Quote:

Originally posted by Lee Baragona - Sch3FH2:

 Quote:

Originally posted by Renee Felknor:
Do the dogs today have better trainability? Definitely not

Then I'd like to hear your definition of trainability. The characteristics that make a dog trainable to me include a willingness to accept leadership (I don't want to have to fight the dog for top spot every day), high motivation (today that comes in the form of strong prey drive for the toy), and medium sensitivity to physical corrections. Those are a dime a dozen these days.

When I say that dogs today do not have better trainability, I do not necessarily mean that they have much less, in general. I do believe that breeding for certain traits like extreme prey drive WILL eventually lead to less trainability—just as you yourself said: “TOO much of a good thing”.

I basically agree with your definition of trainability—it works for the sport. A minor diversion is that I don’t put much stock into “sensitivity to physical correction”—although I’m no stranger to physical corrections, I would rather prefer a dog which can be “directed” instead of “corrected”. Are such dogs a dime a dozen? Not as far as I can tell... Could be a regional thing, but there are a lot of people around here (Midwest) who find handler hardness highly desirable and something to brag about. Scar comparison is a favorite pastime around here, anyway. People often confuse hardness with handler hardness. Handler softness is viewed as something undesirable. Case in point: there was a thread here where someone said that he was advised not to buy a puppy out of Stormfronts’ Brawnson because the dog is soft. Now, I don’t know this dog, nor his handler, personally, but I did watch him win police dog championship in 2000. Nothing in his performance sent any warning signals to me that the dog was soft, on the contrary. I understand that he is 10 yrs old and still works as a patrol dog. So where did that come from? Another poignant observation: if you look at the puppy or dog ads from say, 10 years ago, the biggest selling point was “ball-crazy!!!”. Nowadays, it’s “no handler aggression” :rolleyes: .

 Quote:

That "head full of sense" can be lacking sometimes, but I find it's almost always cuz of excessive prey drive. I do think you can have TOO much of a good thing.

See, I’m a sucker for intelligence, by which I mean independent thinking, problem solving and creative disobedience. There is no place for that in SchH. SchH is all about drive and control, IMO. So if we continue breeding for these qualities alone, what impact will it have on the working ability overall, for herding, SAR, seeing-eye dogs, where intelligence and discrimination is of utmost importance? I’m not knocking SchH, BTW, I love it will continue to practice it. What changed in my outlook over the years, though, is that lately I’m not looking for a “SchH dog” per se, but a dog which can also do SchH. Maybe not at the Nationals level, unless I find one of them rare gems which I know are still out there.

 Quote:

IMO, we've got a bit of a schizm in the so-called working lines. You've got your sport dog - super high prey, calm grips, often a 'beta' type dog, high threshold for defense. Then you've got dogs with a low threshold for defense, show more outright aggression, often combined with lower prey drive, greater handler hardness and dominance. The sport dogs have such a high threshold for defense that it is sometimes difficult to impress them - they don't recognize a threat. In addition, if they are the type to adopt the beta role and be willingly led, there is no reason for the lower ranking animal to defend the boss. It's the boss' job to defend the pack, and that's US.

Are you saying this is the way things are, or this is the way things ought to be? A threat is a threat is a threat! When the ship is down I expect the whole crew, or the whole alphabet, if you wish, to join in--to quote the immortal words of Rudyard Kipling: “For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.”

I'm going to start a new direction in a new thread on this 'working' forum. Somewhat relating to these final postings. I'm hoping Lee and others who are similary minded will participate!

Sorry, by the way, about the bad quoting job I did in my last post...I'm a newbie with that sorta thing.

Originally posted by Renee Felknor:
I don’t put much stock into “sensitivity to physical correction”—although I’m no stranger to physical corrections, I would rather prefer a dog which can be “directed” instead of “corrected”. All I meant by 'medium sensitivity to physical correction' was that either extreme is very undesirable to me. Obviously too sensitive is a pain to tiptoe around, but I also have no use for a dog that I can't 'reach' because his pain threshold is off the charts. I've seen several of those and I wouldn't want one.


Originally posted by Renee Felknor:
See, I’m a sucker for intelligence, by which I mean independent thinking, problem solving and creative disobedience. There is no place for that in SchH. I'd agree with the exception of tracking. That phase absolutely does call for independent problem solving, particularly at the FH level. But can one breed for these traits? The guide dogs of today exercise as much independent thinking and problem solving as any dog, yet the labs that mainly fulfill those roles these days are nothing special (IMO). Sound temperament, excellent training, abd outstanding socialization appear sufficient to bring out these traits. Independence and problem solving, to me, is far more a function of the training environment - does it ENCOURAGE it or discourage it? The use of aversives certainly squelches some of it.

Originally posted by Renee Felknor:
Are you saying this is the way things are, or this is the way things ought to be? A threat is a threat is a threat! Yeah, I guess I am saying this is both the way it is and the way it should be. To be honest, I have my doubts that the shepherd's dog of old really defended the master at the drop of a hat anymore than today's dogs would. I believe that dogs are pack animals, and, as with all pack or herd animals, there must be a hierarchy to ensure survival. If all animals in the pack or herd were dominant, alpha-types, all chiefs and no indians, the pack structure obviously could not survive. Thus in every litter we see dogs of varying temperament, across the spectrum. If the dog's role in the family is second, below the boss man, then I wouldn't be surprised if that dog spontaneously defended the master's children, maybe his wife (tho I still wouldn't expect it as a matter of course). But I don't expect him to defend the boss, as in step in and take over if someone makes a move that might be interpreted as hostile. And if he's not one of those alpha wanna-be's, I would not be surprised if he only joined the fray after it had begun.

I know this post will end up spiralling this thread off into dumbass land for sure, but. . .I don't know if I agree %100 with the idea that a dog has to have the he who would be king mentality to fight a threat.


I wonder at the last statement that you made Lee. How would you explain then dogs who have proven themselves to be protectors but do not have alpha personalities.

For instance, my brother owns a very nice male Dutch Shepherd who has outstanding ability, natural aggression, and desire for the work. . .yet does not have a dominate bone in his body. He is a #2 dog for life with anyone he hangs out with, including other dogs. This dog has nailed someone in a car theft situation where he acted on his own to protect my idiot brother.

So. . .explain that one to me.

The dog is not dominate at all, won't fight other dogs for taking his food, won't put up a fuss at all with his handler or anyone I've seen him around he knows, and is way too social for a working dog IMO.

I'll take a stab. Only having the information you've provided, sounds like there is a possibility that your brother's dog is not on a solid discriminative cue (command). I don't get on the board a whole lot but haven't you said that you guys train for realistic type scenarios? If that's the case then he probably saw all the suspicious cues and since he's been trained to react a certain way to them, he did. If that's the case then it would be training and not a natural pack reaction.

That was my first thought too...that you guys train real life protection with your dogs, so what part of the dog's reactions do you ascribe to nature vs. training and experience? Also, I did say temperaments fall on a wide spectrum - even if this dog doesn't want to challenge for top spot, you say he's self-confident and naturally aggressive with people (aggression with people and dogs seem to be quite unrelated, in my experience), so it wouldn't be surprising if he would rise to the occasion.

I have to agree with Robert on this one although Lee's theory sounds reasonable.
I have owned a number of dogs that would protect me for real. They were not 'alpha' dogs but never hesitated if they thought there was a reason. I worked them in SchH but not in 'real life' scenarios. They were out of older bloodlines and you could see this tendancy from a rather early age. Perhaps, in someone elses hands, they may have been more 'alpha', ( I sure hate that term for some reason), type dogs but never showed any indication of it with me. I raised them from pups. I do have a rather strong presense as a handler so I don't think it is the "protect the wife but not the boss" scenario that Lee talked about.

 Quote:

Originally posted by Lee Baragona - Sch3FH2:
To be honest, I have my doubts that the shepherd's dog of old really defended the master at the drop of a hat anymore than today's dogs would.

I have dogs selectively bred in the tradition of "the shepherd's dog of old". My line still works large flocks the old-fashioned way and can trace its blood back to the early herding lines working when the GSD breed was founded. That having been said, I can tell you without any hesitation that these dogs would protect their master without having to be told if they saw a threat coming that the master did not see. I have seen them do it many times.

I believe that dogs are pack animals, and, as with all pack or herd animals, there must be a hierarchy to ensure survival.

Yes. It is our form of social order as well. It gives us the ability to communicate with other hierarchical species.

If the dog's role in the family is second, below the boss man, then I wouldn't be surprised if that dog spontaneously defended the master's children, maybe his wife (tho I still wouldn't expect it as a matter of course). But I don't expect him to defend the boss, as in step in and take over if someone makes a move that might be interpreted as hostile. And if he's not one of those alpha wanna-be's, I would not be surprised if he only joined the fray after it had begun.

Here is where it becomes interesting IMO <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> In the first sentence you allude to the "shepherd's dog" which would be a working dog and in this last sentence you allude to the family dog. There is a "role" difference IMO. The dog has a different role in a working relationship than it does in a social relationship. Sure there is the ubiqitous heirarchy but it has a different "texture" to it (for want of a better word) in a working relationship than in a social relationship -- JMO.

Let me try to explain. When I first met Manfred (my old-school shepherd mentor) and we were out working with his dog (my Nicky's father, Nikko), Manfred chided me for "schmoozing" with Nikko while he we were working. Nikko would come & "socialize" with me when everything was in order and he could relax his patrolling. IOW according to Manfred there is a different "relationship" one should have with one's dog while working than while not working. It has nothing to do with enforcing a hierarchy -- hierarchy is/should be a given.

In the large flock herding we do there is also a different relationship between the dog and the sheep just as there is a different relationship between the dog and the man. Yet both of those relationships are based on hierarchical language -- again, different "texture". How? Why? I'll explain as best I can from what I see.

The shepherd is the boss -- the leader of the working unit which consists of dog & sheep. The dog is in effect an extension of the shepherd endowed by the shepherd with the right and power to maintain order in the flock. The sheep are the protected ones -- for the right of protection and to be allowed to live in their own sheepy hierarchy the sheep must obey the dog who must obey the shepherd who is the boss. Hierarchy? Yes. Pack/rank hierarchy between species? I don't know. Here's why I don't know (I do know but I can't prove it so I'll say I don't know <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> ):

If there were many shepherds, many dogs and many flocks migrating let's say whenever and wherever migrations take place, there would be a rank order among human shepherds working in the group. If the shepherd uses 2 or more dogs to herd his large flock, there would be a rank order among his dogs. The sheep have their own rank order within their group also. Do these rank orders of the various species intermingle? They should not IMO. And, that is what makes the difference between a working relationship and a social relationship or between a working dog working and a family dog being a pet. JMO. In a social relationship the species barrier may be relaxed -- "may" be. But rank can be pulled at any time by the "ranking species".

I think where rank order & hierarchy gets muddled up is when humans anthropromorphize other animals -- dogs in this discussion. When we think we have to lower ourselves into the pack order ala dog pack in order to communicate or when we elevate the dog to a position in the human family/social unit (even if it is to the lowest level), we lose our natural hierarchical ranking as the human (higher/dominant) species. I can't prove it but I think it from what I see working in a hierarchical unit made up of different species each with its own separate rank orders.

 Quote:

Originally posted by Ellen Nickelsberg:
I can tell you without any hesitation that these dogs would protect their master without having to be told if they saw a threat coming that the master did not see. I have seen them do it many times.

I remain skeptical that the dogs of old were so much more "protective" than today's dogs.

 Quote:

Originally posted by Ellen Nickelsberg:
The dog has a different role in a working relationship than it does in a social relationship. ...Manfred chided me for "schmoozing" with Nikko while he we were working.

Am I understanding this - when the dog is working, keep the relationship on a strictly working basis, all business, clear cut, but when the dog, at the end of the day, is in the house, fulfilling a social role, then that barrier can come down and schmoozing is ok?