Every dog has a threshold for avoidance. Some higher where more pressure is needed and others lower were much less pressure is necessary. What ever that level is a helper job is to ride on the edge of that line without going over. This type of training produces tremendous amount of stress on a dog. Without a release of that stress you can do permanent damage to your dogs temperament. Prey is used to relive that stress. So no it never goes away.

Originally posted by Dave Lilley:
General principles to think about:
1. Prey (bitework) foundation must be sound-- solid bites every time.


I train PPDs and I have to admit the bite is what I'm least concerned about - other than that the dog will bite when it needs to. I find many people place far too much importance on the actual bite and don't develop confidence and stability like they should.

I don't work mature dogs in prey (don't want to get into that argument). I find a dog doesn't need it to relieve stress. In fact, the absence of stress is the relief of stress. Prey can be used but is not needed and can actually be counterproductive if done incorrectly - it can put the dog into avoidance and teach it that if the stress gets high, its okay to avoid it. I don't think I explained that very well. I'm not going to tell everyone to go out and exclude prey training, but in my experience it does have its limitations.

Marks

I don't work mature dogs in prey (don't want to get into that argument). I find a dog doesn't need it to relieve stress. In fact, the absence of stress is the relief of stress. Prey can be used but is not needed and can actually be counterproductive if done incorrectly - it can put the dog into avoidance and teach it that if the stress gets high, its okay to avoid it. I don't think I explained that very well. I'm not going to tell everyone to go out and exclude prey training, but in my experience it does have its limitations.

It is far easier to screw up a dog, even a finished dog, with defense than with prey work. Defense must be taught and is critical in protection work, but what is often over looked is that many standard PP bites are prey based. Runaways and passive bites are two good examples. A balanced dog requires balanced, age appropriate, training. Even if you discount the idea that stress relief is required, if you only train in defense the dog will most likely only bite in defense, I see that as a problem. Over working a dog in defense can lock a dog in that mode as tightly as any prey locked dog.

Bite development is important and that is best done in prey. Effective bites come from experience and basic fundamentals are more effectively learned with little or no stress. Confidence in the work is reflected in the bite, a dog that isn't confident will have a lousy bite. As the confidence improves the bite will improve. This means prey work. As training is advanced the training moves to defense and then to fight (a combination of prey and defense). In that sense you can argue that the finished dog isn't really worked in prey or defense, but in fight all the time.

Richard is right. You can't skip over the quality of the bite tho if you're working only in defense, the bite is going to show that. What is the purpose of having a PPD bite trained if the bite is lousy?
Is it just me or does it seem like old times around here?

It's not just you, Joy. This is the Dogmen argument all over again.

I'm going to make it simple (and several of you have already driven this point home--my thanks to you). Defensive work is stressful for the dog. Prey relieves stress. Working a dog in pure defense all the time is going to mess up the dog's head.

Is there anyone who still doesn't get it?

Pete Felknor

Pete,

The Dogmen aren't the only ones with some of these beliefs. They have made a bigger name through their specialty (self promotion). One of the things that I have noticed is that many trainers are slow to change their training procerures. The thing about the new training methods is that there is a much wider latitude for error in the training of the dog. This is a good thing. That doesn't mean that some awsome dogs can't be trained with the old methods, just that it will take a stronger dog and increase the chances of screwing up the training. As we have seen before some people will buy in on some things based on the idea that it sounds good, even though it won't work. I think there are many here that can point out what the problems are in some training techniques. In addition there have been several times when I have left out things in a post and someone has come behind and added to form a more complete picture. I think that can lead to misunderstanding of what a trainer is actually doing.

I will be the first to grant that some of the followers of the Dogmen that have posted here have been a problem, and I have been one of the people trying to bring some reason into the argument. I don't think painting everybody that uses some of the old techniques with that broad brush is productive. A lot of us are sensitive about the statements that have been made before. That stems from some of the name calling that was involved, I don't think we serve any purpose by starting some of the same things over with preemtive strikes. The debate actually helped me by forcing me to think about how and why I train the way I do. I think I can now explain how and why the training works the way it does and the reasoning behind why I want my dogs to work like they do.

Well spoken, Richard.

I think you'll agree with me that dog training is something that is best experienced firsthand. It's also a subject best approached with an open mind.

But some subjects (like protection training dogs in pure defense) are closed books to all but an extremist fringe. Reputable trainers are all in agreement that this is bad dog training and that it screws up dogs, I don't care if we're talking Schutzhund or KNPV or personal protection or anything else. What I object to is lending renewed credence to this argument. It's a medieval training tactic and I for one would prefer that it stays in the dungeon where it belongs. And whether someone who espouses this tactic represents the Dogmen, some other training "camp", or just themselves matters not the least to me. The whole approach still sucks.

Pete Felknor

Pete,

I think in some cases we look at a post and think "here we go again" when in fact the post is what the rest of are saying just with a different emphasis. It is easy to read something and think you know where it is going and miss the turn to where it should be.

I'll explain a bit. In my experience the quality of the bite will come from confidence - thats why I don't worry how a dog will bite. I'm more concerned about the dog's confidence and stability. All dogs can bite, but not all dogs will have the confidence to be a PPD.

I changed my training from using the modern prey techniques to no longer using them. In my experience you build a dog that is better able to handle stress if you do it correctly. I find it a somewhat inane contention that you must use prey to relieve stress when you merely need to relieve the stress. Is it a bit more difficult to train this way? Yes it is. I've trained with both methods, had some great dogs with each, but I chose one that I prefer. However, if I think the dog needs a different type of training, I adjust.

I don't recommend this type of training to many trainers because so many of them do screw up too many dogs this way. But I would also never say its medieval or 'sucks'.

There is a point where you no longer promote prey drive in your training for a practical dog. You will also find this true of many sport trainers.
There is never a time when you would promote only self defense behaviors in a dog for practical purposes although a few experiences can be show a dog that it can still survive a difficult situation.
There are many reasons to promote fight drive (combat behaviors) above all other behaviors in dogs. Confidence, practicality, appropriatness of response, controlability, to name a few.
Prey drive is the best foundation to begin with because , in the young dog, it appears earlier than fight drive and can be used to shape the behaviors used in fighting (countering, hard grip) and provide a means of manipulating situations where the dog is borderline as to confidence. Prey is also credited with providing durability due to it being a lower level of stress and a path to relieving stress during the training process.
Just my two cents.