Vince, you do explain things well, thanks.

Renee, do you mean shaping prey drive into various working disciplines? Isn't a true working dog born (bred) with the natural ability and desire to track, protect, herd, etc? Aren't we learning to work with the dog rather than shaping its behavior?

I have more research to do. I'd like to know how this belief evolved.

>>>>Renee, do you mean shaping prey drive into various working disciplines? Isn't a true working dog born (bred) with the natural ability and desire to track, protect, herd, etc? Aren't we learning to work with the dog rather than shaping its behavior? <<<<<<<

Catherine,
You really must read the Coppinger's book called "DOGS"
The answer to your question is essentially the subject of the book. I don't believe the Coppingers' have all the answers nor do they but they give a pretty interesting framework to start.

Catherine,

Dogs are born with the ability and drive to work. You were born the the ability and drive to talk, you still had to learn how to do it.

Thanks Kevin, I'll have to take a look at that book. I've never read it.

RDC,
I think this is where I differ in belief. I used to believe as you do. I think a dog is born with both the ability and know-how to work. Its we that have to learn to work with them and what they can do. The only thing that is unnatural to a working dog that we ask of them is obedience (assuming correct genetics). They already know how to track, bite, and do agility.

The potential is there, but of no use unless the dog knows what you want done. There is no advantage to the dog in tracking or doing protection. As long as the dog is fed and housed, it's needs are met. Once it's needs are met it will require an outside motivator to get the behavior we want. Back to my example of learning to talk. Deaf children will make sounds even though they can't hear people talking to them. They have the ability and drive to talk, but no method to learn. Eventually they will stop making those noises because they are not rewarded for them. When they are given a method to learn they will learn to talk.

In terms of psychology (I knew that degree would be handy for something) we are talking about Operant behavior. These are behaviors that are not "hard wired". This would be opposed to reflexes (Pavlov's dog experiments). Operant behavior is iniated and maintained through out side forces. The animal (including people) either are reinforced (a result that increases a behavior), or avoid negative reinforcement ( avoid a negative stimulation and thereby increasing the behavior). Operant behaviors include anything that there is some choice in. Talking, tracking, protection work, seeking attention, any of these types of behaviors.

There are several other methods of changing operant behaviors, but it gets complicated and things are not always as they seem. A dog will never know what you want it to do unless you provide an indication of what you want (train it). When people talk about "natural training" it is a misnomer. There is no such thing. If you do something and it affects the behavior it is training. There is no motivation for the dog to find your lost keys unless you provide a motivation and indicate what the behavior you want is to gain the reward or avoid the negative stimulus.

I agree you have to be able to communicate with the dog so it knows what you want. But I think that praise from the handler is all thats needed for motivation if the bond is there.

A few years ago I spoke to a rancher who had herding dogs. I asked him how he trained them. He said they already knew how to herd and he just learned to communicate with them so they knew where he wanted them to go. Otherwise they would be herding with no purpose.

I go to a field and have someone hold my pup. I then walk away from her for several hundred yards (she is not watching where I'm going). My pup is then let go and proceeds to find me by sniffing the ground and air scenting - she is tracking. She knows how to do this without me teaching her. Sure, the motivation is to find me. If I wanted to use her as a tracking dog, then all the motivation she would need was praise (I am not speaking of sport tracking). Just the other day somebody pushed me a couple of times. She jumped in and bit them. Yet she has had no bite training, no prey work, and I never play tug with her. I'm not saying I'd have a protection dog with no training, but she does instinctively know how to protect.

O.K. Catherine, I think I have figured out what you are saying. You are confused as to why training methods have changed. Yes the old methods worked, and they will still work. The new methods came about and have been maintained because they work better. If the new methods didn't work better people would still use the old methods.

If you want to learn about the new methods, listen to those that have more experience and have been where you are and found a better method. The other option you have is to stay where you are now and learn by trial and error as many of us did. We are trying to save you some time and trouble. If you want to learn the hard way feel free.

It's great to see that some of us can have a difference of opion without slamming each other. All great posts.

Catherine:

Yes most dogs inherit the ability to track it's prey but no dog I have ever seen tracks footstep by footstep with it's nose to the ground while maintaining a calm consistent pace. This has to be learned. If you don't agree with this I would be very surprised and if you do than you are agreeing with this post but don't even know it.