Biting a sleeve. Why so much focus on biting a sleeve? Sport training I guess is the answer. Why the assumption you'll end up with a fearful, dangerous dog if you don't work a dog in prey? Why don't you believe a pup has the tools to come to the defense of a handler? Not as an adult would. You believe it to be prey drive. Yeah, sure. You could probably explain anything away with the drive theory. Yet it seems the dog itself is lost in all these neat little explanations. I believe there are two drives - prey and defense, with defense being fight or flight. A dog is either serious in what its doing or its not.

Catherine,

We are back to the same problem, you can't teach a dog to protect unless you can work with it. I am still looking for aggitators willing to take bites with no sleeve.... still with no luck. A portion of training is to provide the dog the experience to deal with a real fight. An inexperienced dog will likely cut and run rather than stand and fight. They are smart enough to know they can out run any person. The other thing training does is to teach the dog to fight effectively, and yes it takes experience. The dog needs to know that it can win and HOW to win. I don't do Schutzhund, I have PPD dogs and the training tecniques are similar to start. Many shcutzhund trainers just don't go as far in providing varied experience, that is why the dogs require additional training to do police work. The foundation work is the same, and you can't start at the end. The dog needs a proper foundation to learn the work. That means the dog needs to like to do the job or it will not do it when the chips are down. Even if the dog loves to do the work, but has never been seriously challenged, it may cut and run.

Yes, you can explain anything any way you want, or just choose to ignore any explination, but the principles will remain the same. You could call drives Fred and it won't matter. Dogs are going to operate the way they operate. All behavior has genetic and learned components. You need both to train a good PPD. Without both you aren't going to get there.

The type of training you discuss IS the old style done PROPERLY. Body posture, tone of voice and all the other stuff you cite is what makes it difficult. Training with a ball or food or anything else just makes it easier. The dogs are weaned off or reduced in the frequency of it as the training is completed. This is based on the same theories, it just was never stated that way. It makes it easier to talk about and to provide a clearer understanding of what is happening so that the chance of a mistake is reduced. When there is a lower expectation of behavior in the final product it doesn't matter as much. If all you will ever do with a gun is target shoot by yourself then the rules for handleing a gun are less important than if you will be using a gun in a crowd. A pet dog does not need to be as controled and as reliable as a dog trained to bite. With the pet it may still bite but the likelihood is less in many situations, and a trained dog will need to out and call off and do it without hesitation.

It comes down to a choice, Do you want a dog that will do the job or not. You can do it without food or a ball or anything else, but the tolerance for error is smaller. If you make a mistake you may never be able to correct it. This type of training is a very delicate balance, a small mistake can ruin the dog forever. By using other motivators you open the window up some and provide an opportunity to go back and correct an error, or switch a motivator and start over.

Oh Vince,
I could say the same to you. This is what I have found to be true. You have your version of truth. And never the twain shall meet...

Catherine,

All you really want is a companion dog. But you want to keep your idealistic dream that your dog will protect you if the need ever arises. Buy a gun, and learn how to use it! Then you can enjoy your dogs, and hopefully protect yourself and them.

As I said, its obvious I can't explain it. As obvious as it is that you wouldn't believe it anyway. Secret technique? Thats funny!

Whats this nonsense again about unprotected bites?

Jparker,
Its mind boggling to me that people intentionally make their dogs ball or food crazy and call this drive building necessary and even desirable for work. For sport I can believe it because it doesn't matter if your dog is crazy for food or a ball? Whats best and easiest for the handler isn't necessarily whats best for the dog. If thats what you want thats your choice.
To answer your question about the ball I'll give you two specific examples. I don't see why it matters unless you don't care if your dog forgets you exist when a stranger has a ball. One was in a park that the dog frequented, the other was in the owner's yard. I'm not trying to withhold any information, just as certainly as you won't believe it anyway. I don't know what you're looking for.
How do you think a dog is induced to bite or protect? Agitation work? I have a PPD that has had no prey work (no tug or ball) and, miracle of miracles, he knows how to bite! How is this possible with no imprinting? He even alerts on suspicious things! Oh, wait. Must be a fear biter if he never had any prey work or will alert me if someone is running toward me and I have my back turned, or he alerts me if I'm not in a position to defend myself. Silly me, I was duped.
You tell me, whats the sign of a happy dog or a dog that loves to work with the handler? One thats bouncing around looking for a food or ball reward? One thats staring into the handlers face? Looks like a begging session and I feel sorry for these dogs that are 'driven' to get their food or ball.

Richard,
I understand you stick with what has worked works for you. I am not unaware of anything you've pointed out and am not saying you can't train a dog that way. I am being very careful in looking for a trainer for my pup and if I can't find one I'm comfortable with she won't be trained. Lets say what I was trying to describe is the old way. There are many problems with the new way. Why is there a new way? Partially because its easier, and partially because some of the art of training has been lost. Humans opt for the easier way, better or not.

Sharon,
Companion/guardian is the correct term. You can keep the ceiling low for your relationship with your dog if you want to. I'll keep aiming for my ideals - I don't know how high the ceiling is or if its in fact even there.

Catherine,

Just because the dog hasn't been trained with a ball or a tug does not mean that ithas had no prey work. Prey is an attitude the dog has towards the aggitator. The point remains that if you are so hung up on the terminology you are going to lose sight of the goal and not get there. I have never used a ball for training and don't intend to. I am using a tug this trip as an intermediate step to the sleeve.

If your objection is the compitition style of obedience then don't train it, it is only good for compitition anyway. A dog cannot possibly always maintain that position all the time. It is good for about the 20 minutes that most obedience routines take. It isn't even required for many types of trials.

You have repeatedly stated the problem you are having, and people have with you, you know a little bit and make sweeping generalizations from that. Those generalizations demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about. Just like you have said. You looked at one VERY SMALL portion of protection training (sport only Schutzhund) and think that that is all there is in protection training. Go train some dogs and learn something, I think the light may go on yet. As for now take your own advise and understand that you don't know much about protection training and try to learn. It isn't going to happen as long as you are more interested in the terminology than getting the work done. The termonology means nothing, I trained for 15 years with out using this terminology, the concepts were the same. You are just spinning your wheels until you learn how the dogs work and get some trained.

Good luck.

 Quote:

Jparker,
Its mind boggling to me that people intentionally make their dogs ball or food crazy and call this drive building necessary and even desirable for work. For sport I can believe it because it doesn't matter if your dog is crazy for food or a ball? Whats best and easiest for the handler isn't necessarily whats best for the dog. If thats what you want thats your choice.

The idea of sport is to have fun. It's not supposed to be "serious" in the same way as work. If people want to use toys and food for sport, what the heck is the big deal and why in the world do you care? Who are you to say that the dog isn't happily enjoying the activity? And who are you to say that the dog isn't already crazy for food or a ball both eating and chasing a moving object appeal to the dog's natural instincts), and that the trainer is merely using the tools that the dog responds the most enthusiastically to?

I don't disagree that you don't need food or toys to train a dog. I guess I'm just a little offended by your disdain for dog sport. So it's not useful to you. Who are you to judge, though?

 Quote:

To answer your question about the ball I'll give you two specific examples. I don't see why it matters unless you don't care if your dog forgets you exist when a stranger has a ball. One was in a park that the dog frequented, the other was in the owner's yard. I'm not trying to withhold any information, just as certainly as you won't believe it anyway. I don't know what you're looking for.

You have a lot of preconcieved notions about what I will and won't believe, don't you? You and I both know that the vast majority of pet dogs don't even have any more than the very basic of obedience training, if that. Of course the circumstances matter. Do this ball test on well trained police dogs with their handlers standing right there, or even within earshot, and THEN tell me all about it.

 Quote:

How do you think a dog is induced to bite or protect? Agitation work? I have a PPD that has had no prey work (no tug or ball) and, miracle of miracles, he knows how to bite! How is this possible with no imprinting? He even alerts on suspicious things! Oh, wait. Must be a fear biter if he never had any prey work or will alert me if someone is running toward me and I have my back turned, or he alerts me if I'm not in a position to defend myself. Silly me, I was duped.

Are you saying that it's not neccessary to train a dog in protection work, that you can call a dog a PPD just because he acts aggressively toward strangers? In that case, anybody can do Tae Kwon Do. You really don't need to train to do those flying jump kicks, or to learn how to land or roll.....everybody knows how to jump, and everybody knows how to kick, so I guess everybody knows Tae Kwon Do.

I'm embarrassed to say that I got caught up in this again. But I feel motivated to respond. Again, there are as many ways to train a dog as there are trainers. There are as many things to teach a dog, as the handler wishes, and the dog can handle.
Now I realise that this is simplified.
What I am concerned about is your claiming (and correct me if I'm wrong) that your dog instinctively knows when to protect you?
If this is the case, many dogs will do this naturally (to protect thier pack,family etc...) The problem with this is that it is unreliable in the safety aspect. If the dog is the one deciding who is safe, and who isn't, and who is a threat, and who isn't what's to say that the dog won't react aggressively to the wrong person? The other issue, is the "out". If one lets their dog be the judge and jury, how does one "out" the dog from biting the person, (postman,officer,old friend,lover)if not trained?
I'm not here to condemn your ideas, but I sincerely would like to know how you train your dogs.
I am very interested. I am not a sport dog trainer, I have a pet and am training an assistance dog. I do know that control of the dog is of extreme importance in public.
In my way of thinking, building drive is fun for the dog, and not only motivates it to work, but enables the trainer to have a controlled enjoyable play time that solidifies the bond between dog and handler.
Both of my dogs, look to me for fun, guidance, and food. Both of my dogs also are people friendly. Neither will bite, but one alerts me of visitors. They aren't protection trained, nor do they have what it takes to be protection dogs. I have, however an understanding with the dogs, that they listen to me. No questions asked. Anything less, can potentially be a danger.

Not to speak for her, but I believe that Catherine mentioned somewhere that she had purchased the Malinois as a trained adult. She's not relying on an "instinctively protective dog."

Yes, but she won't say how the dog WAS trained. It's like a person who defines themselves by what they are against, rather than having a clear idea of what they are for.

Some of what Catherine says has some amount of truth to it. But then she'll say other things that border on the absurd. I think she's on the right track with some things, but is not *there* yet. She still has a ways to go, and is in no position to be passing judgement on others who have already walked the path that she is on, or others who have a different destination in mind, and so choose a different path.

The wide, general, sweeping statements she makes are also an irritant. For example, the idea of a dog looking intently at the handler's face being a BAD thing? I guess Catherine has never worked with Border Collies. Different dogs and different breeds have different styles. To overgeneralize the behavior of a particular dog is to ignore that fact. You put a Labrador Retriever, a GSD, and a Border Collie together and have them do the same tasks, you'll see that they have very different styles, and very different approaches to their work. They respond differently to their handlers.

The knowledgeable handler can shift gears and work with different dogs on their particular level, and not be stuck in one, rigid way of doing things. If you do that, then you're not working with the dog, and the dog will not work with you, because you will be unable to reach him or her. To communicate with a particular dog, you must be able to read that dog, and see that while a certain behavior might be undesireable or unnatural for one, it is desireable and completely natural for the other. You work with that dog's strengths and build upon them, rather than getting stuck in some rut that doesn't work.

Phyllis,

My untrained pup is naturally protective and is very good at recognizing a possible threat considering she's had no training. However, this IN NO WAY means she could or would protect me if need be with no training. Nor would I count on her to do so. I couldn't agree with you more - letting a dog make its own decisions on who or what is safe is asking for trouble.

I don't play with my pup in the conventional sense because I'd like to have her trained as a protection dog someday. Even if toys are phased out as a reward, you still have built a foundation on that and that can't be changed.

JParker,
I would like to see firsthand the test done on a PSD with their ball or toy. I know of a highly trained prison dog this was done with and he failed miserably. If you choose to assume that just because a dog is a police K9 that this won't happen then go right ahead.

Wasn't I clear when I said I had a PPD? Maybe I should have said trained? You honestly think I would call an untrained dog a PPD? My goodness, do different breeds really have different styles? I don't want to get into this but many of your comments and others I find quite ridiculous. I know you find mine the same. Its too bad this isn't an ideal medium for communication.

I was not as clear as I should have been in some points. I was speaking of competition or sport. Sport has its place and I watch it when I can, yet the problem comes when people say its a valid breed worthiness test. Its not real.

Since I didn't train my dog and am not an expert in protection training I will tell you the highlights of how he was trained. Absolutely no prey work and no toys or tugs. Sleeves were only used to present a target. This doesn't mean unprotected bites were taken, just that sleeves weren't used. He was started as a pup - I think most would call it "slamming into defense". He was also trained in agility and bitework was incorporated into the agility. Other than the no prey work much of it is as you would expect. Training was done under different types of stress and during different times of the day and night. He was also trained in basic mantracking - no footstep tracking, and no food was used.

I don't know if thats the info you're looking for.