Catherine,

Let's see, you don't want the dog to bite and hang on, but you don't want someone "ripped to pieces". What do think will happen if the dog bites, drops off and rebites? You don't want to use prey drive, but you don't want the dog to work out of fear. You don't want the dog to train in a non-realistic situation, but you don't want to do repetitive training. Well, that pretty well lets out every good and bad method of training I know of. Maybe you don't want to train a dog?

And just out of curosity how badly did your brother injure the dog?

I will suggest it again, go train some dogs and come back and see us.

 Quote:

Originally posted by Richard Cannon:
Catherine,

Let's see, you don't want the dog to bite and hang on, but you don't want someone "ripped to pieces". What do think will happen if the dog bites, drops off and rebites? You don't want to use prey drive, but you don't want the dog to work out of fear. You don't want the dog to train in a non-realistic situation, but you don't want to do repetitive training. Well, that pretty well lets out every good and bad method of training I know of. Maybe you don't want to train a dog?

And just out of curosity how badly did your brother injure the dog?

I will suggest it again, go train some dogs and come back and see us.

If you think about what she is saying, it basically comes down to keeping control over a stable dog. If necessary, then the dog retargets, or continously attacks. If not necessary and one bite was sufficient, then the handler calls the dog off.

As for fear, in reality, there will be fear in the dog. What Catherine seems to be describing is a dog that can work through it with courage. Overcome fear through desire to protect the handler. But what it is not is a "fear biter," or unstable dog, one that bites for no reason other than its fear of everything. I equate "prey" with not serious. A dog working in prey will not come through in real life. It will break under the stress.

What does repetetive training have to do with non-realistic training? Is an attacker going to provide you the layout of his attack so you can practice your routine?

Bill,

The idea of woring in prey is a begining not an end point. You are right a pure prey dog may not come through in a real situation. The issue is that the dog needs to start somewhere to get the basics down. By using prey the dog can learn without the pressure of being concerned for it's safety (the definition of defense). The idea is to teach the dog how to deal with the stress involved with working. The dog needs to be trained in defense to increase it's ability to deal with the stress of defense. Nobody, including the purely Sch. trainers, are talking about using prey only. Just the opposite, you have to train in defense to complete the training for the dog. Catherine's comment is to never train in prey. If you don't train in prey then you are limited to defense to start with, and the dog is going to fear for it's saftey in all training. This is going to be a less reliable dog because it is looking for a way out. It will bite if it feels it has no other choice, but it will also run if it can. It hasn't been given the oportunity to develop the confidence/courage needed to deal with the situation.

Dogs learn through repitition. Most things do. That is why you do things like fire drills. It may not be exactly what will happen in every situation, but it does provide a foundation. The training is varied, so that it isn't the same routine evey time. The difference is how do you start the training, not how you end the training. Defense is required to complete the training on the dog.

Catherine's idea is that the dog should never make a full bite, but should always come off and retarget. That is how people get torn up by a dog, rather than a single bite. You can't have it both ways, and that is the problem. The other issue as pointed out by several on the board is that if the dog releases it provides the target the chance to escape. The idea that the dog is going to stop thinking because it is trained is silly. But that is the comment we keep hearing. Doesn't it bother you that everybody that has done this for a long time says the EXACT SAME thing? I have seen dogs trained both with primarily defense to start and prey to start. The prey started dogs are more reliable and work better. That is why it is in use. This is a change in training methods over the "old" days. The reason it changed is it works better, and isn't that the goal!!!

Bill explained my point better than I could (thanks).

The dog was taken to the vet but we never found out the extent of its injuries. I'm pretty sure no bones were broken. My brother luckily didn't have a broken arm but it was badly bruised.

My idea is NOT that the dog should never take a full bite. The dog will bite in the manner it needs to for the situation. So much emphasis is placed on a full mouth bite but isn't the bite itself just a small part of protection?

The point was NOT that the dog is not thinking because its trained, its that its not thinking if it bites, hangs on and allows itself to be beaten. Thats thinking? You must be joking. If the dog releases just how easy is it for someone to escape from a dog? Possible yes, but anything is possible - just like killing a dog with a free weaponed hand is and that happens.

Has sport spilled over into real life? Thats the way it looks.

>A dog working in prey will not come through >in real life.

Bill,

These are very bold words considering you have very little leash time and do not know all dogs that are worked in prey. Example, a friend of mine had a problem with her boyfriend and he shoved her against the fridge. Her SchH I bitch who was trained a lot in prey was actually chewing a ball at the time (something you guys claim as taboo). As she slid down the fridge all she saw was brown flying through the air. Her dog chopped this guy in a nano second without thinking twice. Her handler meant more to her than the ball. Don't assume because dogs worked in prey or play with balls won't come through, they can bite just as hard. She did and he bares the scars of Austia's teeth to prove it. Don't be so arrogant in your statements. I'm not say all will come through because I think that genetics of the dog plays the biggest role.

Intersting one this,would he have continued to fight if the guy was for real and fought back.A lot of difference between simple defence and a real fight.

First it's a bitch not a dog. Second, yes this dog would have fought for real but didn't need to because the first bite was so fast and hard it took him to the ground. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />

Was this dog biting in prey? I wouldn't care what the dog was biting in if it defended me... My pup did the same thing after someone shoved me and they had some nasty bruises. Yet I was told that had to be prey drive.

Its wonderful that the dog defended the handler. As for a ball, what if he had had the presence of mind to have a ball with him? If he would have tossed a ball first, then what would have happened? If a dog is crazy for a ball then what will it do if its faced with defending the handler or going after a ball? Just the other day I tossed a ball for a dog that totally ignored me, until I had a ball in my hand. It returned the ball to the handler, but while I had it it was very attentive. If I were a bad guy, I'd take a ball, a tug and some food with me.

Catherine,

It's unfortunate that you will never know this dog because if you met her and saw this dog in action then there would be a question as to whether the ball or defending the handler was more important. He could have had a prime rib in his hand and she still would have bitten him (of course I would have then rewarded her with the prime rib <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" /> ) This dog, I believe, was not in prey drive at the time even though she had plenty in schutzhund. The guy shoved her and the dog was lying next to her so it was a frontal attack on the handler. They both were facing this idiot.

In situations where one is being attacked by a thug I doubt highly there is going to be a ball near by. I'm not saying that there are dogs out there that are swayed by this, I'm saying Bill's statement isn't fact. I know this dog, she is the sister of the best dog I have ever or will ever own (my dog past away a year ago). Her sister, Austia,is 10 now and would still eat someone who threatened her handler. You are right about one thing, I do not care what drive the dog is in when they defend me as long as they do.

I meant WOULD NOT be a question on whether the ball or defending the handler was more important. I am going to have to proof read better <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />