Joy: While I would definetly love more info on that other thread I started. I really was looking for peoples different definitions on BI on this one. Again I must restate. The rescue aspect has no bearing on this disscusion here. I just want the regular advice I always get. Sorry if I confused you.

As far as Im concerned you guys are answering me on target. I still mostly agree with Robert and Lee. Now Im a beginner. But it just seems to make sense. Not asking you to close though. I could still learn a lot on this from all of you.

Isn't the fact that dogs can accept us as pack mates based upon how they are raised? We take puppies and immediately expose them to people and teach them they are part of our family or pack. Dogs that aren't socialized with people do tend to be more aggressive or fearful of people. I wouldn't trust a feral dog not to bite me hard because of its genetics.

As I have never trained a dog for PP, I hesitate to offer any opinions on the subject. But, since you asked, I suspect teaching a dog some degree of bite inhibition will have no detrimental affect on its ability to do PP work. My dog understands he is allowed to play with me in a very rough manner, less so with my wife, and not at all with my daughter. At the same time, he knows to bite hard when training. I do agree that oppressive training of bite inhibition will prevent a dog from biting hard at all for fear of correction. Again, just my supposition, I have no empirical data or even personal experience as it applies to a PPD.

Sorry I had to double post, but it's that editing lock again. Back to your first point Joy, that dogs can accept us as pack members is not that persuasive to me. Certain species that are not domesticated at all will accept and even protect humans. I think it was Jane Goodall who essentially became part of or at least accepted by the pack? of gorillas. In the last year or two, a gorilla at a local zoo protected a small child who fell into the gorilla pit. There are also examples with canines. I recall a Nat'l Geo special with a man who was accepted into a wolf pack. In all of these cases the animals were not docile or domesticated.

I do agree that there are a lot of crappy breeders, handlers, and trainers and we're lucky that not more people are bitten. However, I recently heard that an astounding number of children (something like 1 in 3) are bitten by a dog before they complete puberty. I'm not sure how this plays into the whole affair, but it's something to think about.

That being said, it's time to go. Have a good weekend all.

Originally posted by Stan Kitzinger:
Isn't the fact that dogs can accept us as pack mates based upon how they are raised? We take puppies and immediately expose them to people and teach them they are part of our family or pack. Dogs that aren't socialized with people do tend to be more aggressive or fearful of people. No. A sound pup, even if raised away from humans will have an easy time accepting humans. The pup may be a bit shy at first but will turn it around, *unless* that unsocialized pup also has a nerve problem. (And nerves are the big area in which nature vs nurture becomes important).

Handling and socialization are necessary if you want to take a non domestic animal (ie wild species) and tame it.

Pls do not misunderstand, I am not suggesting that it's not important to socialize pups. A good, sound pup is going to come around easily, a weak pup will be shy, in spite of excellent handling.

As to Mike's original question, perhaps it's necessary to make a distinction btwn sport and PPD since for sport, the dog will be focused on objects as opposed to civil work. Would various forms of bite inhibition be as relevant to one as the other?

 Quote:

Originally posted by Joy Wiczek:

 Quote:

A sound pup, even if raised away from humans will have an easy time accepting humans. The pup may be a bit shy at first but will turn it around, .....A good, sound pup is going to come around easily,....

These statements pretty much fly right in the face of all the research by Scott and Fuller and the rest of the folks at the Jackson Lab. Their work clearly demonstrated the importance of early social experiences (thus the "critical periods" which they attempted to define) and that pups that were not socialized very early failed to ever reach the same level of comfort/confidence with humans that the control pups achieved.

Early socialization is important, it has a value. But it is not what enables dogs to accept humans as fellow packmates quite naturally. That is genetically programmed it. If handling and socialization were the only variables that mattered, it should be a simple matter to keep a few *domesticated* Pumas at home.

IF you start out w/a pup who is genetically strong, and has solid nerve, that pup is going to rebound from early deprivation, ie lack of sufficient handling, lack of exposure to novel stimuli etc. A weak pup will not recover as easily, the degree of recovery will depend on genetics.

Stan, your sum up of the points from myself, Lee, and Joy was right on the money.

Lee, bingo, another point right on the money.

Domesticated dogs have a certain group of temperaments that have been selected for by us, that more responsive, more willing, more docile temperament increases the ability of our domestic dogs to fit into our society and "pack structure". Where as the inherited temperament of wolves is somewhat different and it would be more challenging to fit them into our society and pack structure because they have sharper instincts and drives than our dogs. (it can be done, I worked for the local zoo for almost a year on their wolf project and have had A LOT of experience with hybrid rescue and rehab)

BUT, it is the innate traits and physiological maturation process (and the experiences they have during those times) that dictates how they will relate to their world. (i.e. socialization) There is TONS of scientific behavioral research that supports that. Inherited temperament will have some effect on behavior, but more important is the life experiences and learning during those critical times during maturation.

A dog with good temperament and good nerves can be brought around, but never to the point that he could have been if he was socialized during the critical periods. There are physiological changes that take place during those times where experiences and learning are permanently imprinted or not imprited. If you miss it, you can't get it back.

A good laymans version of this research is covered in the Coppinger book "Dogs". These physiological changes are what make dogs dogs and allows us to mold them into our companions or any other job within the specturm of canine physical possibility.

And if you can't seperate normal bite reflex in dogs from the motivation behind it you don't understand dog behavior. . . in my rarely humble opinion. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Sorry Joy, I'm not trying to hammer you, just ended up that way. I disagree with your opinion or we are not communicating.

The degree of recovery will depend on genetics, but as shown in research it certainly doesn't come close to the effect of experience during the critical maturation periods. There are things that happen in the brain that make learned experience during that time impossible to change, modify surely, but not change.

A 110% kennel dog will never be the same as a dog raised in the home from day one. Even if they are genetic clones. It is impossible.

So lets get back to bite inhibition.

Here is my take, because natural play bite fun is basically reflexive and lacks any aggressive motivation you can redirect and correct for it carefully within your pack (which can include visitors and friends if YOU are the one that corrects them) without affecting a good dog's later ability to fight a person.

If you allow the dog to be consistantly dominated, corrected, and forced to be docile with every single human (and by every single human) he meets that will have a detrimental effect on his potential to do protection later.

You should promote a winning attitude by limiting the dog's exposure to people who understand what you are training for and will let the pup win in play (if you allow that) and will NOT dominate them. Any corrections for the dog being a pushy punk and pissing off your guests should come from YOU. YOU dictate when he can be a punk and push people into a fight or game he will always win.

How about that for an answer??

The dog's temperament will dictate how much correcting you have to do or how much winning you will have to set up.

With a killer you could get away with a lot more punishment and interaction that could be considered detrimental.

But I like to always stack the deck in my favor so the above is what I do basically irrelivent of temperament to produce the best possible protection prospect.

I'm with VanCamp on this one. Very nicely put. Joy I've read all your arguments. I just don't buy the genetic human bite inhibition part. Too specific (human) to be a genetic trait. We would see a dog treating a human a lot different than other animals. For the most part they don't.

Eric