Prey bites, defensive bites, IPO, and KNPV

[hunterisgreat]

I was wondering. A dogs natural inclination is to bite softer and full mouth out of prey drive, but harder and less full in high defensive drive... SchH/IPO requires a full grip, but KNPV doesn't care so long as the dog stays on from what I understand. I'm sure a less full grip when in defensive drve has some evolutionary basis, so what do you think the reason is? More space in the grip plus thrashing leading to more serious damage? Thrashing with a full mouth grip wouldn't seem to tear tissue as effectively it would seem, where the full grip would better prevent the escape of prey. In defense you probably would prefer your opponent tuck tail and run so an inescapable grip might not be as important. What do you think?

[crackem]

I think you have to look at the total picture. I've taken plenty of full mouth grips that are crushing, because they don't tear flesh, doesn't mean it can't break bones. There have been dogs i like that had less than full grips, but loads of everything else I like, and dogs with full mouth calm grips that I find to be pretty weak. But generally speaking, if a dog is being tested and throttles me and drives in for full bites, is a dog I think is oozing confidence and one I like.

I think a lot of strong dogs that don't have full grips, either don't have one because the opportunity to take one wasn't presented, or thru training it has moved away from wanting it, to just take what they can get and keeping it.

By the time a dog is trialing, no matter the sport, a lot of the "natural" stuff has been modified. They only way to really know is for those that have trained it up to be honest in what they did. It's why I love breeders that work their own dogs, know their dogs and breed for good ones. They know what they have.

[hunterisgreat]

Originally Posted by crackem

I think you have to look at the total picture. I've taken plenty of full mouth grips that are crushing, because they don't tear flesh, doesn't mean it can't break bones. There have been dogs i like that had less than full grips, but loads of everything else I like, and dogs with full mouth calm grips that I find to be pretty weak. But generally speaking, if a dog is being tested and throttles me and drives in for full bites, is a dog I think is oozing confidence and one I like.

I think a lot of strong dogs that don't have full grips, either don't have one because the opportunity to take one wasn't presented, or thru training it has moved away from wanting it, to just take what they can get and keeping it.

By the time a dog is trialing, no matter the sport, a lot of the "natural" stuff has been modified. They only way to really know is for those that have trained it up to be honest in what they did. It's why I love breeders that work their own dogs, know their dogs and breed for good ones. They know what they have.

I agree but didn't want tocompare one dog to another as one dogs full prey bite might be harder than another's gve-it-my-all defensive bite. Throw in varied levels of training and we really can't drawn much from a comparison. What I was curious about though is with no training, a natuarlly full biting dog will get a more shallow bite when primarily in defense... If this is natural, then why?

[lhczth]

I think you first have to have an understanding of the foundation of our breed to really understand the importance of a full, HARD and calm grip.

A full grip may come from prey (and genetics), but the power and hardness come from fight and the dog's desire to control, dominate and over power the helper (also very much genetic). This falls inline with schutzhund's foundation as a breed test and not just a bite sport (ring) or police/sport test (KNPV).

[lhczth]

Guess I misunderstood your question. A dog biting out of defense's goal is to drive off what is causing its fear. How it bites will not matter as much as its final goal of driving away the threat. That is why most fear biters come from behind and nip or, when cornered, bite quickly and let go, bite again and let go. The defensive dogs does a tremendous amount of damage and, paying attention to the foundation of our breed and what we wanted in our breed would be VERY undesirable.

[hunterisgreat]

Originally Posted by lhczth

Guess I misunderstood your question. A dog biting out of defense's goal is to drive off what is causing its fear. How it bites will not matter as much as its final goal of driving away the threat. That is why most fear biters come from behind and nip or, when cornered, bite quickly and let go, bite again and let go. The defensive dogs does a tremendous amount of damage and, paying attention to the foundation of our breed and what we wanted in our breed would be VERY undesirable.

Right, I'm not taking about what's good for the breed or sport or anything, just the nature of bites from an evolutionary perspective. I'd guess that even the finest biting GSD could switch to a shallower undesirable (from SchH perspective) bite if you put enough pressure on him.

[hunterisgreat]

In comparison, I know Pitts thrash heavily when biting to maximize damage. Is their bite less full by SchH standards as well? To Pitt folks also work towards breeding and training a full bite?

[Chris Wild]

Originally Posted by hunterisgreat

Right, I'm not taking about what's good for the breed or sport or anything, just the nature of bites from an evolutionary perspective. I'd guess that even the finest biting GSD could switch to a shallower undesirable (from SchH perspective) bite if you put enough pressure on him.

Think about the mindset that the dog is in, and really the reason why a defensive bite is more frontal naturally flows from that understanding.

A frontal bite is quicker to deliver, and retreat from, than a full bite. The fact that more tearing damage may occur from a frontal bite with the canines is just a by-product and has nothing to do with why the dog bites that way. A dog in defense is protecting himself from a threat and will strive to drive the threat away while minimizing the chances of getting harmed himself. A dog in defense with rush in, tag quickly, and then back off out of reach, hoping that tag drove whatever is threatening him away.

Considering *why* the dog in defense is biting in the first place, makes that lack of committment, lack of desire to hold on and unwillingness to stay in close contact with the threat that leads to those quick, chewy frontal bites quite understandable. This is far safer than staying in close and hanging on. The dog who stays close and holds on is putting himself in more danger, which is why this sort of biting behavior comes from a very different drive and place within the dog's head.

[ayoitzrimz]

I think a frontal bite just gives the dog more flexibility to run / bite somewhere else etc while a full bite gives the dog a higher chance of holding on to the item.

I mean, if I'm chasing something I might stretch my arms out and wrap that something up and hold on, but if I'm being cornered or assaulted by somebody I'll be more likely to send a couple of quick hits to disorient him enough to make my escape.

Dont know if that makes sense, just my ideas

[Chris Wild]

Originally Posted by ayoitzrimz

I think a frontal bite just gives the dog more flexibility to run / bite somewhere else etc while a full bite gives the dog a higher chance of holding on to the item.

I mean, if I'm chasing something I might stretch my arms out and wrap that something up and hold on, but if I'm being cornered or assaulted by somebody I'll be more likely to send a couple of quick hits to disorient him enough to make my escape.

Dont know if that makes sense, just my ideas

Actually, that's it exactly.