Sport to LE? Who's done this? - Page 16

emoryg thank you for sharing.....You are a good writer and you love dogs that is for sure.

 Thanks for your service. 

 

Dulke that is not an observation. That was an advice to fellow trainer = you.

Prager, you really trying hard to express simple things in complicated forms.
in general everyone in here seems pretty much agree on basic term - good dog with potential to be civil does start in whelping box.
thus that depends on breeder and his/her goals in breeding program.
if dog was born to be civil, training can steer him to bite equipment, nevertheless it won't obstruct him to bite flesh, if opportunity arise.
if dog got lost in action due to absence of sleeve/dress, it's just says that that dog is lacking genetically hardwired desire to fight human.
one can correct that flaw by additional training but learned experience never will be able to compensate absence of genetic trait.
bottom line, dog must be bred to fit destined purpose.

LOL Prager, thanks, but no thanks

if a dog does something by genetics, you dont need to reward it everytime to make a dog keep doing it .
if a dog, by nature, will target the man, you cannot "untrain"that by making him bite equipment, furthermore, if on the street, the dog is not offered a choice to bite A equipment, or B the guy,

so on the street its a matter of what the dog will do naturally, if dog is not willing to switch from equipment to body in training/testing, it is not suitable for the street, in my opinion


many, if not most LE prospects these days, dont have sport training and have minimal exposure to equipment when we test/buy them, the test will determin suitability, not the training prior or after that


finally, it is all about intention, what is the motivation for the dog to bite, is it to catch prey, to defend, or to posess, or dominate or good mixture of all , each quality on its own is not too desirable for LE, where each quality on its own can be suitable for sport or PP for example

so if dog has right balance of drives there is no chance for sportism to pop up, and if dogs doesnot engage, it is not(generally speaking)to blame previous training, but lack of suitability to begin with

Prager, you're welcome and thank you.

ValK  and Duke 1965 even though I understand what you are saying and see it as true, ..... if you have the point of view as you do, but it happens that  I do not share that point of view.

 The reason for that is the fact that the dog is not genetically inferior if he in the protection situation does not automatically bite the man without training. I would venture to say that based on my experience there is less than 1%-5% of such dogs. I call these dogs who will bite without training type1. Yes, they may be easier to be trained for biting but GSD is not just biting dog. The rest of the dogs must be trained to do so. I call those type 2 dogs. There is nothing wrong with type 2 dog if the dog is of sound nerves and drives and trainer knows what he is doing.  They can be trained to be civil and most excellent police dogs are type 2 dogs. I had both types of dogs and I  personally prefer type 2 dogs because they are more versatile and GSD ought to be a versatile dog and have more use for a broader spectrum of people - dog owners. This is important because if the dog is not broadly popular then his genetic pool would dwindle and breed would degenerate. More people the dog can work for genetically better off the breed is.   On top of it,  I think a good trainer should be able to train type 1 and type 2 dog for the same purpose and succeed. Type 2 dog if otherwise of solid nerves and drives can be just as effective as type 1.  Training of type 2 dog requires more knowledge then training of type 1.that is why certain trainers prefer type 1. But that is a cap out.  Any untrained junkyard dog is type 1. yet I have trained excellent area protection dogs which were type2. I am good enough trainer to get whatever I need from type1 or type 2 dog and I do not need type 1 dog to train him to be a LE/PP dog. I do ot make excuses blaming dog in front of me if he is sound.

 Which leads me to the point I made numeral times and that is that many people make excuses about genetics if they do not know how to train the type of dog which is in front of them. 

 

 

again not making sense Hans, how can you say that type 1 dogs are easyer to train, than say any untrained junkyard dog is type 1

 

than also state there is only 1to 5 percent of such dogs  (type1) LOL 

 

Hans

Sound nerves and drive are essential in both your types. Type 1 without solid nerves and drives is garbage and a JYD at most. I know courage, thresholds, etc come into play also, but you get the point.

Duke
I took it as he is saying that Type 1 is easier to train to bite a man as they already do it without training. He is saying Type 2 needs to be trained to do such, which obviously makes training harder. It is like saying it is easier to teach kids in Mexico Spanish than it is kids from Moscow.

To me, this concept of a "fabric fetish" is largely a fallacy. I would guess that the majority of dog bites in LE and PP are on clothing rather than bare skin. Obviously the latter does occur, but I would say less often than over clothing. Clothing is made of fabric. Do dogs have the intellectual sophistication to distinguish a low profile suit/tactical suit from clothing? I understand scent is a factor. I think it could be a factor if a dog is strictly trained on a sleeve and always gets the sleeve as a reward and there is no pressure put on the dog, but I don't think many people do that.  I think the type of suit is more critical than imprinting a "default" to the man by starting the dog out by being agitated by a decoy with no equipment.  KNPV is the sport most directed to selecting dogs for police work.  Some of them are the best dogs out there and some are not that good.  But they are all started on a suit and the genetically strong ones do fine on the street.  The KNPV suit is unique as are tactical and competition suits.  I think the puffy Michelin Man suits are more of a factor in a dog sensing he is biting equipment than creating this default to bite a threatening man with no equipment.  If Prager's philosophy was valid, the only dogs that would be civil are the ones trained using his method and that is definitely not what happens in the real world.  I am not saying it is a bad approach, but that it is not as effective or necessary as he purports it to be.