# Can a dog be in Fight Drive without any real intent?



## Tony Hahn (May 28, 2011)

My opinions change over time as I acquire knowledge and experience. Lately I've been mulling over 'Fight Drive'. Let me toss something out here and get the thoughts/opinions of WDF members. 


We've seen discussion/argument from time to time over what drive a dog is displaying in a given situation. There are other times when there is almost universal agreement. Say for example cases where a dog is clearly exhibiting Prey Drive- chasing a ball, an escape bite or catching a Frisbee. 


Now, lets say we have two dogs that live and play together. One loves to chase the other. When he catches the other dog, he runs past, knocks it over, nose bumps it, nips or whatever. Since he never had any intention of killing and dismembering his buddy, it's not “real” prey drive, correct? Same with catching a ball, sleeve or Frisbee, right? No intent to kill so it's not _'real' _Prey Drive, it's just a state of mind where the motivation for the dogs action comes from the genetic desire to catch/kill even when the _intent_ to catch/kill is not present. Prey Drive, but not _real_ Prey Drive. 


So, a dog can be in Prey Drive yet just playing around. At least I'm not aware of any reasonable arguments stating that anytime a dog is in Prey Drive he seriously wants to kill. 


A question on another forum about this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPK8Nxofb3c&feature=youtu.be prompted me to start this thread soliciting your opinions.


I used to muzzle my dog and we 'd play fight. We would get a lot rougher than what is in that video. I'd knock the dog around, wrestle on the ground with him and really make him work. He would be sounding and acting like he was in a real fight with nasty sounding snarl’s, muzzle banging and forceful, intense use of his body. However, it was all 100% play. We could play fight without the muzzle and he would moderate himself. He learned that with the muzzle on he could go full steam and really get into it. 


At the time I just thought of it as play. A discussion recently and that video made something click in my head. If drive as a _motivation_ can be separated from the _intent_ of the dog in prey, wouldn't the same be true of fight- the dog doesn't need to be _intent_ on _really_ fighting to be _motivated_ by fight drive?

So let's hear your opinions. Catching prey for real is serious business with fatal results. If “Prey Drive” can be the motivation behind a behavior without any real intent (chasing a ball, biting a sleeve) what about Fight Drive? A real fight is serous business. Can a dog have “Fight Drive” as a motivation behind his behavior without any real intent of fighting? When puppies chase the household cat across the living room they are using prey drive, correct? When puppies play fight, are they using fight drive? When they play fight with the handler or a decoy are they tapping into fight drive?


----------



## andreas broqvist (Jun 2, 2009)

I wuld say yes.
I have traind many many dogs I muzzel and we bild them up to love that fight.
First its agretion but later It just becomes a fight they love.
Its fun for them to dominante the decoy. Hitting him and scaring him.


----------



## Tony Hahn (May 28, 2011)

I've always considered the dog was in Fight Drive when he acted like he was serous about 'fighting' and dominating the decoy. 

But what if the decoy is the dogs 'friend' or what if the dog is playing with the handler; then is the dog still in Fight Drive? In those cases the dog knows very well that he isn't really scaring or dominating the handler (or decoy). In those cases the dog is just having fun enjoying getting play like he is a badass. 

Still Fight Drive even though the dog clearly knows it's a game?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Fight drive to me can mean the dog is rising to a challenge, opposing to win, or just even oppose, I think a dog can be in fight "drive" with a buddy of his, just means somebody might get hurt, and it might not be "play" at all. unless your idea of play is a good ole bar fight among buddies.. 

dogs that like to fight, like to fight, that can be you me anybody.

"fight drive" to me is a combination of things, not a simple drive in my mind, such as prey. 

Prey drive is truncated in most dogs, that is what we use for various training. not "real" prey drive.


----------



## Tony Hahn (May 28, 2011)

Joby Becker said:


> ................... I think a dog can be in fight "drive" with a buddy of his, just means somebody might get hurt, and it might not be "play" at all. unless your idea of play is a good ole bar fight among buddies..
> 
> ............................



Hmmm..... I'm not quite sure that is a good analogy. A bar fight between buddies is still a 'real' fight. They are probably going to stop short of purposely inflicting serous injury or killing each other, but otherwise it's still a real fight. 


Lets take a couple close friends practicing at a dojo as better example. Both clearly understand that they are not really fighting, both know the other isn't really trying to hurt him, both know that they can tap out or otherwise call a time out whenever there is a need. Just like a handler and his dog, they have gotten to this point through experience. A while back one friend punched the other too hard and a tiny bit if a 'real' fight ensued. A few more incidents here and there over time and they learn boundaries & mutual understanding of the 'game'. Now they can really go at it knowing full well that it's not serious or real- nobody gets intentionally hurt, scared, looses their social standing, etc, etc. 


I don't know how many handlers play with their dogs like this, but if the dog has successfully worked with the decoy before it's pretty similar in that the dog knows it's not 'real'. 


The decoy (or handler) ques the dog that the game is about to start by staring, stomping, throwing something at the dog then charging at him. The dog rises to the “challenge” knowing full well that it's just a game, he's not going into a real fight, he's not going to get hurt and the handler will call an end to the game whenever he chooses. Is the dog in Fight Drive or just some kind of play mode?


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Tony Hahn said:


> _"Can a dog be in Fight Drive without any real intent?"_


I suspect I'm going to be pounced on for this but what the heck ...

What if you don't believe in "drives" at all? What if the dog is an intelligent, thinking being that is capable of controlling its' urges and instincts? Acting from thought and not robotically driven by some "drive" label.

If thought is what is causing your dog to act then the next question becomes even more important... What IS your "real intent"? Will your intent not affect your dogs' intent, and actions?

I believe the dog is a reflection of the handler... The dog mirrors our soul. If we see things as a "sport or game" then the dog mirrors that. I believe that when it's not a game the dog mirrors that as well.

Something to think about?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

is a UFC fight a real fight?


----------



## Tony Hahn (May 28, 2011)

Mark Herzog said:


> I suspect I'm going to be pounced on for this but what the heck ...
> 
> What if you don't believe in "drives" at all? What if the dog is an intelligent, thinking being that is capable of controlling its' urges and instincts? Acting from thought and not robotically driven by some "drive" label.
> 
> ...


Definitely something to think about. They may mirror us to an extent. Even if dogs read and mirror us, they are animals with some genetically built in stuff. I suppose you call that 'stuff' drives, instinct or whatever. Different breeds have different built in 'stuff'. Hunting breeds have some stuff that other breeds may not have. Do you agree that the instinct/drive/whatever to have fun fighting with a human is not present in a lot of breeds?


----------



## Tony Hahn (May 28, 2011)

Joby Becker said:


> is a UFC fight a real fight?


Yes and no. It's real enough for the 'fighters' to be in Fight Drive. 

People and dogs are not the same, but I suppose the relevant question would be, when a UFC fighter takes a break from working on a construction project to have an impromptu sparing match with his buddy, does he shift from a mindset of carpenter and start thinking like a fighter? Is he in Fight Drive even though he's just having fun, there is nothing at stake and he has no intention of hurting or humiliating his buddy?


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Tony Hahn said:


> Definitely something to think about. They may mirror us to an extent. Even if dogs read and mirror us, they are animals with some genetically built in stuff. I suppose you call that 'stuff' drives, instinct or whatever. *Different breeds have different built in 'stuff'. * Hunting breeds have some stuff that other breeds may not have. * Do you agree that the instinct/drive/whatever to have fun fighting with a human is not present in a lot of breeds?*


Yes, many breeds were created/manipulated expressly to put those traits and abilities there... Just as many have since been bred to remove some of those very traits... To my thinking this is what's happened to the majority of GSDs today.

I don't agree that "fighting" is fun... The only people I've known who thought fighting was "fun" we're basically psychopaths. They enjoyed the adrenaline rush and had no remorse when killing. Fighting is fun when it's a sport... But to me that's not fighting. 

You think of this as a sport... And that's okay because for you it is a sport. Your dog should mirror you, so for your dog it should also be a sport and likely it is. Why would it see things differently? Are you in real danger? Is your dog in real danger? Is the decoy truly in real danger? Does the dog not have the intelligence and ability to sense all of this? Again to me it comes down to whether you believe it's driven by some type of "drive" or by intelligent thought and abilities.

I don't want my dog to fight because it's "fun", I want my dog to fight because I need him to fight and/or he needs to fight. 

But that's me... Your needs may be different and your dog should reflect that.


----------



## Tony Hahn (May 28, 2011)

Too bad I can't edit. The relevant question is not whether the UFC guy is "in" Fight Drive. Of course he's not _in_ drive during a fun, nothing at stake match.

The relevant question is whether 'Fight Drive' is what motivates him to have a match just for fun in the first place. Also part of the question is whether his mind has shifted into the mindset of a fighter even though he knows full well that there is nothing real or important about the match at all.


----------



## Tony Hahn (May 28, 2011)

Mark- Interesting possibilities. How much does the dog think for himself ("This decoy is threatening/scary") vs. how much does the dog mirror the handler ("Dad is cool with this so it must be OK").

We know that sometimes the dog thinks for himself and feels threatened even in a sport setting. If they were intelligent enough to know that it's just 100% for fun, wouldn't coming off the sleeve, chewy grips under stress, etc be virtually non-existent? 

I'm certain that some dogs enjoy sparing/play fighting/whatever you want to call it. I don't know if they enjoy a 'real' fight.

If some breeds have a built in instinct (drive/whatever) to fight with a person, whether they enjoy a real fight or not, then that 'drive' is what motivates them right? When a dog is play fighting, are they being motivated by that same instinct/drive to fight a person? During play with the handler or working with a familiar decoy, are we witnessing a dog in 'fight' the same way we see him in 'prey' when he plays also?


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Joby Becker said:


> is a UFC fight a real fight?




Following rules in a real fight will get your ass kicked. All the skills in the world don't necessarily take a dog to victory.. Heart and desire are just as important. 
I did the same thing with my older GSD. Lay on the ground with him on top of me and grab his throat. He always sounded like I could die any min but he always recognized it as a game.
As intense as a UFC fight can be I don't think most of the fighters are at a kill or be killed stress level. Even the fighters that truely dislike one another still follow the rules......for the most part. :grin:


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Tony Hahn said:


> Mark- Interesting possibilities. How much does the dog think for himself ("This decoy is threatening/scary") vs. how much does the dog mirror the handler ("Dad is cool with this so it must be OK").


More like: 'what does Dad want me to do here?... Am I to bark or engage... Bite and release or bite and hold? Do I bite the arm or leg or hands or feet or face? Is Dad happy with what I'm doing or is he feeling unsure or embarrassed or angry? Why isn't he being clear in what he wants and expects? Why exactly are we doing this anyway?'

When you work your dog does he always win? Does he ever "lose"? If he has never lost then why would your dog believe the decoy is threatening or scary? The decoy has no intent on hurting your dog or hurting you. If every training session has taught the dog he always wins then why would he be scared?



Tony Hahn said:


> We know that sometimes the dog thinks for himself and feels threatened even in a sport setting. If they were intelligent enough to know that it's just 100% for fun, wouldn't coming off the sleeve, chewy grips under stress, etc be virtually non-existent?


Only true if you believe that full grips are the ONLY way... Some would argue that multiple bites and not allowing the decoy to grab them are good traits and natural instincts trying to overpower the previous training to bite full and hold no matter what. They can know it's not real but still instinctually revert to natural tactics. 



Tony Hahn said:


> I'm certain that some dogs enjoy sparing/play fighting/whatever you want to call it. I don't know if they enjoy a 'real' fight.


I agree that many dogs have been taught to "enjoy" the game you call "fighting"



Tony Hahn said:


> If some breeds have a built in instinct (drive/whatever) to fight with a person, whether they enjoy a real fight or not, then that 'drive' is what motivates them right?


I don't think so. I think that certain breeds were originally manipulated to increase their instincts to protect... The GSD is an example of this. Great family protectors... Herders... Etc. They are (at least the breed used to be), inclined to be protective but I don't call that a "drive" and it's certainly not a "drive" to fight people or animals. I believe my dog is 'motivated' by an instinct to protect and a desire to please me... Helped along by how he was raised and trained. He will engage where he feels threatened (with or without my command), he will engage regardless of threat if I command him to do so, and he will stand down if I say so even where a threat does exist.



Tony Hahn said:


> When a dog is play fighting, are they being motivated by that same instinct/drive to fight a person? During play with the handler or working with a familiar decoy, are we witnessing a dog in 'fight' the same way we see him in 'prey' when he plays also?


I would suggest that when you watch your dog "play fighting" as you call it, he is being motivated by his desire to do what you've trained him to do in order to please you and get whatever rewards you've used during your training.


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Joby Becker said:


> is a UFC fight a real fight?


I think it's really close... 

Take away the rest periods... Take away the judges... Take away the tap-out. Fight non stop until only one person is left and you've got as close to "real" as you can get.

Make it a fight to the death and it's totally real... But then it would no longer be called a "sporting event" which is exactly what UFC, boxing, etc. are.


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Wish I could edit and add to my last post...

I think this is a great place to go back to the OPs original thread post about "intent" because it's what makes the difference here. In the case of the UFC "fighters" their intent affects the way they fight... There is no intent to permanently hurt or kill each other and they act accordingly. If the intent changed (fight to the death) I hope all would agree that the way the combatants fight would change accordingly.

When we train and work dogs for sport the intent of the handler and intent of the decoy is NOT to harm the dog. I believe the dog knows this (instinctively if you like) and the dogs intent mirrors that of the handler. 

On the other hand if that same dog were engaged during a life and death struggle where the handler and dog were seriously threatened and in real danger of harm, I believe the intent of the handler would be different and the dog would also show different intent. The attacker is no longer a decoy... The aggression is real... The danger is real... The fight is real. 

It is naive to think the intent is the same for a sporting dog during training... At least for me it's incomprehensible.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Fighting has been more about winning than killing, and I think this holds true in the majority of animal encounters.

imo, for animals other than humans or near humans like chimps, killing is usually driven by predation; to survive and eat.
of course there are always some exceptions.

Maybe I sound like a broken record, but domestic dogs are no longer predators, no matter how much we'd like to believe the contrary, and I don't think a dog who enjoys chasing down a rabbit and killing it is being a predator either. Nor is a livestock guardian dog who might end up killing an intruder. They're just showing remnants of past genetics. Domestic cats are an even better example than dogs; much more predator in them 

Imo, all the hypothetical discussions about fight drives in dogs is a bit overblown, and not all that practical once it goes beyond fighting to win something.
Of course fighting can be a good outlet and enjoyed for fun. Done all the time by dogs and humans. And overdone by some owners who can't control their dog, or by idiots who want to overload it and add more aggression into the mix resulting in an unbalanced canine.

Training for "fight drive", if you insist on using that term, should just be to train a dog to engage, stay engaged, and win, regardless of what is being thrown at it. Trained so that it never sees a threat that would cause it to back down. Trained confidence. How much confidence is genetic is just a bonus you can start with, and I am assuming that is one goal of breeding 

To me I can't really understand what the title of this thread means regarding "intent", because I think dogs REACT much more than they plan their actions.
Because of that, I think trying to explain how a dog thinks and rationalizes thoughts seems equally counterproductive. I don't think that happens and if you dissect their brain, or hook em up to a functional MRI, it could probably be proven scientifically. not enuff grey matter, and probably why there are more psycho humans than psycho dogs 
ymmv


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Mark Herzog said:


> Yes, many breeds were created/manipulated expressly to put those traits and abilities there... Just as many have since been bred to remove some of those very traits... To my thinking this is what's happened to the majority of GSDs today.
> 
> I don't agree that "fighting" is fun... The only people I've known who thought fighting was "fun" we're basically psychopaths. They enjoyed the adrenaline rush and had no remorse when killing. Fighting is fun when it's a sport... But to me that's not fighting.
> 
> ...


The so called trucated part for prey drive is the kill. For some its truncated. I think instincts and pack relationships can determine what some dogs will and will not do. There are dogs that are in it for themselves and satisfaction of their drives. I also think their are dogs that are motivated by winning the fight and are turned on by fighting. You will see that "make my day" glean in their eye. Unfortunately, that seems to be the direction of working dog breeding--dogs that get off on fight for the sake of fight. 

T


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Mark Herzog said:


> Wish I could edit and add to my last post...
> 
> I think this is a great place to go back to the OPs original thread post about "intent" because it's what makes the difference here. In the case of the UFC "fighters" their intent affects the way they fight... There is no intent to permanently hurt or kill each other and they act accordingly. If the intent changed (fight to the death) I hope all would agree that the way the combatants fight would change accordingly.
> 
> ...


I think you are right but the dog that you mention is really not the dog that is desired--or so it seems.

T


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

"from time to time over what drive a dog is displaying in a given situation."
- i just state it as how the dog is reacting to a stimulus

"No intent to kill so it's not 'real' Prey Drive"
- implies that it is real or not real ... kinda like describing a "real" dog  ... i see it as simply a reaction to chase a moving object
- the entire sequence of hunting, targeting, chasing, catching, killing, etc etc is a whole different situation

"If drive as a motivation can be separated from the intent of the dog in prey"
- way too abstract and hypothetical imo

"fight drive" to me is a combination of things, not a simple drive in my mind, such as prey."
- a more complete description but still abstract imo

"A bar fight between buddies is still a 'real' fight"
- implies it can be real or not real 

"What if the dog is an intelligent, thinking being that is capable of controlling its' urges and instincts? Acting from thought and not robotically driven by some "drive" label."
- that's a lot to digest  the K.I.S.S principle : look at the brain of a dog and what it has evolved to do as compared to a human and try not to over think it 

"I believe the dog is a reflection of the handler"
- agree this is accurate in almost all cases, but how does it relate to "fight drive without real intent" ??

"The dog mirrors our soul"
- but i don't agree with this or the example used 

"People and dogs are not the same"
- duh....  so maybe best to keep all this UFC stuff out of the discussion and stay focused on the topic of dogs ?

"Following rules in a real fight will get your ass kicked"
- maybe true in a lot of cases, but rules are made by humans, even when we apply them to dog training. and sometimes hard for a dog to follow because their brain is not capable of fully learning a set of complicated human rules  it's our control ego at work imposed on an animal that doesn't see a need for them 

- i agree with a lot of what Mark writes, but still think the "real" part and the analogies to "killing" are not realistic at all and the refs to humans fighting just don't apply to canine behaviors and can't be compared. 
- EVERYTHING is real to a dog, but that doesn't "really" mean much. you could discuss forever what's real or not. actually reality is only what our brain has processed neurologically and processed so we can "handle it" ... it's not "really" what is out there in our environment. The "Ames chair" is a perfect example

- i can fight hard with my dog but if someone else tried to copy the same actions, there would be VERY different results.
- same dog, same "drives" 
- which tells me there are no standard "drives" that can be applied consistently across the board. just lots of examples.

- drive discussions come up all the time and get lots of responses, but are rarely applied to actual training methods, so they don't interest me all that much. especially when they refer to genetics that are, for the most part, no longer there. 

** but if these discussions provided more guidance on how to specifically apply drives to TRAINING i'd be all for it


----------



## Hunter Allred (Jan 28, 2010)

Joby Becker said:


> is a UFC fight a real fight?


That's the analogy I always use. Two MMA fighters are really fighting, enjoy it, and both generally get moderately to severely injured in the process, but death is not the intent. When two rams.. Ram each other for territorial or sexual rights, it's very real, but the intent still is not death of the other


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Mark Herzog said:


> I don't think so. I think that certain breeds were originally manipulated to increase their instincts to protect... The GSD is an example of this. Great family protectors... Herders... Etc. They are (at least the breed used to be), inclined to be protective but I don't call that a "drive" and it's certainly not a "drive" to fight people or animals. I believe my dog is 'motivated' by an instinct to protect and a desire to please me... Helped along by how he was raised and trained. He will engage where he feels threatened (with or without my command), he will engage regardless of threat if I command him to do so, and he will stand down if I say so even where a threat does exist.


when I got this one dog, the breeder told me that +the dog was bred to fight people".... which after owning the dog, I completely agree with.

in your viewpoint, is this still a valid statement?


----------



## Michael Murphy (Nov 27, 2010)

Joby Becker said:


> when I got this one dog, the breeder told me that +the dog was bred to fight people".... which after owning the dog, I completely agree with.
> 
> in your viewpoint, is this still a valid statement?


breed and bloodlines of the dog thanks :lol:


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Joby Becker said:


> when I got this one dog, the breeder told me that +the dog was bred to fight people".... which after owning the dog, I completely agree with.
> 
> in your viewpoint, is this still a valid statement?


Not sure I understand... How old was this dog when you got it from the breeder? Are you saying that your dog was born with aggression towards people? That it started lashing out at everyone? And that it tries to fight with every person it encounters?

How exactly did the breeder claim he/she "bred to fight people"?

Or was its behaviour a learned behaviour that was essentially trained into it?


----------



## Tony Hahn (May 28, 2011)

Mark Herzog said:


> ...................................When you work your dog does he always win? Does he ever "lose"? If he has never lost then why would your dog believe the decoy is threatening or scary? The decoy has no intent on hurting your dog or hurting you. If every training session has taught the dog he always wins then why would he be scared?................................


Normal animals (or people for that matter) can and will perceive a threat based on a situation or action. The dog (or you) can win every time but still feel concern/fear/stress because it's a survival mechanism wired into our brains. It does take more to stress or pressure some creatures than others and that somewhat links into the original question. If the dog is not feeling threatened or scared, is he still in Fight Drive when participating in a 'play' fight?

You make some thought provoking points. I do not agree with this though-



Mark Herzog said:


> .....................................
> I would suggest that when you watch your dog "play fighting" as you call it, he is being motivated by his desire to do what you've trained him to do in order to please you and get whatever rewards you've used during your training.


 For some dogs, Muzzle work/Play fighting/Sport bite-work/etc are so enjoyable that it IS a reward. For example, I’ve literally used bite-work or horseplay as a reward. The dog is motivated to figure out what you want so you will reward him with a play-fight or let him bite the decoy. I know they love this “fighting”. Now, whether they enjoy a situation where they believe a real threat is presented; a genuine fight or flight situation; I cannot say with certainty. Obviously the dogs that flee did not enjoy the situation, but what about the ones who choose fight instead of flight? Do they enjoy it or are they simply driven to endure the stress/pressure by some inner instinct?

It is interesting to hear a different viewpoint regarding drives. I tend to think that much of what motivates a dogs behavior is genetic based. It’s somewhat a matter of semantics whether you call the inbred genetic motives “drives” or something else.


----------



## Tony Hahn (May 28, 2011)

rick smith said:


> ……………… EVERYTHING is real to a dog, but that doesn't "really" mean much. you could discuss forever what's real or not. actually reality is only what our brain has processed neurologically and processed so we can "handle it" ... it's not "really" what is out there in our environment. The "Ames chair" is a perfect example
> 
> - i can fight hard with my dog but if someone else tried to copy the same actions, there would be VERY different results.
> - same dog, same "drives"
> - which tells me there are no standard "drives" that can be applied consistently across the board. just lots of examples………………….


 Yes, everything is real to a dog in the sense that they live in the moment, so to speak. This relates back to my original question. The dog is living in the moment and play-fighting with his handler. The moment is real but the dog is not seriously trying to dominate or frighten off his handler. At any time the handler can call an end to the game and the dog will respect the handler’s leadership/alpha position/whatever you want to call it. The dog is happy, he had fun, it was all play and not a real fight. So, was the dog in Fight Drive even though there was no intent on the part of the dog to defeat the handler?



rick smith said:


> …………………………….
> - drive discussions come up all the time and get lots of responses, but are rarely applied to actual training methods, so they don't interest me all that much. especially when they refer to genetics that are, for the most part, no longer there.
> 
> ** but if these discussions provided more guidance on how to specifically apply drives to TRAINING i'd be all for it


 My interest in soliciting opinions is directly related to training. When I first started training bite-work it was primarily based in what we call Defense today. That type of training has to a large degree been replaced with Prey based training. 

Due to circumstances I mostly train on my own, including bite-work. Obviously that necessitates bite-work will be prey/play based only. Now, IF we are able to use muzzle work or rough housing to shift a dog into Fight Drive- even though the dog is clearly playing without any serous intent- I can re-evaluate and think of how to better incorporate the play-fighting into training.


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

So the dog that is in PREY and after a rabbit, doesn't want to kill it!?

The risk of injury is slim in this mode, yet, some rabbits will stand their ground and fight. A true waste of time but I've seen it happen.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

My opinion- 'Play fighting' with handler/decoy is not anywhere in the realms of 'fight drive' and there is no intent.

Now as an additional note- whether a fight is a 'play fight' or 'Real fight with intent' has nothing to do with the human in the situation. It's the dogs perception of the situation.

Concerning the various 'fight drive' statements opinions, it is my opinion that some dogs just love the act of fighting and to them it is very real indeed, they have intent and they will do their utmost to fulfil that intent.
This ^^ is best described as 'gameness' look to pitt breeds (staffs, PBT, EBT etc) they will happily kill each other, get injured, horifically injured, split up, do an amazing impression of a zombie and try their hardest to get back into the fight. They can and do fight to the death even though they have plenty of escape routes and that is not just the ones bred/trained for fighting.
In my experience of the non pitt breeds, the doberman and various other terriers show this the most and it would seem Malionis I am finding, not surprising as many could have bullterrier in there somewhere.

So short answer IMO no a dog is not in fight drive if it has no 'intent' and no I wouldn't even entertain creating that intent with my own dog, muzzle or no muzzle.


----------



## Tony Hahn (May 28, 2011)

Matt Vandart said:


> My opinion- 'Play fighting' with handler/decoy is not anywhere in the realms of 'fight drive' and there is no intent.
> 
> Now as an additional note- whether a fight is a 'play fight' or 'Real fight with intent' has nothing to do with the human in the situation. It's the dogs perception of the situation.
> ..............................................................
> So short answer IMO no a dog is not in fight drive if it has no 'intent' and no I wouldn't even entertain creating that intent with my own dog, muzzle or no muzzle.


 If this is correct, wouldn’t that mean you would have to really struggle to find a Decoy and set up a situation work a dog in Fight Drive? Wouldn't it become an almost practical impossibility to ever work a dog who does not have a Pitt Fighter type temperament in Fight Drive? If the dog perceives the Decoy as a sparing partner or ‘friend’, then the dog is no more intent on really fighting than he is with his handler, correct? 

So, if no serious intent = not in Fight Drive; wouldn’t that mean the vast majority of what we currently view as working the dog in ‘Defense’ or ‘Fight’ is in fact NOT the case? 

If the dog’s perception and intent is what determines whether he’s utilizing Fight Drive, then it wouldn’t matter whether the person interacting with the dog is a Decoy or the Handler, unless the Decoy did something extreme to make the dog perceive the situation just became ‘real’. That would only work once or twice before the dog figured out it was just another game anyway, right?


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

:-s


Matt Vandart said:


> ...
> Now as an additional note- whether a fight is a 'play fight' or 'Real fight with intent' *has nothing to do with the human in the situation*. It's the dogs perception of the situation.


Where exactly does the dogs' "perception of the situation" come from? Is the dog not aware of its' handler? Does it not sense the anxiety/fear/anger/etc. (or lack thereof) from their handler? If the human has nothing to do with the situation then what acts on the dog's perception?

When you are uneasy, upset, anxious, fearful, etc does your dog not sense this? Do you not see times when your dog reacts to your moods? When you are having a really bad day do you not sometimes feel that your dog just doesn't quite seem to be himself? Do you not sense that the two are related?


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Mark Herzog said:


> :-s
> 
> Where exactly does the dogs' "perception of the situation" come from? Is the dog not aware of its' handler? Does it not sense the anxiety/fear/anger/etc. (or lack thereof) from their handler? If the human has nothing to do with the situation then what acts on the dog's perception?
> 
> When you are uneasy, upset, anxious, fearful, etc does your dog not sense this? Do you not see times when your dog reacts to your moods? When you are having a really bad day do you not sometimes feel that your dog just doesn't quite seem to be himself? Do you not sense that the two are related?


Mark,

There are dogs that don't care about their handler's perception of the situation. Its all about what's triggered in them internally. Sport breeders are moving away from the type of dog that you describe--sadly.


T


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Mark,
> 
> There are dogs that don't care about their handler's perception of the situation. Its all about what's triggered in them internally. Sport breeders are moving away from the type of dog that you describe--sadly.
> 
> ...


I fear you are correct. I can't for the life of me understand people anymore. To strip away the very qualities that made the dog so special and valuable as a working tool... It's just incomprehensible to me.


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Mark,
> 
> There are dogs that don't care about their handler's perception of the situation. Its all about what's triggered in them internally. Sport breeders are moving away from the type of dog that you describe--sadly.
> 
> ...


If what you say is true then I suppose this explains a lot of the things I have trouble understanding when I read many of the posts on this form. This gives me much to think about.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Mark Herzog said:


> Not sure I understand... How old was this dog when you got it from the breeder? Are you saying that your dog was born with aggression towards people? That it started lashing out at everyone? And that it tries to fight with every person it encounters?
> 
> How exactly did the breeder claim he/she "bred to fight people"?
> 
> Or was its behaviour a learned behaviour that was essentially trained into it?


It was basically stated that the dog was bred to fight people. Not as a sole function of course, but was brought up as a reminder as to how I would conduct my training, such as not working the dog myself in bitework past puppyhood, and also as a reminder to the possessive nature and possibility of the dog reacting negatively to rough handling.

the exact quote was this:

"this dog was bred to fight people, and if you are not careful that can easily extend to the person holding the leash."

the dog is a social dog, but also very eager to engage, with high aggression tendencies. For instance if someone gave an indication that they might like to fight her, or if given a command to do so.

this was inborn into the dog in my opinion. same thing as a fast lane pitbull liking to fight other dogs, or a hunting AB liking to fight a hog.

some dogs are bred to fight animals, some to fight people, some to fight
both.


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Joby Becker said:


> It was basically stated that the dog was bred to fight people. Not as a sole function of course, but was brought up as a reminder as to how I would conduct my training, such as not working the dog myself in bitework past puppyhood, and also as a reminder to the possessive nature and possibility of the dog reacting negatively to rough handling.
> 
> the exact quote was this:
> 
> ...


Thank you for the explanation. I found it interesting that just about everything you said (point by point) could be said for my dogs... But it was never described as "bred to fight people". Guess that's what threw me off. 

My dogs were described as being bred to be GSD Working Dogs. They were raised and trained to be Personal Protection dogs. They were never sport trained. They have never played with a ball... Played with other dogs... Never play fight with the handlers. Their only purpose is to work... Whether it's tracking people, searching for narcotics or munitions... Protection work yes but fighting is a part of protection it's not the goal.

Having said that I don't see them as being bred or driven to "fight people". They are genetically inclined for protection work given that their lineage is nothing but protection, LE and military working dogs. They have a long history of being capable of fighting but they don't seek out fights. They seek to protect and please their handler (me). If that means fight then they fight... If it means stop fighting then they out.

I guess you'd say my dogs were also bred to fight people... But I don't think of it that way.


----------



## Faisal Khan (Apr 16, 2009)

Cool stuff, feel free to show n tell anytime people, so far it has been just "tell".


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Mark Herzog said:


> Thank you for the explanation. I found it interesting that just about everything you said (point by point) could be said for my dogs... But it was never described as "bred to fight people". Guess that's what threw me off.
> 
> My dogs were described as being bred to be GSD Working Dogs. They were raised and trained to be Personal Protection dogs. They were never sport trained. They have never played with a ball... Played with other dogs... Never play fight with the handlers. Their only purpose is to work... Whether it's tracking people, searching for narcotics or munitions... Protection work yes but fighting is a part of protection it's not the goal.
> 
> ...


Was not trying to make anything sound super crazy, just believe its true.
This dog responded to first agitation with instant determination to engage. no training, dog was ready to fight, first time. no foundation. no nothing. had guy try to test sleeve bite in straight prey, dog was weak and uninterested not surprisingly. agitated dog 1 time in kennel from distance, dog went off like a bomb. took her out gave another sleeve bite, bite was full, hard, and shaking. dog popped off of that second sleeve bite and grabbed dudes stick arm when raised stick, and had to be pried off. That is when I truly came to believe the statement about the dog being bred to fight.

took months of calmer work to calm her back down to "normal".


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Joby Becker said:


> Was not trying to make anything sound super crazy, just believe its true.
> This dog responded to first agitation with instant determination to engage. no training, dog was ready to fight, first time. no foundation. no nothing. had guy try to test sleeve bite in straight prey, dog was weak and uninterested not surprisingly. agitated dog 1 time in kennel from distance, dog went off like a bomb. took her out gave another sleeve bite, bite was full, hard, and shaking. dog popped off of that second sleeve bite and grabbed dudes stick arm when raised stick, and had to be pried off. That is when I truly came to believe the statement about the dog being bred to fight.
> 
> took months of calmer work to calm her back down to "normal".


What a difference that perspective makes... I'm finding this fascinating. You say it "took months of calmer work to calm her back down to 'normal'." yet for me what you've described is ideal. I wouldn't want to change that dog I'd want to exploit those capabilities and utilize them. To me this is what a dog should be... it's natural (to my way of thinking)... it's what we hope for and expect from a breeding.

I don't take a lot of video during our training sessions... honestly we're just not setup to do it and we simply don't have time to sit and review it afterwards anyway. On one particular day I was taking some stills of one of our pups (he came from the breeding of two of my personal dogs). Anyway, this dog was 8 months old and had never done any bite work... never seen a sleeve. He had been "agitated" once about a month earlier where he'd been verbally threatened from a distance and showed uncertainty on how to react so we did no further agitation at that time.

On this particular day he was plutzed quietly beside my wife and we decided to test his reaction for a second time. Another handler calmly approached and when he got about 12 feet away he became verbally abusive and aggressive towards my wife and the dog. I happened to have the camera on motor drive setting and caught the dog's reaction in a series of stills. I later put the stills into a slide show video because I thought it really captured the dog's reaction and intent very well. The whole thing was 10 shots taken continuously and happened in a matter of seconds.

I will see if I can upload the video...


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

I think this will work...

http://www.tacticalk9.ca/videos/Zeus Attack.wmv

The handler doing the agitation that day worked next to and around that dog for months before and after that day. He handled other dogs alongside Zeus but did not handle that dog (my wife handles that dog as the dog was raised as her personal dog) but the dog was stable around him every day.

He is super protective of my wife but very controlled... goes to shopping malls with her... does obedience work with her among various breeds and unstable dogs at the local dog club (great stability training). He has on numerous occasions been stable and controlled when other dogs have become aggressive right next to him (dog fights during public obedience classes).

He has no interest in flirt poles or equipment. If he bites a sleeve he has little interest in it... he wants the person and will spit the sleeve immediately if it's slipped.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

I've seen numerous dogs that chase out of prey but don't have a clue when the quarry stops running. 
It's also been shown that the Cheetah needs the chase to make a kill. 
I know that's apples and oranges but I believe that many dogs will chase with no effort to bite.


----------



## Tony Hahn (May 28, 2011)

Mark Herzog said:


> I think this will work...
> 
> http://www.tacticalk9.ca/videos/Zeus Attack.wmv


It's great you were able to preserve the moment in pictures. Sure wish I had more pics, take them while you can.


----------



## Tony Hahn (May 28, 2011)

Faisal Khan said:


> Cool stuff, feel free to show n tell anytime people, so far it has been just "tell".


I'm reluctant to post video because I don't want the actual question to get sidetracked by discussion about an individual dog or what is happening in the video. My question isn't about a particular individual dog or a specific kind of play. It's a general question about any dog, what drive is motivating the dog and what the dogs mindset is during play. Is Fight Drive the _motivation_ behind playfighting just like Prey Drive is the _motivation_ behind chasing a ball?

In this video the dog is about 2 years old and there is no intensity to his play. By the time he was 3 years old, if you didn't know better you would swear the dog was really fighting with full sound effects and very intense action. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzSveOf9Utc To reiterate though, _my question is NOT about what is happening in this video!!_ It's a general question about drive or the motivation behind the behavior in a dog playfighting, _not this particular one and not the specific play in this video_.


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

Mark .
damn couldnt see the video. just turns black on me. Ill try another computer.

when I said "normal" I meant safe to work in training, without constantly having to be overly concerned about people getting hurt in training.

Like working on secure targeting and calmer overall work IN TRAINING.
The dog had multiple actual bites in training and was taking the training I was doing far to seriously, because of the way bitework was introduced, and the lack of foundation work.

I dont see how calming the dog down to make it safer for my training decoys was a bad move, I dont think doing this has affected the dog's ability to "protect" me, herself, or my home in any way. I have done a minimal amount of reality based "testing" in muzzle and on hidden equipment, just not with my regular training buddies, that I want the dog to trust and respect. I know how to get what I need out of a dog, and doing "sport" type work with this particular dog I dont think has any negative effects on her ability to fight a man for real. This was a dog that could have quickly made it difficult to find people to work with if I opened up Pandora's box, the dog was pretty dangerous when she thought the "training" was "real".

My original thought process on this thread was to spark discussion about the "play fighting" with the dog.

I personally would not do this with most dogs I have owned, not without equipment on, that would surely result in a quick trip to the ER.

Tony
This is NOT a knock on dobies, but most dobies I have seen are very good at displays, and "guarding" type things showing lots of restraint or inhibitions in biting. Which I can clearly see in the video you posted. The dog shows lots of guarding behavior, and attempts to get into a physically dominant body position, but is not actually attempting what I would consider fighting, pounding with the muzzle and attempting to bite. Which is fine. I think that is what I would all a good ole restrained aggressive wrasltin' match.

If I tried wrestling my dog, without a muzzle, I would get eaten up, just like many others here. She would happily "fight" with me, but it would be more like the "bar fight" scene, biting would happen very quickly. The dog would not do this with malice, but do it because that is what she does. She would have no qualms. I have to be careful enough with my handling/interaction as it is, without inviting the dog to dominate me in a muzzle or bite me. But hell, the dog is sold, so maybe I'll knock back a couple and get stupid before she leaves here.

The dog is built for fighting, mentally I dont need to exploit that trait anymore than I have in training, what she brings to the table is not a result of training, it is a result of breeding. 

I also imagine it is a fairly different type of dog than most people own.

I'll stick with my UFC analogy, others can stick with their "real fighting" analogies. I would view broken faces, arms, and legs as pretty real to me. Trust me a good UFC fighter I am sure could whip most anyone in a "real fight" as well, and have fun doing it, because I imagine those guys really LIKE to fight. Just like some dogs do.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Mark Herzog said:


> :-s
> 
> Where exactly does the dogs' "perception of the situation" come from? Is the dog not aware of its' handler? Does it not sense the anxiety/fear/anger/etc. (or lack thereof) from their handler? *If the human has nothing to do with the situation* then what acts on the dog's perception?
> 
> When you are uneasy, upset, anxious, fearful, etc does your dog not sense this? Do you not see times when your dog reacts to your moods? When you are having a really bad day do you not sometimes feel that your dog just doesn't quite seem to be himself? Do you not sense that the two are related?


Yeah that was pretty badly written.
Nothing to do with the human's wants, as in that we can want it to be in fight drive all day long it isn't gonna happen unless the fight gets 'serious' in the dogs head.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Tony Hahn said:


> I'm reluctant to post video because I don't want the actual question to get sidetracked by discussion about an individual dog or what is happening in the video. My question isn't about a particular individual dog or a specific kind of play. It's a general question about any dog, what drive is motivating the dog and what the dogs mindset is during play. Is Fight Drive the _motivation_ behind playfighting just like Prey Drive is the _motivation_ behind chasing a ball?
> 
> In this video the dog is about 2 years old and there is no intensity to his play. By the time he was 3 years old, if you didn't know better you would swear the dog was really fighting with full sound effects and very intense action. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzSveOf9Utc To reiterate though, _my question is NOT about what is happening in this video!!_ It's a general question about drive or the motivation behind the behavior in a dog playfighting, _not this particular one and not the specific play in this video_.


Tony I know you didn't want to talk about the individual dog but I have to say I love watching vid's o you an Remy, he was such a cool dog and you can see the partnership you had very easily.

On topic, I tend to agree with Joby here, if I started ****ing about with Sali (Mal) or Tilly (dobe) like this, I too would be taking a trip to the 'ER' very quickly, mostly I would say is because they are a bit stupid and take shit too seriously.

Joby- Sali is like the dog you describe and I concur with everything in your post.
I think one of the issues I have with not calming shit down with dogs like this is they never get their targeting reliable enough to proceed for my liking and one ends up to an extent winging it in training. Examples would be re-directs or switching like in Joby's example or just plain targeting wherever they please, like the decoys balls or face. This makes a suit 100% necessity for this kind of training, may as well forget sleeves.


----------



## Tony Hahn (May 28, 2011)

Thanks, Matt. He wasn’t perfect, but he was a good dog. 

Joby- I wouldn’t think it was anything besides alcohol fueled poor judgment to just up and start wrestling with an adult dog. The dog in the video wasn’t safe to play in the beginning, it took time. As a pup he would get wound up over other dogs or people and try to take his frustration out on the handler. He got hung many times before he matured enough for his head to clear. When we first started tie outs, after giving him a few bites you had to wait for him to settle before approaching him or else you would get nailed. Eventually his head cleared about tie outs too. Same with horseplay/wrestling. He went through phases; first where he got too serous, then got playful and clear headed, then got to where he acted and sounded serous but was still just playing with a clear head. 

I did not want to get off topic discussing a particular dog though. 

All dogs can learn. The issue becomes whether it’s worth it to you both in terms of your time and the injuries you may sustain along the way. 

What I’m wondering is not whether they can learn to play, but rather, what is the drive behind the motivation for rough play? If the genetic motivation (or drive) is an enjoyment of the “fight”; can we make better use of that motivation/drive in training though play? 

IF it’s just play for the sake of play with no more of a genetic fight driven component than a Border Collie or Vizsla would have, then the training value as it relates to protection work is limited. On the other hand, once the dog learns how to play with a clear head, there is no conflict with the handler, so IF Fight Drive is the genetic motivation behind the play; you could come up with ways to get actual training value from it.


----------



## Faisal Khan (Apr 16, 2009)

Man, excuse my humor here but the dog did not need a muzzle, he needed a condom! dude all he was interested in was humping you! There was no fight there.

Could not see anything in the pic compilation of the Mal, cute dog though.


----------



## Faisal Khan (Apr 16, 2009)

Tony Hahn said:


> I'm reluctant to post video because I don't want the actual question to get sidetracked by discussion about an individual dog or what is happening in the video. My question isn't about a particular individual dog or a specific kind of play. It's a general question about any dog, what drive is motivating the dog and what the dogs mindset is during play. Is Fight Drive the _motivation_ behind playfighting just like Prey Drive is the _motivation_ behind chasing a ball?
> 
> In this video the dog is about 2 years old and there is no intensity to his play. By the time he was 3 years old, if you didn't know better you would swear the dog was really fighting with full sound effects and very intense action. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzSveOf9Utc To reiterate though, _my question is NOT about what is happening in this video!!_ It's a general question about drive or the motivation behind the behavior in a dog playfighting, _not this particular one and not the specific play in this video_.


Totally understand the point of view, just wanted to see a video to put perspective on the question. Thanks for posting.


----------



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

I think bringing dogs out in defense has been discussed on here a lot. The general consenus seems to be more defense = dog tending to bail when the going gets tough. 
I have seen that too training at my club, you have to be really careful with the more defensive dogs.

I may be wrong Mark but I see hackles on the Mal at the end of that compilation.

I think most any Mal or GSD can put on a defensive show when agitated its what they do on the bite that matters to me. Most of the defensive type dogs or the ones I have seen brought out in defense (no prey foundation) tend to be chewy and have poorer gripping behavior. To much pressure and they come off.


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Haz Othman said:


> ... The general consenus seems to be more defense = dog tending to bail when the going gets tough.


I've read that as well :razz:


----------



## Steve Burger (Jan 2, 2009)

Fight drive has to be carefully cultivated. What most people think of as fight drive is probably frustrated prey. A dog has to have good social aggression and see the helper as an enemy for there to be fight drive. Most people f*&ked up this possibility long ago with their dogs. 

I think rough and tumble stuff is good for dogs. However just because there is a muzzle or no equipment does not make it real to the dog. If it is seen as a game, it is a game.


----------



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

Mark Herzog said:


> I've read that as well :razz:


Seeing is believing and Im a believer .


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Haz Othman said:


> Seeing is believing and Im a believer .


With all due respect, your opinions differ greatly from mine. You train for sport and see from that perspective... I train for personal protection and see things differently.

I too have seen many dogs that "bail when the going gets tough" (your words) but to be honest they were mostly dogs that were bred, raised and trained by 'sport' people. The puppy in my slide show was literally starting out. He alerted silently to the approaching threat but remained plutzed quietly waiting... When commanded he instantly sprang to intercede and show aggression. I see no indication that if he had been released he would have engaged the threat (as he has since gone on to do).

I can assure you that we put lots of pressure on our dogs during training... It is never treated as a game, for us or the dogs. I don't look at it as "fun" and I'm not trying to make it "fun" for the dog (as I hear many sport people say about their sessions). To us it's "work" and we try very hard to be serious and to keep the dogs focused and serious. It's an attitude that permeates what we do and the dogs pick up on that... Our intent becomes the dogs intent. We want the dogs to learn how man will hurt them and how they can fight and win those encounters. At the very least to survive the fight as long as possible. 

It's not a sport for me, it's life and death. I don't care if my dog "comes off" (your words)... As long as the dog counters instantly. I don't care if the dog bites and holds that bite or bites and rips repeatedly. I don't care where the dog bites, we let the dog fight. We show the dog where the threats come from (hands, feet, weapons), and how those threats can hurt them... We then let the dog learn how to respond effectively. One thing they do NOT do is "bail" as you phrased it. 

I believe this starts with genetics and is nurtured and developed through training. I believe the dog is a reflection of the handler and when it "fights" it does so partly as a reflection of the handler's attitude. My intent has an effect on my dog's intent... The intent of the decoy has an affect on the intent of my dog... my dogs fight differently, based on the person in the suit.

It was recently pointed out to me (on this forum) that 'sport breeders' no longer want or breed the kind of dogs that I speak of. I had not fully understood that until recently... I hadn't thought about it really and just figured it was poor breeding that had seen the destruction (in my mind) of most of the GSD lines. Now I'm starting to see that the stripping away of the very qualities that made the dog so special were intentionally bred out to make the dog more suitable for sport and show. Very few people truly want the old style working GSD these days, and even fewer understand what that entails.


----------



## Tony Hahn (May 28, 2011)

The thread title is probably a poor choice of words regarding the original question. 

The question is about dogs participating in what is clearly not a ‘real’ fight, just a game, in their minds. 

For the purposes of the question-
*It doesn’t matter if the dog is playing with the handler or someone else as long as the dog clearly does not believe he’s in a ‘real’ fight. 
*It doesn’t matter if the dog is wearing a muzzle or not. 
*It doesn’t matter is the human is wearing equipment or not.
*The dog can be biting hard on a suit or sleeve or the dog can be using self-restrained, not-injury inflicting bites on the human without any muzzle or equipment at all. 
*It doesn’t matter if the dog is completely unrestrained, held on leash, tied out, on a table or any other situation you can come up with.

I suppose the main criteria are that the dog must perceive that it is a game and it must NOT be an obvious Prey driven exercise. For example the play must incorporate give and take; pretend ‘attacks’ and ‘counter attacks’ that makes the dog put forth significant effort to participate, and of course the dog must not perceive that any of it is actually threatening or ‘real’. No matter how ferocious he appears (or not), the dog is playing. 

In other words, if the dog is on a table; you are threatening and hitting the dog with a clatter stick and the dog ‘counter attacks’, as long as the dog perceives it’s a type of game then that play is relevant to the question. If you are running around the yard playing slap-ass tag with the dog it doesn’t fit the question. 

I’m interested in any opinions. For example, if you think everything a dog does unless he’s deadly serious is Prey driven; even when it doesn’t fit obvious Prey type behavior that’s fine; I’m not arguing any point of view and would like to hear you explain WHY you hold the opinion you do.


----------



## Tony Hahn (May 28, 2011)

Mark Herzog said:


> ............................ It is never treated as a game, for us or the dogs. I don't look at it as "fun" and I'm not trying to make it "fun" for the dog....................


 I think a good dog is capable of having fun without diminishing his ability to be serious. Think of the ages old Nature vs. Nurture argument. You might consider the ability to be serous is Nature and having fun is a result of Nurture. I don’t think that you are going to destroy the Nature that has been bred into the dog by playing with him. 

If I understand correctly the kind of dog you like would be like an old school GSD with a general utility/service type temperament. For what it’s worth, in my opinion that kind of dog values the bond with his family just as much and possibly more than what some folks refer to as “Sport” dogs that are “in it for themselves”. Personally, I view many different kinds of training, play and life experiences as part of the bonding process. 

Hunting, Hiking, Obedience Training, Sport bite-work, swimming with the kids, joining the family for a picnic, and numerous ‘play’ activities all contribute to the bonding process. 

If you want a dog that reads you and mirrors your soul, then the stronger the bond the better chance you have for that. You are of course free to buy, raise and train your dogs however you like. I’m not trying to change your mind; just offering an alternative viewpoint. If you’ve never spent time just playing and having fun with your dogs, you might be missing part of the puzzle…….


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Tony Hahn said:


> I think a good dog is capable of having fun without diminishing his ability to be serious. Think of the ages old Nature vs. Nurture argument. You might consider the ability to be serous is Nature and having fun is a result of Nurture. I don’t think that you are going to destroy the Nature that has been bred into the dog by playing with him.
> 
> If I understand correctly the kind of dog you like would be like an old school GSD with a general utility/service type temperament. For what it’s worth, in my opinion that kind of dog values the bond with his family just as much and possibly more than what some folks refer to as “Sport” dogs that are “in it for themselves”. Personally, I view many different kinds of training, play and life experiences as part of the bonding process.
> 
> ...


Tony... I certainly didn't intend to get off topic with my posts... I took your original Thread Title literally and responded to it... So when you asked (two posts ago) to get back to a very specific discussion on a very specific scenario, I fully understood your request and was basically going to leave this thread.

I respond now because you asked... 

I agree with most of what you posted above... But our perspectives are a bit different. I think a good dog is capable of "having fun" doing the work. I don't actually believe that dogs 'play' in the sense that most people think of it, but that's a whole other topic .

I believe that "bond" is everything. Without it my dog and I have nothing. Without it we (my dog and I) can achieve nothing. From the moment we come together I work to build that bond with my dogs. Having said that I also work to NOT distract from that bond by introducing anything that may cause confusion. 'Play' as you call it would/could distract from the work. 

I was taught that: "Affection increases bond, Interaction increases avoidance."

This is very old school thinking, but I believe it and it fits my needs. My dogs are with me constantly... They work alongside me and are expected to be vigilant at all times. They work long hours (as do I), in all weather conditions and sometimes under considerable stress. They get their reward from my praise and admiration... Nothing more or less. Whether it's a complicated and difficult obstacle course or the successful completion of a track... The guarding of an object or of my person... These tasks are the dogs purpose and the dog truly enjoys the work and the praise for successful completion... Their enjoyment is clearly visible. These things also increase the bond. Without it we have nothing.

Consider this: If I was to 'play fight' (as you phrase it) on a regular basis with my dog... And let's for argument sake say that he really likes doing this activity... Will this create uncertainty in my dog's mind on when it's okay to play fight or not? If it does, then we have created a hesitation (while he makes the determination). Some might say that the dog can't think and with those people I would disagree... I would not want a dog that cannot think. I want the dog to have clarity in purpose and action. This can only be lessened by adding the distraction of play to its daily activities.

Consider further... If I have taught my dog to 'play fight' with me and he likes it then I expect he will want to do this activity with me... You agree? Will he not want to look for opportunities to do this? And in so doing is this not itself a distraction from the work? Understand that for me my dogs are expected to be always working. I rely on them to listen and be aware of our surroundings... To be vigilant for that which is out of place... To hear the sounds I don't notice and sense the dangers before I become aware of them. They do these things because they are focused... Play will inhibit these things.

I have owned many dogs over the years... I have owned dogs that I considered pets and treated as pets. I played with those dogs and play fought with those dogs and enjoyed those dogs... But they were not what I call working dogs. That's not to say they weren't good dogs... Many had solid pedigrees... Some were quite capable of performing working dog tasks... But they were raised to be my pets and that is what they were. 

I will say this... Of all the the dogs I've shared my life with (quite a few) I have never had as good a bond as I have right now with my current working PPDs.


----------



## Tony Hahn (May 28, 2011)

Mark- Yeah, it’s drifted off topic again, Lol, I derailed my own thread. It’s not like there have been a bunch of responses with folks stating strong opinions about what drive or genetic component dogs are operating in when they are doing bite-work or play-fighting that’s not obviously Prey Driven, but the dog is clearly not in a fight or flight state of mind either.

If you ever decide to start a new thread discussing “Affection increased bond, Interaction increases avoidance” and whether play inhibits focus; I’d be interested to read the responses. Might even contribute to the thread myself. 

I think this is partially back on topic-



Mark Herzog said:


> ................................... I don't actually believe that dogs 'play' in the sense that most people think of it, ...........................


 You mentioned this earlier in the thread-



Mark Herzog said:


> ......................................
> What if you don't believe in "drives" at all? What if the dog is an intelligent, thinking being that is capable of controlling its' urges and instincts? Acting from thought and not robotically driven by some "drive" label....................................


 I don’t believe that dogs are robotically driven by their drives but I do think that a dog is born with temperament traits that have been enhanced or diminished through breeding practices. For example most folks agree that a dogs desire to chase stuff comes from his Prey Drive. The more that Prey Drive has been bred out of a breed, the less desire to chase things there will be. 

Correct me if I’m wrong- it sounds like you believe selective breeding produces a certain type of dog, you just don’t believe in natural “drives”. OK, so let’s set the terminology of ‘Drives’ aside for a moment. 

Since you ”don't actually believe that dogs 'play' in the sense that most people think of it,”, what do you think is motivating a dog to engage in biting, pushing, pulling or otherwise struggling with a decoy who’s pretending to be an aggressor towards the dog and not just acting like a prey object? A dog who by all appearances seems to enjoy the behavior and isn’t just doing it to please his handler? What is the root motivation of this behavior in the dog’s genetic make up?


----------



## Joby Becker (Dec 13, 2009)

I do also do non-serious play "fighting" stuff, because we enjoy it, me and the dog, I never meant to imply anything was wrong with it, in my opinion, I just dont do certain things like wrestle with the dog out of muzzle, or playfight in muzzle.

I mostly will have something in the dogs mouth for a "pacifier", that will keep the dog from attempting to bite... 

I do things like push her out of position or try to get away from her while heeling, that is an invitation to play "fight" to get back into position.

I just cant say that any of it is "fight drive", that to me is more of a total picture of behavior and actions, towards an opponent, where the dog is allowed to bite, or really work in muzzle


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Tony Hahn said:


> ... what do you think is motivating a dog to engage in biting, pushing, pulling or otherwise struggling with a decoy who’s pretending to be an aggressor towards the dog and not just acting like a prey object? A dog who by all appearances seems to enjoy the behavior and isn’t just doing it to please his handler? What is the root motivation of this behavior in the dog’s genetic make up?


Tony, it was pointed out to me earlier in this thread by Terrasita, that the kind of dogs I'm used to working with are very different from the dogs being bred today by what she referred to as sport breeders (I think that was her phrase). To be honest I can't really understand this yet, going to continue to give it thought.

From what she suggested it appears that these dogs are motivated from within and seek to satisfy their own internal triggers... Very different than what I'm used to which is a dog totally bonded to its handler and motivated to pleasing the handler. My dog works for me... Not for the bite or the ball or food or a toy. My dog has no toys (literally), food is never a treat or reward. Often our "bite work" has no bites... It's strictly obedience and control of the bite (what I call stability). The bite itself may not happen for days because the work is not about the bite. If we always have the bite, if we use the bite as a reward, them the dog comes to expect the bite and want the bite. This is not what I want or need. I need the dog to bite because I need and asked him to not because he wants to. I need him to stop biting because I tell him to stop, not because he's tired or bailing or doesn't like biting. Liking it needs to be removed from the equation for me. Another reason why "play" can't be allowed to enter into it.

One reason I'm on this forum is to try to learn about and understand what others are doing. I don't feel qualified to give an opinion on the question you asked: _"A dog who by all appearances seems to enjoy the behavior and isn’t just doing it to please his handler? What is the root motivation of this behavior in the dog’s genetic make up?"_, because I have no experience working with that type of dog. I am curious to hear what others answer to your question.


----------



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

Mark Im not trying to be offensive just going to state my way of thinking.
I hear all the time from PP people about how their dogs are so different from sport dogs. Protection is never a game, the dog never sees a ball or a tug, and how if your into sport you just cant understand.

Here is were it all falls apart for me:

-The dogs most PP trainers use originate from sport lines even if you have bred them for a few generations it doesnt change origin.

-Military and LE use prey to develop bitework, they reward with balls, tugs etc and Im sorry it just doesnt get more real then those applications.

-Some of the top brokers that sell to those groups including "tier 1" groups sell specifically high prey dogs that are rewarded with balls and other toys. They are also given prey bites.

Ultimately if these secrets and dogs that are so different were infact better and superior to what us sport people use and more suited to the real world. Police, Mlitary and security contractors would be flocking to the PP community for all their secrets and special dogs. 
Guys like Mike Suttle would be out of business we would see video of superior work from their dogs on the bite and in secondary obedience.

None of the above mentioned is the case. 
There was a member on here I think Chris Mcdonald? Had some real nice vids of PP trained Dutchie but even that dogs work was not to different or superior to what I have seen a decent sport dog do.

I think certain dogs have it and certain dogs dont. I also think the best dogs all come from sport lines or are only a generation or two removed from said lines which is really no different.

I think you mentioned your in Barrie? If so I train at the IPO club in Orangevile, I plan on attending several dog events this summer (not just IPO) perhaps I will run into you and your dogs at one of them? 
I also live 10 mins from Baden Ontario (Im assuming thats were Baden K9 is?)

Anyways, Im always open to seeing knew things and hearing new perspectives. Maybe Ill run into you sometime. I want to get into some PP stuff when the dog has developed some more. Got a nice sharp female here.
-


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Haz Othman said:


> Mark Im not trying to be offensive just going to state my way of thinking.
> I hear all the time from PP people about how their dogs are so different from sport dogs. Protection is never a game, the dog never sees a ball or a tug, and how if your into sport you just cant understand.
> 
> Here is were it all falls apart for me:
> ...


Completely understand what you're saying... Even agree with some of your points... But I don't want to distract from Tony's original thread and question.

Maybe one of the Moderators could separate this off into a new thread so this one doesn't get side tracked.


----------



## Tony Hahn (May 28, 2011)

Joby Becker said:


> ....................................
> I mostly will have something in the dogs mouth for a "pacifier", that will keep the dog from attempting to bite... .........


I've done the same thing to keep from getting bitten. Doesn't work if the dog gets too wound up- he'd just spit it out or get over stimulated and drop it. Worked very well when keeping things low key though.

What drive or trait do you think drives dogs to seek out mock combat?


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Haz Othman said:


> Mark Im not trying to be offensive just going to state my way of thinking.
> I hear all the time from PP people about how their dogs are so different from sport dogs. Protection is never a game, the dog never sees a ball or a tug, and how if your into sport you just cant understand.
> 
> Here is were it all falls apart for me:
> ...


This is not strictly true or not clear enough.

IPO= Clearly one sport, often trained with prey bites, toys, food, tugs, balls........
KNPV= Very different kettle of sport not so much of that ^^

Also I have met plenty of L.E, high level private security and a few military dogs that have sports ancestors so far back you need binoculars, all good dogs that did their jobs very well. Speaking to a L.E K9 unit manager (retired) he stated specifically he would not look at IPO dogs for his section.

Not my opinion here just relaying a few observed facts.


----------



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

Matt the LE in the UK seem to breed alot of their own stuff. I have only seen vids of the training, some look ok others not so much. Im talking about over here.
Your right there is less maybe no (not sure) balls used in KNPV probably because its a bite oriented sport. The ultimate reward for those dogs is the bite, the obedience doesnt have to be flashy so obviously the training is different. Plenty of prey in those dogs though. Plenty of prey biting too.

I still have yet to see any PP or LE lines that are doing anything special. We all know how well govt does when they try to do anything much less a breeding program. 
Im sure I could be wrong but Ill say again seeing is believing.


----------



## Matt Vandart (Nov 28, 2012)

Haz Othman said:


> Matt the LE in the UK seem to breed alot of their own stuff. I have only seen vids of the training, some look ok others not so much. Im talking about over here.
> Your right there is less maybe no (not sure) balls used in KNPV probably because its a bite oriented sport. The ultimate reward for those dogs is the bite, the obedience doesnt have to be flashy so obviously the training is different. Plenty of prey in those dogs though. Plenty of prey biting too.
> 
> I still have yet to see any PP or LE lines that are doing anything special. *We all know how well govt does when they try to do anything much less a breeding program. *
> Im sure I could be wrong but Ill say again seeing is believing.


WAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Awesome


----------



## David Winners (Apr 4, 2012)

Haz Othman said:


> Matt the LE in the UK seem to breed alot of their own stuff. I have only seen vids of the training, some look ok others not so much. Im talking about over here.
> Your right there is less maybe no (not sure) balls used in KNPV probably because its a bite oriented sport. The ultimate reward for those dogs is the bite, the obedience doesnt have to be flashy so obviously the training is different. Plenty of prey in those dogs though. Plenty of prey biting too.
> 
> I still have yet to see any PP or LE lines that are doing anything special. We all know how well govt does when they try to do anything much less a breeding program.
> Im sure I could be wrong but Ill say again seeing is believing.


You're going to have a hard time seeing it unless you join the club. We can't exactly post videos of our training. It's against the rules.

But you may be right. Those hundreds of dogs doing their job in Afghanistan all day every day are probably just getting lucky. Nothing special there.

David Winners


----------



## Terrasita Cuffie (Jun 8, 2008)

Name a pp or le line of dog


----------



## Erik Berg (Apr 11, 2006)

Terrasita Cuffie said:


> Name a pp or le line of dog


"Sportdogs" will be in most pedigrees even if far back and breed only for real work by govt breedingprograms or by breeders who focus on that, which is naturall because most breeders don´t have access to unlimited numbers of breedingdogs who are "clean" of for example german dogs where all are SCH- titled, even if they may not be "sportdogs" only at all in character.

Some dogs with lines who are breed for LE/military/PP-work, even if there are also some sportdogs mixed into 
them in various degree,
http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/dog.html?id=424213-bruksmarkens-ark

http://www.pedigreedatabase.com/german_shepherd_dog/dog.html?id=2093678-aspirants-dekov

http://en.working-dog.eu/dogs-details/975819/Djurlöfs-Illbatting


----------



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

David Winners said:


> You're going to have a hard time seeing it unless you join the club. We can't exactly post videos of our training. It's against the rules.
> 
> But you may be right. Those hundreds of dogs doing their job in Afghanistan all day every day are probably just getting lucky. Nothing special there.
> 
> David Winners


Last I checked most of those dogs were from sport lines..at least thats were the brokers who sell to LE and Mil get most of their dogs. Ofcourse I could be wrong, if you say they aint then Ill take your word for it.


----------



## rick smith (Dec 31, 2010)

Haz
many mwd handlers don't know where their K9 came from in the DOD procurement chain.
how can you be so sure of these "sport line" backgrounds ?


----------



## Tiago Fontes (Apr 17, 2011)

rick smith said:


> Haz
> many mwd handlers don't know where their K9 came from in the DOD procurement chain.
> how can you be so sure of these "sport line" backgrounds ?


Simply because, when looking for a proven background, you'll eventually fall into "sport lines". Simple as that. 

Do you know of any backyard bred dog more suitable to LE and Military purposes than kennels with multiple KNPV, NVBK, FR or SchH certificates?


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

rick smith said:


> Haz
> many mwd handlers don't know where their K9 came from in the DOD procurement chain...


And they don't give a rats ass... Breeders, titles, pedigrees are meaningless to the guy/gal in the field doing the work. The dog performs as required or it doesn't... That's the ONLY question of importance.


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Tiago Fontes said:


> *Simply because, when looking for a proven background, you'll eventually fall into "sport lines". Simple as that.*
> 
> Do you know of any backyard bred dog more suitable to LE and Military purposes than kennels with multiple KNPV, NVBK, FR or SchH certificates?


Wow!


----------



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

I get that Rick. When I was looking for a dog recently I looked at a few brokers and talked to a few people and universally the dogs seem to be coming from sport lines in Europe.
Have a broker that lives close to me
99% of her dogs come out of European sport lines too. They go or have people over there that buy dogs that for whatever reason the handler is selling. Bring them here test them and resale them. Heck Mike S on here gets his dogs from KNPV lines. If there was a better source why wouldnt he and others use that? Whatabout VLK? Same thing.


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Haz Othman said:


> I get that Rick. When I was looking for a dog recently I looked at a few brokers and talked to a few people and universally the dogs seem to be coming from sport lines in Europe.
> Have a broker that lives close to me
> 99% of her dogs come out of European sport lines too. They go or have people over there that buy dogs that for whatever reason the handler is selling. Bring them here test them and resale them. Heck Mike S on here gets his dogs from KNPV lines. *If there was a better source why wouldnt he and others use that? Whatabout VLK? Same thing.*


Perhaps because not everyone wants the same thing. Kenny at VLK looks for Ball Drive... If he doesn't see the dog is crazy for the ball then he's not interested in trying to train the dog (doesn't fit his training program). 

Mike S has his methods and looks for characteristics that fit with how he trains and what his customers want from him. I believe I've read that Mike S also has indicated (unless I'm confusing him with someone else) that he looks at and passes on a LOT of dogs just to find the few that meet his requirements.

"Better" is relative... What is "better" for one person isn't necessarily "better" for another. Just like "LE" isn't the same across the board. Different departments have different desires, beliefs, policies and motivations. Lots of different things go into the selection process for any equipment, including dogs. Sometimes the source of dogs is solely based on price... Better may have nothing to do with it.


----------



## Erik Berg (Apr 11, 2006)

99% are probably of close sportbackround because that´s what majority breeds for and also they need a sporttitle to be used for breeding, like the GSDs in germany. The few that is left are either from govt breedingprograms or private breeders who use the dogs they find suitabel for their goals, which doesn´t have to be a sporttitled dog if that´s not a demand for breeding.


----------



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

Mark Herzog said:


> Perhaps because not everyone wants the same thing. Kenny at VLK looks for Ball Drive... If he doesn't see the dog is crazy for the ball then he's not interested in trying to train the dog (doesn't fit his training program).
> 
> Mike S has his methods and looks for characteristics that fit with how he trains and what his customers want from him. I believe I've read that Mike S also has indicated (unless I'm confusing him with someone else) that he looks at and passes on a LOT of dogs just to find the few that meet his requirements.
> 
> "Better" is relative... What is "better" for one person isn't necessarily "better" for another. Just like "LE" isn't the same across the board. Different departments have different desires, beliefs, policies and motivations. Lots of different things go into the selection process for any equipment, including dogs. Sometimes the source of dogs is solely based on price... Better may have nothing to do with it.


Never said all sport dogs are great dogs capable of real work. Obviously certain dogs have what it takes and certain ones dont. 
All Im saying is most dogs in real working applications come from sport backgrounds as far as I can tell. 

If your implying there are some lines that have little to no sport influence that are superior then Id be interested to hear and see more.

Like I said before you always hear about these superdogs that "arent sport" and in the end you see an average or substandard product if you see one at all. One that you could duplicate with a decent sport dog.


----------



## Tiago Fontes (Apr 17, 2011)

Mark Herzog said:


> Wow!


What's up?


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Haz Othman said:


> Never said all sport dogs are great dogs capable of real work. Obviously certain dogs have what it takes and certain ones dont.
> All Im saying is most dogs in real working applications come from sport backgrounds as far as I can tell.


A good dog is a good dog, regardless of its pedigree, lines, training, etc... at least that's what I think (from a working dog perspective). I would even agree with the generalization that "most dogs in real working applications come from sport backgrounds as far as I can tell"... its probably true. But what does that, in and of itself really prove?

What I question are some of the conclusions that are being based on this. Many factors go into purchasing decisions in both LE and Military... Not the least of which is price. Sometimes military gets what it gets because the price was cheaper, or there was influence applied to the writing of the tender requirements... Or it could also be an issue of supply (a request to supply 100 dogs might eliminate a smaller breeder from even submitting a bid). Procurement is a process easily manipulated by a wide variety of interests.



Haz Othman said:


> If your implying there are some lines that have little to no sport influence that are superior then Id be interested to hear and see more.


I'm not implying, I'm saying that *for some people and some applications* there are some lines out there that *for some people and some applications* are superior to sport influence (your words) dogs. To see them you would need to go where they are and where they work (as David W suggested). Just because you don't see them doesn't mean they don't exist or aren't 'out there'.



Haz Othman said:


> Like I said before you always hear about these superdogs that "arent sport" and in the end you see an average or substandard product if you see one at all. One that you could duplicate with a decent sport dog.


Who said anything about "superdogs"? What was mentioned were non-sporting influence dogs from non-sport lines. To most sport people I've met, these types of dogs are considered "shitters"... I've seen some that were excellent PP dogs but called a "fear biter" by a sport trainer... Other dogs that trainers didn't want to work with because the trainer didn't know how to train a dog that had no ball drive and no prey drive... For that trainer the dog was a reject, not because it couldn't do the work it was needed to do, but because the trainer didn't understand the work or the dog... The dog didn't fit the trainer's understanding or needs so the dog was labelled based on that... Not on the actual ability of the dog.

Most of the pure sport trainers I've met believe my personal dogs are mediocre and even crappy... But they reach those conclusions based on their perspective of what makes a good dog. Their personal understanding of "protection work" and training methods influence what they see in the dog and how they interpret what they see. But I don't define protection work the way they do nor do I want what they want and so "better" and "good" differ based on this. Even if I show you my idea of a good working dog doesn't mean you'll "see it" unless you see it in the right perspective.

If you look at my dog at your club and evaluate him the way you do your sport dog then you will only see what you expect. If on the other hand you could observe him working in his work environment and under the stress created by that environment and activity, then you may start to see there's a difference... You may start to see where certain sport training may not necessarily be ideal for a given situation and you may start to see where a dog like mine isn't necessarily the "shitter" that some might initially dismiss him as being.

He is a "shitter" if he was trying to be a sport dog... But he's not. He is a working PP dog and at that he's quite good... At least he is to me.


----------



## Haz Othman (Mar 25, 2013)

I think your making some generalizations about me Mark. If your dog engages on command and stays in the fight under pressure he is a good dog as far as Im concerned. 
I know that a points dog in IPO is not necessarily a good PP dog and vice versa. 
Like I said if the dog isnt nervy and engages on command or in response to a threat and STAYs in the fight its a decent dog no matter what training it has or what drive its biting out of. Thing is a lot of dogs I have seen that have no prey and bite in defense are not going to stay in the fight if flights an option or if the going gets tough. 
I think a dog without prey drive is missing something essential and can make the training process more difficult like having a car with 3 cylinders working instead of 6. Even if its one of those rare dogs that will fight well in defense.


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Haz Othman said:


> I think your making some generalizations about me Mark. If your dog engages on command and stays in the fight under pressure he is a good dog as far as Im concerned.
> I know that a points dog in IPO is not necessarily a good PP dog and vice versa.
> Like I said if the dog isnt nervy and engages on command or in response to a threat and STAYs in the fight its a decent dog no matter what training it has or what drive its biting out of. Thing is a lot of dogs I have seen that have no prey and bite in defense are not going to stay in the fight if flights an option or if the going gets tough.
> I think a dog without prey drive is missing something essential and can make the training process more difficult like having a car with 3 cylinders working instead of 6. Even if its one of those rare dogs that will fight well in defense.


I'm trying not to be specific about anyone in particular so as not to make a presumption about any individual here... It just the kind of things I've had happen or experienced with various trainers.

You used the phrase "stays in the fight" at least three times just now (that I noticed). What is your definition of staying in the fight?


If the dog bites with its canines and slips off, then immediately re-engages, is that considered staying in the fight?
If the dog bites the biceps then moves to the side and rear and engages the tricep or armpit from behind, is that staying in the fight?
If the dog engages the arm, but when decoy attempts to grab the dog the dog releases the arm so it can engage the fingers or arm coming in to grab it, is that staying in the fight?
If the dog is engaged on the arm and decoy attempts to strike with a knife, is releasing, stepping back and re-engaging the attacking arm or moving to the rear and engaging inner legs from behind, is this considered staying in the fight?

Most sport trainers I know believe and train that the dog must bite full, hold the bite no matter what, not redirect to other targets on that decoy (second decoy would be okay on command), not be aware of its own safety or vulnerabilities and show no indications of self preservation. To hesitate or back up is a failing to stay in the fight (to them). I get this and to be competitive in sport it's pretty well a must from what I've been told... But for me it does not matter.

Running away is a failure to stay in the fight... Letting go and re-engaging is NOT a failure to stay in the fight for a PP dog. As long as that dog is threatening the decoy such that the decoy must focus on the dog and is distracted from the handler, the dog is doing its job. The longer my dog can keep the decoy engaged the more time I have to escape the area... once I'm retreating I can out and recall the dog.

My dogs do this... And they do it under considerable pressure. My dogs do this even when the decoy attempts to grab them, wrap them up, bring them to the ground and smother them with their weight. The dogs have learned through training and intense pressure what can happen if they are grabbed... They have learned how they can be dragged under water and held there... They have learned to avoid it... But also how to still fight. They don't run.

So... What does "stay in the fight" mean to you? How you define it will determine whether you think my dog is good or bad. For sport work he is bad... I've been told straight out that I can't do PSA with him because he's potentially dangerous for the decoy and his coming off bites and redirecting bites will be badly judged. I get that. But if you're going to tell me you think that makes him a bad PP dog for me then I would respectfully disagree.


----------



## Mark Herzog (Aug 22, 2013)

Haz Othman said:


> I think a dog without prey drive is missing something essential and can make the training process more difficult like having a car with 3 cylinders working instead of 6. Even if its one of those rare dogs that will fight well in defense.


Not an engine running on 3 of 6 cylinders, but a car running on an entirely different power source. Takes different mechanic to work on it... Different thought processes and tools. It is NOT for everyone... But not everyone needs it... Or wants to learn how to do it.


----------



## Bob Scott (Mar 30, 2006)

Training dogs with little prey drive was common 30-40 yrs ago. In particular in the pet world. Probably still is there. 
I believe the prey has gone over the top today although is serves well in detection work and it does help today,s training. We didn't really know much better 30 -40 yrs ago. We just trained what we had with what we knew. It worked!


----------



## Howard Gaines III (Dec 26, 2007)

"Can a dog be in fight drive w/o any real...."

Can you have sex w/o any form of climax? This is as dumb as it comes....think about the question. Fight drive reflects a real venue. You can eat fake oranges...and a drive is what it is...a real show cased position.


----------

