low thresholds = poor nerves??? - Page 10

Slamdunk ,,,I can keep pressing, but, you get the point. Mr Grossman, same for you sir. The hardest thing I ever had to teach another human is that their dog is NOT a tiny human wrapped in fur. Once people get over that notion, we can get on with training, but, it seems to be a very hard thing to accomplish lately.
Dogs are animals and should be treated and respected for being such, it should be against the law to view them or treat them as a human. Slamdunk...now that I thought about it, I know of a dog who is not a romantic gentleman, does not care about her feelings at all but WILL mate a female...if you know of anyone interested.

I worked with a rescue puppy that was afraid of its own shadow......in complete flight when not in a crate.

As the pup was exposed to different environmental conditions, it was terrified to the point of peeing and pooping.......

With work this puppy was able to deal with these fears and developed into a nice pet.



To me this puppy had plenty of courage, it was able to face its fears and get past them.

That being said, I don't know why it had such issues to begin with........and a puppy with confidence and appropriate socializing may have never had these issues to begin with.



"anthropomorphizing"   Maybe, but how else can one explain such behaviors in terms easily understood?

"anthropomorphizing" Maybe, but how else can one explain such behaviors in terms easily understood?


Obviously, I can not.

I think the ability to overcome fear in a situation that the dog sees as a threath could be called courage for a lack of better word, I guess what you use for word to describe this is les important even if courage seems close. Also in a less threatfull situation but where the dog has to overcome his hesitation if there are any to work in different environments, darkness, heights, stairs, tunnels etc could be called environmental courage. Both these types of "courage" is depending on prey,defence, nerves etc, but is still a term that is evaluated and described for long in selectiontests for police or other workingdog in my neck of the world for example, even if courage is not the word used it still close to that definition. Experience also shows dog can have similar level of preyr or defence but still have different ability to overcome similar things that scares them, hence it may be a trait that is not totally dependent on other traits but should be judged seperate and still is.

reminds me of those ink-blot tests popular in the 60's. the psychologist would show 10 people the same ink-blot, the 10 people would see 10 different images including their own dead grandmother, the virgin mary,  jesus.... kids do the same thing with cloud formations. people will see what the see whatever/whenever totally  independent of what is actually there depending on yr current frame of mind and past experience, if you see courage in a dog thats fine, i don't, i see  pronounced traits unnaturally and naturally selected by man/nature, training, socialisation, methodical exposure to environmental stimulus, drives and unconscious biological responses. when i see ink-blots i just see blots of ink?

Obviously a human courage is based on that a person know how dangerous a certain thing is, a dog doesn´t know a loud sound for example is not dangerous, or creeping thru a dark tunnel, yet what is it that makes some dogs very bold and quickly adapt and do investiagate on their own, while others have a much harder time to overcome something it feels is a bit scary? If its important and a trait not totally realted to other traits I guess it´s usefull to judge how much "courage" the dog has, even if every singel environment or situation a dog may find threatfull is not impossible to test.

I think we human critters make things far too complicated.  As a species we think things like courage, affection, love, hate, etc... are all emotions only we can lay claim to.  I don't really believe we truly know what any other creature thinks or is aware or knows.  I think the human race is arrogant enough to assume a lot.  The one thing I do believe is that the animal kingdom lives in the here & now whereas we humans always seem to have our head where our hip pockets ought to be & vice versa.  Always worried about the past or the future.  But I've seen dogs face down things they aren't trained for, or aren't bred for, any natural instinct would tell them to flee yet they stay or they move forward & overcome whatever obstacle they  need to in order to find a lost human or to defend one's life.  .  To me that's courage.  I've seen a lot of dogs who have it.  

I had to laugh when someone asked if dogs can tell the difference between being a short distance from the ground rather than a tall one... go rapell with a dog or work with the same dog on a beam that's just 3 feet off the ground & then take 'em up to one that's 10 feet & you'll see, the dogs have eyes, they know the difference.  Falling from 3 feet isn't a big deal, from 10 or 10 is a different thing & just like a human, they'll work to stick on safe ground.  I've trained with a lot of dogs, rapelled onto & off of things.  They know, often times they naturally posses better common sense than we do :)  

I think a great deal can also be chalked up to what the dog reads in the human's intent when he's going to have to fight one.  When then intent changes, the dog changes as they adapt very quickly... we humans are slower to do so most of the time... at least in my experience

Jim you are so set against to what ever  I say that you can not even grasp when I agree with you. That is exactly what I have said. Mongoose is not working out of courage because he is purely working out of instincts. And other just do the  sign   also without thinking. Oh well. 
-----------
I ask; should we believe that  dogs are just flat, mindless, strictly instinctual creatures  with one or at most two dimensional thinking, who work out of hypothalamus based instincts and drives which are then manipulated by  their trainers to perform according to their wishes?    Kind of a robots  in dog skin performing according to their hardware of DNA and software installed by trainer through training? They supposedly  do not recognize death  and their mortality and potential pain and discomfort and are not making  conscious decisions of avoiding these obstacles  or working through these but their reactions to them are strictly instinctual.   Should we believe that  when they overcome these obstacles  it is not  because they consciously decided to proceed with solution  through to them recognizable danger  or solve through creative thinking such problem but, that they solve all problems  only because one instinct was stronger because superior DNA  and/or  better molded by trainer, then the lesser one. If that is what ywe shoud  believe well that is OK with me. But I will not since a question then  remains; so what for dogs  have  their  frontal lobes? 
 
 Here is a question for  those who do believe that dogs and   thus other animals for that matter do not understand their mortality or that they can die. I will tell you honest to god true story. When I was little boy and I was with my parents visiting  my uncle in Moravia. One day  they were going to slaughter a pig there. The pig usually calm and peaceful animal was screaming  its head off 24 hours before the deed. I asked my uncle how did the pig  know. He said that pigs are very smart and that the pig remembered the preparations for the slaughter of another pig  6 months ago. There you go how do you explain that?  
Prager Hans

I would also like to say that dog who is scared to his wits on slippery floor but proceeds with the task is not desirable by LE but is most definitely displaying courage. Again courage is not lack of fear but ability to overcome present fear.