A Question about the purpose and intent of ScH?

[Vandal]

BTW, SchH was never about dogs working in personal protection. While I owned dogs who would protect me, they certainly were not dogs who needed to see that kind of training. It was rather clear that they would. SchH was about putting the dog's character on display and you could see it in how the dog performed each exercise. They actually had a purpose, those boring "routine" situations. I have to laugh when people bag on SchH because it is a routine. They clearly do not understand.

As for compulsion. I realize that many people kind of lose their mind and then everything they do TO their dog, is labeled as "compulsion". That is simply BAD training, one has nothing to do with the other. There is now thinking that a correction is puishment. It is not. I had tough, strong dogs. They did not require abuse to train them. If I did too much, it was usually because of what I said. I would lose my mind and my temper. Never occurred to me that I was right when those times would occur. 99% of the time, I was training those dogs fairly, yes, using corrections. Most people have never seen that training done correctly and I would bet money, if they did, they would not find it the least bit unpleasant.

[KJenkins]

Originally Posted by wolfstraum

If there is no threat - why fight? Yes - You CAN train this...strong dog or weak dog - turns it into a game - bark for "reward"....have done so.....but the looking away from the dog is NOT THREATENING and weaker dogs can look good as they are NOT perceiving a threat

Lee

If we as the handler send our dog to search for the decoy then by God they better perceive them as something regardless of what drive they are in when they get to the find or what the decoy does or doesn't do while they are there... otherwise we wouldn't/shouldn't have sent them.

[Mrs.K]

Originally Posted by Vandal

BTW, SchH was never about dogs working in personal protection. While I owned dogs who would protect me, they certainly were not dogs who needed to see that kind of training. It was rather clear that they would. SchH was about putting the dog's character on display and you could see it in how the dog performed each exercise. They actually had a purpose, those boring "routine" situations. I have to laugh when people bag on SchH because it is a routine. They clearly do not understand.

As for compulsion. I realize that many people kind of lose their mind and then everything they do TO their dog, is labeled as "compulsion". That is simply BAD training, one has nothing to do with the other. There is now thinking that a correction is puishment. It is not. I had tough, strong dogs. They did not require abuse to train them. If I did too much, it was usually because of what I said. I would lose my mind and my temper. Never occurred to me that I was right when those times would occur. 99% of the time, I was training those dogs fairly, yes, using corrections. Most people have never seen that training done correctly and I would bet money, if they did, they would not find it the least bit unpleasant.

I absolutely agree with you. The problem I can see in Germany is, even though you do show these people a different SchH, their mind is already so set, that they can't bring themselves to open up to the sport. They are so set in their believes of what it is, it's merely impossible to change their minds.

Clubs are approachable, even do a lot of public work these days, a TV channel picked up on the change in SchH and how positive it is these days and still, they got ripped apart because people believe they know what compulsion and correction is.

That being said, my helper and trainer asked me yesterday "What are you so afraid of? Why are you holding yourself back? YOU are your worst enemy." and he is right. I am scared to correct my dogs, I'm scared to make a step outside my comfort zone, I'm scared that I could screw up that awesome little bitch I have.
I've seen the compulsion back in the day and on top of that underwent the conditioning that it is bad. So that combination, even though I know in my head that it's irrational thinking, makes it very hard for me to correct the dog, even though it's necessary.
I also believe it is a product of humanzing dogs too much.

Just look at this forum. How many people promote positive training only. A correction is not abuse and abuse is not a correction. Compulsion doesn't have to be abuse either. It's a matter of timing and how you carry it out.

[msvette2u]

How many people promote positive training only.

That's because people don't know when/how to correct a dog. They do stupid things like put an e-collar on for the slightest infractions and then use them incorrectly.

Back to the kids analogy - you see parents doing all kinds of hurtful things to kids in the name of discipline, afraid to spank their children correctly, and instead of teaching a parent how to spank a child correctly, they outlaw spanking completely, thereby making parents more frustrated and finally the parents snaps because this child who could have been swatted on the butt a few times is now a hoodlum with no respect for their parents.

If people knew how to correct a dog properly (not rubbing a puppy's nose in poop for instance) I'd be more open to them using physical corrections.

[RocketDog]

Originally Posted by Vandal

I am assuming this is directed at what I said since I did the most talking about the differences we see now vs before. I was trying to answer the question posed in the title of the thread.
I realize most people don't care or just want to have fun. That's fine but that's not all they are doing. They are , most of the time, claiming how important SchH is, that is is somehow maintaining character in the dogs and so on. Maybe to a degree but when things are done as they are now, it has the effect of changing things in a not so positive way and that has occurred.
We have a little debate going on about the blind. I will offer this:
While I can agree with what Keith said, I look at it a bit differently and once again, it goes back to how much things have changed. Now we are doing things in the blind so the dog is not helped to become aggressive. Why they feel the need to do that speaks volumes...to me anyway. Like Keith said, they should come in there in the right frame of mind. However, If they do come in that way, how well they can contain it becomes the test. That means they can think clearly enough to not "attack" a person who is standing still, whether he is looking at them or not. That was kind of what we used to be looking for anyway. It is not enough if a dog is aggressive , the rest has to come with it or they are simply a junk yard dog. A dog who "brings it" into the blind is rather obvious, whether the helper is looking at him or not. Clearly, we are not seeing enough of those dogs, so, the judges/rules are doing this kind of stuff. I personally, would rather see SchH allow a less aggressive dog look well....less aggressive,( and they will even if looking at them "helps), than to help a dog who can't contain his aggression and fight. I just would like people to realize what SchH was for. It DID have a purpose and mostly, it wasn't about seeing whether dogs were aggressive enough. It was about seeing if they had the rest of what is necessary in dogs bred to protect..

But some of us do and it is a great learning experience for us to read posts like yours.

[hunterisgreat]

Originally Posted by lhczth

Something else you have to consider. While we could send you videos, without seeing what the helper is seeing you will not understand why certain things are being done. Most of the time you really need to be in front of the dog. You also need to feel the dog on the sleeve. People like Anne can tell you what she would do, but unless you see what she sees or feel what she feels much of it will not help you. You will just be going through the actions.

Exactly.. people see videos of or actually witness Katya or Jäger work and think "nice!", but when I take that person and put them in front of the dog its a whole different ballgame... its always "holy @#$ that was scary". Its *very* different, and you see *much* more of the dog's heart & soul when you're face to face

[hunterisgreat]

Originally Posted by KJenkins

Bull...If the dog is that *strong* he should be pushing for that fight as soon as they come into the blind. That's the whole premise to teaching the hold and bark....the reward, the bite, comes from the dog attentively guarding and barking at the helper. The dog should feel like they own the helper as soon as they round the find blind and that includes barking, another form of countering for the dog.

In the grand scheme of things do you think it's going to matter to someone if they get bit with 250psi of jaw pressure it's going to matter what drive the dog happens to be in at that point in time?

I believe the reward should not be the bite, but the defeat of the aggressor... looks the same from the outside, world of difference to the dog. This is the result of training, and part genetic.

It does matter. A dog in high fight/aggression, when I stab him or punch him in the face, will fight harder. A dog in high prey will be rattled and potentially disengage... cause prey doesn't fight back like that.

[codmaster]

Originally Posted by Vandal

BTW, SchH was never about dogs working in personal protection. While I owned dogs who would protect me, they certainly were not dogs who needed to see that kind of training. It was rather clear that they would. SchH was about putting the dog's character on display and you could see it in how the dog performed each exercise. They actually had a purpose, those boring "routine" situations. I have to laugh when people bag on SchH because it is a routine. They clearly do not understand.

As for compulsion. I realize that many people kind of lose their mind and then everything they do TO their dog, is labeled as "compulsion". That is simply BAD training, one has nothing to do with the other. There is now thinking that a correction is puishment. It is not. I had tough, strong dogs. They did not require abuse to train them. If I did too much, it was usually because of what I said. I would lose my mind and my temper. Never occurred to me that I was right when those times would occur. 99% of the time, I was training those dogs fairly, yes, using corrections. Most people have never seen that training done correctly and I would bet money, if they did, they would not find it the least bit unpleasant.

Vandal,
Are you saying that Sch training does not increase their capability to defend their owners, both from a motivation to be more likely to do so and the ability from the frequent practice of biting someone?

[codmaster]

Originally Posted by hunterisgreat

I believe the reward should not be the bite, but the defeat of the aggressor... looks the same from the outside, world of difference to the dog. This is the result of training, and part genetic.

It does matter. A dog in high fight/aggression, when I stab him or punch him in the face, will fight harder. A dog in high prey will be rattled and potentially disengage... cause prey doesn't fight back like that.

Are you implying that a dog biting the decoy makes his mind up what "drive" he/she is in and then acts accordingly?

If a dog is shot, knifed or even simply punched - do you think that this very act might cause a courageous dog to shift from "prey" to "defense" "drive" (I am assuming that a dog in "defense" is fighting because he thinks his very life is in danger (as I read that somewhere about defense))?

BTW, I think that some "prey" might very well fight like heck when the dog catches up! Would the dog then have to shift into "defense" or risk losing and/or quitting? I would assume that the same dog would continue to fight.

But i am assuming (admittedly) that a dog who has the right nerve and courage will fight till he wins, whether we call it "prey" or "defense" but I am not very knowledable about this whole "drive" thing to be sure.

Is there a visible sign other than the pitch and sound of his bark that would tell even a novice like me whether a dog is in "prey" "defense" or any other drive?

[Catu]

Originally Posted by codmaster

Are you implying that a dog biting the decoy makes his mind up what "drive" he/she is in and then acts accordingly?
The dog doesn't need to "know" in what drive he is to act accordingly to the given situation. We humans give names to what we see to discuss about it on Internet forums.

If a dog is shot, knifed or even simply punched - do you think that this very act might cause a courageous dog to shift from "prey" to "defense" "drive" (I am assuming that a dog in "defense" is fighting because he thinks his very life is in danger (as I read that somewhere about defense))?
One of the trait that characterizes a good dog is how easily he shift from one drive to other and back and fort. But if the dog shifts to defense, he will run, that is the smart thing to do after all. If he shifts to "fight" (active aggression, rank drive, whatever name you want to give to it) he will counteract harder.

BTW, I think that some "prey" might very well fight like heck when the dog catches up! Would the dog then have to shift into "defense" or risk losing and/or quitting? I would assume that the same dog would continue to fight.
One of the reasons why prey was introduced to bite work in the first place was its correlation with the fight.

But i am assuming (admittedly) that a dog who has the right nerve and courage will fight till he wins, whether we call it "prey" or "defense" but I am not very knowledgeable about this whole "drive" thing to be sure.
Don't worry, the concept of drive itself is quite outdated and not always used in a more scientific approach because it doesn't accurately explain some behaviors, exactly for the same reasons you have problems understanding it. We still use it on the field though, because it keeps being practical.

Is there a visible sign other than the pitch and sound of his bark that would tell even a novice like me whether a dog is in "prey" "defense" or any other drive?
Absolutely! The tail, the eyes, the mouth, all body language can be different.

Personally I like the Modal Theory to understand those shifts from one emotional state to the other.