said that I want to stress the word "training." Also, as a former LEO I am just as big a supporter of PSD's and their training. I think that sometimes my opinion of what working dogs should be in terms of a PPD and a PSD differs from some here on the board. I read the vast majority of the posts here and I can agree with most of some of the posts and very little with others. 

I believe that working dogs should have an inherent natural level of protectiveness, high suspicion level, high intelligence (as high as a dog can have), and an ability to discern between friend and foe. In addition, these dogs should also possess the neccessary drives needed to mold and guide these other natural traits through competent training. In regards to being able to discern between friend and foe, I think that this is more of a learned behavior that is more easily attained if the other traits are possessed. I take offense when PPD training is referred to as snake oil, but even more offense to those that fall under the false assumption that breed or breeds alone can be the determining factor in what is required in a PPD. There is a distinct difference between a PPD and a PSD. There are those dogs that can be both PPD's and PSD's and vise versa, but there are those that can't. This is where the requirements of the job have their differences. Without going into those differences, I want to give my opinion on the topic at hand. 

Mr. Berraco speaks of a dog with natural ability to perform PPD work without training. I think that some of you acknowledged that this is possible, but unlikely. I agree. There are numerous stories of dogs that have risen to the occasion in a time of need. There are countless more of those that have not. I find it very dangerous for anyone to have a preconceaved notion that a dog of any breed, without proper training will defend. The fact is that it is nothing more than a false sense of security. I would not take that gamble with my family nor would I expect anyone else to. 

In PPD work, a dog will be expected to make it's own decisions when unaccompanied in a home, business, or vehicle. Some of this is decided by that which is natural, while much more of it hinges on proper training. When accompanied by their owner, a PPD should be kept under control and respond/react when told to do so, or when the owner or dog is physically threatend or attacked. This is where I think the similarities between PPD and PSD shine the brightest. Through repetitious training, the dog learns to respond upon contact, like David mentioned. For liability as it relates to LEO's, I can fully understand and appreciate this training. For the civillian, I can appreciate it as well. I do however, think that it is important for working dogs of both persuasions to be able to think and problem solve based upon their training and experiences. 

If a K-9 Officer or Civillian Handler has devoloped a strong mutual bond with his/her dog and a serious threat is quickly coming in a violent and hostile way, I can see either dog (PPD or PSD) breaking away from training momentarily in order to intercept the threat prior to contact. I am sure neither handler would fault their dog in that situation. 

An example of a subject throwing rocks at a handler while he was taking a suspect into custody was given in an earlier post. The question was raised about whether the PSD should go and apprehend the 2nd suspect. My answer to this question is "No", not unless the handler makes the decision to deploy his dog. This is where control comes into play and where the dog making this decision on his/her own could place the dog's life in jeopardy on the street. The Officer/handler needs to be able to quickly assess the situation and determine whether he should deploy his dog or utilizes the other tools that are at his disposal. Should the officer decide to send rounds down range, it could be the senseless end of the PSD. 

Using the same example as it pertains to the "natural protector" that has no training, I would be very interested to see this natural protector "attack" or apprehend, the would be rock thrower, without prior conditioning and environmental training. I would hedge my bet that the "natural protector" who has never seen anything like this before would turn tail and run if struck with one or more of those rocks. 

I have seen numerous exceptional working dogs face something new environmentally and become overcome with confusion. Not because they were bad dogs, but because they were not properly conditioned for such a situation. This is where the importance of training comes into play with any dog that is expected to reliably defend or apprehend. Similarly, a civilian or law enforcement handler may face a situation where a subject (threat) is calm and moving ever so slightly and possibly reaching for, or raising a weapon. The handler may have to make a decision to deploy their dog on a stationary threat/target. This is a decision that the "natural protector", or trained dog can not make on their own. This is an example of where conditioning is so important. The untrained dog will in every case not respond to this threat. 

In regards to the molossus (sp) type dogs and there inherent abilities, I don't want to offend anyone. In my own personal experiences, I have not found them to be the brightest of dogs. They are generally large, powerful, and visibly intimidating, but slower, less agile, and in many cases don't possess the correct balance of drives, like so many of the working herding breeds do. There are of course exceptions to the rule and probably breeding programs that are dedicated to producing working qualities. I mean no ill will to anyone that owns any of these dogs. As I have personally seen exceptions. The same natural instinctive abilities that Mr. Berraco refers to are much more prevalent among the working lined GSD, Malinois, and Dutch Shepherd.

I am sure that I have responded to a large percentage of what I have read and would love to hit anything that I missed at a later date and time. That being said, I want to make sure that I make this next statement clear. This forum allows for differences of opinion and I am proud to be a part of it. I have met and spoken with several people on this forum and would even go so far as to call some of them friends. It is a working dog forum where all can share their opinions and sometimes feelings can get hurt. There is however, a difference between stating an opinion and trying to cram it down someone's throat. We can agree to disagree, but let's not give intentionally false information with no basis other than what would be nice, in a perfect working dog world.


----------



## Jerry Lyda

Justin. that's why I like you man. To the point and no pulled punches. See ya in 3 weeks.


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Justin can you PLEASE say what you mean?!
Nice!


----------



## Justin Eimer

Jerry Lyda said:


> Justin. that's why I like you man. To the point and no pulled punches. See ya in 3 weeks.


3 weeks Jerry! 



Howard Gaines III said:


> Justin can you PLEASE say what you mean?!
> Nice!


I am trying Howard.


----------



## jay lyda

Wait a minute Justin, I got sidetracked can you repeat that? :wink: :razz:


----------



## Eros Kopliku

Hey all. I'm a bit confused by David B.'s definitions of "threat recognition" and "natural protector".

Did he mean that certain dogs have a sixth sense in discerning threat such as in:

a. A stranger, whose car broke down, knocks on the door and enters the house to ask for help--dog does not engage because he senses no threat
b. A known neighbor, with whom the dog is very familiar, enters the house with intentions to rob, rape, and pillage--dog engages because he senses the threat

:?:


----------



## Tim Martens

how is this guy unbanned?


----------



## Tim Martens

Justin Eimer said:


> I believe that working dogs should have an inherent natural level of protectiveness, high suspicion level, high intelligence (as high as a dog can have), and an ability to discern between friend and foe. In addition, these dogs should also possess the neccessary drives needed to mold and guide these other natural traits through competent training. In regards to being able to discern between friend and foe, I think that this is more of a learned behavior that is more easily attained if the other traits are possessed. I take offense when PPD training is referred to as snake oil, but even more offense to those that fall under the false assumption that breed or breeds alone can be the determining factor in what is required in a PPD. There is a distinct difference between a PPD and a PSD. There are those dogs that can be both PPD's and PSD's and vise versa, but there are those that can't. This is where the requirements of the job have their differences. Without going into those differences, I want to give my opinion on the topic at hand.


i agree with just about everything you said justin. the underlying theme in your post was TRAINING. a dog who has "the right stuff" still needs lots and lots of training to be deemed reliable. 

i still disagree with the notion of the "threat discriminant" dog. i have ZERO experience with guard dogs, but my trainer started off training them. basically it was a "chew on whoever comes into the yard" (industrial yard). to think that a dog can be trained to decide on whether or not the intruder has bad intentions (a burglar) or innocent intentions (a kid getting his ball) counteracts logic and what i know of dogs. 

justin, i'm sure your training regimen for PPD includes bitework (i don't know how it couldn't). i'm not afraid to say it, i won't apologize for it, i've said it, and i'll say it again....any type of PPD, PSD, PPDGS, PETOSGDC, "training" that SOLEY consists of relying on a dogs natural protective instincts and an inner working knowledge of human psychology and behavior, is just plain old snake oil...


----------



## jay lyda

Well said Justin and Tim. Its all about TRAINING,TRAINING,TRAINING, AND SOME MORE TRAINING. And then guess whats next, TRAINING. :razz:


----------



## David Frost

I can't figure out why in the heck he picked my post about a herding GSD to come back with. The dog did what it did to me because of training. I was the idiot in that story. The dog just did what he was trained to do. Maybe he thought the dog: " an ability to discern between friend and foe. " It was training pure and simple. 

DFrost


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Tim Martens said:


> how is this guy unbanned?


A tragic malfunction ... fixed now.


----------



## Justin Eimer

Tim Martens said:


> i still disagree with the notion of the "threat discriminant" dog. i have ZERO experience with guard dogs, but my trainer started off training them. basically it was a "chew on whoever comes into the yard" (industrial yard). to think that a dog can be trained to decide on whether or not the intruder has bad intentions (a burglar) or innocent intentions (a kid getting his ball) counteracts logic and what i know of dogs.
> 
> justin, i'm sure your training regimen for PPD includes bitework (i don't know how it couldn't). i'm not afraid to say it, i won't apologize for it, i've said it, and i'll say it again....any type of PPD, PSD, PPDGS, PETOSGDC, "training" that SOLEY consists of relying on a dogs natural protective instincts and an inner working knowledge of human psychology and behavior, is just plain old snake oil...


Tim~
You agree with me more than you may think. You are absolutely right when you speak of my training including bite work. I decoy like everyone else here for the most part and I utilize prey and defense drives just as you understand them. If we don't develop and train it we can't rely on it. I spent the whole post emphasizing the importance of training. The reliable PPD, in my book, has to have a high suspicion level of strangers and no real desire to be just anyone's buddy. Sound nerves and temperament are paramaount. The dog should be well socialized with the family, other children, and able to be trusted to mind his/her manners when welcomed strangers are around. This does not happen by accident or naturally, it requires training. At the same time, the dog is always guarded with those that are not in his/her inner circle. This is not trained, but inherent. Everything else is training, conditioning, and developing those natural traits, so that they can be utilized. I am not trying to personify the dog, but I don't speak dog and neither does anyone else that I am aware of. I have used those words that I feel can best describe those attributes that are needed. You don't need to appologize to me about anything. I may have taken the "snake oil" comment out of context, as I scanned through much of what was written since the thread was so long. I agree with you, that there is no relying on natural ability/drives/traits without training. Training is a must. In addition to that, I know that dogs are dogs, people are people, and there is no mystical power that a dog posesses, that enables them to know the difference between friend and foe without abrubt and hostile actions. Some dogs somehow sense bad intent quicker than others, but training is the lions share of what makes them realize theat they need to act. In regards to differentiating between a kid and an adult, the dog has to have been extensively socialized with children and corrected throughout training, anytime they key up on a child. That's a whole other topic and very difficult to attain, when what you are referring to is nothing more than a Perimeter Dog who does not discriminate.  I hope that this puts my feelings and beliefs into better perspective for you. ~Justin


----------



## Justin Eimer

David Frost said:


> I can't figure out why in the heck he picked my post about a herding GSD to come back with. The dog did what it did to me because of training. I was the idiot in that story. The dog just did what he was trained to do. Maybe he thought the dog: " an ability to discern between friend and foe. " It was training pure and simple.
> 
> DFrost


David~
I am assuming that you are talking about a post from David B. . I am not sure that I caught that post. I just read about five pages, scanned, and then saw all of the "admin" being personally insulted. I hope that none of you categorize me with him. ~Justin


----------



## Justin Eimer

Connie Sutherland said:


> A tragic malfunction ... fixed now.


I take it that the Banning has now taken affect.:?:


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Justin Eimer said:


> I take it that the Banning has now taken affect.:?:



Oh, heavens, I do hope so..... :lol:


But yes, Admin has remedied the malfunction ....


----------



## Connie Sutherland

Justin Eimer said:


> David~
> I am assuming that you are talking about a post from David B. . I am not sure that I caught that post. I just read about five pages, scanned, and then saw all of the "admin" being personally insulted. I hope that none of you categorize me with him. ~Justin


I don't think anyone categorizes ANYONE with him. JMO. :lol:


----------



## Bob Scott

Justin Triggerfish Eimer.......................NAW! Just doesn't fit you Justin! 
I don't care what everybody else says, I like your posts! :lol: :lol:


----------



## jay lyda

Maybe he just likes you David. :-s


----------



## Justin Eimer

Bob Scott said:


> Justin Triggerfish Eimer.......................NAW! Just doesn't fit you Justin!
> I don't care what everybody else says, I like your posts! :lol: :lol:


You know Bob, I don't know why, but I really appreciate that!


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Tim Martens said:


> it's not a decision al. it's a trained response. a slap on the back? that's why we have it in our k9 policy that other officers are not to touch or engage in "horseplay" around the handler when he is with the dog.


What type of idiot would horseplay with the K-9 handler when their dog is around? *Policy?* To me that's common sense Tim!


----------



## David Frost

Connie Sutherland said:


> I don't think anyone categorizes ANYONE with him. JMO. :lol:


You're absolutely right Connie. Besides, I've said it before, it's difficult to anger or insult me in person, on the internet it's darn near impossible. 

Justin, no sir, no characterization at all. 

DFrost


----------



## Mike Schoonbrood

Tim Martens said:


> how is this guy unbanned?


Kinda wondering myself. I was sure Woody banned him. Either way, fixed it now.

<And back to our regularly scheduled programming>


----------



## Will Kline

Howard Gaines III said:


> What type of idiot would horseplay with the K-9 handler when their dog is around? *Policy?* To me that's common sense Tim!


 
I have found that quite often common sense is not so common! To bad you can't fix stupid!!!


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Will...you looking my way with that????:-&


----------



## Will Kline

Not at all Howard, I was merely stating that the term common sense is all to often accepted as being common to the population at large when in fact it has become less common! I think your ok Howard!


----------



## Tim Martens

Howard Gaines III said:


> What type of idiot would horseplay with the K-9 handler when their dog is around? *Policy?* To me that's common sense Tim!


you would be surprised how much policy is written to protect cops from themselves...


----------



## Howard Gaines III

Was one 28 years ago and it was a shock that a policy would be issued to professionals in that area of work and with the knowledge of K9 behaviors, deployments, etc... Thanks Tim


----------



## David Frost

Tim Martens said:


> you would be surprised how much policy is written to protect cops from themselves...


ha ha, truer words were never spoken. But come on guys, you mean you've never walked up to another handler with your dog off leash and started searching them? Or sent a muzzled dog on an unsuspecting handler? Of course I never did that, but I heard about it once.

DFrost


----------

