Teaching the long attack - Page 5

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 Get A Real Dog on 22 October 2008 - 03:10

This topic has strayed off course. I will touch on a couple of points......

1) As often times happens here, there is often a comparison between GSD and Mals. In my last post I generalized and may seem as though I was pointing out something that was GSD only. In terms of "thinking". My point was more about the how this is used as an excuse by handlers and/or owners.

A dog that goes into avoidance due to an environmental or threat barrier is "thinking" but when a dog "thinks" that means they are in some level of avoidance. They are "thinking" about weather or not they really want to confront the threat. People try to put canine intelligence or thought process in the same terms as humans. Dog's do not have the ability to 'reason". They respond from instinctual drives or trained response. That's it. A dog doesn't say to themselves, "Gee there is a haybale in between the guy I am supposed to bite. It will be easier if I go around it instead of over it." It doesn't work that way. If a dog hesitates upon a percieved threat or obstical, they are in a state of avoidance. When they are "thinking" they are thinking about whether or not they want to confront the threat or avoid it. It is that simple.

The cause of the avoidance can stem from several things. Genetics, courage, lack of resiliancy from a previous negative experience, lack of training or exposure, etc. But if a dog avoids something, it is not stem from a higher inteligence level. This is not breed specific, it happens with every breed of dog.

2) As far as the tactical issue of a PPD dog leaving the ground. Yes a dog that leaves the ground is easier to avoid. My point being is, in French ring you have the highest trained most athletic decoys in the world who compete against one of the fastest most atheletic breeds in the world. Sometimes they can make the dog miss. Even when they do, the dog gets to the bite eventually. If you take an average joe, if they are lucky enough to make a dog miss, or the dog only gets a piece of the jacket or whatever, at that point what are they doing? They are focused on the dog and not the person thus giving the person a tactical advantage to either engage the threat or get to safety. Exactly what deploying the dog is supposed to do. If they do not avoid the dog, where are they? Most likely on the ground, fighting with the dog which gives the handler the best possible advantage. Most PPD trainers really have little to no experience or knowlege in defensive tactics. It is about the same as the PPD theory of "I don't train a dog to bite legs because the bad guy can still hit or attack the dog." Hogwash. If a dog bites someone in the inner thigh area, they are going to drop like a stone.

3) My experience with mals is that they are actually more inclined to work for their handler than a GSD. I had a much better relationship with all of my mals as compared to the two GSD's I have handled. The GSD's were more stubborn and headstrong than my mals. But that is just my experience. I think this has more to do with the individual dog than the breed.

 


by Get A Real Dog on 22 October 2008 - 03:10

Now back to topic at hand. Since no one appears to want to share there techniques, I will share how I have done it in the past, and how I will be doing it in the future.

How I was taught, and how I have done it in the past, is to use 55 gal barrels. You frustrate and fire the dog up. You drag the dog slowley into the bite and let the dog go so they have to jump the barrel to get hte bite. You gradually increase the distance between the decoy and the barrel, thus conditioning the dog to leave the ground from a greater distance. Of corse this depends on the dogs individual phyisical ability and genetic pre-disposition.

The problem I feel with this now that I am a little more experienced is, most people do this at a later phase of their training. By doing so, you lose some opportunity in conditioning the dog to leave the ground from a further distance.

From now on, what I will be doing is

1) not giving a dog a long bite during foundation training. It makes no sense to me now. Why send a dog down the field during early training before you have tought them any sort of technique? If the dog is a good one, you don't have to worry about it being hesitant to go downfield without their handler.

So I plan on using a little FR experience and technuiqe in my next dog. First they will be getting dragged into almost every bite from 6 months on. No back- tying. This is how the Belgians do it in BR. Second, I will teach the dog how to do a long jump before a hurdle or an entry in bitework. This should condition them to leave the ground and leap a distance outward vs upward which is my ultimate goal. Once the dog clears 6-10 foot long jumps, then they will go to doing the barrel work and it should all come together nicely.

Any other ideas out there?


by Held on 22 October 2008 - 15:10

Well i want to know what did everu one learned from this discussion?also as ihave siad to people million times and every time it comes up.it is really not a fair coparrison between shep and mal they are two different breeds in case people here on this board are confused about that.u can not compare apples to bananas.i hjave them both and i love them both the same.you also need to keep in mind that germanshepherd brred has been messed around with for a long time too many people have bread this with too many of their own ideas.Mal on the other hand has not been bread that much yet but  just give it a time it will be the same.problem with us humans is we want too many things and we want everything in our dogs we want supper dogs yet we are not supper humans so you see where i am going with this.the only thing i learned is real dogs way of teaching the courage bite.also i can tell you that Bernard Flinks teaches in his trainig dvd.also i do not know if you have ever watched Gottfried Dildi protction tape.have a nice one.


deacon

by deacon on 22 October 2008 - 16:10

>  Never thought about the barrels. What I have done to a few PSDs I have trained that bite mostly low is place a 3' jump at a gate entrance which they can not get around. The quarry fires the dog up. (he is wearing a helmet. The dog is released and the quarry turns as the dog is leaping the hurdle. Wierd but it worked on the dogs I tried it on.


by getreal on 21 January 2009 - 22:01

bump

steve1

by steve1 on 22 January 2009 - 07:01

The points bought up by Haranaro are the right ones as far as i am concerned,
Plus another factor of how any dog engages at the particular time is ground conditions,
 It depends on how soft , hard or sticky the field is, this will partly determine the way any dog attacks
Zender was a dog who used to bowl the heplers over
Heidi's father is another Dog who hits with terrific force he just goes for it, I have never seen hin break his run he goes in from a long way out, the last time he did it he took the sleeve from the helpers arm, spinning him round like a top
 That is why i chose a Pup from him. Plus he is clear headed in Obedinance and Tracking
Steve

joe t

by joe t on 22 January 2009 - 07:01

The long bite is taught  buy the back up bite.You can teach a dog to launch if the handler follows threw with the dog on the back up bite.Holding tension on the line .Other wise meaning holding the dog baack until the last minute and releasing the dog.This causes the dog to launch in the air for the bite.No barrels needed.

4pack

by 4pack on 22 January 2009 - 15:01

"Regarding the thinking aspect again - I disagree.  Most mals I see don't think, they simply repeat patterns of behavior that brought them success in achieving reward.  This bypasses thinking and reasoning and is exactly in my opinion why they are so easy to train, especially in OB.  They don't think, question, reason - they simply do "X" to obtain "Y."  This leads to very nice, predictable, repeatable results - which I admit to being envious of when I watch a mal doing OB.  I don't think this means they are smarter or dumber, just not as apt to not be bothered with much beyond what their goal is and what it takes to achieve it.  I have heard from many people who enjoy shepherds and who have delved into mals (and been unhappy) that they simply are not "handler" dogs in that they are working for themselves (specifically drive satisfaction) - not for/with the handler.  I see this as further support for my opinion that they are short term goal fixated/driven. This is a true strength in one way, but not in others.

I see slowing of the good shepherds as more of a martial-arts-esque "how do I take this guy on to have the advantage or at least not miss?"  Even if my assumptions are wrong it is obvious one dog is sizing the situation up and thinking through the matter while the other isn't and instead simply acting.  Personally, I'd rather have the thinking dog - in the same fashion that I’d prefer to bet on the thinking fighter and not the brawler. I personally don’t feel that throwing ones self with abandon at anything defines courage as much as it show “auto pilot.” Being able to slip in to auto-pilot might not mean a lacking of nerves but I don’t see it indicating presence of character either.   Going back to the foundation of the GSD breed, the Schutzhund test was/is fundamentally a test of mutliple facets of character.  When SchH became a sport the door opened to mals because (as with all things) their weakness (IMHO) is their strength – they don’t need to be bothered as much by thinking. They simply “do” what led to success and tend to repeat that process easily. This makes for awesome obedience and “correct” protection work. The problem I’ve seen with mals (even the high scoring ones) is a lack of the “character” that the protection process once sought to ferret out. I see a lack of intensity in most mals barking (shows me a lack of emotion and emotional involvement in the “fight”), running wide on blinds and not checking them (shows to me a lack of understanding that a search is really a search, not an exercise to be executed as quickly as possible to get to the helper), a tendency to “go with” the helper on the escape and drives, vs. attempting to “stop” the bad guy.

Anyhow, this takes me back to what do we want?  Missiles or partners?"

All very good posts from Calvin and I agree 100% but this thread isn't about Mals vs GSD. Drag, drag, brag, to bites and the dog will come with more power and intensity, once this is a habit, he will come in like that without the drag. My dog didn't get a long bite until just recently and even that was only maybe 30-40 feet and the first try was a drag 1/2 way. So far no barels or anything blocking his way, he is coming in faster and higher each day of training. I do have to agree with GARD's assessment of dogs not going through an obsticle but around. We just did a test by leaving the tailgate down, decoy in bed of truck and send the dog. Mine went over the side.

4pack

by 4pack on 22 January 2009 - 15:01

Mine went over the side. Very good indication of what kinda dog you have but to put something like that in a trial and not a forst time deal, you will get people "training" that and it will tell you nothing. Same can be said for alot of things at trial, much of it can be trained adn has no bearing on how "true" the dog really is.

Don Corleone

by Don Corleone on 22 January 2009 - 17:01

Gard
Honestly, I wouldn't work on a "long bite"  too often.  What's the point?  You risk injury for minimum points.  Rather shorter bites working on the rest of the exercise and you can do the same variations. 

As I was reading the replies, I started to think about Bruce Lee.  He was a pretty courageous guy in my opinion.  He didn't go after people like a maniac.  Christopher Smith brought up boxers.  Kinda the same point.  Whether this relates to dogs is another thread.  I keep telling my mother that dogs are not human and here I am comparing the two. 

I think Malis become blind to everything around it when they are in drive.  I see the mali as the "manchurian candidate" of the CIA.  They see the sleeve, toy, etc. and that is all they can focus on.  Not a bad thing, just different than the GSD. 

By the way,  Mike Tyson is part Malinois.  He had that mentality.  Fight would be over in 2 minutes because he would come at full speed, fists-a-flying.





 


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