Sure, but not to beat the already 10x dead horse they are complete and separate drives as I, and several others view them.

Prey; the chase and bite, not a kill or in need to defeat. It can be a game no different than a BC chasing sheep. Or a dog who chases a moving tug toy or ball.

Defense; the defense of self from threat. Self-preservation. If you do not feel something or someone can harm you, why be defensive? A dog with total confidence doesn't feel threats, thus why act from defense?

Fight; to defeat, drive off and enjoyment of combat for the satisfaction of drive by engaging in combat.

By these definitions, you do not need prey or defense to bite and fight a human. The dog in question does not chase or play with toys, never did. Never shows defensive aggression under threat, in fact he at times looked bored if threatened. He knew unless he was told to engage or had to in my defense that there was no need to act in defense. His barking was a taught behavior as it was needed, but it was not a defensive bark to drive away a threat. In terms of his bite and attitude, he's now 9yrs old, has only one good canine tooth left and sits around the house all day. With all that no one wants to suit up and work him much. He bites as he want to HURT you, not anything less. Lou say him a few years ago when I still worked him. It was before Lou and I knew one another. When I asked his opinion of the dog after watching him work, he simply asked if the dog was for sale...LOL. And we all know how much Lou likes Mals...LOL

But Josh I have not met a dog that never in any situation does not feel a threat at some point in its life. It is really impossable for a dog, even by your defination to have fight without prey or defense at some point in there life. I cannot comprehend a dog that will bite out of fight how you define this dog. I really do not understand that the dog only bites when you tell him to, or if there is a real threat. A command is not a drive. There has to have been so level of prey if he is confident in his bite , or some level of defense at some point in his life. If a dog does not have prey then it bites in defense, and thus maybe fight drive is born from there after several winning encounters from a threat. I have never seen a dog without a fair amount of prey and defense have good fighting drive. I am not talking aobut a prey fight but real aggresion. The dogs that I have seen that bite without prey are thus biting from defense and again maybe fighting drive is born from there? Or they are scared creatures.

Hi Mike, as you put it yourself, you are missing it. I'm not saying that in any snide way, but I can not see why you feel there needs to be prey to fight? Why does a dog need prey to bite, let alone defense? Do they need prey drive to eat? As for feeling a threat, I can't speak for the dog, but yes I'm sure there are stress points that PERHAPS add some defensive behavior. As for the command, it is no different than a fighter waiting for a bell. The handler is the key to all behaviors, thus is training. Without it, you have a dog who is useless.

Isn't it possible to start a dog at about 2 years old without prey game building for bitework? If yes please explain the following by your ideas.

1)If the dog engages a person in fight without feeling a threat how is this defense?

2)If the human does not evoke a prey response, or is passive how can the dog, without bite imprinting in prey and equipment bite a passive person?

3)How will an untrained non-imprinted dog engage a NON threat passive human while in a muzzle?

All three of these are with dogs with no prior bitework or imprinting. If you say there are none, please email Lou as he bought one from me about a year ago just like this. I still can't see why people feel you need prey and defense to make a dog work? Is it there, yes I'm sure it exist within the dog. Is it the PRIMARY drive which makes that dog work, no. Prey drive doesn't make dogs hunt for food, hunger does that. Hunt drive makes them search for food. Prey drive is just the reaction of chasing the food. Fight drive is what makes a animal FIGHT and kill something which is larger, and not giving up without a fight. Defense is when that animal is backed into a corner and has no where left to go but fight.

If you want to believe that Fight doesn't exist, that's cool, no problem with me. Want to believe that the dog needs Prey to bite, that's fine too. To each their own. Like Lou has said many times, Prey and Defense make for a much better "looking" dog. They are also far easier to show in behavior thus more recognizable. It also must be said that many dogs do not have pronounced Fight drive, thus making it unlikely that many get to see it on a regular basis.

If you are ever near CT, drop me a line, I'm always happy to bring out some dogs and play drive theory. If you are near CA (LA area) I'll be there in a few weeks teaching probably this very topic at the LACPCA seminar. It is one of those things that you might have to see to get. I'm NOT dismissing you in the least, please do not take this post that way. I'm sure other on here can show you the same thing, Ed, Kevin, Lou, Donn etc all from those I personally know and the things I have read from others all seem to feel this to be the case. If I'm wrong I'm sure one of them will flame the heck out of me any min now...LOL

Hmmm. . .

I also believe that fight drive is. . .well, it's own drive.

I also think that a dog can be trained that has tons of fight drive and little or no prey or defense drive. I have never seen an adult like this, but I have heard of them. And not only by some people on this board.

I think that there are three distinct protection drives. Each one has it's root in either predatory instinct, defensive/survival instinct, and/or social instincts. (Please forgive me the somewhat incorrect terminology. It is tough to discuss things like "drive" and "instinct".)

Fight drive is a social aggression. It is the "drive" that describes the dogs need to respond to a direct social challenge. The dog neither fears the encounter, defense, nor is it motivated by the need to catch and kill prey. It is often developed through the confidence building of regular protection work, if it was there to begin with.

How would you train this in a dog that has very little prey or defense? Well you can't come right out and use full eye contact, forward motion, stiffness, stillness at times, and attack a 8 week old pup. Talk about breakdown. . .

I believe that it starts with just one aspect of social control of another. Restricting the movement of the opponent. This behavior can be seen in very young pups. It is damn near impossible to differentiate this behavior with prey behavior at that young of an age. But, if you have a pup that will not be very interested in chasing a rag or sack, but will pounce on your foot when you are walking towards him that may be an early indication. Pups that will hit a puppy sleeve when you slowly move it in their direction, but will not hit it when you are making it move like prey. I have seen this with one young pup from Slovakia.(edited) Total disregard for bitting the sleeve when you move it about to stimulate a prey response. BUT, move that sleeve right at the pup and even nudge him with it and BAM a bite. Then the pup struggled on the sleeve as long as it was being moved. Away from him or into him. You let the sleeve drop and he would release it and stand over it. He is fighting the sleeve. This was also not the alpha dog in the litter, by the way.

From this point you progress in training without ever having the need to do prey techniques to get a bite. You work by having the dog fight to control the movement of the man. That leads to the direct challenging movements that you will use on a mature dog to see what he is made of. There is also little defensive reaction in the dog as he matures, so there is very little stress in protection work. No real need for you to relieve stress from protection with a prey bite. The drive reward for fight drive is submission of the opponent, control of his movement, and being able to stand over him and sniff his groin. (not really on the last one, but you get the picture) Later the dog learns that he always wins so the fight itself becomes intensly pleasurable. (or was already, I'm not sure??)

This is how it was explained to me. Whether this is right on the money or not I don't really know, but I trust pops. This isn't a new thing either, pops says that it was seen in more of the old dogs and especially in the strong herd dogs. Which makes sense to me. You don't want a prey monster running with your herd, but you do want him to grip when challenged by the ram. (not a prey bite) He has to maintain order in the flock. That grip is also not a defensive one. Watch a dog that gets pushed into the sheep and is getting banged up, that is defense and U-G-L-Y. . .ugly. (I saw some nice tape of herding dogs from Bulgaria, Hungary, and parts of Germany. mostly GSDs)

Anybody else want to take a stab?

I always thought that you needed to start a dog in prey, then move on to defence when he was mature enough, to be able to develop fightdrive.
So you don´t need any defencedrive in a dog to get fightdrive? I´ve heard from K9 officers that they don´t want any defencedrive in a PSD, only fightdrive, but I always thought this was something they have created by starting with prey then move to defence to create fightdrive in a dog. But if I understand josh right, you could start training with a mature dog which has no previous training, and he shows a strong fightdrive with no defence. Is it two types of fightdrive dogs? The first you start in prey then defence to develop fight, the other type has already fightdrive without any former training in defencedrive, he has only fight and shows no sign of defence when agitated. I´m feeling a bit confused <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

Also, I just read Vince's post. Why would anyone want that dog. It is a liability. That dog is like owning a gun that shoots you when you don't fire it.

The dog’s grips are super. His bark in the blind is strong and the long attcak is nice. If he can stop him from bumping the sleeve this could be a nice dog. In the very short time my TD has him he has improved dramatically. He only turns on him now when he is off the field outing the sleeve. This is because he knows that if he outs now the fight is over. He will fight you so that the fight can continue. This is not a dangerous dog to be around. He is a dangerous dog to piss off.

Kevin wrote "A dog that shows rank with somneone who is new is NOT a bad dog."

The dog that I described is a very new dog.

Just to quickly answer Stig's question. I guess you can have it, in some ways, both....did that make sense??..LOL

Many dogs who have imprnted work in prey and defense can work in fight IF...IF...they have the drive to begin with. You can't put it in the dog, it must exist on it's own. Many times the right trainer, situation and DECOY..it's their job IMO, to bring out the drive should the dog have it. So yes, a dog who has foundation in prey/defense can learn to use fight.

You are also correct in that there are some dogs who without the prey/defensive foundation will work right out of fight as a primary drive.

The important thing in both cases is learning how to see it, use it and bring it out in a dog who has it. I have met a good number of solid high fight driven dogs. I can't always put it into words, but after a while and when you know what you are looking at, you see it in the dog just as they look at you and how they interact with the world in general. They are normally social by the way. Not over friendly, but social. I've had a few that I didn't even need to test. You knew it when you looked in their eyes what was going on. You have no doubt that if you gave this dog a reason to kick your a@# they'd have a good time doin it...and when it was done, he'd go back to being just as happy as could be. Ya just have to love a dog like that....even if it's a GSD...ROFL...couldn't pass it up...LOL

Hello Josh. I do not believe that a dog needs to have prey drive to bite. But if he is going to be started in bite training at 2yrs of age, without the prey game stuff, then in order to get the dog to bite there is going to be a threat to the dog at some point,for the dog to bite, there has to be. I have not seen a dog that would unnderstand, "ok I have to kick-butt now" and then turn off, unless there was some level of training. Nerves have to play a role in this process. Maybe if this dog is a tough sucker and has good nerves and strong but not hectic defense, sure it can be done, and over the course of time fight drive can be born from there, but just to have it from the get go, I have not seen this yet. I have seen a dog at about I think he was 17 months, flanked and he did not go in like a crazy looooooney, when he engaged but bit fairly full, and kinda shook a little. Now after about 2 weeks, this dog was really something solid, that could have not been stopped in most cases, and he got stronger as time went on, but he did not have it right away. I have a young male that I can see aggression or fight drive, whatever coming around, and but again he has had some prey training and not much defense, but it comes natural to him. This is rare. But there was some foundation to every dog that I have seen. They did not just appear with it all of a sudden and perform on command. I think Ed had defined fight drive as the fowardness of prey but the intensity of defense; something to that effect. Out of all of the dogs that I have viewed, a dog that bit without training was almost always a sharp dog, that was also a bit nervy, until some training molded it. These dogs are very rarley seen in competetion, as most people cannot train them.

HI Mike,
I don't think we are ever going to settle this over the internet. We see things perhaps differently, and thus in typing are never going to agree. To keep arguing the same points to beat the topic to death won't change it. It may be a difference in language or in theory all together. So long as what you do works for you and yours, cool, no problem. I guess we will have to agree to disagree.