This is a very interesting subject which requires additional clarification, especially since there is no definite consensus on what the term "civil" or "civility" actually means. Unfortunately, the Webster dictionary does not provide us with an explanation pertaining to the use of these terms in canine context. To say that "civil" "describe(s) a dog that focuses on the man, not the protective equipment. (i.e. a dog that will bite you)" is an understatement and is only a part of the description. Just the fact that the word "civil" is often used with an adverb "too" (as in "this dog is too civil for sport", for example, a phrase I often heard used by experienced trainers) means that the term has a quantitative characteristic which doesn't make sense in terms of the above description--the dog either focuses on the man and bites or he/she doesn't. So there… <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

A dog who focuses on the man and not on the equipment is not necessarily a civil dog, at least not the way I understand the term. This can be trained in any decent dog. I agree with Hammer & Dave Lilley that "civility" is not a drive and cannot be equated with defense drive. Defense drive is a response to stimuli, and once the stimulus is removed defense drive subsides. In my opinion, civility is part of a dog's temperament. Civility comes from a dog's strong innate dislike and mistrust of humans, to the point where the "taboo" of biting a human, which is inherent to most dogs, is broken. A truly civil dog does not need agitation to light up on a human. I've often seen the term "civil" used in conjunction with "fight drive" and "rank drive", the connotation being that a civil dog is a tough and courageous dog, which is not always the case. Of course, there is not one single characteristic that defines a character of a dog, and there are dogs which may be civil and courageous at the same time.

I do not consider "civility", at least the way I understand it, a desirable trait for sport, PP or even police work (sorry, VanCamp <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> ). There is a place for it--SWAT teams, border patrol, perimeter guarding and such, i.e. where social interaction with humans is not an issue. For everything else truly civil dogs are a pain in the ass and a liability.

Renee,

Good post. This is how I always understood it as well. Your last paragraph is also an excellent point.

Renee,

I was with you right up to the last paragraph. Civil is desirable for PP and PSD. The dog should not be destracted by the equipment. These dogs will tend to bite what is offered as the easiest target. The thing that we teach our dogs is that the fight isn't over until the handler says it's over. Other wise if the bad guy slips a jacket off the dog may quit on the fight because the "sleeve" has been slipped. The dog needs to understand that it is the person, not the equipment that is the target.

I understand what Richard and Schnauzer Girl are trying to say but I think that when many people think of the term "civil" they think of an overly-aggressive somewhat unstable dog. That is the impression I usually get. I guess it all comes down to someone's interpretation of the word. Maybe I am really thinking of the phrase "overly civil" or "very civil". We have had threads on this board with people who claim to know what they are doing, talking about "very civil" dogs that were in reality a menace to anything and everything around them. If anything, a lot of people probably THINK they know about what a civil dog is and they really don't.

I'm certainly not the authority on civil dogs so I'm liking this discussion, as I am like a sponge....ready to absorb info.

Chuck, you are too kind, as always…

Richard, my comment was about semantics--I am used to the term "civility" to mean more than the opposite of "sleeve-happy", donno, maybe this is geographical… If the only correct definition of "civil" is "targeting on the man, instead of the equipment" I will accept that and from now on will straighten out anyone who uses this term incorrectly. If that's the case, rest assured, I consider sleeve-happiness, or "civility" (if you wish) an undesirable trait for both Schutzhund and PP, not even to mention PSD.

Schnauzergirl:

*******I hate to say it, but I think you are mixing up civility and rank here…

To quote the immortal words of VanCamp: "What the F-?" I don't even know how to address this… You either didn't read my post, or your level of comprehension leaves much more to be desired. But thank you for edumicating me to the fact that dogs who WON'T bite don't make a good PP dog. I didn't know that… :rolleyes:

Sorry Renee,
I too posted in response to the last paragraph, however Richard, as usual, did a much better job. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> That is what I get for cooking dinner and posting at the same time. I won't make that mistake again.

Please excuse me, I will go back to my corner now.

Police departments in my area AVOID civil, sharp and defensive dogs like the plague. They spend so much time doing public demonstrations at schools etc. that these traits would be a liability. In my area its not uncommon to see police k-9's running around free in the house during a party or gathering (not that this is a good idea). Handlers here believe that these abilities are prerequisite and won't even consider a dog with civil aggression or sharpness.

I never knew these kinds of stable, social, AND hard biting dogs existed prior to my policing experience... of course, they are difficult to find.

Interesting thread guys. I'd like to add that the term civil should have nothing to do with the ability of the dog to interact safely with people.

I think civilness is just a word that describes a dog that is more man focused than equipment focused. A PSD or PPD ABSOLUTELY HAS TO BE CIVIL. For the dog to engage a man, without equipment, should be our definition IMO.

Issues that include uncontrolability, rank, dangerous-will-bite-your-ass-at-the-drop-of-a-hat stuff is unrelated to civilness.

There are civil dogs that are safe to be around, many in fact.

Hello everyone...I'm not trying to start a fight... so please be open minded.

This definition thing is a HUGE problem. Frankly, I'm growing tired (and others probably are as well) of the continual posts stating opinions.... I think this... you think that... someone else disagrees with both of us... its endless and meaningless.

To be useful for discussion...definitions must EITHER come from an accepted, authoritative source OR be normatively defined.

In the dog training / protection area... there is no single accepted authority... so it is probably best to use the normative approach.

Having said that, I have 2 concerns with recent postings about definitions of civil aggression:

1. In 20 years of dog training, I have NEVER heard anyone else refer to a prey dog (even one that will bite for real) as "CIVIL".

2. The terms "very civil" or "highly civil" are commonly used... if civil is simply a yes / no thing... will the dog bite (yes or no)... why are these relative terms used?

We have people from all over the world on this board... Until we develop a mutually agreed upon list of basic definitions... we will continue to spend most of our time arguing about trivial details, posting multiple times just to clarify, or simply misunderstanding each other.