# Question about selection testing.



## Chad Sloan (Jun 2, 2010)

Hello. I have several potential single purpose dogs that I am raising. For myself I am not too great of a trainer so they are all probably a bit behind the curve compared to where many other folks might have them at this point in time. However, I have at least one dog that I believe is ready to "pass" selection testing. For anyone willing to share their knowledge, what characteristics beyond drive for an object, environmental stability, and the propensity to use their nose are green dogs typically evaluated on?


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

For me it's hunt and retrieve. If the dog gives up the hunt, I'm done looking. If when he finds it, something more interesting comes along and he drops the article to investigate, I'm done looking. If he's finding the "whatever", I assume he has a working nose. I never do a selection test at the owners place, or anywhere the dog has been. I don't want the owner there when I do it. The only thing familiar to that dog would be the "whatever" the dog is looking for. Stairs, different floor surfaces, etc are checked but depending on how the dog reacts aren't deal killers.

But that's me. Others may look for different things.
DFrost


----------



## Chad Sloan (Jun 2, 2010)

Thank you for the reply. Do you find that most people generally prefer males over females for detection work?


----------



## Matthew Grubb (Nov 16, 2007)

Chad Sloan said:


> Thank you for the reply. Do you find that most people generally prefer males over females for detection work?


Either or... it's all about the drive.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Matthew Grubb said:


> Either or... it's all about the drive.


exactly.

DFrost


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

Chad Sloan said:


> Hello. I have several potential single purpose dogs that I am raising. For myself I am not too great of a trainer so they are all probably a bit behind the curve compared to where many other folks might have them at this point in time. However, I have at least one dog that I believe is ready to "pass" selection testing. For anyone willing to share their knowledge, what characteristics beyond drive for an object, environmental stability, and the propensity to use their nose are green dogs typically evaluated on?


Hey Chad, I dont know where you live, but if you want to bring him (and all the others) by my place I will show you exactly what I look for and I will pay you cash on the spot for any of them that pass our tests. I always need strong detector dogs and I am very happy to hear that you are raising some specifically for that purpose. I wish more people were doing this.


----------



## Chad Sloan (Jun 2, 2010)

Good to know.


----------



## julie allen (Dec 24, 2010)

Mike I have a whole litter to send you!


----------



## Chad Sloan (Jun 2, 2010)

I live in Texas. Once I can I would like to make a trip up there if for no other reason than for the chance to learn something I might not have known before and see what the end goal is that I should be aiming for with my dogs.


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

julie allen said:


> Mike I have a whole litter to send you!


send them, I will include your shipping price in any dog that passes our tests, the ones that fail will be returned to you COD.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Better mention the "iron retrieve", so he at least has an idea if he could break even with that deal.


----------



## Brian Anderson (Dec 2, 2010)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Better mention the "iron retrieve", so he at least has an idea if he could break even with that deal.


thats funny Daryl. I was thinking that same thing while i was reading this thread lol


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

uhhh, if it won't chase iron, but is crazy over a tennis ball, rolled towel, toy or tug, it could go to the lowly state police.

DFrost


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

David, I have one for you then. I will see when I can come visit. The others are too bitty to go and test, but they might come along for the ride.


----------



## Chad Sloan (Jun 2, 2010)

```

```
Haha. I've only got one that's as nutty over copper as the others are for their ball/tug and she just finished teething.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I have a meeting with admin on the 19th for a "state of K9" briefting. I'll know after that meeting how many and what type of dogs I'll be needing. 
Unless they piss me off, then I'm walking out the door. 

DFrost


----------



## Jim Nash (Mar 30, 2006)

David Frost said:


> I have a meeting with admin on the 19th for a "state of K9" briefting. I'll know after that meeting how many and what type of dogs I'll be needing.
> Unless they piss me off, then I'm walking out the door.
> 
> DFrost


Please don't do that . If It helps just nod , imagine them in their
underware and speaking like the adults in a Charlie Brown cartoon . No getting pissed off .


----------



## Matthew Grubb (Nov 16, 2007)

Jim Nash said:


> Please don't do that . If It helps just nod , imagine them in their
> underware and speaking like the adults in a Charlie Brown cartoon . No getting pissed off .


Yea... but after you get your 25 in you can do stuff like that!!.. I'm so jealous... 13 more to go.


----------



## Thomas Barriano (Mar 27, 2006)

David Frost said:


> I have a meeting with admin on the 19th for a "state of K9" briefting. I'll know after that meeting how many and what type of dogs I'll be needing.
> Unless they piss me off, then I'm walking out the door.
> 
> DFrost


If you quit/retire, you'll have more time to moderate the WDF ;-)


----------



## Chad Sloan (Jun 2, 2010)

That sounds awesome. I know many folks would love to be in a position where they could be pissed off rather than pissed on. Most of the time I prefer to laugh at the things which are beyond my control.


----------



## Bart Karmich (Jul 16, 2010)

So only dogs that retrieve or have toy drive are suitable for your detection programs? Why not use dogs that work for food? If a dog works just as long and hard for food rewards, what's so much better about a metal retriever? This is not pointed rhetoric. I want to learn.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Bart Karmich said:


> So only dogs that retrieve or have toy drive are suitable for your detection programs? Why not use dogs that work for food? If a dog works just as long and hard for food rewards, what's so much better about a metal retriever? This is not pointed rhetoric. I want to learn.


I prefer not to train food reward dogs. For me it's as simple as that. Just because a dog eats, does not mean it would make a detector dog either. There is still a selection process. There are many successful detector dogs that are solely on food reward. I've even had a few in my time. 

DFrost


----------



## Brian Anderson (Dec 2, 2010)

Bart Karmich said:


> So only dogs that retrieve or have toy drive are suitable for your detection programs? Why not use dogs that work for food? If a dog works just as long and hard for food rewards, what's so much better about a metal retriever? This is not pointed rhetoric. I want to learn.


Retrieving a metal bar is a test used to determine the natural drive of the dog. It has nothing to do with reward based training. Throw a steel bar on the floor. Will the dog go get it? Will he grip it? Throw an object into a room with slippery floors. Will he go across the slippery floor? There are any number of ways to test them. We have a kiddie pool full of plastic balls. Toss an object in and see if the dog goes after it. Get it? If they dont show the level of natural drive to pass these tests then its a good chance depending on the job. They will fail in real life.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Brian Anderson said:


> Retrieving a metal bar is a test used to determine the natural drive of the dog. They will fail in real life.




Are you saying that dogs that don't retrieve a metal bar don't have "natural drive" and will fail in real life? If that's the case, it's devasting to know that I've been wrong for so many years. Plus that state is going to be pissed when we have to dump the 40 some detector dogs I have working. Some may do it, I honestly don't know, but I've never tested for it. 

DFrost


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Retrieve and hunt have nothing to do with each other, I have said this before, but if you based a hunting dogs quality on wether or not he will retrieve, you will be screwed.

Look how many dogs are crazy retrievers, but if they cannot see where it lands, or it takes to long, they come back with something else.

Just because they test for it, doesn't mean they are right.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Retrieve and hunt have nothing to do with each other, I have said this before, but if you based a hunting dogs quality on wether or not he will retrieve, you will be screwed.
> 
> Look how many dogs are crazy retrievers, but if they cannot see where it lands, or it takes to long, they come back with something else.
> 
> Just because they test for it, doesn't mean they are right.


 If a dog gives up looking for something, experience has shown me they are very unlikely to make it through a detection course. The majority of the time is spent "hunting", not being rewarded. 

I've never said I was right. I do however continue to evaluate the same way for a reason. I don't think the selection process was a WAG. I've made my share of mistakes. There was a time when I would even take those dogs that, when evaluated, I would say, hmmm he might make it. As I've grown older and don't need the challenge, I've decided to work smarter, rather than harder. If my budget would allow, I'd buy started dogs. Depending on the dog, I might even buy trained. That's working smarter rather than harder. Our policy and procedures still call for a 4-week certification course, that can be extended if necessary. So trained, could be ok.

DFrost


----------



## Brian Anderson (Dec 2, 2010)

David Frost said:


> Are you saying that dogs that don't retrieve a metal bar don't have "natural drive" and will fail in real life? If that's the case, it's devasting to know that I've been wrong for so many years. Plus that state is going to be pissed when we have to dump the 40 some detector dogs I have working. Some may do it, I honestly don't know, but I've never tested for it.
> 
> DFrost


No David im not saying that lol. Would you agree that a dog that will retieve a metal bar or pipe where another dog will not is showing more want for the object? Im not saying a dog that wont isnt any good.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Brian Anderson said:


> No David im not saying that lol. Would you agree that a dog that will retieve a metal bar or pipe where another dog will not is showing more want for the object? Im not saying a dog that wont isnt any good.


I will agree a dog that will retrieve a metal bar or pipe either is either showing "more want" or has been trained to do that. I don't believe that a dog that will retrieve a metal bar or pipe will make a better detector dog, just because of the material.

DFrost


----------



## Chad Sloan (Jun 2, 2010)

I can't claim to speak for anyone else, however I think said dog is obviously showing more want for that particular object. Personally, I tend think as long as a dog has sufficient drive to efficiently do its job it shouldn't make much difference what reward is used in training. Which brings up another question I had, is there a standard set of criteria used to separate an untrained, started, and trained dog?


----------



## Brian Anderson (Dec 2, 2010)

David Frost said:


> I will agree a dog that will retrieve a metal bar or pipe either is either showing "more want" or has been trained to do that. I don't believe that a dog that will retrieve a metal bar or pipe will make a better detector dog, just because of the material.
> 
> DFrost


David to be honest the metal test is irrelevent to me. I was trying to explain that its not part of a reward but simply a test to help determine the level of want for an object. Im certainly not finding fault with your program. I have only personally known two people who use this in their criteria. We agree that it would be indicitive of a really high drive. To what extent it comes in to play i guess would be dependent on whats asked of the dog. I have seen plenty of good dogs who im not sure would grab a pipe lol.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

I agree. I've always said: "the dog picks the reward, after all it's his behavior we are trying to drive". 

DFrost


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: If a dog gives up looking for something, experience has shown me they are very unlikely to make it through a detection course. The majority of the time is spent "hunting", not being rewarded. 

I wasn't clear.

I have seen many dogs that will hunt and hunt and hunt, but when they find it may not bring it back. They have hunt drive out the ass, but fair at best retrieve drive. For some dogs it is prey that makes them appear so crazy, but the hunt drive is not good.

I would rather have the hunt drive than the prey drive. It is prey drive that is over the top that is showing in the metal retrieve, not hunt drive. That was the point I was making with the hunting dog (**** dog ) reference. Many don't retrieve, but will hunt and hunt and hunt.


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

In my opinion both drives (hunt and retrieve/prey) need to be very high for a great detection dog. I have seen many great detector dogs that would not pick up metal yet still worked great and found target odor. However I have also seen dogs with super hunt drive and enough retrieve drive to pick up and play with any object thrown that were normally better quality green dogs than the ones who will not retrieve metal.
Someone mentioned that dogs can be trained to pick up metal, and that is 100% true, however the ones that are trained to do it are very noticably different than the ones who do it simply because they live to do it. The difference is very clear after you understand what it looks like.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

mike suttle said:


> The difference is very clear after you understand what it looks like.


This was posted by Chris Jones I think, the last time the subject came up. I think this is a good illustration of that. It's very clearly a different visual then from one trained to pick up metal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tI_CPOY-qCw&feature=BFp&list=WL29B148158F462B30&index=1


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

I still look at that as being trained. Dutch dogs that I have seen have very very low thresholds for frustration. The dog is being held off of the pipe, and the hunt is very short.

Not saying that dog sucks, as much as he is being trained to do it as well.


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

Yes, that is a very good example of natural vs trained or forced. 
I have several dogs here with the same intensity for the pipe, and some with even more intensity for it. The type of intensity that we look for can never be forced into a dog, they either have it or they dont. 
Of course, that intensity is only half the puzzle, the nerves, stability, clarity and the hunt drive must be equally strong for the dog to be complete and suitable for detection work.


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> I still look at that as being trained. Dutch dogs that I have seen have very very low thresholds for frustration. The dog is being held off of the pipe, and the hunt is very short.
> 
> Not saying that dog sucks, as much as he is being trained to do it as well.


Jeff, I have several dogs here that have never seen a metal until they came here, some were born here and I know for sure were not trained for it, yet after one retrieve they smashed into it with the same kind of intensity pictured in this video. Likewise, I have some that I tried to make crazy for it for 6 months and still were not strong enough over the pipe to work for our clients.
Trust me, the dogs that have it are born with it.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

I still see training there. Not saying he is wrong for the job, just saying I see training using frustration.


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> I still see training there. Not saying he is wrong for the job, just saying I see training using frustration.


I agree 100% that it is frustration that drives this desire to kill the pipe, but if he does not have it in him it can not be brought out, and if he does have it in him, he can sit in a kennel till one year old and in about 30 seconds he will show this behavior.


----------



## Nicole Stark (Jul 22, 2009)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> I still look at that as being trained.


You may, and since you do, I'd like to see you prove it by training to develop this behavior in a dog.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

What do you think they were doing in the video ?? LOL Amateurs.


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

Jeff, if you think you can train this drive into a dog, along with similar desire to hunt for the pipe, then you and I can can do a great deal of business together. I will pay you for everyone you can get ready for me. I will buy them on their first birthday and they dont have to bite, they dont even have to know how to sit. Just make them all crazy to hunt and retrieve metal and sell them all to me!


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Not what I was saying at all. This is why you are not a trainer per se. The dog has everything, but is still being trained. 

If he really had hunt drive, and wasn't being trained, then the video would be much longer with the dog looking for the pipe in an open field, or a building. LOL Not just a short dive into a box with the ending being held off for a short bit and then rewarded.

Did you read what I wrote at all ?? : )


----------



## Kevin Walsh (Sep 8, 2009)

mike suttle said:


> Jeff, if you think you can train this drive into a dog, along with similar desire to hunt for the pipe, then you and I can can do a great deal of business together. I will pay you for everyone you can get ready for me. I will buy them on their first birthday and they dont have to bite, they dont even have to know how to sit. Just make them all crazy to hunt and retrieve metal and sell them all to me!


Mike-
I have a couple pups out of Luko's litter that are nuts on the metal:twisted:. Be glad to bring them by in 10 months.

Kevin


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

Kevin Walsh said:


> Mike-
> I have a couple pups out of Luko's litter that are nuts on the metal:twisted:. Be glad to bring them by in 10 months.
> 
> Kevin


 Im sure they are Kevin, that is why I was so happy to do that breeding, please bring them down as soon as they are old enough. I always need them!


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I always assumed when people are talking about retrieve drive, they are talking about the dog taking the object in its mouth and wanting to keep it...in regards to selection of detection dogs...

I never thought of it as actually bringing it back.....


----------



## Bart Karmich (Jul 16, 2010)

Whether the dog has intensity for the pipe retrieve or not has nothing to do with hunt drive. Mike, you said you think prey is important for detection work. Why? The only way I see it being used is as a reward. I understand the retrieve is a test not a reward, but what use in detection is the attribute it tests for except as a reward?

The way I see it, detection work (just the scent work itself) is easy for a lot of dogs, but high motivation toward a goal of our choosing is not so easy. Insane prey drive can be manipulated to motivate the dog by having the reward appear near the source. Toy-driven dogs are easy to motivate and therefore it's easy to get them to do what you want, but if selection testing is done on this secondary criteria, you get what you select for: toy-crazy dogs. You also lose what you select away from, good detection dogs that don't play with toys.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I agree with that analysis Bart, and have made the same points myself in regards to tracking/trailing, when proposed that a 'high drive for the toy' dog is best. But then, a highly food-driven or pack-driven dog becomes a must. _Motivation for a type of reward_ remains essential, right?


----------



## Bart Karmich (Jul 16, 2010)

Yes I agree that motivation for a reward is essential to take a dog with a primary skill and direct it toward our purposes. This is why the scent hounds don't work so well for tracking. They are excellent in the primary skill, but they're too hard to direct. You have and can produce nothing they want much. This is why we see more shepherds and retrievers employed in scent work than there are scent hounds.

So my point isn't to say that we don't need the motivation a secondary characteristic like prey drive, food drive, pack drive or whatever provides, but to say that directable motivation is not limited to prey.

Toy-driven dogs and dogs with excessive prey drive have shortcomings. They are overwhelmingly the most popular for work and club work but I would hate to see a prey-fad cause the dogs not obsessed with toys and the skills to train them fade into history.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Bart, so in these theoretical arguments, are you saying that if you have a high prey, high hunt dog, that is trained for detection work, that is somehow moving away from the goal of detection selection?

can you please explain in more detail? and explain what the shortcomings of a prey driven High Hunt drive detection dog are?

Are you also saying that you think pack drive and food drive, are equally effective in the training of detection dogs, when compared to toys?


----------



## Gerry Grimwood (Apr 2, 2007)

Bart Karmich said:


> Yes I agree that motivation for a reward is essential to take a dog with a primary skill and direct it toward our purposes. This is why the scent hounds don't work so well for tracking. They are excellent in the primary skill, but they're too hard to direct. You have and can produce nothing they want much. This is why we see more shepherds and retrievers employed in scent work than there are scent hounds.
> 
> So my point isn't to say that we don't need the motivation a secondary characteristic like prey drive, food drive, pack drive or whatever provides, but to say that directable motivation is not limited to prey.
> 
> Toy-driven dogs and dogs with excessive prey drive have shortcomings. They are overwhelmingly the most popular for work and club work but I would hate to see a prey-fad cause the dogs not obsessed with toys and the skills to train them fade into history.


I'm never suprised when in under a yr some people can go from asking advice on which collar to use to this :lol:


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Bart, so in these theoretical arguments, are you saying that if you have a high prey, high hunt dog, that is trained for detection work, that is somehow moving away from the goal of good detection selection?

can you please explain in more detail? and explain what the shortcomings of a prey driven High Hunt drive detection dog are?

Are you also saying that you think pack drive and food drive, are equally effective in the training of detection dogs, when compared to toys?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I just found this quote on a website...anyone that knows that can share any info, can you tell me if this statement is true?

*"There is a reason the ATF, Customs, and the USDA use food reward dogs almost exclusively."*

I can verify that ATF and USDA use primarily food trained dogs...all customs stuff I can find from various countries is based on object/toy .


----------



## mike suttle (Feb 19, 2008)

Joby Becker said:


> I just found this quote on a website...anyone that knows that can share any info, can you tell me if this statement is true?
> 
> *"There is a reason the ATF, Customs, and the USDA use food reward dogs almost exclusively."*
> 
> I can verify that ATF and USDA use primarily food trained dogs...all customs stuff I can find from various countries is based on object/toy .


I can tell you for 100% sure that US Customs does not use food reward dogs. ATF and USDA however do use food reward dogs. I can also tell you that the worst dog US Customs has will usually work circles around the best food reward dogs from ATF.
I have supplied dogs to both agencies and the difference in quality of the dogs they buy is 180% apart.


----------



## Bart Karmich (Jul 16, 2010)

Bart, so in these theoretical arguments, are you saying that if you have a high prey, high hunt dog, that is trained for detection work, that is somehow moving away from the goal of good detection selection?

No. You move away from good selection for detection when you select high prey dogs exclusively. You would do the same thing if you selected food-driven dogs exclusively.


Are you also saying that you think pack drive and food drive, are equally effective in the training of detection dogs, when compared to toys?

it depends on the dog, obviously

I believe it's important to recognize that the measure of the dog's intensity in the hunt is not directly correlated to the dog's intensity for its reward. The reward is a reinforcer to shape the dogs behavior toward the goal the trainer gives it. It does not define the dog's intensity in it's primary skill. You can have a dog with insane hunt drive and shape that with relatively low food drive. You can also have a insane prey dog that you pursuade to hunt for you and they suck at it.

Selection should be done on the primary skill: hunt. You need the motivator for reward based training but the intensity in the primary skill is more critical than the drive for the motivator.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

"I can also tell you that the worst dog US Customs has will usually work circles around the best food reward dogs from ATF.""

All I can say is; Amen.

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

"You move away from good selection for detection when you select high prey dogs exclusively."

That's not been my experience. I can al\so state, catagorically, "pack drive" has never entered my mind when selecting potential detector dogs. 

"The reward is a reinforcer to shape the dogs behavior toward the goal the trainer gives it. It does not define the dog's intensity in it's primary skill."

Honestly, I'm not really sure what you mean. NO offense, but it sounds like double talk. 

"Selection should be done on the primary skill: hunt."

While it certainly is a consideration it's not the only thing I look for. 

I've selected and trained a couple thousand detectors of various types. While I may not know all the modern language and terminology, I think I am a pretty fair judge of what it takes to select a dog. Again, to be honest, some of what you say just isn't clear to me. 

DFrost


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Bart Karmich said:


> Bart, so in these theoretical arguments, are you saying that if you have a high prey, high hunt dog, that is trained for detection work, that is somehow moving away from the goal of good detection selection?
> 
> No. You move away from good selection for detection when you select high prey dogs exclusively. You would do the same thing if you selected food-driven dogs exclusively.
> 
> ...


who said they were not using hunt as the primary factor? I do not remember reading that. I do not see anyone picking a high prey low hunt dog for detection, or recommending it, so what exactly is the point you are trying to make>>>

also you did not humor me with the explanation of the shortcomings of the high hunt / high prey detection dog trained with a toy, compared to any other method...

If I had to guess I would say probably 97% or more of detection dogs are trained with toys. So what are the shortcomings of all these dogs, that are doing almost all of the detection work that is being done?


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

David Frost said:


> "You move away from good selection for detection when you select high prey dogs exclusively."
> 
> That's not been my experience. I can al\so state, catagorically, "pack drive" has never entered my mind when selecting potential detector dogs.
> 
> ...


shit, I thought I was the only one that was confused......


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

David Frost said:


> "I can also tell you that the worst dog US Customs has will usually work circles around the best food reward dogs from ATF.""
> 
> All I can say is; Amen.
> 
> DFrost


 
AGREED Hands down with both, but as we know one of the main reasons of that beside the selection is how they use the food through out the training process with no toy. What fun is that over time, gets old quick....but you do have to feed the stomach...


----------



## Pete Stevens (Dec 16, 2010)

I'm not a huge fan of the metal pipe test. I won't use it for any dog that I'm going to use as dual purpose. My primary goal for dual purpose is protecting my guys on the street which means they must bite and bite hard. I'm not going to chance on breaking a tooth, have the dog down for a month and pay the $1,400 for a metal tooth...although it does look pretty cool. I think its not necessary but if someone else uses it, I won't knock em' for it. 

I work and train with both Customs and Border Protection and Border Patrol handlers. I do not know of any k9 team they have that is food reward. I know that the ATF handler here does have a couple of food reward dogs and they are pretty dialed in. I don't like food reward for a pretty simple reason. If the dog isn't very hungry, they may not work very hard. But a toy crazy dog will generally be pretty motivated to work all of the time. My dog doesn't play unless we are training or working. So we might go a couple of days without training, no biggie. Her desire to play will probably still be there. Maybe even a tad higher because we haven't played. 

Like Dave said- the dog picks the reward. My dog will play with a tug but a Kong squeaker ball is like crack to her. I can see the difference in her desire for the rewards. So I'll use whatever it takes to get the best out of her, that is what my job as her handler is.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

The reason it confuses sport people, is that they do not know how stinky the detection items are. They all smell pretty strongly.

That is the reason you can use a dog with strong prey drive and build the average hunt drive. 

Another advantage to having a really prey driven dog is that you are handing the dog to people who generally speaking know **** all about dogs, and have some short ass class to try and figure it all out. They are not going to be very successful training a dog that is not really easy and forgiving of mistakes.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: I don't like food reward for a pretty simple reason. If the dog isn't very hungry, they may not work very hard.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov

Check this guy out, maybe he can tell you why you sound like a retard with this statement.

Do you really think goldfish are hungry all the time ??


----------



## Jim Duncan (Jan 19, 2009)

*The reason it confuses sport people, is that they do not know how stinky the detection items are. They all smell pretty strongly*

Could you please explain how stinky 1 gram of Heroin or Cocaine is? How stinky is the transfer odor from Crack, marijuana or Meth? How stinky is a cotton ball that sat in a jar with Coke? I can't smell any of those "stinky" detection items. Funny, I always thought of you as a "sport guy."


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Funny, I guess you never figured out how much better their nose is than ours. Once again proving that your sad attempts at dominance have flown out the window.

I cannot explain the obvious to you. However, there is always the possibility that you can learn.

The other thing is guessing what I do or do not know about dog training would be a big mistake for you as well. 

Show us a video of your dog. 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Maybe that is why you are out there trying to see what meth smells like ?


----------



## Jim Duncan (Jan 19, 2009)

Jeff,
Being a "sport guy" as well as a K-9 Handler I was confused by your post. I understand a dog's olfactory senses and how they detect target odors. I don't think you will see the experienced detection people on the forum referring to the odors as "stinky" and being able to easily smell them. Now, the dogs can certainly detect trace amounts is that what you were trying to say? By the way I do know what Meth smells like, and my dog is trained to alert on the odor of Meth as well as Marijuana, Heroin, Coke, crack and Ecstacy. 

My mistake in not realizing that you are an expert in detection training as well. 

Jim


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

I am an expert ?? That is how you you think you are going to win this ? What a fuktard. I am sure you know exactly how drugs smell.

It is illegal to be smelling drugs. I didn't want to point that out, as I am not an "expert" at police work, but I am pretty sure you are not supposed to be "smelling" the drugs.

Go polish your gun. I have better things to do than make you look like an idiot every time you show up here.


----------



## Jim Duncan (Jan 19, 2009)

Jeff,
It's not about winning when posting on a forum such as this. It's about sharing accurate infromation and clearing up inconsistencies that are posted from time to time. That is why I would never use Wikipedia as my reference material to support my case or to insult another poster. I have a little experience in detection work which is why I found your comment about the aids being "stinky" very amusing. 

Based on your comments as usual you come off as an expert on any matter related to dogs. I just haven't found anything substantial to back up your comments. I'm going to check Wikipedia maybe they have you listed as an expert on there.

I do agree with David and others, when selecting dogs I like a high prey, high hunt drive dog. Pack drive is low on my scale of necessary traits. We select dual purpose dogs and I just tested a bunch two weeks ago and found a nice GSD for my PD. The prey drive and hunt drive were two of the first tests we do. A dog with good prey and hunt drive usually turns out to be a good tracking and detection dog. 

Jim


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Nobody cares Jim. We all know you have a dominance problem with people that do not bow to your needs and wishes.

When you go to Wikipedia, look up asswipe, it has your picture and life history there as well.

Also, no one cares about what you select. You are just repeating something someone else said. Kinda like everything else.


----------



## Jonathon Howard (Nov 11, 2010)

The Australian Customs here have their own Labrador breeding program for drug detection. They have arguably the best drug detection dogs in the world. They use toy/play and retrieve drive for selection/reward.
The dogs that fail their selection process get sold off to the state police departments neutered. The state police where I live use food rewards. I have tested these rejects and their retrieve and toy drive is high. 
These custom dogs regularly pickup airline passengers walking through the airport foyer that have used their credit cards to cut up cocaine greater than 7 days before.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> I can al\so state, catagorically, "pack drive" has never entered my mind when selecting potential detector dogs.
> DFrost


Understandably, as uncommon they are to have. Part genetic, part bond-building process, I presume. After owning dozens of dogs, only two among them would I ever describe as having clearly evident superior "pack drive", one my own and one my spouse's. I just didn't want to exclude what other major motivating options you could direct your training with. Even my pack-driven dog has no lack of zeal for the toy or tug, and I do use those for many things during much of the time. For many instances, just any non-toy object will do, simply to spacially guide their attention, convey my wishes, then can be quickly phased out after only a couple trials.

My use of food is very minimal with all dogs I train. I would apply with a dog who lusts food tremendously over toy drive, but generally avoid it's use when possible. Works nice with some pups on early obedience. I've tried it as a downgrade in place of over-elevated toy drive. I have one dog that will retrieve a few times, but loses interest quickly, and has no notable possesiveness for the toy, ball, or tug. It's very limiting. However her food drive is unmatched, and she is fervent in prey drive for the flirt pole. Her tracking/trailing aptitude is high and easily taught with food, but I lack an understanding of how to train her for detection/area search using food, and doubt it's effectiveness. Maybe with live small game like birds and bunnies... something that takes to flight once it's found.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> It is illegal to be smelling drugs. I didn't want to point that out, as I am not an "expert" at police work, but I am pretty sure you are not supposed to be "smelling" the drugs.
> 
> .


Actually, that's not true. One can "smell" without ingesting. You open the container that has a certain drug, you can smell it. The dog "smells" the odor of the drug, he certainly doesn't ingest it. At a minimum ingestion would a snack attack at worst death. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> .
> 
> That is the reason you can use a dog with strong prey drive and build the average hunt drive.


While that may well be true, the question was about selection. If a dog doesn't have the "hunt" drive, I don't want it. Average won't cut it and I won't waste my training time trying to "build" it. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Understandably, as uncommon they are to have. Part genetic, part bond-building process, I presume. After owning dozens of dogs, only two among them would I ever describe as having clearly evident superior "pack drive", one my own and one my spouse's..


You talk about "superior pack drive" then you refer to working one dog. What has that got to do with pack. I guess I'm really being dense. You say you've owned dozens. I have honestly trained thousands, pack drive or whatever has never been a consideration in my selection of drug, cadaver, bomb, mine and tunnel, trip wire or other type of detector dogs I've trained. 

When I worked in research, everything was food reward. It was strictly controlled. The dogs were weighed on a daily basis. The selection was for "hardy" eaters. Some dogs are like that, any time, any place they'll eat. As in selecting a dog to work for a toy, tug etc, not all dogs will do it. The same goes for food reward. The proficiency rate is as good, actually, in a laboratory setting, better than most dogs when it comes to working. I stated earlier, it is just not my preference to use. In reality, done correctly, there is very little difference between the two. If the reward is strong enough to control behavior, you can train the dog to play a piano, if you can figure out how to get them to spread their toes.

DFrost


----------



## Pete Stevens (Dec 16, 2010)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: I don't like food reward for a pretty simple reason. If the dog isn't very hungry, they may not work very hard.
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Pavlov
> ...


 
I usually don't deploy goldfish for searches. Its that whole "fish out of water" thing. Plus the water in the bowl would splash all over the place in a pursuit. 

Pavlov's theories are fine but since I sound "retarded" I probably don't understand them. But since I'm so simple, let me dumb it down. I said the "may" not work very hard. I'll take a dog that I know will do anything for a toy, all the time, any day. I don't depend on wikipedia for my training theories, just what I've seen. 

I'd say more but the little bus is here to pick me and my goldfish up for work.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Pete Stevens said:


> I'd say more but the little bus is here to pick me and my goldfish up for work.



Chuckle, chuckle, 

DFrost


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

David Frost said:


> You talk about "superior pack drive" then you refer to working one dog. What has that got to do with pack. I guess I'm really being dense. You say you've owned dozens. I have honestly trained thousands, pack drive or whatever has never been a consideration in my selection of drug, cadaver, bomb, mine and tunnel, trip wire or other type of detector dogs I've trained.
> 
> DFrost


Well then, a small compareable fraction of thousands, if you want to say yours is bigger, of dogs will demonstrate a lower level of self interest, whose higher priority reward is to interact with the handler, and greatest motive is to please. I've really only had the pleasure of having one dog that puts my wishes before all else, attemting to do anything I ask, proactively attempts to understand what it might not currently comprehend, and would do so consistently with lack of any other form of reward. Might like toys etc., but definitely not a requirement for working, and to _keep working_.

http://www.vanerp.net/ilse/GSDINFO/Elements of Temperament.htm#2.4. Pack Drive


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I don't know why that word is used, but "pack" must mean something in reference to "being in the interest of the team's goals before oneself's", and content with being of lower rank status. _Independant_ or _aloof_ can be as difficult to train as _stubborn_ is. As long as the dog isn't clingy or needy in some way, the more pack drive the better, IMO. I hate clingy.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Quote: 
I'd say more but the little bus is here to pick me and my goldfish up for work.


I'd say more but the little bus is here to pick me and my goldfish up for work.

Quote: While that may well be true, the question was about selection. If a dog doesn't have the "hunt" drive, I don't want it. Average won't cut it and I won't waste my training time trying to "build" it. 

Usually people are doing this BEFORE they go to sell the dog.

Quote: Actually, that's not true. One can "smell" without ingesting.

I was goofing on Jim, as he seemed to need to "smell" some drugs last night to stop being so irritable. 

Quote: I have honestly trained thousands, pack drive or whatever has never been a consideration in my selection of drug, cadaver, bomb, mine and tunnel, trip wire or other type of detector dogs I've trained. 

I wouldn't change anything you do, but as a curiosity, I wonder if the dogs with strong pack as well as hunt and prey are any better ?


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

I wouldn't change anything you do, but as a curiosity*, I wonder if the dogs with strong pack as well as hunt and prey are any better ?[/*QUOTE]


from what I seen strong prey dogs that are freaks for the toy will hunt for it all day to get it, whether you call it prey, hunt or whatever drive, it is what it is, as far as pack drive....never thought about it, nor do I think it has anything to do with the drive we look for in a dog, but can see the characteristics when looking at a total picture/dog.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

I don't have enough examples to really make a case, but the dogs that I thought were weak in protection work, but really only did it because the owner wanted them to, ie strong pack, where the ones that did protect their owners.

I had told the owners to get a gun, and that I couldn't see the dog standing in the door like that. Pack drive was very strong in all those dogs. Didn't really have shit else, and you had to make the whole thing a game, or they would let go, or quit outright.

Stupid Daryl got me thinking. Damn him. :lol:


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> I wouldn't change anything you do, but as a curiosity, I wonder if the dogs with strong pack as well as hunt and prey are any better ?


I guess it goes back to what was said earlier, about the drive not being necessarily directly correlated with the particular function you're training for, but about the dog's level of motivation for whatever type of reward. 

Your training approach/methodology is a huge consideration in how those forms of reward will limit your instruction. Like, how would I use a flirtpole with the one dog whose only other motivation is food? What you know about how to communicate with your dog is going to be a big part of what's "better or worse." Toy or tug sure do seem the most versatile.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> Well then, a small compareable fraction of thousands, if you want to say yours is bigger, of dogs will demonstrate a lower level of self interest, whose higher priority reward is to interact with the handler, and greatest motive is to please. I've really only had the pleasure of having one dog that puts my wishes before all else, attemting to do anything I ask, proactively attempts to understand what it might not currently comprehend, and would do so consistently with lack of any other form of reward. Might like toys etc., but definitely not a requirement for working, and to _keep working_.
> 
> http://www.vanerp.net/ilse/GSDINFO/Elements of Temperament.htm#2.4. Pack Drive


You make this entirely too hard. ha ha. Give me detector dog and his reward and I'll own him 30 minutes, handler be damned, ha ha. 

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Daryl Ehret said:


> I guess it goes back to what was said earlier, about the drive not being necessarily directly correlated with the particular function you're training for, but about the dog's level of motivation for whatever type of reward.
> 
> .


I'm having a dense day. What the heck does that mean. Drive has everything to do with a particular function I'm training for. Which, ironic enough would be the dog's level of motivation for whatever type of reward. When you do "reward based training", it usually works out that way. 

I'm glad I was schooled in the KISS method of dog training. 

DFrost


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

In my profile I can only think of one dog that had what some would call very high pack drive and that is what I think motivated the dog to search. The handler used a tug reward too, but I even think that the dog played with the tug reward because the handler wanted him to.

It could pass all the exams and would work hard. That said, it just didn't have the same desperation/drive that the dogs with high toy drive had. Not who I would want looking for me or my family when the going got really tough.

I can think of some other dogs that had very high prey/hunt and had above agerage pack drive. I don't know if I am understanding what you mean about searching because of pack drive a hundred percent, but these dogs wanted their rewards, but also really wanted to please the handler independent of the reward. 

These dogs seem to have more issues with independent searching even thought they are really drivey, as the seem to want to check back in with the handler more often, more issues with false alerts and so on as the dog is really wanting so badly to do the right thing for the owner and wants to make sure the owner sees it. Of course these are training issues as well. I am just kinda thinking out loud now.


----------



## Guest (Dec 1, 2008)

David Frost said:


> You make this entirely too hard. ha ha. Give me detector dog and his reward and I'll own him 30 minutes, handler be damned, ha ha.
> 
> DFrost


Some could read this and see sarcasm, but it is reality, Keep It Simple Stupid and that is exactly what it is...


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

On the subject of food...

In the avy profile up here we do not use food rewards, only tug rewards. This year I got to instruct at a course in the US and one of the other instructors brought in is a BIGTIME food only guy for avalanche searching. It was my first experience seeing that, it was interesting to see and learn something new for me.

My issue is how fast the food reward is over seems like a rip off to a lot of the dogs after an extended search. Get in there, couple peices of sausage put in your mouth and it is over. It is so passive. You can see the dogs just check out there. The tug/fight interaction at the end of a search seems way more interactive, fun and rewarding for most of the dogs to me. 

I also think that by selecting just dogs that will eat sausage as young dogs, you somehow get weaker dogs in there vs dogs that have very good prey drive for a toy/tug. So, I can't tell if it is the food reward that is the issue, or the selection process really. 

Anyways, I am not sold on the food thing, but would love to see more finished dogs with this food system at some point, just out of curiosity. We won't be changing our reward system here any time soon.


----------



## Jim Duncan (Jan 19, 2009)

Regarding "Pack drive" and my understanding or my definition of it for our purposes is a dog that wants to be with it's handler (pack) and it's desire to work or please it's handler. That is a very desirable trait for a pet dog or a sport dog. It would make the dog biddable and easy to train and the dog would be satisfied working for the praise and companionship of the handler. Certainly also desirable for a Police K-9, but when selecting dogs it is hard to test for; and that bond develops later on. I do observe the dogs interaction with people before we do any stimulous and I do like a social dog. Our dogs are Dual Purpose and some are deployed with the SWAT team. We need the dogs to accept team members as part of the "pack" and not just bite everyone they meet in a building. 

IMHO, pack drive will only take a dog so far. As Jeff mentions he saw one that would protect it's owner, but a weaker dog. Protecting the handler is one thing our dogs are trained for, however it is far more common to send a Patrol dog out into a building or wooded area to search for a suspect. Pack drive will not carry a dog through a prolonged search or a long track on a hot day. Pack drive will not keep a dog working searching a large building for dope or explosives or 100's of cars as Customs may do. High prey and hunt drive do that. I want dogs that are able to work independently and not need to rely on the handler for constant guidance. I want a dog that when given a command to search for people or in detection goes into drive and just wants to work, to satisfy it's own drives not to just please me. 

I'm putting on my helmet because my little bus is here.

Jim


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jody Butler said:


> Some could read this and see sarcasm, but it is reality, Keep It Simple Stupid and that is exactly what it is...


While I don't deny a certain amount of sarcasm, it is reality. Yes, there are those few that it would take a little longer, but they are few and far between. 

We used to let the old sentry dogs sit in a kennel for two weeks, without anyone taking them out. After two weeks, more often than not, all it took was walking up to the kennel with a leash, rattle the choker and the dog was ready to go out. He may not have been ready to receive commands yet, but he sure wanted out of that kennel. We did it on a daily well at least weekly basis. At the dog school, back when they really used to train dogs (now that was sarcasm) we started a class every Monday.

DFrost


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

"I want a dog that when given a command to search for people or in detection goes into drive and just wants to work, to satisfy it's own drives not to just please me."

So having said that; pack drive isn't all that important. As I said earlier, it's all about the drive. Oh sure, it's nice to have the dog nuzzle your neck or look at you adoringly, but when it's time to go to work, I don't want the dog worried about what I'm doing, where I'm going. I want him to do exactly as he's told.

DFrost


----------



## Jim Duncan (Jan 19, 2009)

*Oh sure, it's nice to have the dog nuzzle your neck or look at you adoringly, but when it's time to go to work, I don't want the dog worried about what I'm doing, where I'm going. I want him to do exactly as he's told.
*
Exactly, which may carry the dog out of my sight and the dog has to work independently, on his own and have the drive to stay on task. 

Jim


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

I don't know I can agree. My _pack drive_ dog never gave me an affectionate lick until he was two years old, it was purely a working relationship that thrilled him, not some lovey gooey feeling. And I tease him about becoming one of those _lickey-face-lap-dogs_, when he does.

He has the benefit of receiving continual affirmation/feedback during his work, which might be helping to maitain his attention away from his handler. But that's my way of marking his progress toward earning full praise. Maybe once in a while he'll look to me for direction during the progress of an article search, but bounces back to work without hesitation.

Another dog of mine, so-called "independant worker", herding dog, actually IS affectionate seeking to my distaste. But she definitely works for herself, to satisfy her own drives, and many times I have left the scene for 15-20 minutes at a time, to return finding her actively maintaining order on the borders of her flock.

So the _pack drive _to me does not mean affection seeking and not terribly lacking of independance. Anyway, what few working circumstances ever require much of the dog when the handler_ isn't present?_


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Should've added, that pack drive dog is able to drive cattle a quartermile distant, independantly, and out of sight of the handler, promptly returning on signal.


----------



## Jim Duncan (Jan 19, 2009)

*Anyway, what few working circumstances ever require much of the dog when the handler isn't present?*

Actually, a lot of what a patrol dog does can require a great deal of the dog when the handler isn't always right there. 

I would also say that your high pack drive dog that works independently may also be a high drive dog in other areas. The drives are not mutually exclusive.

Jim


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Pack drive has nothing to do with licking nuzzling, or any of that. 

Quote: It could pass all the exams and would work hard. That said, it just didn't have the same desperation/drive that the dogs with high toy drive had. Not who I would want looking for me or my family when the going got really tough.

Yet there have been SAR people on here that do not want the desperate out looking for them, as they will be too gassed to work for a couple days straight. LOL Which is it ??


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> On the subject of food...
> 
> My issue is how fast the food reward is over seems like a rip off to a lot of the dogs after an extended search. Get in there, couple peices of sausage put in your mouth and it is over. It is so passive. You can see the dogs just check out there. The tug/fight interaction at the end of a search seems way more interactive, fun and rewarding for most of the dogs to me. Anyways, I am not sold on the food thing, but would love to see more finished dogs with this food system at some point, just out of curiosity. We won't be changing our reward system here any time soon.


I had a very very food driven dog at one point and she has excellent hunt drive; the one washed for bad hips - the food reward was given over time. You tease them with it, play with it, you can make a small food reward last for 2 minutes if you are good with it. She also had toy drive and we could play ball all the way back to......

As far as the pack drive - I am still evaluating -- I have other folks I know who do work long hours with cadaver dogs, who are law enforcement, who like having some of the OLD herding lines incorporated into their stock for the pack drive.......makes for a nice dog to work for hours and independantly......Still studying about that. Going to compare/contrast. I really like the pack drive my dog has, and his natural obedience - and have zero problems with him ranging out and working independantly and a very low false alert rate.


----------



## Nancy Jocoy (Apr 19, 2006)

Clarification......the desire for pack drive ....was NOT instead of crazy/insane hunt and retrieve drive but in addition to it.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Quote: It could pass all the exams and would work hard. That said, it just didn't have the same desperation/drive that the dogs with high toy drive had. Not who I would want looking for me or my family when the going got really tough.
> 
> Yet there have been SAR people on here that do not want the desperate out looking for them, as they will be too gassed to work for a couple days straight. LOL Which is it ??


You are just effing with me Jeff, I know. 

If I have 10 minutes to be alive under the snow, I don't want "dum de dum, la la" type searching. I would like a dog that can cover some ground independent of the handler as they can move way way faster on debris than a person. After a "couple of days straight", I wouldn't care much what dog you brought to the scene since I would be dead.

The high drive dogs will still have more motivation to search on day three than a low drive dog. The low drive dog will be "over it". It is up to me as a handler to ensure that my dog is in shape for longer searches and gets the rest needed to ensure their safety.

What exactly are you saying? SAR is gay LOL???


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Why, yes, yes it is.


----------



## Daryl Ehret (Apr 4, 2006)

Jim Duncan said:


> *Anyway, what few working circumstances ever require much of the dog when the handler isn't present?*
> 
> Actually, a lot of what a patrol dog does can require a great deal of the dog when the handler isn't always right there.
> 
> ...


He does have good overall drives. Pack drive alone isn't enough to carry a dog through any particular type of work, since by itself doesn't satisfy all the requirements of the job. I think pack drive is just more about the communication between handler and dog, aiding the conveyance of purpose to the dog, and motivation toward that purpose. But still, it doesn't make them bite harder, jump higher, concentrate on a scent any better etc.


----------



## Jennifer Coulter (Sep 18, 2007)

Jeff Oehlsen said:


> Why, yes, yes it is.


I thought that might be where you were going LOL.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

Jennifer Coulter said:


> You are just effing with me Jeff, I know.
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly are you saying? SAR is gay LOL???


You are right, there is only one of two reasons he makes those statements. Either he's "effing" with you, or he is totally clueless. 

DFrost


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

ORRRRRRRRRRRRRRR, has a way better memory than you guys do. A couple of years ago, a bit before the Terry Holstine giganto thread, some lady from Canada talked about how she wanted a lower drive dog, as the higher drive dogs would just wear out if they did not find someone in the first couple of hours or day.


----------



## Jim Duncan (Jan 19, 2009)

David Frost said:


> You are right, there is only one of two reasons he makes those statements. Either he's "effing" with you, or he is totally clueless.
> 
> DFrost


LMAO. Thank you David! That had me laughing out loud. 

Jim


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Look how happy Jim is to feel validated. I bet you didn't choose "effing" with her.

Now go take this out on your next traffic stop, we all know you do. Better yet lets see the car video of your swagger as you "roll" up on the poor hapless person going 4 miles over.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

What is even DUMBER, is you didn't read the explanation that was right threre in front of you. You were soooooooo excited that you thought someone sided with you. I bet you got a tingle ! ! ! !


----------



## Jim Duncan (Jan 19, 2009)

Classic, Jeff stuff right there. I do not need anyone to agree with me to prove the fact that you are a clueless ass hat, you do that all by yourself. Every time you post you validate my opinion of you. Don't ever change, I wouldn't know what to make of you if you acted like a normal person. Much more entertaining this way watching you flip flop from obnoxious troll to ass kisser in the same thread. 

Jim


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Seriously, who is the troll here ?? I have seen your face, and you, yes you are a under the bridge livin mo fo for sure.

I just cannot believe that is all you can come up with ? Once again, the battle of wits was won by me against the black knight from Monty Python. 

Oh wait, should I hold on to post later so maybe someone will show up to make you feel better about yourself ?? I think I am going to name you gretchen.


----------



## Jim Duncan (Jan 19, 2009)

Jeff, you and Charlie Sheen are winners! Ok, I'm finished with you now you winner.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

Whatever gretchen, go do my dishes, and then clean the car. You bore the shit out of me. Also, when wearing a skirt like you have been the last couple of days, the tampax goes on the inside, and you need to shave your legs.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Pack drive = the willingness to work with a handler. It doesn't have to be a clingy willingness. Just that it makes the dog easier to train.
If the dog's willingness to keep hunting is strong enough that in itself is self satisfying.
Hounds, for instance. They can hunt all night long and not find anything. Doesn't mean it wont hunt the next night, simply because it has the drive/willingness to keep doing it.


----------



## Jeff Oehlsen (Apr 7, 2006)

You gotta scout out where you are going to hunt a little bit. LOL Dogs could end up in the next county otherwise !


----------



## Bart Karmich (Jul 16, 2010)

I don't really like the term "pack drive" but the hound dog is definitely a good example of a dog that is independent and difficult to direct. We already discussed why we needed something to direct the dog toward our goal, whether it's a toy, prey, food or whatever. Most of our dogs will do stuff simply because we tell them to. They will do it with no reward like prey, food, toy etc. offered. They will do it even when there is no threat of force and no recollection of any aversive. They will because they're not so independent of us that they will just consistently give us the bird. Calling upon a dog's biddability doesn't necessarily employ the benefit of a reinforcer (operant conditioning) but it is functional none the less. Some people call this "pack drive." Whatever. If you don't think it matters, go get a Daschund to compete in obedience.


----------



## David Frost (Mar 29, 2006)

If I was picking a **** hound, I'd probably use a different test. I know that when picking a detector dog, for PSD purposes, "pack drive" has never been a consideration. For me, it's all about the drive. 

DFrost


----------

