Defense - Page 18

Pedigree Database

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

Premium classified

This is a placeholder text
Group text

by Gee on 03 May 2016 - 18:05

@BlackMalinois

Hi Marcel,
It's a two way street friend - I enjoy reading your knowledgable take on things to.

R
Gee


by Gee on 03 May 2016 - 18:05

Gustav - good points..
You also mentioned a few pages back - about muzzle work once, being a natural progression from bite work, very true, and a pity it no longer is - IMO.

R
Gee


Prager

by Prager on 03 May 2016 - 18:05

Gee I have meant to say that some intelligence individuals of some breeds will not engage because they know that they can not hurt the person in front of them yet they will bite for real without muzzle . That is my experience.
I also know many LE dogs trained by famous outfits which I will not name here and they were super at muzzle attacks yet when send on street attack they did not engage or even stopped and started to piss on tires. I know this because I as a part of my living am "fixing" these poorly trained dogs for different LE agencies and security companies. I have seen many of them in course of my business of training such dogs. I would like to add that after I was done retraining them they engaged reliably in street bites. I am not saying it in order to point out what a wonderful trainer I am I am saying it that in order to point out that these dogs were genetically good dogs which were capable performing their duties
Failure of some dogs which were tested with muzzles to engage on the street is caused by undesirable association of training field or decoy and so on, which is then bridged into muzzle work. Then when the muzzle is removed the association which he needs to engage is gone and dog fails to engage. This happens due to faulty training where undesirable associations are ignored. If the dog is correctly and in civil way trained - which may be your experience - then such dogs will not fail.
But what I am saying is that in my experience muzzle is absolutely not a final proof of the civility of the dog at least as I have said that is my experience.
Prager Hans


by Ibrahim on 03 May 2016 - 18:05

Excellent perspectives from every one. Excellent information Gustav, thank you

by duke1965 on 03 May 2016 - 18:05

Hans big difference between muzzle and behind fence,
behind fence dog cannot engage and is in a " safe zone "

dog with muzzle is bear ass and can choose to flight or fight, so apples and pears

furthermore it is about intention, so not about training and shaping a dog with muzzle

my old male Ajax Girmido first time on muzzle, on helper who doesnot know anything but sleevework

https://youtu.be/CS7mEHe8T6Y



by vk4gsd on 03 May 2016 - 18:05

So basically a full range of opinions exist.

by Gee on 03 May 2016 - 18:05

Hi Hans,
Thanks for the detailed response - appreciated.

That makes much more sense - no doubt if there are serious training errors, then the dog could fail.

Bad training is bad training.

Regards
Gee

Prager

by Prager on 03 May 2016 - 19:05

Gustav:There is difference in a naturally civil dog and a dog trained to be civil. I do NOT know that a naturally civil dog that is started on sleeve will always prefer sleeve when under stress. ( some do, many don't) Actually, my experience with K9 dogs is that the naturally civil dogs when engaged in fight with assailant will bite whatever they can reach. They often bite the torso from frontal bite and on back on runaway bites. Some of the more prey oriented dogs that the have been started on sleeve and converted into civil dog; I have seen definitely may show inclination for arm bite......but it has not been my experience that because a dog has been started on a sleeve, they all will go for arm/sleeve when put under pressure. Some will, but many( naturally civil) do not. Possibly I'm the only one who has experienced this, but it's what I've seen.​

 

Hans: Interesting perspective and I agree with you. However that does not negate What I am saying about defaults. 

 First let me introduce  terms: What you call naturally civil dog I call type 1 one dog . Such dog will bite without training.   Where dog which needs to be trained  to bite is type 2 dog.  But in training vie defense drive I am not only concern  that the dog is biting but most importantly I am concerned about  whom the dog is biting. What I have  been dealing with before was prey drive. Where prey is used to provide food . Read my former posts. 

There is another reason why the dog bites and that is defense drive. Defense drive deals with type 1 and 2 dogs. 

If the dog is type 1  then such dog does not need to be trained to bite but needs to be trained whom to bite or not to bite.  Same as prey dog  knows how to hunt and chase a prey and catch ( bite) it , the   type one dog knows how to protect and bite. Type  2 dog needs to be trained to bite after that  the type 1 and 2 dfog are almost identical. 

 All we need to do is to teach the dog in prey what prey to catch and what not to catch and same way in defense we need to teach the dog what do defend against and what not to defend against. Like robber versus our child or me the owner of the dog , friends and  relatives and so on.  

What the dog will then protect against or not against is then a  matter of permanent default. 

 Example some dogs learn to hate children. In that case IMO such dog should never ever be trusted with children  because such propensity in such dog  is the dog's permanent default.  So in case of  defense it is not about dog biting sleeve or man but it s about  whom to bite and whom not to bite. In prey we have programmed sport dogs that their prey is sleeve or other equipment tat is why they go for such equipment in. 

 So you need to look at the issue of defaults  from perspective of what drive you are talking about.  

 JMO. Prager Hans 


Prager

by Prager on 03 May 2016 - 19:05

@ Duke Muzzle and fence of course have similarities and dissimilarities. You and some others here have been  focusing on dissimilarities and  I focus on similarities where similarities art the  purpose we use examples . That si what examples do. Due to the dissimilarities examples by their nature are always inaccurate.  The ideal is however is to focus on the similarities of such examlpes. You have pointed well the disimilarities which are known to meand are common sense. Similarity  beween fence and muzzle which I was talking about is that they both prevent dog from biting.  Dog with muzzle knows that he can not bite and when it comes to biting he may not bite,  since  that is not what he have ever done. Biting is a next step and dog who works in muzzle may have to still take such step. Same   way the dog who bites suit may not bite and often does not bite if the suit is not there. Same as dog with muzzle may attck but will not necessarily bite when the muzzle is not there  same way it is about fence in front of him or ot in front of him.  Similarities in these examples are apples and apples. 

 Prager Hans. 


by Gee on 03 May 2016 - 19:05

@Duke.
Good raw vid, he is typically / naturaly targeting mid body mass, front and back,
Gustavs observations re a naturaly civil dog, biting / targeting, and I concur.

Also you are correct - re intent in the muzzle. (IMO transcends - training and gives you a very high threshold, re the dog consistently engaging)

Regards
Gee






 


Contact information  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement  Copyright Information  Terms of Service  Cookie policy  ↑ Back to top