*Mod Edit* for continual silly statements....

First,
Drop the species preservation stuff.
Waste of good ink(sorry, my sociobiology background is rearing its ugly head).
Second, true fight drive does not exist in the natural world???
Oh lord, I am not sure who you might quote here but it is way off base. It exists, it can be seen in many animals who participate in inter and intra species combats, but the way we either breed for and or rear for expression of this behavior is not in the least natural. In the "natural" world one could argue that it is only present for territory, or rank, or self-defense etc I suppose.
Drive "theory" is as used in dog training not a "theory" at all but a short hand means of communicating the behaviors that dog trainers have observed, and used, and manipulated in the rearing and training, and management of dogs for years. It of course is loosely related to the terms Lorenz and others used.
To try to make dog training match the natural world of other species of canids is a waste of time. It also does not recognize 100,000 years of co-evolution between man and dog which has pulled the genetic alter ego of the wolf a long way from its origins in respect to phenotype. It's variation is a wonder and so is the behaviors they display and the appearances that we have created. There is no more malleable a creature.

Animal scientists often interject academic terms into the craft of dog training. It should stand apart. Although certainly dog trainers can learn a large amount from the study of dogs and other animals and can apply it and understand historic training techniques and apply them with more knowledge and expertise, academia would be wrong in trying to meld the language of training with the language of science.

Here is where the use of the terms drive, character traits, etc. become useful as training shorthand. The use of "drive" is non quantifiable for the most part. It is also tremendously subjective. Making it pretty useless for any quantitative study, although i guess you could argue that it suffices in a qualitative study.

Drives and character traits are best left on the training field.

When I see the terms "cur" and "game" used ( especially in a Protection Training thread ) I know that it's a bulldog discussion and not worth commenting on.

They are just terms to describe behavior...often associated with "bulldogs," but when discussing things like fight drive among protection breeds the terms have their place there as well. It is just describing an action. No one is talking about "bulldog" behavior here...as that would be ridiculous on this forum Will...don't you think?

There are plenty of opinions to go around. Many here would disagree with Dr. Helmut Raiser on this area of what is a drive and what is not. No sense in beating a dead horse anymore.

In the natural world (wildlife) we will see prey drive, defense drive, sex drive, rank drive and combinations of such...but we typically don't see real fight drive (meaning if it did present itself on a rarest of occations the trait would lead to its own extermination as the behavior would select against its own reproduction). It would destroy the individual's ability to contribute...as refusing to stop at any cost may cost them their life or ability to reproduce...and therefore would go against laws of nature...for it would be an "unfit" behavior.

Have you seen the film on tv of the great white fighting the killer whale?

Kevin,

Could you elaborate on why the classification "species preservation" is an inappropriate term to use on this subject? The theory of this thread is intriguing to me and I'd just like to understand more.

Also, (a bit unrelated; perhaps you might PM me) how valuable has your education in Sociobiology been to you regarding its application, if any, to the dog training field?

Is this the clip, Michael?

As a rescuer/owner of Catahoula Leopard Dogs (a cur breed) I would like to properly define the term "CUR". (I have NEVER heard the word referred to as Lee has used it - a dog that quits.)

Cur generally has two meanings, first used as a synonym of mongrel or mixed breed dog. The second used to define a TYPE of dog - meaning a multipurpose dog. (The way the word "Terrier" or "hound" would be used).

Catahoulas are a cur breed, meaning multipurpose breed, having been developed to serve three functions: guard dog, hunting dog (raccoon and wild boar mainly), and herding dog (find and round up feral cattle). Cur breeds were developed in the South by farmers who could not afford to buy separate breeds of dogs to serve separate functions.

Other examples of Cur breeds include the Leopard cur, the Mountain Cur, and the Black Mouth Cur.

And trust me, these dogs are NOT known for "quitting" as you put it above. I've heard of Catahoulas pursuing quarry until they died (of exhaustion, overheating, or being killed by a boar). They are extremely tough.

Species preserving actions may or may not be relative in sport work. I don't do sport training so I will leave that topic up to those who do...although personally I would see real committment that isn't concerned about itself or own well being to be a strength.

For PP work though, the idea of species preserving (or self awareness) is totally relative, for when in a real attack an animal may have to risk serious harm to protect its master.

BTW, Cur has three meanings. Two of which you descibed and a third of which I described.