VanCamp,

As far as if true. I can only go off of what the owner has stated. I dunno, I just have a problem with my dog working in defense and then later I don't care if it is the next day or week, allowing that helper to come up w/o any problem. I am not saying they have to bite. But my dog better remember. It is the same as when I give my dog a correction. It better remember the correction. Now this is a little different, but I expect rememberence. My dogs are completely trustworthy around anything I can think of. In fact I took my hardest most dominant I'm gonna kick your a$$ dog to a preschool last week and did a program we call 'Dog-gone Safe and Fun'. It is designed to teach kids how to act around dogs. Now this is the same dog that once he is worked in defense you are not getting by him again.
I dunno, sounds like good control to me.

Well if you say so. I wonder, if I were to agititate your dog and show up six months later do you think he'll "remember". I don't. . .

Control is the issue, I'm right there with you on that.

Its funny you mention that. I had a guy work him last summer. I took him to a new place. The old helper came up to me. Immediatley Rocky was at attention. I believe he remembered. Did I have to restrain him, no. But I think he got the idea.

Are you sure that it wasn't something else that got his attention about the guy. The location, the cues you gave him, the cues he gave him, were you on or near the field? I don't know, maybe he did remember. It would be hard to know for sure. Not really relevent to the thread, but pretty interesting. Maybe we could get a government research grant and test this out? What do you say. I'll split it with you 60/40? Ok, ok. . 70/30 but I'll at least take you to lunch afterward. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Todd,

Safer for everybody. It decreases the likelyhood of an accidental bite, if the dogs does bite the wrong person it can be controlled easier. What happens if the dog bites a friend or family member by accident, does that mean the dog will never trust that person. I have never had an accidental bite, but I have had a few close calls. People showing up unannounced, drunks not behaving themselves, and some other things.

Dogs are poor generalists. They learn specific things about specific places. We teach that the behavior is the issue not the person. If the dog reacts to behavior, it is less likely that the dog will make an unintentional bite. In addition if the dog is overly vigilant about some people then you are looking at an increase in the chances that the dog will bite that person. The dog needs to be able to make an evaluation based on something. THe choices are the equipment, the place, the person, or the behavior. Of those options I would much rather the dog bite based on the behavior, and not the person, place or equipment.

Depends on the application. A pure sport dog can appear to be a good fighter if he trusts the helper and is, in the dog's mind, engaged in an extremem game of tug - of - war. In PSDs or PPDs, there should be a level of "automatic" distrust for the helper; hence the need to return to the definitions of the two terms, helper and aggitator. I think that to lump all biting dogs into the same catagory in this situation is incorrect; there needs to be a definative difference between "street" and "sport" dogs, no one better than the other, just different.

I don't quite understand what you mean Trooper? Can you clarify what you are saying to stupid ol' me.

A lot of good thoughts here. Maybe the helper only wants or knows how to train sport dogs. But for those that believe in the total dog, protection work is not play. Once the work begins the dog is the active participant, the helper is reactive. All of the instincts must be challenged and enhanced. The dog should focus on the helper not the equipment, and demonstrate aggression and fight for the sleeve not just bite the sleeve. Trust for a dog may be anthropomorphic. Personal acquaintance blocks aggression and passive acceptance causes unsureness. Protection dogs also need to learn to differentiate the suspicious or aggressive actions from the neutral person.

VanCamp, wut I iz tryin ta say wuz, If you are engaged in dog training for the purpose of sport with no real world application, I can't see the problem with a dog trusting the helper. I don't like it, but there is no problem. If the same philosophy, trusting the aggitator, is applied to the PPD and PSD, there will be short comings in that dogs performance at the " moment of truth". There should be a wariness of the aggitator on the dogs behalf, a constant vigilance if you will. That vigilance should be 50% genetic and 50% environmental conditioning.

Gordon,

Check your messages.

Come on down and I will introduce you to some dogs that will be just fine with the agitators, and hit you so hard that the bruises takes weeks to go away. Even through a suit, and gauntlets.

I am not sure trust in the agitator is the best description. It is more of a case of the dogs accepting the person when they are told to out. Again the dogs are taught that it is the behavior that triggers a response, not the person. Anybody that exhibits aggressive behavior towards the handler will be taken. Friends, family (excluding the people that live in the house), a salesman that shows up, anybody. Most dogs will exhibit much better judgement than they are often given credit for. People they should accept, they will accept. They will maintain vigilance without being overtly aggressive to the person.