by Hundmutter on 01 July 2020 - 10:07
Hey, for years and years we have seen people - sometimes quite well-known and regarded handlers - taking their dogs 'behind a tent' at Obedience Comps, let alone at Club grounds, or in other competitions where bitework is involved, or on Police training fields ... but these are not usually a majority of handlers, they are fully aware they are doing wrong, and their peers and seniors do not approve. And if they get officially 'caught' doing this OTT stuff on a regular basis, they can get some sort of punishment for it. Perhaps they should get worse than they often do. Perhaps (my preference) they should have to do some sort of re-training (of themselves, not their dogs) which centres on WHY such behaviour is A) not suppported by the public B) not supported by other Trainers / Handlers C) not very useful in the long term because of the unreliability, nervous hangups, etc etc it can cause - even in the stronger dogs. Make them actually 'think it through'.
by apple on 01 July 2020 - 15:07
by ValK on 01 July 2020 - 22:07
i'm not really objecting to methods. as long as it works, why not to use them. they just not universal solution to all and any arising issues and not perfectly work or work at all in some circumstances. mainly i disagree with approach and perception of dog as individuum, equal on mental level to human. but somehow it been twisted toward my approach to a training methods :) sure, every dog is special but only in comparison to other dogs.
dominance is not a fixed value for all dogs. if dog do have it, it have graduation scale varying from one dog to another and accordingly expressed in different forms by different dogs. just like drives - from full absence to unacceptable extremes.
there aren't any special or secret methods in my training to differ from widely used by others. in my use all typical tools - food, toy, praise, motivation, encouragement and foremost trust and bond. during learning process, instead of rewarding dog by food or thing, i do prefer to let my dog realize how happy i am when desirable task done right. the food or toy, if those are not necessary part of learning, i usually using as an extra (sort of pamper) thingy from me for dog and not in direct association with performed task.
cruel reprisal for dog's misunderstanding/mistakes during training absolutely not acceptable. violence toward my dog can be only as response to dog's violent action toward me and must be absolutely equal to form and level of demonstrated by dog.
i'm a proponent of harsh/violent behavior by opponents of my dog during protection training. if dog destined to be used in fight, dog must know what this involves - high stress, physical uncomfortability and load, pain and rage. if dog can't handle dosed and controled violence, how that dog can be used in real situation?
there are topic about test, performed by Arne. no any criticism or objection from me in regard of that method. it just looks like fun play in comparison to treatment, through which have been put patrol dogs during protection training.
by Hired Dog on 02 July 2020 - 04:07
The only thing I will not agree with you on, not because you are wrong, but, because of personal beliefs, is the inflicting pain and punishment on the dog during protection training.
I understand what you mean, I get it, I just cannot allow someone who is protected by a sleeve or a suit to cause that type of pain or violence to my dog....now, you want to take off the protective equipment and try your luck, absolutely.
I have the same problem though with allowing others, anyone, to correct my dog physically, I am the ONLY one who does that because I know the dog better then anyone and can measure a correction based on the infraction and the dog's state of mind while committing said infraction. Have a great day sir.
by ValK on 02 July 2020 - 22:07
inflicting pain as purpose to do wounding and disabling a dog and inflicting controlled and dosed pain as stimuli in gaining experience during learning process - it's two big differences. even humans does apply such method to themselves.
if dog gave up on first attempt, there are no sense in taking that dog to try again. it would be cruel and plain abuse.
if dog passes and able to keep up with rising intensity - believe me, you can't find more happy and selfproud dog than the dog, who did win the fight.
the prize of winning for that dog absolutely wipes any memories about previous pain experience and won't stop that dog from being involved in the fight again and again.
that why dominant type of dogs is key for use in offense and defense purpose but unfortunately in present been substituted by prey.
also there some tasks, which cannot be taught to dog without use pain stimuli.
by GK1 on 03 July 2020 - 09:07
To clarify the prize of winning, you referring to a defeated, retreating etc opponent and not a piece of equipment to possess, correct?
by ValK on 03 July 2020 - 14:07
yes, defeated opponent. there wasn't anything to grab, pull off and carry it in circle around decoy. sleeves wasn't used. dog was working against opponent (of course in protection suit) and wasn't limited to bite just certain assigned parts of body.
decoy's task wasn't to do confrontation a fun and pleasant experience for dog but contrary.
by GK1 on 04 July 2020 - 15:07
The second paragraph of your last post likewise is unconventional…but makes sense to me.
by ValK on 05 July 2020 - 17:07
but keep in mind, these dogs weren't bred and trained for sport and points. the training did had some disciplines and tasks which aren't in sport.
and opposite, there some sport tasks which wasn't a part of training for patrol dogs. the objective was - reliable dogs for practical day by day
application with emphasis on harsh working environment.
by GK1 on 06 July 2020 - 10:07