Rik Wolterbeek wrote: I think "fight drive" is a combination of prey and active aggression. Active aggression is where a dog will fight for food, territory, a partner. Reactive aggression is where a dog will react and try to defend himself against a dog that shows active aggression: reactive aggression comes close to "defense drive"

***** There are a couple of problems with discussion of “drives.” First is that there are those, quite good BTW trainers who don’t believe that they exist. And the second is that among those who do believe that they exist, there is little agreement as to their definition and their origins.

***** Rik and I disagree as to the definition of “fight drive.’ I believe that it’s a detaining or driving off of an opponent. The best discussion of combat drives that I’ve found is on Donn Yarnall’s website. The discussion can be found at
http://www.donnyarnall.com/Find%20&%20Bark.htm

Kevin Scott wrote: Personally, I don't understand how a person could think a dog has fifteen or twenty drives.

***** I’ve been to talks that Wendell Nope (Head of dog training for POST in Utah) has put on. He hands out a single page, both sides filled, single–spaced list of drives. He lists ball drive as different from Frisbee drive as different from tug drive, etc. It helps him in his training and works for him. It’s too complicated for me though.

Ok, I'm out of the loop. What is BTW?

I think the problem is that I don't believe in all of these drives. I really shouldn't have used the word "defensive drive" in my earlier statement. I should have said the dog is serious.

I was under the impression that it is "prey" drive that causes the dog to want a toy. So the way I see it is that if your dog does something for the reward of a toy, it is prey drive. That is the way I meant it.

My point was that many years ago there were dogs trained for war, herding and many other things. All without a toy. Am I right in saying that a majority of people believe a dog has to have "drive" for a toy in order to be a great dog? I don't. My dog has never been trained with a toy or food. Why don't more people train that way?

Perhaps I'm wrong, how many of the people here have trained their dog with a toy or food?

Kevin Scott:

YOu said that some people think that the "reward" of catching the toy is prey-drive. It`s not. Catching the toy is a reward in it self. The reward we give the dog is a way of telling him GOOD BOY. I LIKE WHAT YOU ARE DOING: The more difficult catching the toy is - the higher the preydrive will get. For example if the toy is moving out of sight. This combines preydrive along with others. To my dog a dear or bambi will trigger preydrive at a high level. He will do anything to catch this prey.( To calm you down: he`s not allowed to.)

And Kevin:

Yes, dogs have been trained for wars and real life situations, maybe without using toys. But were these dog better than those we have today. I doubt it!

I have trained military patrol dogs, and I can tell you in the initial training phases you can use both toys and food. It`s just a way of learning the dogs the right skills. When these dog are accepted into service, they are what you call "serious dogs". And they have saved the lives of several handlers and patrolmembers. They started their training with toys, but ended up beeing the worst SOB in real life.:-))

Thanks Lonny (I am not that far out)

Lou made a reference in his post:First is that there are those, quite good BTW trainers who don’t believe that they exist.

My guess is the BTW refered to is a training or Trialing style?

Rik,

It seems that the definitions you are using is from Dr. Helmut Raiser. Is this correct? -Greg

Kevin:

Forgive me but I'm confused. What I hear you asking is why train a dog with a ball (prey drive) because prey drive does not determine if a dog is serious. Who trains with a ball in bite work? In obedience work a dog can be trained through drive or compulsion. Training through drive is fun and comfortable for a dog. Training through compulsion is not and reduces drive. So drive work is used to teach a dog and compulsion is used to proof a dog. The trick is to use just enough to make the dog reliable but not to kill his drive. Now bite work is completely different. Bite work is completely worked in drive. We first work a dog in prey to teach the dog the fundamentals (full calm bite, ect..) and to release stress. Defense is used to teach a dog how to handle stress. We teach the dog that you handle stress with aggression not avoidance. The goal then is a confident dog that knows that he can combat stress with aggression. If I misunderstood your posts please correct me.

Kevin, you ask:
***how many of the people here have trained their dog with a toy or food?***

Count me as one--I do SchH and use food for tracking, toy for obedience, and none of the above for protection. As Mika indicated above, toy and food are both a reward and a means to obtain a desired behavior. In protection a bite is a reward.

What in this do you find so objectionable?

Renee:

From some of the posts I have been reading the gripe some of the members have with our training philosophy is that training through drive is bribing a dog while training through praise is not. And if you remove the bribe the desired response diminishes while the desire to work for his handler never does. The only situation I would agree with this training style is if a dog does not posses strong enough prey or food drive to do the work. And if that is the case he then does not have the genetics for bite work either.