Now here's one to think on. Jason and I obviously tag around with belgians by our butts...sneaking suspicions lead me to believe that a good solid majority of you on this thread work GSD...

now...here's the deal... how much do you think differences in breed outlook affects your choices in training sequences and intensity???

Or is it merely a factor of the Dog? Several competitors I know training Mals say it takes a slightly different approach in harnessing / channeling those drives than experienced GSD people are used to. Is it possible that the mals are more "mentally tough" and can 'swallow' the obedience and tug work at the same time...?

Just pondering...

Fxdlrider,

I think what you are refering to is less a breed difference than a difference in training traditions. Sorry, but most of the Mals I have seen recently I would not classify as having much in the way of a "mental toughness". In fact most I have seen are just so prey driven that they will put up with anything to get a bite. Just don't take them in to a building on a slcik floor.

The Schutzhund tradition has been to delay Obedience until the dog was older and then use a higher level of compulsion. With KNPV the tendancy was to train earlier to control the over exciteabilty of the Mals. If you look at the PPD training it has usually been train obedience first. The common standard was the ability to do all the obedience work perfectly with hand signals only and hold a 20 minute out of sight stay before bite training. The idea is that if the obedience isn't there the control is much more difficult to get.

All the methods can be used with any breed. There are some breed specific differences in training, but they really aren't that big.

BTW, I don't work with either breed.

An on-the-fly observation...

I personally am a believer in starting the OB at the same time you're beginning tug/biting games with the pup. This isn't based on any inherited philosophy so much as what I've observed. Richard alludes to it above--too often SchH dogs that have been allowed to be punks in their growing stages have chronic problems with OB in the protection phase, and even in the obedience phase. Often way too much compulsion is needed to get these dogs under control, and the result can either be the "cringer" that modern judges don't like to see or the freelancer that starts the protection routine by running straight to blind 6 and then proceeds to bother the helper at will during the transports. We've all seen it--at least, those of us involved with SchH. My guess is that obedience applied judiciously during the dog's growing years would probably fix the majority of these problems.

Pete Felknor

Richard:

You do not have to tell me about early positive training. I have written about 30 posts on it so far. My example in drive reductions was when making mistakes in correcting i.e. over or poor timing. Your methods do not fall into this group.

Chuck:

Not that Josh needs me to tell him that he is right but a genetic 6 can never be higher than a 6. You can have a genetic 8 that looks like a 6 and with the proper training becomes an 8.

Pete

Nice to hear from you. I agree with you. I agree with positive training at early stages but when power is introduced it can not be done half assed.

Vince,

Forgive me if I sound repetative, but so when we speak of "building drive" we are talking about building to the genetic potential of the dog, as it is impossible to create something that just isn't there.(I suppose that I've answered my own question as it just turned more into a statement!LOL) <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

I really got it now. I think I will start tomorrow with "judiciously" applied obedience. It really makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, I just started with my new dog like I had all the others in the past........... bite, bite, bite and then at age two, bang, bang, bang!! To start now seems logical. When I thought about it from purely a logical point of view, anything else seems kind of dumb. Thanks for the insight!

Chuck:

Bingo!

I talked to some old timers on this and the answer I got was that the idea was not to train the force retrieve until bite work was developed. That is where your bonding reference came from. Now with less compulsion in the retrieve and in obedience in general the rule is not as golden. So to speak.