Maybe you guys can tell me if there is an element of fight drive in here: my 5 yo GSD male, super social *off* his own turf (his turf includes house, car, yard, etc), nervy (but never showed *any* avoidance toward a helper), very hi defense, but also hi threshold, overall a sociable dog, great w/other dogs. We've got workers on the other side of his fence frequently now, building the new field, kennels, etc. He charges the fence, I expect that, he's territorial as heck. He can handle it when the workers are *X distance* from his boundary, if not, he's ballistic. Brought him inside while the fence guys were working and caught the dog actually climbing out a window to get out there and raise more heck w/them. He didn't seem stressed/agitated, just totally determined to get out there and start a row.
Would you guys consider this behavior simply part of his territoriality or is there an element of fight in it? This climbing out a window just to harass these guys is very new behavior (he was halfway out when I caught him).

Originally posted by DesertThunderK9:
Maybe you guys can tell me if there is an element of fight drive in here:

Joy,

My guess is that the behavior is territorial, prey, and barrier frustration.

Ahhh, hadn't considered the barrier frustration element. You are probably right, Ken. I was just struck by the extreme forwardness of his aggressive behavior in this instance. This dog is a really nice dog but does have extreme territoriality.

Kevin wrote: The working dog enthusiast knows he NEEDS fight drive but realizes that the use of it exclusively is a competitive mistake.

***** I think this statement would be more accurate if you said “The KNOWLEDGEABLE dog enthusiast knows he NEEDS fight drive . . .” I’ve talked to dozens of “working dog enthusiasts” who don’t believe in fight drive at all. Some of them are extremely well known and do seminars around the world.

Kevin wrote: The dog without some genetic fight drive is too hard to train (prey is hard to control)

***** I couldn’t agree more. This is the reason that some trainers get into the area of abuse in trying to put some control on the dogs.

Kevin wrote: The problem isn't in the working dog enthusiasts, it is in the new breed of sport handlers whose dogs are committed to beauty above work and titling and breeding at all costs weigh more than the benefit to the breed for many of these hobbiesdts today.

***** Kevin going back to my first paragraph, the problem isn’t in just the “new breed” of sport handlers. There are a couple that have been in this for over 20 years. In fact, one of the longest ever threads on the Malinois Bulletin Board was on this subject of fight drives. And one of the better-known sport dog trainers was the main talker. He doesn’t believe in Fight drive.

Hi Lou,

That's not true. On the Malinois board, Ivan Balabanov (I believe the trainer you're speaking of) said clearly he does believe in "fight drive." You might not have read all of Ivan's postings on that particular topic if you came to that conclusion. -Greg

Kevin wrote: I must disagree here Lou.

***** Kevin I think that our disagreement just means that we have different acquaintances in the sport dog world.

Kevin wrote: The working dog enthusiast knows he NEEDS fight drive but realizes that the use of it exclusively is a competetive mistake.

***** I have yet to come across any “working dog enthusiasts” and by that I mean those who primarily train “sport dogs.” Who will agree with the definition of fight drive as presented by Donn. That is, the detaining or driving of of an opponent. Most that I know consider that there are only two combat drives; prey and defense. When a dog bites out of defense, they call that defense–aggression. They don’t believe that a drive called “fight” with Donn’s definition exists.

Kevin wrote: The dog without some genetic fight drive is too hard to train (prey is hard to control)

***** I think this acounts for most of the problems in training police dogs today. Most of my work a police dog seminars is concentrated on problem solving and outing is the single most common problem.

Gregory Doud wrote: On the Malinois board, Ivan Balabanov (I believe the trainer you're speaking of) said clearly he does believe in "fight drive." You might not have read all of Ivan's postings on that particular topic if you came to that conclusion. -Greg

***** Greg I went to the archives and read lots of Ivan’s posts. You’re correct he does belieive in fight drive but not as Donn defines it, “the detaining or driving off of an opponent.” And therefore he doesn’t believe in what I call “fight drive” or what’s being discussed here. If I’m wrong someone will probably let him know and then he can drop by and let me know.

Hi,

I am a new member of this board. I have read a lot of the postings. I would like to state my thoughts and experiences. This is not a criticism of anyone or their opinions.

It would seem that for some time in America and Europe that Sporting Dogs and Sporting Techniques have migrated into the working world. I have no problem with sport, as long as it is recognized as such.

The number of "drives" attributed to dogs in today's world staggers me. It seems that the straightforward relationship between man and dog that existed in the past is disappearing. I have owned dogs all of my life. My grandfather was a breeder for over 50 years. I currently own a female Geman Shepherd's Dog. I have owned German Shepherd's Dogs and Malinois in the past, as well as Terriers, hounds, and beagles.

All the terminology about drives seems very unnecessary to me. I believe a dog is a thinking animal. (Unless they have been bred hyper) They are either serious or not. I am very concerned when I read about dogs that are going to be service dogs being trained using a ball or a kong. I recently had a dog that was a retired service dog deployed against me. He did not mutiple target against me. He held onto my bite coat sleeve with a full mouth grip. If I was a criminal or enemy, I could have beat this dog to death using a weapon in my free hand. He did not go for the weaponed hand. I believe this dog could be called "sleeve crazy" for lack of a better term. The natural bite of using the canines, sinking them deep, releasing, retargeting another part of the body was missing. That is how a dog naturally fights using his canines. In this manner he can avoid blows and very quickly bite stomach, crotch, legs, etc. In a natural form a dog will bleed you out very quickly. He will try to turn you and avoid blows aimed at him. The only explanation I can give for the bite and hold of the retired service dog is that he was trained to use this full mouth grip and to hold on. This goes against all that is natural in a dog. I could have killed this dog with a wrench in my hand. In addition, this dog was trained using a ball or kong. This dog was easily distracted from a target when the helper threw a kong to the side as the dog was closing in on him. The dog went after the kong. I believe the dog was not serious. This "prey" drive as some call it, appears to be an advanced form of play. If the dog was serious, it would have ignored the kong. If I had hit the dog with a wrench while it was holding onto my arm, I firmly believe it would have become serious. At that time it would choose fight or flight. This is natural defense to a dog. Fighting naturally would be to avoid blows and bite with canine, releasing to open the wound, then re-targeting me elsewhere, to bleed me out quickly.

My experience to date shows me in some ways dog training is far removed from the past. An example would be the working/military dogs of Europe. There was a time when dogs were worked in natural form. Communication was essential. There was no ball reward or shock collars. The dogs lived with and were bonded to the handler. It would seem that after WWII much of this knowledge was lost.

It would appears that Schutzhund has changed from its beginnings. Those that would argue that point should pull out their copy of "The German Shepherd Dog in Word and Picture" and look at the incredible things those dogs could do. Of course, we have to read this book with the knowledge that the Germans of that time were careful not to divulge information that could be used by potential enemies. That is why the book is full of mis-information. This was deliberately done. Also, when one looks at the pictures in this book, you can see how the early German Shepherd's Dog was smaller than many seen today. They had nice straight backs and were agile. The malinois blood can be easily seen in these early dogs.

I gave read at this site that some dogs are labeled to have "fight" drive. By this do you mean the dogs are defensive? If this drive is so rare, then why are dogs that are not deemed to have "fight" drive bred? My perspective: A working dog for Police, military or home defense should be defensive when needed. It should be a laid back, thinking animal. It should not be bred to have this hyper drive for a stick, ball or rag. It should be trained as it will be worked, seriously. "Defense" drive I guess for those that prefer to describe dogs as having "drives". The dog should be capable of living with the handler's family and children. It should be protector and friend. The dogs of the past were protectors of home and hearth. They worked all day with the Shepherd. Communication was enough. The Shepherd needed no ball or kong.

In today's world, I see so much time lost by not training pups early. They should be started at age appropriate tasks at 6 weeks old. In the past, european military dogs were with the troops by 6 months old. Why have we gotten away from this? By 12 weeks, my female had been started in scent, agility and bitework. Agility began at 6 weeks. This can be done, and sucessfully.

I feel a part of the problem today is technology. A German farmer in 1912 did not need xrays to know if a pup should be culled due to a hip problem. He could tell by watching the dog work. No xray machine needed.

Genetics and training. This makes a good dog. You can not change what is.

I am encouraged to see more people separate working dogs from sporting dogs. Sport is fine. Sporting dogs and techniques should not be confused or mingled with real work. That can be very dangerous in the real world. An intruder that can distract a protection dog with a tennis ball is something for all to consider.

I look forward to reading the postings here. - Kent Iroler

Kent meet Catherine, Catherine... Kent.

The idea of bite and release has been discussed to death here. A short Synopsys:

1- If bite and release were used by PSD that would be the end of PSDs. The idea of trying to go before a jury with a suspect that chewed up would a) probably get the suspect released and b) get the Department sued and they would lose.

2- Bite and release is not a natural method for the dogs to work, when herding the GSD will bite and hold not bite and release. Further dead suspects are very bad press and would also lead to the end of a PSD program!

3) If you don't want to train with a ball or kong it isn't necessary. It is highly effective and a quicker method of training. A properly trained dog will not be distracted by a ball or kong, and they are not used in bite work only obedience, tracking, narcotics, and bombs.

4) It is not cost effective for a Police department to attempt to raise and train their own dogs. There are estimates that as few of 10% of well bred dogs will make the cut as a PSD. Most departments can barely afford to buy started adults let alone pay someone to raise puppies.

5)Going for the weapon hand is an old technique that was proven to be ineffective 10-15 years ago. Why should a dog give up or bye-pass a good bite to try for a weapon hand that it might miss. Are you willing to try the same test with out the bite suit?

6) Don't like "Drive theory"? Call it something else... It comes down to a convienent method of describing genetic capabilites without having to go through long descriptions of behaviors.

7) The point many of us make over and over and over... ad nauseum is that there is a huge difference between sport and working dogs. To test a sport dog with a ball and explain that a PSD will give up a bite to go play with a ball is silly. If you do this test with a PSD and it goes for the ball the dog isn't finished in it's training. Unless a sport dog as been bred with way to high a prey drive it would probably rather have the bite too!

8) If the techniques work for both why not use them for both?

I will agree that genetics has become a problem with modern dogs. It was inevetible. It is too easy to breed dogs and too many people have no ethics when it comes to breeding. After a dog leaves the control of the breeder there is little they can do to control if the dog is bred. In addition it take a long time to evaluate for many genetic problems as you have to wait for it to develop, you could have 3-4 litters on the ground before you discover the breeding is bad. Plus many breeders are unwilling to admit that there dogs are throwing a genetic defect, choosing to blame it on the owner of the puppy. So they just keep breeding the same problems.

As sport has become an end in itself the temperament and "drives" are being modified to increase the points gained in a trial. This leads to dogs that are out of "balance" with their "drives". This is why I have been switching breeds every few years to find breeds that are less common and still maintain good working instincs.

***Kent meet Catherine, Catherine... Kent.***

LOL, Richard. Except I have a feeling they've already "met".

Kent wrote:

***Of course, we have to read this book with the knowledge that the Germans of that time were careful not to divulge information that could be used by potential enemies. That is why the book is full of mis-information. This was deliberately done.***

How utterly intriguing... Dog training as a matter of national security... forever lost after the WWII... Unless one has a direct pipeline to a former SS officer, or at least one of his disciples...

I couldn't help but peak at your occupation, Kent--insurance claims adjuster. It's a brutal job, I know--been there done that... However, I never felt that it gave me the expertise to tell all the K9 officers here with more than a hundred years of experience among them that they don't know what they are doing.

The theme is so familiar--there is no such thing as drives, no ball, no treats, the reward is in work, it's all in genetics and training, yet no clear explanation of what kind of training is being used, same mystical mumbo-jumbo--communication and bond appearing out of thin air, what is is, and other "je ne sais quoi". Why not come out and say: "We use strictly compulsion and defense"? But then of course, you don't like to use labels--it's better to blow smoke...

***I feel a part of the problem today is technology. A German farmer in 1912 did not need xrays to know if a pup should be culled due to a hip problem. He could tell by watching the dog work. No xray machine needed.***

Another pearl of wisdom. Culling pups based on their work? But of course, those mystic dogs of yesteryear could work the moment they dropped out of the womb...

Anyway, since Richard already addressed all the issues point by point, all I have to say to Kent in conclusion is YAAAAWN.

Its naive to think that the Germans did not spread missinformation or kept some things secret. That was standard practice. At that time, everything was a matter of national security and many divisions of their military were not privy to what others were doing.

For example, Hitler's protection dogs were female. If the male is a superior working dog, then why would he have females? Isn't this a quote from von Stephanitz's Schutzhund book regarding females - " …more independent, more reliable and more careful in nature and work. It is easier to train her, and she will, at least with an understanding leader, work more willingly and more carefully than a dog. A good bitch can be keen and sharp like a dog."

I don't know if Kent was referring to a ball being used in bitework. But, if building "ball drive" is done from the beginning and the dog becomes crazy for a ball, how do you change that foundation work? Will the dog then never be distracted by a ball? Its not a silly assumption.