I think it's all psychology on the dog's part. I think a dog's confidence is through the roof so long as his leader is there. As long as we're a PACK, he's more comfortable taking on a challenge without having to worry about getting hurt, as his leader is there to back him up. In his mind he's probably thinking, "I don't know if I can beat him alone, but the PACK can beat him."

In addition to that, all his training has been done with his handler by his side(his PACK). And all this time, we've been letting him win the fight, boosting his confidence. He's mentally conditioned for this kind of thing, and he knows he can win. So it wouldn't surprise me if a dog trained this way would be the first to step up. Besides, all we've really had to do so far is hold the leash, lol.

But mentally, I don't think the dog sees himself as the alpha in a scenario like this. I compare it to a little brother stepping up to HELP(NOT protect) his older brother who's getting beat up at school. If I'm the younger brother, I'm surely not going to watch my older brother get his ass kicked. Even if I get my ass kicked too, we're more powerful in numbers(because we're a "PACK").

Would I define all this as "Protection"? No, I just think "We" view it that way. I think it's really just HELP. I don't think it's any of the lower-rank member's responsibility to have to protect the alpha. But I do think it's their responsibility to step up and HELP when the circumstances require it, just as it is in the wild to bring down huge prey. We don't expect the alpha wolf to bring down an elk by himself. The whole pack has to step up and help.

My brother's Dutchy has a KNPV PH1 and has been through a lot of protection work, so I can't argue that the dog does anything naturally any more.


I still maintain that a dog does not need to be rank though in order to have the temperament necessary to step up to the plate and fight. I will concede that the dog must have some level of dominance to do so, because I've never seen a submissive dog that was a man fighter.

 Quote:

Originally posted by VanCamp Robert:
I still maintain that a dog does not need to be rank though in order to have the temperament necessary to step up to the plate and fight.

I agree with you for sure. If I used the word "rank" somewhere, it was in reference to rank ordering within the hierarchy, not meaning a dog who wants to challenge his handler.

 Quote:

Originally posted by Lee Baragona - Sch3FH2:
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?

Yes. Only I suppose my choice of the word "role" was not the best. What I was trying to say is that working is working -- there is a clear task to be done and work isn't over until the job is done. After the job is done there is time to stop by the brauhaus, relax, have a beer, schmooze, go home & play with the family -- like humans maintaining a working relationship in the office (or wolves on the hunt) yet still being able to have a social relationship off the job.

 Quote:

Originally posted by VanCamp Robert:
My brother's Dutchy has a KNPV PH1 and has been through a lot of protection work, so I can't argue that the dog does anything naturally any more.

I was always under impression that when a person selects a dog for personal protection he/she chooses a breed/line known for natural protection. (I’m stressing PP here because you mentioned that your brother trained under realistic scenarios and that what we are talking about here—protection under a real threat.) PP training then, as far as I understand it, is not so much about teaching a dog how to protect, but to teach a dog how to control its protective instincts and release them under appropriate circumstances and quit when the handler says so, IOW, to mold what’s already there. So don’t be so quick to undersell your brother’s dog just cause he’s a Dutchy <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> .

Originally posted by Ellen Nickelsberg:
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. Could it be that in order to get away from the much maligned tendency to “anthropomorphize” we turned to “animalizing”? I, too, have a problem relating to myself as an alpha in a pack. But maybe it's just a matter of semantics...

Even though the funny looking tiger stripe rat isn't a GSD, he is still a pretty nice dog.

All I'm saying is that I can't successfully argue what aspects of his response were due to his nature or training.


I have my opinions. . . <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

Originally posted by Lee Baragona - Sch3FH2:

I'd agree with the exception of tracking. That phase absolutely does call for independent problem solving, particularly at the FH level. LOL, I knew you would catch me on this... you are absolutely right. I was gonna mention this, but did not want to stray from the point. Tracking is still the only exercise where the dog is still allowed to show independence and problem solving, but just because we concede to the fact that this is the only ability they have which we don’t. And the emphasis is on STILL--in our strive for perfect scores we may lose even that. We all want to see a dog who plows the ground without a minute deviation from the track, no checks, no circling—well, NO PROBLEM SOLVING. And in order to achieve this we often make sure there are no problems to solve. You live in the South, so your environmental conditions may be different, but here in the Midwest I tracked in knee-high alfalfa, basically walked thru a tunnel—didn’t need a dog—got high scores, but didn’t feel too good about it. I’ve seen National level FHs set up in pristine sod farms, with tracks beaten in so deep you could see them from a mile away.

But can one breed for these traits?... Independence and problem solving, to me, is far more a function of the training environment - does it ENCOURAGE it or discourage it?

I think one can breed for these traits, but I know for sure one can breed away from them by not encouraging them in the training environment. If all we concentrate in the sport is insane toy/food drives, hard bites and intense barking and breed selectively for these traits only, we stand to lose such traits as intelligence, independence and problem solving.

The use of aversives certainly squelches some of it.

I hear the use of e-collars in tracking is gaining in popularity. Doesn’t make any sense to me....

I'd agree with you that the TRIAL conditions sometimes are optimal in tracking cuz the clubs try hard to provide nice conditions that will encourage competitors to come back. But I don't know anyone who practices and trains in optimal conditions - first, cuz it guarantees you can only trial in same, and second, cuz we don't have access to it all the time and can't control the weather. To be a consistently excellent tracker, the dog does have to exercise significant problem solving. If he appears flawless, it's cuz he's doing such a terrific job of problem solving, not cuz the challenges aren't there.

Initiative and problem solving are skills that are developed in training, or squelched in training. I really don't think they are genetic traits. Pfaffenberger found that simply keeping the prospective guide dog puppies in a kennel environment past the age of 12 weeks made a HUGE difference in the adult dog's ability to "accept responsibility" (his phrase, not mine); what he meant was that the adult dog had difficulty exercising initiative and intelligent disobedience if it was not raised in a rich environment where it could be exposed to all kinds of stimuli during the socialization period. That simple change in their puppy protocol raised their success rate from something like 30% to 90%, if memory serves. So is it learned or is it genetic?

Originally posted by Lee Baragona - Sch3FH2:
Initiative and problem solving are skills that are developed in training, or squelched in training. I really don't think they are genetic traits. Pfaffenberger found that simply keeping the prospective guide dog puppies in a kennel environment... I'm not saying that training and environment aren't important, but I wonder what kind of criteria Pfaffenberger used to select his prospective guide dog puppies...