Trooper, nice.

I slightly disagree with the sport thing. I think that sport training should more closely emulate PSD and PPD training (mainly PSD). One of the major reasons for the decline of the GSD is that Schutzhund no longer can be used as an accurate test of a dogs working ability and temperament. Look at the SV. They have again and again changed rules, and begun to judge in a way that has allowed for lesser dogs to get titles. I would like to see some real changes that would make it necessary to show defense drive, fight drive, and hard core nerve in the trials. I would like to see some real old school stuff come back as well. Attack under gunfire, object guarding, 10 point rating system, you name it. Poor old Max isn't rolling in his grave, he is going plain tornado-F-ing-twister nutz!

I'm gonna take a hit for slamming the SV again. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Richard, I honestly don't know if what you are explaining is right or wrong. I see your point in training the dog to cue on aggressive action. I just don't think I agree with that method. There should be a level of suspicion used in training.

VanCamp,

Are you suggesting that the dog see everybody that comes in the house as a bite that hasn't happened yet? When does the dog relax around people it doesn't know yet? If the dog is ok to trust peple at the house, but not on the field, how are you going to be sure the dog will bite at home if someone flips on you? I have known people that have had family members attack them in their homes, should the dog not react to that because it is someone he knows?

That is my problem with the idea that the dog be wound tight all the time. One of 2 bad things can happen. The dog can miss an attack because it is someone he knows, or the dog may make a bite that it shouldn't because it is set on a hair trigger all the time. That is why I want my dog to accept anyone I tell him to, I also want him to react to any type of attack by anybody. When I have company I don't want to feel like I have to kennel the dog for fear that it may over react. The dog won't do much good from his kennel.

I totally agree with Richard on this one.. I want my dog to be as serious as a heart attack when provoked.. but when things are just normal.. I want him to be able to relax and hangout. I want a dog that is sure and confident..that I can turn on and turn off...

Jody

That is not what I said and that is not what I suggest. I didn't say anything about how the dog should react around the house or with visitors. Where the hell did you get all that crap?

Of course a family PPD needs to be able to react to aggressive situations(with previously nice people), but there are plenty of ways to train that without playing buddy buddy with the agitator. The methods you described are not the only way to train a sure protection dog. That is stupid. You can very easily train a dog to react to aggressive situations without having to be buddy buddy with the agitator. You can also do a lot of civil and social work to ensure that the dog can function with people around in a friendly manner. If you want me to tell you how, mail me, and I'll write you a long ass reply. All I said was that I don't agree with your methods. I don't train that way, and still have reliable, social dogs.

With the proper dog you can do socialization and civil work to make the dog safe and sure around people at the same time that you are working in serious bite stuff. Muzzle work, suit work, targeting, fighting, and real hard core pressure all make a good dog less willing to make friends with the agitator right after the confrontation. Yes, after doing work on a sleeve and winning the sleeve there are a lot of dogs that are plenty nice, but that is not how I train in a mature and practiced PPD. Play time ends when I start to work in defense and handler/property protection. I also have not had a dog that I thought would react in the way that you say your dog does. My last dog was pretty damn civil and had a high level of aggression that could be dangerous in situations like you described. After taking a bite with Uher you didn't stick your had out again to make friends, even if you were showing all the right signs of submission. After you left and a few minutes passed by you could come back and he wouldn't kill you, but you sure were not able to be his buddy. You had better just leave. He was overly sharp in that respect. I liked that level of suspicion that he had. He also had near perfect off leash control in these situations. AND, he functioned well in my office and home for nine years without a problem. Never did I feel that he was a "cocked gun" and ready to nail everybody he met.

The key to this thread is the word TRUST. The answer is no.

Vince is making the rounds, hammering nails again. Right on the heads. . .

You are the master of the one line response. Some of us should take lessons. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

VanCamp,

The method is misunderstood by people that don't use it. I didn't say it was the only way to do the training. The method was attacked as unworkable. Serious dog will be a serious dog as long as it is properly trained. In effect what you are saying is that you get to the same point by a different method. The difference is rate at which the dog cools down after an attack. Your own statement is that you felt your dog was overly sharp in this respect. This type of training will help with an overly sharp dog.

You have said that once your dog was worked in defense the dog was very serious and dangerous to the person that he just worked on. After time he settled down a bit. You get what you expect and train for. If you want something different in the dog you have to train for it. I want something different from my dogs. If there is a mistake and the dog ends up biting someone it shouldn't, I want more control and the dog to cool down quicker. It is what I expect and what I train for.

The beginning of this thread was that this type of training would never work. That you could not produce a serious dog with this method. You can produce a very serious, very hard dog with this method. I have seen it done for 20 years. The dog trusts the handler to make a decision about the person. The dog will accept the person unless they do something wrong. That is the goal. If the dog is trusting of the handler then it will accept the person. Why should the dog not accept that person? Why can't the dog be "sweet" in a non-threatening situation, no matter who the person is?

This is a game of semantics. The helper is used for many roles. To stimulate the dog, calm him down, respect him and many many more but I do not see trust as one of them.

Even if the sleeve is gone, and the helper reaches out to the dog to make friends the dog should be aggressive. I've actually been wondering about this after I had seen it.

It was all rather confusing when I first watched some PP work. Going in with only that which I've read about (drive theory), I found myself rather unsure of what exactly I was seeing.

Now, even if the dog is a genuine adversary of the helper and not sleeve happy (which appeared to be the case), I noticed that the helper would still let the dog trot off with the sleeve? Is that to satisfy whatever vestige of prey was engaged?

However, when the dog, on leash, was presented with the helper's arm without a sleeve it would still snap and lunge. I presume that's a good sign (as vancamp noted). But this was the same dog which, a little while ago, was trotting off with the sleeve and shaking it around. I thought that was a sign of prey. Or do the fight/defense dogs also take out their emotional surplus on the sleeve too?

The helper would also pet the dog shortly thereafter...but not immediatly, as I remember..

In foundational training you teach the dog the carry, that may continue in later work or not, but the trained response is to carry after the fight as an early reward. There are other reasons for this.

You will also see a lot of hands on petting and soothing with young dogs to help them learn to be calm on the sleeve. These are foundational training methods, not really what this thread was about. . . If I remember correctly.

Most of the comments are about dogs that have progressed beyond begining prey work.