Civil Dogs and Civil Work - Page 9

Valk.....pup im talking about is from next combination,not this one, 5 months, so pup

secondly, if you cannot see dogs intentions after dropping the sleeve, well what can I say,

and finally, a civil bite is never full hard/full calm bite, and if you look close you see the helper, who is very experienced , takes him of the bite.

and also dogs never feel guilt, only of corrected for some action regularly, a dog will expect correction after doing same thing again(simple Pavlov), the expectation of correction after said action can show on a dog, and mistakenly is explained as guilt by people who dont fully understand the way dogs function.

 

 

 

Still not finding in all this (or any earlier discussion on here of this topic) any perception as to how (some) canines bypass the effects of evolution. WHY is it that some dogs show 'civil' biting - if it is as suggested, 'untrained' - when the basic genetics of the dog have come so far from the ancestry, in that serious biting of humans is actually quite difficult for them ? i.e. they tend NOT to regard people as 'prey'.

In the absence of 'A' single gene for temperament, the multifactorial genetic causes of dogs which can over ride the reluctance to - seriously, rather than reactively - bite a human really need some explanation. Is this about 'discrimination', i.e. the dog's awareness that they can and should take this assailant down because he is threatening 'their' human ?

Even with the $10 hobo participation, this is surely very difficult to determine ?

As indeed it is difficult to determine just how many dogs would not run away from confrontations, if they really had the choice. Wolves kill 'for real', wolves haven't the benefit of centuries of familiarity with humans to make them less likely to bite 'for real', yet a wolf will almost always turn tail and get the hell away from a threatening human. Seems the only documented evidence of wolves killing people (and precious little of it) comes from situations where the wolves were a) truly starving and b) mob-handed; packs kill, individual wolves don't normally even bite.

has nothing to do with evolution, but selection, if civil dogs would win the WUSV for ten years in a row you would find much more civil dogs than you would find now.

big factor is simply what types of dogs are wanted and bred with, and as we all know todays sport dont want strong civil dogs and todays petmarket dont want strong civil dogs

where some time ago a civil dog could and would win large competitions and be bred from, and people wanted a guarddog that would really function, rather than bark on command and bite a sleeve  out of preydrive.

Wolves, heve the benefit of not being messed around with by humans, they have the skills which gives them highest chance of staying alive in the wild, kill to eat, in order to survive and staying out of a fight gives them the highest chance of not loosing a fight, and stay alive

neither of those choices have to be made by pets and sportdogs I would say

 

@Duke, either I am putting my question across in a very unclear way, or you are missing the point.

Sorry if it's my fault - I'll try again:

It is easily arguable that for centuries, dogs' ability to round up livestock (even if based in the desire to chase things to hunt & kill them) for human herders, without damaging that livestock, has had the greatest impact on human history, and on human/dog relationships, greater even than the dog being used as a hunter/killer of food prey to help humans.

Anthropology and the progress of human history, with increasing reliance on agriculture rather than hunter/gatherer societies, bears this out.

For livestock management, whether herding sheep, cattle or goats, the dog has modified its desire to bite.  There may well be a place for the odd nip; there is no place for a 'full, calm, bite', which would damage the herded animal. In the same way, for many, many years the skills of MOST herding breeds are, primarily, to gather and move the stock, not to protect it by a fight to the death with wolves. (There are breeds more geared to that protective role, but not the assorted German sheep dogs of the 18th and 19th centuries - & it is a considerable number of years since Shepherds in Germany had to worry too often about wolves predating on their flocks.)

More likely the sheepdog has to be strongly resilient to being bashed by horns or feet of its charges, than that it needs to retain some strong biting ability 'up its sleeve'.

The ongoing effect of this is probably (at least partly) responsible for all modern dogs having become generally bite-inhibited.  Not as in, "well ANY dog can bite, if pushed to it / hurt / scared" but as in identifiably able to EITHER be trained to do bitework in competition/ usually with equipment; OR to be able to take a real serious (and, maybe, untrained) bite out of some human on a 'civil' basis, 'when required'. 

Now, as it seems to be proving so difficult to describe and define exactly what that latter ability / suspension of evolutionary progress IS; or to find a clear way to test that without paying people to allow dogs to bite them, HOW exactly has it been bred into some strains, to retain it ?

 

To some extent the various types of shepherding dog pre 1899 will have been selectively bred by shepherds, not for what they looked like or conformational similiarity (or for their biting ability), but for the ability to herd & tend sheep (or other beasts), to work at their required job.

It is "modern man's" interest in 'personal protection' skill which has resulted in this search for the 'civil' dog, as distinct from the 'sports' dog.

Whatever von Stephanitz was looking for (and his writings are fairly specific), it does not seem to have been the 'civil' dog; that is a much more recent construct, and it is actually difficult in some ways to even justify the quest for it.  But if it is to be bred for (and has been), surely there should have been a good deal more recording of what was being looked for in the breeding ?  How did most of those (Eastern Bloc or otherwise) who have dabbled in breeding to either 'keep' or 'introduce' the trait for 'civil' biting ability / preference in the GSD describe what they were doing, and how did they actually determine that they were  succeeding, if nobody can really describe it, or completely agree on it, or say what other character traits go with it, whether for instance it needs to be 'trained in' or not, whether it can be illustrated/ determined without equipment and without maiming anyone ? (i.e. all the unresolved stuff that's come up here for the past 8 pages).  And always comes up in these discussions. How does it sit alongside the other information that encircles us about general canine behaviour ?

 

 

look duke, i'm here not to challenge you or discredit your knowledge/experience. in this case i just simply voiced my observation, based on personal experience and tell that there are not enough evidences that can convince me, the dog in video are "civil" as i see a "civil" dog should be. neither i expect or demand from you to agree with me. we just see some stuff differently, that's all.
i have been bitten multiply times by dogs even younger, to know how bad it can be and how hard to take dog off, when he is in fury, sees in you adversary and not a play buddy.
the dog in video obviously lacking rage, which is necessary part of true expression of will to fight and dominate over opponent.

Hundmutter, your question did brought my memory for around 30 or 40 years back, when i first heard about z Pohranicní Straze. the vet from kennel did come for his monthly check on pups and tell us about czech kennel and their experiment to improve their dogs by wolve's blood. there was quite a discussion about what outcome would be. as far as i know, experiment turned out as failure and was abandaned due to lacking in offsprings a loyalty to humans and strongly pronounced selfpreservation instinct.
but you're right. wolves definitely can bite, even better and stronger than dogs, but nobody discusses their "civil" side :)

p.s. i think you're wrong in saying Stephanitz dismissed necessity of "civility" in GSDs. there were from him mentioning of ability of dogs to vigorously protect their masters and belongings (flock, household, family members, etc.)
how would this could apply, if civil side in dogs was absent?
what a herding dogs don't need, it's a strong prey instinct. instead they should be significantly intelligent, with ability to think in perspective to keep flock in asigned boundaries and order and bold enough to protect it from either wild predators or thieves.

hundmutter, I agree with PS of valk post above,and in those times dogs needit everything but a ful calm sport grip

then during eastern block time, again, dogs were bred to function, not to score points, and one can imagine what qualities dogs were selected on and bred for when main purpose was patrolwork

as far as the wolve mixes, I know a guy who worked in the kennels at that time and he told me they raised hundreds and there wasnot a single decent one among them, the breed that came out of those crossings still showing that

 

There were plenty of civil dogs bred in Germany before the split with the Eastern bloc and also during the split. Dogs like Erick v Grafenwerth was known for being civil and more importantly producing it. Alfred Hahn of Busecker Schloss kennels was known to breed dogs that were civil and had an edge. And he probably forgot more about the breed over 40 years of top breeding than any of us. Civil GS has always been part of the breed, depending on the goals of the breeder.

When you read some of the books/articles about former greats in the breed, when they refer to a dog as being sharp, it usually refers to the dog being civil.....you can read about sharp dogs throughout the breeds history.

OK Gustav, but how to differentiate (especially in the past !) between a dog that was 'sharp' because it was 'civil'; and the dogs that were just 'sharp' as we mainly know / agree on today (as usually not great news) ?

I can't find where Max suggested he knew of any different, quasi-magical "civil" distinction; my gut feel is that, like 99.9% of dog people in the late 1800s, he's have been happy with defensive, territorial dogs who might spring to the aid of their owners. And you can get dogs in any and all breeds, and none, who can do that.

And even if it exists as a separate quality, how to justify being 'civil' as making the entire rest of the GSD breed redundant, as some would appear to wish ?

When we think about the traits of our dogs I think that we have to consider the traits that we can observe through the breeding. Each dog will have its own level of incompetence for work or even being a family dog.

Dogs rely on teamwork as they grow on. On the one side we have the dog and then the breeder. In many cases the success of the dog is not always down to the breeder. In my opinion, it is the trainers who use their skills to develop whatever purpose the dog is to be used for. It is the trainers who develop and mould the dog to it’s final destination whether it is for work or family. Sometimes it is the breeder who is also the trainer.

Too much blame is put on the dog for it’s failings instead of looking at the other half of the team. Unfortunately, again in my opinion, the quality of training has been falling for years with the tests being made softer to get more dogs through the system. Not the dogs fault!

I do not agree that Max was satisfied with what he had in the beginning because his vision and the rules that were set down from the start of the breed and, has lasted for nearly one hundred years before being watered down, clearly gave us the greatest breed in the world.

Mackenzie

Hundmutter, I don’t remember reading anywhere on this thread that civil dogs are the epitome of the breed or a trait that makes the rest of the breed redundant???? This is usually an exaggeration of many of the pet breeders....WHAT I do hear people saying is that the civil trait is useful;  as are other traits when civil is in correct proportions to other traits, and has a definite application for the breed in some of the work the breed performs.
This breed has been used for security purposes for a very long time, though there are other uses also, from the beginning security has also been a use. The eastern bloc countries probably put a higher emphasis on the civil trait than the Westwrn countries, but the military in western countries have utilized Sentry dogs, Patrol dogs, and commercial establishments have utilized perimeter dogs, and individuals have utilized Personal protection dogs; in which in all these cases the civil trait has been effectively useful.
All GS are not or should be civil no more than all GS should be prey monsters, or too defensive, or have golden retriever temperament...but it is a part of the breed that has been maintained BECAUSE it does have a useful application in some of the work the breed does, and last I checked this is still a working breed though many breeders have tried hard to change this. And please, I am not saying a dog has to be civil to be a good working dog,( it’s incredible the exaggerations people can derive from statements), but only that the civil trait is part of the breed and can be useful in proper setting, and proportions.