Very low civil drive - Page 1

In another post Koah said " Very low civil drive", can someone please explain what that means and is it a good thing in a working dog or it is good for a sports dog?

Ibrahim

Ibrahim,

Maybe I did not use a term that is universal in my post. The ring dogs must not be sharp towards humans. The ring decoys touch the dogs a lot during training and trials. In training the decoy does corrections and this must be acceptable to the dog who remains in prey. Usually high prey drive dogs with lots of fight drive will accept this for another chance to bite the cloth. During the trials the dogs are esquived and fought off with the stick and the hands/arms. During all ring work the decoys face comes very near the dog's face. Most ring clubs will not accept dogs that are defensive rather that prey. A civil dog usually has very little inhibition about biting a human without a sleeve, bitesuit, etc.

Hope this helps, 
Cheers,

I believe that's the universal understanding of 'civil' when it refers to dogs. English is not Ibrahim's first language, so this is why it's likely new to him.

Thanks Sunsilver.

Thank you so much, I think I understand the term now, if you allow me for one more question, does civil drive come with the dog's genes or do you teach him to be civil? because civil drive sounds like it's one more drive like food drive, prey drive, defense drive etc. So is civil a real drive or it's just called like that? 

Ibrahim

Thanks Sunsilver

I would think it's more genetic than anything else.

It may need training to bring it out. If a pup doesn't have a strong inhibition against biting humans, it probably learns one pretty quickly! [OUCH!!]

Even prey drive needs work to be developed, though some have more natural prey drive than others.

Sunsilver,

If I understood what Koah explained above then civil drive is the ability/readiness/tendency (can't find better words) to bite a man wearing no sleeve, which is bite for real like trained police dogs do. If my understanding is correct then civil drive is not a true drive and is not really inherited and is something the police officers/trainers teach the dog to do same as a sports trainer teaches a dog to hit and bite the sleeve which is again not a drive, there is no sleeve drive.
Maybe a civil dog has certain inherited amount of natural agression, also good inherited courage which enables it to learn to bite a man for real. But It is not natural, I think, for a dog to have a drive to bite a man, also it is not a good thing. Maybe it is good only in certain cases like police or army work. Maybe civil drive should be called something else, at least drive should be taken out and replaced with a more specific word. I am not stating a view point here, just saying loud what I am thinking, if it makes no sense then excuse me for that.

Maybe also a dog should only be trained to be civil if it has good inteligence, medium to high threshold and less than high sharpness, otherwise it may become a dangerous animal against an innocent person.

Ibrahim, considering that "ball" drive is really "prey" drive, I think "low civil" drive would be equal to "defense" drive?  Because really, wanting to bite for real if it is not prey, what else can it be? Now, if someone wants a "low civil drive" dog, I would think they mean they want a dog who is less inclined to bite human skin without a major provocation. So, conversely it would seem, a very high civil dog would be one that would take little provocation to bite human skin, for real. I'm guessing those dogs are running on full tilt "prey" drive?

I am sure my errors will be pointed out to me if I have this idea totally messed up.     My personal experience with dogs that have bit humans with no provocation, tells me some dogs are born with it. And then I do believe there are others who can be taught, as you mentioned, the higher thinking dogs with solid nerve, I would imagine. Clearly a correct combination of dog genetics, and the right trainer will prevent the dangerous dog situation you predict, as being highly probable. I would agree with you there.