Catherine,

And yet that is what you are advocating? Training in defense only will produce what you have just stated. You can't have it both ways. As you have said, and continualy demonstrate, you know nothing about training protection dogs. Probably dogs in general. Wishful thinking will not make it so. Learn something, watch dogs work, get some leash time before you form your opinions, it is the only way to learn. Things aren't always as they seem to the inexperienced!

Could someone please explain to me how & if a "civil" dog fits into the training picture being painted in this discussion. Do civil dogs tend to be more defense driven or prey driven? If they are more defense driven, are we therefore to assume they are fear driven? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

I think there are very different views on the drives. As Kevin Scott has voiced, I do not believe in the drives. The dog is serious, or it is not.

To me, prey is not serious, and defense is serious. Outside of sport work, I see no point in training outside of defense, as you want the dog to be serious in what it does.

I do not advocate tying a dog out and beating the shit out of it until it bites - that will produce the dog that Catherine wrote about.

A dog can work in defense and be stable, if raised and "brought out" properly, along with good genetics. It is often written that dogs should not be brought out in defensive drive until >1 1/2-2 years of age. I can attest to seeing pups at 3 months come out in defense, yet was still stable.
Is that pup allowed a bite yet? Not necessarily. Its just part of the development.

But I have seen and agitated/taken hits from dogs as young as 8 months that were very stable, and worked in "defensive drive."

Richard,

No, I'm not advocating that type of training which is riduculous. There are more ways of training in defense are there not? Just because you (or others) believe that training in defense will always produce a dog that operates in fear doesn't make it reality. You probably just don't know how to train effectively that way and choose not to, thats all. When I'm speaking of defense I mean fight or flight - the dog is serious, not playing, not the conventional definition.

But thanks anyway for trying to enlighten me.

Bill:

If you do not believe in drives. How do you know that you were working a dog in Defense? An experience helper can make an advanced dog look like it’s fighting the heck out of him while to the dog it is in advanced prey work. Unless you are experienced in drive work you have no idea what drive your dog is biting in. This is not meant as an insult. So please don't take it that way but are you telling me that you take bites from other peoples dogs. Not having a clue about bite work is one thing. We all had to start somewhere. But you are affecting others. Please think twice before working someone else’s dog until you have a better understanding of what you are doing. I know what your response will be but I had to say it to clear my conscious.

Ellen,

As I understand the term "civil" it could be either, though tending to defense. The definition I have seen is that the dog will alert to a person without equipment on, often the person is passive. So it would depend on how the dog "felt" about the person, prey item or real threat.

Catherine/Bill,

I think we may have a definition problem. The definition most of us are useing for defense means that the dog is in fear for it's safety. If the only reason a dog bites is out of fear, how do you expexct to turn out a stable working dog. The dog will never feel in control of the situation. As Ed has stated defense and prey can look remarkably alike. I have a Giant Schnauzer. The breed is by nature fairly defensive. We use 5 different aggitators when we train. Some of the aggitators he has known all his life. With them he works in prey primarily. He feels no threat from them. He still does some defensive work, but it is different. One in particular he does not know except from being aggitated. He works on him in defense solely. When he works in straight defense he is much more cautious (sp). When he works in prey he just lets it all hang out. We have some new people with a puppy that isn't old enough to do much with that are watching the training. They were very impressed by his prey work. I admit it looks good, but he feels no threat at all. Here is the kicker, both aggitators are doing the exact same things to the dog and getting a different response.

Catherine or Bill:

Could either of you please give a description of a training session you and your dog go through on a training day? How does your trainer/helper/decoy/bad guy however one may put it, train your dog. Do you come out with the dog on a leash and then what does the decoy proceed to do? Is everything very frontal on the dog? Does your dog get any bites or is it just aggitation? Just curious.

This is in reply to Ellen's question on civility.

MY understanding of civility is that a civil dog is not as inclined to "like" human beings. This may be the puppy in the litter that neither runs toward the kneeling human nor runs away, but holds its ground and looks straight at you.

I have heard civility subdivided into "strong-civil" and "weak-civil". The difference here is the dog's confidence in its own power. A strong-civil dog is both disinclined to like humans and disinclined to back off when challenged; a weak-civil dog may put up a front but then run.

I haven't done enough helper work to be any kind of expert on this (Vince? wanna step in?) but I have seen civil dogs with very strong nerves that do most of their protection work in what I would call FIGHT DRIVE--they like where they are (i.e. fighting a man) and so they are certainly not working in what would commonly be thought of as defense drive i.e. they are not stressed at all. On the other hand, they aren't working in pure prey either (no "woof-woof" bark--the bark is deep and serious). I think what I want to say is that a STRONG-CIVIL dog, if worked correctly, will develop a strong fight drive--and can also easily be taught to "bite for real".

Weak-civil dogs are probably what Ed calls "alarm dogs". Their nerves are not so good and they are bugged by unfamiliar stimuli (and humans fall under that category too, except for those nearest and dearest). The tougher of these dogs might risk a quick frontal bite or two if pressured; the weaker probably blend right into the "fear-biter" category. I think that some of the stronger weak-civil dogs can be worked in protection, provided that they have good prey drive as well; these are the dogs that flip into defense at the drop of a hat (or a stick?), leading to the oft-heard comment: "He's more comfortable working in defense!" (an oxymoron if ever there was one). As I've said, if a dog like this has sufficient prey drive so that he can be eased out of defensive mode once he has a grip, I see no reason why such a dog could not do okay protection work. But develop fight drive? I doubt it. This kind of dog will never be comfortable enough in a fighting situation.

Clear as mud, right? And as I've said, any of you helpers who have worked a few hundred dogs are welcome to chime in here.

Pete Felknor

Defense....full flight or full flight. The dog is serious and does not need to be stimulated by the movement of a fleeing man. Prey drive is simply the dog retrieving the sleeve from the handler. reacting to the running rabbit theory. Bill and Catherine are describing a dog that is brought out seriously, and has two responses flight or fight. You then develope the fight. I did not believe in this until I saw a 9 month old gsd/mal cross run up a elevated position and then bite a bad guy in defense. Another dog only younger (a malinois) ran through ice and water to bite a still standing bad guy in defense. I'm now a believer.

Both of the things you describe could and probably were flat out prey. Especially with mals, Mals are the most impressive prey dogs you will ever see, but it is still prey. Look at the KNPV thread for verification from the experts on true defense work, the PSD trainers.