Just having fun with the puppy - Page 5

Susie, you are trying too hard to play gotcha Hans. Nowhere have I say that civil dog will not bite equipment. I did not think that it was necessary among dog people to even mention that.
Any civil dog will bite equipment if nothing else is present or if the dog is trained in what I call parallel training Sport and civil bitework . Civil dog can be trained sport and LE. That goes without saying!!!! What I was trying to say is that civil dog does not need equipment to bite.
But I will make it even simpler if you insist . Civil dog is capable to bite person with no equipment. Dog who is not capable to do that is not civil. Are you happy now? Geez.

Prager: "To put it over lowest common denominator and to essencial of what "civil" is, then I will say that the term civil is a matter of targeting."

Susie:
I don´t think so, for me "targeting" is the result of training, whereas "civil" describes a basic attitude.

What is dog's "attitude"? May I have your definition .

Prager,

I started a DISCUSSION ( although off topic at that point ) with these words :

" I know we are off topic now, but I always wondered about the context of the word "civil", as it is used on this board. ...." and then I explained MY point of view.

Trouble said he thinks similar, Noitsyou talked about "type xyz" , Bee talked about "soundness", only YOU answered in detail.

I would have given the SAME response to ANY poster on this board, because I think it´s IMPORTANT to talk about the "real" meaning of the word "civil" - I couldn´t care less about the poster, but I do care about the CONTENT of a post, and if it makes sense to me.

I am glad we are allowed to "question" statements on this forum, and as long as I am not convinced, I will question anybody, be it you or anybody else.

 

Now YOUR question:

Susie: "I don´t think so, for me "targeting" is the result of training, whereas "civil" describes a basic attitude."
You: What is dog's "attitude"? May I have your definition .

I don´t know how to translate properly, it´s a mindset, a status quo, in the best case the result of social aggression, dominance, old fashioned fight drive - as I said a basic attitude ( mostly innate, not trained ).

 

Kind regards

Forgot to mention:
This "mindset" or "basic attitude" ( in lack of a better translation ) has nothing to do with preydrive IN MY OPINION, and that´s what I wanted to discuss.

Once again: FOR ME a dog biting the BG out of prey is not "civil" - and I don´t care about "visible equipment", because for a skilled trainer it´s no big deal to train the dog: BG = prey.

Maybe anybody else is willing to participate in this discussion - I really want to know about the most common interpretation, and not necessarily mine...

Susie: So what do you call dog "dog who is capable to bite person with no equipment." Trainers in US I know call it "civil".

to me civil as a something a dog has or hasnot, cannot be trained, or untrained

That´s what I think, too, Duke - there seems to be a different understanding within the continents.

Prager, a "dog who is capable to bite person with no equipment." I call "civil" in case the dog is civil, and I call it "well trained" in case the dog is not civil but trained to bite civil.

Guess we need to differ between "civil dog" and "civil training" ...

like the pup in my video, he is civil, but is trained in prey in order for him to get sport title, doesnot change his intentions, nor his genetics

There has to be more to the definition of civil than simply a dog's willingness to bite a person without equipment. If that's the definition then dogs, of any breed, who are civil are not a rare commodity. There are a lot of civil cats out there too. I don't think I've ever seen a puppy who wasn't civil.

Dogs used for IPO or "sport" as a whole are not necessarily "prey monsters", whereas dogs used for "civil" protection work are not necessarily "civil" - but it´s way easier to simplify.