Dave,

I think this is a definition problem. My Giant is extreamly civil by the most common definition of civil I see used. He is also a Therapy dog. You won't find a safer more stable dog to be around.

What you describe is the type of dog that is an absolute prerequsite for a good working dog. They can and should be civil. They should react to a ral threat and alert on the man not the equipment. Dogs that aren't safe to be around or are overly sharp aren't a protection/service dog, in my mind they are just nasty dogs.

 Quote:

Originally posted by Richard Cannon:
Dave,

I think this is a definition problem. My Giant is extreamly civil by the most common definition of civil I see used.

Ok Richard, but what is the difference between... "extremely civil", "very civil", and "somewhat civil?"

Some people are arguing that civil is yes / no (will bite for real or not).

 Quote:

Originally posted by VanCamp:
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.

Ok, being a "junior trainer" and "junior decoy", I was going to stay out of this, but I figured I'd throw my 2 cents in (if it's even worth that much)...

I agree with VanCamp here. I see Civil as a dog that will focus on the man and is not "sleeve happy" (I use the same wording, Renee). I don't use terms like "very civil" or "a little civil" because in my thinking of the definition, it is a yes or no....will the dog bite with no sleeve? yes, then the dog is civil; if no, then the dog isn't civil.

Now, on the dogs that bite anything and everything, that's not "civil", that's a dog with a nerve problem (sharp or unstable).

just my 2 bits, think on it or file it in the circular file. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Dave,

I wouldn't limit it to just making a bite on a man with no equipment. It is that the dog concentrates on the man, with or without equipment. To me with a civil dog they are more interested in the man than the equipment. With some of them you need to be careful as they know that the equipment isn't the man, and they would much rather have the man. My Giant will watch the position of the sleeve and if you get it out of position he will go around it to hit the man. If the sleeve is in the proper position he will get the sleeve first. If the sleeve is in a position so that it isn't in a direct line with the center of the body, he will just push past it and hit the person instead.

In most cases when people start attching adjectives to "civilness" I think that they are more talking about the dogs sharpness and/or drive thresholds for the bite (either defense or prey). A sharp dog with low thresholds will respond quicker with less provocation, if that dog is civil in addition to being sharp and having the low thresholds they may have a tendancy to fire off quickly and get into an unprotected person because of the low thresholds. That could make for a dangerous dog to work with. So in that instance it isn't the civilness that is the problem, but the low thresholds and sharpness. If the dog had the same low thresholds and/or sharpness but wasn't civil they won't use those theresholds to go for an unprotected person.

The other source of confusion is that many fear biters are seen as civil because they will bark/bite with little provoction because of their fear. The "motivation" is different. Rather than an attack on the person, the dog is just lashing out because of the fear. This isn't a civil dog in my mind, it is just a nasty dog based on fear.

I'd like to see Lou Castle's thoughts on this. Anyone else???

No, not really, rottnvegas. I always seem to get slammed by Richard when he has backup like Lou. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

(just kidding Sarg)

There can be degrees of civilness. More or less apt to bite a man that is wearing a sleeve is an example. Of course there could be all kinds of factors or reasons, but the description of the behavior is the same- very civil, civil, kinda civil. Any of them could apply to help describe the behavior of civilness. Why not?

I try not to use those superlative adjectives also, but sometimes it works in the context of a discussion. Especially when attempting to preach of the graces of one's own dog. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

When talking about prey vs. other combat drives, prey dogs can be civil. Especially when on the ground, often a dog with a very high prey drive will often try to take a bite near the face, head, or neck. You know, like trying to kill prey. I have seen this mostly in suit work where the man was running away and the dog nails a nice takedown. You could argue that the dog has just changed drives, but I don't think so in some cases.

I'm with Richard here... the common use of the term seems to be related to aggression threshold. The original term that trainers used to describe this trait was "civil aggression."

With regard to prey, I have never seen a manstopping prey dog (though the myth may be real). It seems that a truly "prey motivated dog" would only bite if a person was animated/moving or running.

If a "prey dog" will bite a passive person... I guess... we COULD call it "civil."

I would not say that there are levels of a dog being Civil.

For me a Civil dog is one that is more than willing to engage into a fight and with the attitude that it will overpower the opponent.

Civil dogs are also of the mindset to take a punch at a handler should the dog in it's mind feel that the handler pushed the limits.

A key word here is Handler and the art of such knowing what the limits are of this type of dog and how to prevent harm to yourself in the application and engagement or the training of such a dog.

Last if the dog did not have a Civil Drive so to speak if there is such a drive as I tend to place it in the overall description of a good dog for real work in Police, PP and Sport then I would not own the animal nor use it in my own breeding program.

JMO

Jerry Cudahy

Dave, I don't think that is what Richard said. If fact it seems to be the opposite. Maybe he will clarify.

Dave, why does a civil bite from a prey dog have to be on a passive subject for it to be considered civil. Prey dogs can and do bite people in prey drive when there is an absence of equipment. If that subject/person then starts fighting the dog he may or may not continue engaging him, but if a person was running and gets nailed then falls down screaming and whimpering then the dog could continue to bite. That is still prey and civilness. If the same dog chased after the person and didn't bite because it was looking for the sleeve then that would not be civil.

I think you are attaching other behaviors to the term civil. Civil AGITATION is when the agitator is unprotected by equipment and is using threatening body gestures and posture to induce an aggressive response in the dog, but the "civil" part just means that there is no equipment. Civil aggression is the same thing, the civil part describes that the dog is being aggressive to the man without equipment or in spite of equipment. The aggression has nothing to do with the term civil. The aggression is coming from some other drive. That has always been the way that I have understood it and also my "old timer" grandfather's understanding. He has been training in SchH and Police work for over 60 years in this country and Europe. (He was born in the Czech Republic.)

Jerry, I disagree with you, I think you are also adding meaning to the term. Aggression levels, thresholds, sharpness, and nerve are what make a dog dangerous to handle or own. Not civilness. Are there correlations, of course. Lots of civil dogs are also overly sharp and have low defense drive threshold. That is bad news, but again has nothing to do with the civil part.

In your first comment you are talking about fight drive.

In your second you are talking about rank.

Rank will be more of a problem with a civil dog, because he will be more likely to go right after the handler. (no equipment that is giving the dog a target to bite)

Of course these are just definitions, but I think that most of the people on this board are using them in the way that Richard and I are. Stop me if I'm wrong Richy.

I think a lot of problem with the terminology in dog behavior is due to the fact that it is difficult to describe these behaviors, in different dogs, at different stages of training and maturity. Civilness is one that is a real problem. Because if a dog has been locked in prey then the chances of him having civil bite behavior is less than it could have been if he was trained in defense properly. It also has to do with fight drive. A dog with no fight drive will often not bite a still person that is giving serious dominate, challenging, aggressive signals. We can get into huge debates about all of the factors that make up a bite trained dog and how or why they are civil or not civil. I think the best way to talk about these behaviors is to use the terms in the simplest way possible and with adequate descriptions of the actual behaviors.

Civil "drive" (not a real drive) is simply describing the actions of a dog that will engage a person without equipment. And in the presence of equipment will also attempt to engage the man if the equipment is not the first and most easy target. A dog that focuses, and wants, the man rather than the equipment. That is civilness. Just my, not so humble, opinion. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

I doubt I'm making a lot of friends with this post. Sorry guys. . .