Civil Dogs and Civil Work - Page 3

I mainly skimmed the posts, but overall agree with Centurion's POV. The simple definition of a civil dog is a dog that is not equipment dependent in order to bite. But you have to consider all dog's are individuals and have different emotional motivations to bite. As Centurion pointed out, many dogs who bite without equipment are overly defensive, overly sharp, have too low of a defensive threshold, are thin nerved, etc, So being civil doesn't always equate with strong temperament. That is not to say those types of dogs can't function as working dogs, but they need to be in the right hands and placed in the right job. The other thing I think people neglect is that dogs can be civil and be very high prey dogs with high defensive thresholds. Such dog tend to have stronger nerves than some of the descriptions I gave above. I think key traits for a dog that will fight a man for real are strong nerves and good discernment, where they don't see every little thing as a threat.

Oooops Correction : I thought I wrote ' you can't * change the spots of a leopard .. sorry . Apple ... absolutely ... What is the purpose of predatory behavior . The purpose is : to catch your food and eat it to survive. The animal doesn't last to long if an animal just chases it's food down without any intention of biting/eating it , does it ? Yes , a dog can have high predatory and defensive bents !! Yes again apple .... strong nerves really means the dog has the stress level , which allows it to cope , handle , and persevere trying situations . Courage is thought of as lack of fear , but courage as a character trait , not a genetic trait , comes about from the the proper genetic stress level which allows the dog to be in control in mind and emotion resulting in problem solving , overcoming , enduing , threatening and adverse situations.... even if that means biting someone if need be . And the discernment is the recognition of when and when not that this should occur. Discernment is ultimately based on genetics too. A dog that can't think , can't be in control of it's emotions, that is to say .. does not have the adequate stress , hardness , aggression suspicion levels who lacks in ' Correct Temperament ' [ for GS that is ] cannot be civil . it can be a reactive dog , but civil is proactive, it comes from good genetics , not faulty genetics .. such as as Susie referred to , e.g fear biters'. Does Duke saying that civil is inherently genetic make more sense to the readers now ? Apple throws some very good light into the conversation.

Cent, reread Apples post...

Genetically " civil " dogs can show a lot of different traits
Sound / unsound
Fearless / fearful
Social / unsocial
and so on...

The simple fact that we don't like unsound civil dogs won' t make their civility vanish.

Civility in itself only is a part of the whole picture.

Forgot to mention: a fearful dog that is not civil is no liability - it will avoid any conflict as far as possible, whereas a civil fearful dog is a real danger.

Susie I understand your meaning and concept of what you are saying. In that sense I agree to what you write conceptually. My only difference is that I look upon a dog Temperamentally unsound or deficient as just that and only that, not even worthy of being considered civil or non civil because you can have a normal temperament canine that is either non civil as well as civil . An unsound dog is , in a manner of expression a horse of a different color. in my point of view. So I don't compare normal to the abnormal. If you read all my posts. How can I liken this : a psychopathic person , a paranoid schizophrenic person , their behavior is expected to be different than a normal well adjusted person. I compare normal with normal and abnormal with abnormal . A Normal dog biting under normal circumstances , in a normal state of mind , for the right reason , to me THAT is Civil . But that is my point of view.
However , I agree with your message for a dog can be sharp , sharp-shy , a descriptive category of unsound temperament , meaning the dog has an exaggerated , direly fearful reaction , out of normalcy , to the environment and stimulus. This is not merely a concerned dog , but a very fearful dog and when all options are taken away but to bite , the dog will most certainly lash out and bite ! In that sense of your post , oh YES this is a really , really dangerous dog !! Can be even more dangerous than a dog that knows what it is doing because this behavior , call it whatever , this dog call it whatever , is behaving without control and reactively [ not normal behavior ]. Again , in this sense what you write from your terminology / looking glass is entirely correct conceptually.

more farther the topic evolve - more confusing and contradictory it become.

How very true, Val K. Let me offer a further complication:
If one has a young adult dog that is clearly temperamentally unsound (rather than of solid bombproof character and able to bite in 'civil' fashion i.e. show 'discrimination' in situations), most of us would (should !) choose NOT to work them in any bitework, yes ?

How would anybody assess in a young puppy just starting Training whether it was going to be 'sane' enough, or not ? We know that all pups go through 'fear stages', that most pups change to some degree or other as they grow up. At what point should one write off a Training prospect ?

about civil,sane and training

on regular bases I test dogs and somo good dogs with good genetic civil agression, being made insecure and "liability " because of modern IPO training, and lack of understanding of dogs traits and training.

These dogs are activated by a helper at young age, and then when showing agression, being corrected for that, resulting in avoiding behaviour, looking over their shoulder when wanting to engage etc,

these types of dogs are often presented to me as "little nervous " and when I start working them mostly are really good dogs, as soon as the world becomes clear to them and they know what they can and can do and their training doesnot go against their genetic behaviour

Had this discussion recently by the way, that when I started dogtraining, each dog was trained according its own abilities and limitations and after training we spend hours discussing problems,origins there of and solutions, as where today everybody needs to fit in the same shoe mostly

dogbreeds that worked over agression mostly, or where not that preydriven are almost not seen anymore in competitions today

 

Interesting discussion!
Duke, your last post is spot on.
Centurian, Apple, Yogi ,Susie, and Duke I think all adequately describe civil dogs as of genetic origin. The devil is in the details.
Hundmutter, I do not agree all pups go through fear stages, and by 4-6 months I can in majority of cases tell if the dog has the nerves to utilize their civilness productively. Of course people’s lack of knowledge or nurturing regiment can alter this, but that’s not the dog itself, but what has been imposed on the dog. Same dog in my hands would not be danger or unpredictable.

Duke,
Could you clarify your comment about some IPO trainers activating a young dog and then correcting them? Are you saying they are trying to establish control over their aggression and making the dog neurotic?