Defining terms more precisely - Page 3

4pack - are you quoting Helmut throughout or can we probe your analysis with you?

For example, I think that for training purposes it is helpful to treat prey drive as visual and hunt drive as olfactory; prey drive as short-lived stimulus-response but hunt drive as long-lived requiring mental focus.  Think of how wolves hunt -- they leave the den in a group, one of the hunt leaders taking the initiative.  They head in a direction they know from memory, or they hear or smell a herd out there somewhere.  They track or air scent and move with focus and building enthusiasm.  The kind of failure now is one of concentration and work ethic. Then they sight the herd -- hearts race, basic teamwork gets brought up cognitively-- it is no good to run off willy-nilly, one has to accept leadership here.  They look to the hunt leader for direction, and off they go.  Now it's visual and short-lived -- one cannot forget the caribou in the chase, one can only lose stamina, courage, energy or forget the playbook.  This is a different quality at work than the hunt drive that began it all, although part of a package, to be sure. 

I think the wisdom of Schutzhund is in part the ordering: tracking (hunt) is first, then obedience (cognitive organization once the herd is sighted -- time to check in with the leader and remember the playbook), then protection (go in for the kill, but under control and with teamwork). 

Maybe this bears repeating: the schutzhund order replicates the canine hunting sequence: track (hunt) - OB (organize/comply) - protection (kill under control).

I don't disagree that they are part of the same package of skills needed to eat and live and survive, but for training purposes breaking it down seems helpful.  Hunt drive is more to do with tracking and prey drive more to do with OB and protection.  (I think some hunt drive may be utilized in subtle ways as you prepare to work, too.)

Do you see any harm in this view?

Two, your (or Helmut's) observation that fight drive is part of prey drive (shaking, non-stressed combative behaviors) and not defensive behavior seems ingenious.  Do you mean this scientifically, or do you mean it is best to think of it this way in the training process?  And why?  The reason I ask is that the fight or flee science would suggest fight comes out of defense, in the general use of the term, but you are suggesting, I think wisely, that the sort of fight drive stimulated in training should come out of prey drive, as this is not stressful and can therefore be tapped into repeatedly without cost?