...stepping beyond my bounds for a moment...

ok, the topic has to do with "Civil dogs", not who is for real and who wants to know what about who. I was really enjoying hearing everyone's different ideas on what they thought "civil" meant. If you want to get off on some personal tangent for whatever reason, take it private and get it off this thread!

...going back to my corner now...

Mike... you are correct. If VanCamp had not started name calling and was forthright from the start, this little tiff would have been over long ago. I am still looking for info. But further postings will be done privately. Enough said.

I was making a point that for any dog to bite for real (a person, not equipment), this must come from some form of aggression (defensive, offensive, fight, whatever).

I was under the impression that this is where the term "civil aggression" came from.

Dave check you PMs.

I am sorry for insulting you Dave Lilley. I have altered the posts like I said I would. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

And for the record I did mail Dave SOME info. I also have mailed him more than one apology. The first one he found insulting again. Not intended. :rolleyes: <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />

How's that for nicer? I'm not a bad guy over hear just a little dumb sometimes. I think every body will vouch for that, the dumb part at least.

I'm not going to post any personal info on this board, just like any other member isn't, including Dave. We could all be wacko felons with pscho dreams of hooliganism and mayham. I'm not down with that. . .

Now, I hope we will get back to training. Oh. . .wait. . .crap, you guys already have. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/blush.gif" alt="" />

Sorry troops. . .

Thank you, VanCamp.

What do you (or others) think about my proposal that ANY real bite must come from some form of aggression (as stated in my earlier post)? If not, what else would be the motivation?

Richard... to answer your previous question, I think that the most stable police dogs should have just enough civil aggression to bite... and no more.... i.e. we generally don't wan't a sharp dog for all purpose work and school demos.

Terms such as "rank" or "civil" or "prey drive", etc., are simply our way as humans to try and describe behaviors we are seeing in our dogs.

As usual, we humans tend to want to "compartmentize" behaviors...THIS is prey drive, while THAT is fight drive...but for the dog, no such separation exists in his mind.

When a Jack Russell runs right through an opossum twice his size, bowling him over and crushing his skull at almost the same instant, he is working in what most of us would call "prey"...yet he is deadly serious and, certainly, he is biting "for real".

Truth is, we still have much to learn about dog behavior...from our dogs and from each other.

Dave,

Without aggression I don't think you have a bite. Again I don't see aggression as a negative thing. In combination with other traits (sharpness, fear, low thresholds, a dog that bites it's handler out of frustration, etc.), the dog can become a problem. Civilness has nothing to do with the problems of a sharp dog. If we accept the definition I gave on page 2, I think that we can agree that the dog beinig civil is a requirement for a working dog. I also would say that a little civil is not a functional term. The idea is that the dog is either focused on the man or the equipment. Some dogs may be willing to deal with the equipment based on training and some are not. So I guess that you could argue a component of degree with the term. But I think that even a civil dog that is biting equipment that is present is focused on the man, not the equipment.

I think what you are talking about are dogs that are either fear based in their bites or so sharp that they become unpredictable. Same thing with low thresholds, if the thresholds are very low it may be very difficult to predict what will trigger the dog to go into action. Civil or not this dog is a problem because you can't predict what will trigger them. THe thing I see as a problem with many dogs is this lack of predictability. A protection dog that isn't predictable is a huge liability.

For me, I want a dog that is totally focused on the man when working. It is a little more difficult to work the dog in some cases since the dog will attempt to go around equipment to get the man. These dogs will make agitators nervous, but it is easy to work around by proper handeling and the use of full bite suits. Even these dogs will take the equipment if it is presented properly. If you watch these dogs work they are making total, direct eye contact. They will just stand and stare down the agitator, daring them to move. It is a demonstration of complete confidence on the part of the dog that they can handle anything the agitator can dish out.

Not to go back to another argument, but this attitude is part of why I prefer to have the agitator interact with the dog around a bite session. It helps teach the dog that it is the command or specific behavior that should trigger action. They learn a specific set of behaviors by the agitator or the handler in reaction to the attack. It isn't the person that trigers the bite, or even suspicion. The dog is aware that there is a potential for a problem from anybody, and watch for a problem. But they do not need to act on that unless there is a real problem. I have seen people take this a step farther and train dogs to only bite on command. You could beat the handler sensless and the dog will do nothing with out a command. Not my kind of dog, but I can see some advantages. With my previous dog the training was more threat based. If the person was not doing anything aggressive the dog wouldn't bite. I have moved up a level with my training goals to teach the dog to make passive bites. But that is an addition to the training not really a change.

Richard, when you referred to aggression and biting... would you also include all prey bites or are you talking about real bites? (just need some clarification here)

The reason I ask is this... to me, I don't see that All prey / play bites necessitate aggression (aggression meaning that the dog is trying to hurt the opponent) ... I'm under the impression that prey emanates from the desire to chase and catch a moving object... often if there is no movement, no bite will occur in a prey oriented dog or puppy.

I remember watching my dog chase a bird once... after he caught it, he just dropped it as though he had no intention of hurting it... he wanted it to fly again so he could chase it.

I don't view all aggression as bad either.... but it seems that a highly aggressive dog could be a liability.

Dave,

I think there has to be some level of aggression in even a prey bite. Without it you have a dog that chases that doesn't bite. Even if the intent is not to really hurt the object, it takes some level of aggression to make the bite. Prey behavior is more instinctive. The dog can't help it.

Extreames in any type of behavior can be a problem. Some terms are used to describe a specific set of behaviors, like civil. The definition I am used to is does the dog work the man or the equipment. Other chacteristics create the levels at which some these behaviors appear. So you end up talking about a dog that is too sharp, or aggressive, or to heavy in Prey, or defense, whatever. It is these other chacteristics that create the problems you describe. I think you keep getting it right when you say that they are avoiding dogs that are too sharp. That sounds like the real problem, at least the way I use the terms. It makes the dogs overly sensitive and not predictable in their behavior. Some of that can be cured, but if you have a choice, why suffer through it. Get better, more balanced dogs. This is also a problem I have with the dogs they use here. The dogs are so prey driven that I believe that it causes some of the problems they have with the dogs. That combined with some poor training that was done, that they are working on.