Kevin,

I think it would be nice if our dogs would always act in a way that has the best interest of the handler in mind where this interest is comunicated to the dog through the relationship formed. From my limited experience I have not seen that in the working dog world. The way I approach dogs is very similar to Vince's point of view.

However, your idea of training is not really mainstream. Since I have not heard much about the methods that teach a dog the way you describe, I naturally question the validity of these arguments and I am trying to establish a baseline if we are even talking about the same thing.

In short, what is your personal experience in the working dog world. How many different dogs have you trained and to what level were they trained? I don't know you but I would like to hear what your experiences are. Also, do you have any websites that discuss your way of thinking and the methods used. I assume that there is some major philosphy out there and that it isnt based soley on your personal opinion. Where can I find more information about this?

Why is it that if a dog isn't worked in prey for protection that its assumed its going to be fearful? Can't a dog be built in defense/fight slowly so the confidence can be built? Isn't the whole point to always have the dog win these encounters and that builds confidence? It seems that if done correctly this would build a confident dog.

Catherine,

Even in the "old" days when we frequently didn't start a dog until it was 2 years old it was the same. Start with defense to get the dog to make the first bite and switch immediatly to prey on the sack. If necessary defense may be used to transfer to the sleeve, but there was an immediate reversion to prey until the dog was solid. Then on to the defense work to finish. You would never work only in defense, the only conclusion to this would be a fear biter and/or a "junk yard" dog. The dog would have no confidence in it's ability because it was always worked in fear for it's life. That is what defense is.

Why are you assuming a dog that is started in prey can defend for real?

my last post is for Catherine and I meant CAN'T defend for real

Because prey is the begining of the training, not the end. The dogs are worked in defense also. The defense is the training that creats a true PPD, not the prey work. Prey work creats the foundation. It is not an end in it's self.

Do you mean am I assuming if a dog is started in prey that it can't defend for real? No, I don't assume that. I also don't assume that any dog not worked in prey will be a dog working in fear, although I do know of some methods that are only good for producing those types of dogs.

Catherine

What methods are those? Please explain.

To all but Richard:

There are 300 members on this board and you are telling me only one or two agree with me. Maybe I’m wrong. Tonight I’m going to bring my dog in from his kennel and we are going to communicate. I will tell him that he must let go of all his drives and him and I are going to do things because we are pals. One day he’ll win me a title the next I will help him dig in my backyard. Teammates all the way!

Kevin:

Why in the heck do you think the war dog was biting? Because he was in drive! Not because him and his handler communicated well together. If Richard is the only member that agrees with this basic statement? Then I have one thing to say. See you at the nationals!

Ps. I hate electric collars. (Only kidding. I was hoping that would catch Lou's attention to help out a little)

Abby,

One method I've seen and know many people are familiar with is tying up a dog so it can't escape and it must defend itself. The dog was more or less beaten so it would fight back. Another was cornering the dog so it had to attack - striking it to encourage it (not just hitting it with a stick). This particular "trainer" turned out dangerous dogs that were highly unstable that were used as the junkyard type dogs Richard mentioned. Seeing it once was enough for me.