On January 31 2007, 11:38 PM, brooksybrooks1 wrote:i guess i agree to an extent, i think it's good that you can go send your dog on anyone regardless of whether or not they are agitating, because in real life they probably aren't going to be, but at the same time, i feel like the appropriate way of dealing with that would be a bark and hold. the dog goes up, sends a pretty clear message, and then if the person does something to warrant it the dog acts, but i don't believe that if the person is just standing there minding their own business they really should be attacked. training like that seems like a liability, like your dog won't know the difference between a threat and what's not a threat.
i agree that you should be able to send your dog on anyone anytime and that it does take a lot of training to get a dog there, but at the same time i feel like blindly sending a dog to attack someone who isn't doing anything to deserve it only teaches the dog that he can act upon an unneccessary show of force, and that it would in fact take much more control to send a dog on a bark and hold than to train them to just run in and try to maul someone minding their own business. most of the training my dog recieves is from people he knows well and he doesn't hesitate to put them in their place in training so i'm not too worried about him not attacking someone just because they are friends.
i can see the muzzling in the crowd as a safety measure, but i just kinda think that it could allow unsafe dogs to compete. i don't know. i'm not attacking the sport, i think there are several good things about it and many less formal, more realistic aspects of it than say sch, but i just need a little reassurance that this sport isn't fostering unbalanced dogs.
On February 01 2007, 2:17 PM, brooksybrooks1 wrote:i planned on competing in an event in fort collins in september, and i'll talk to this guy john who is a decoy for the sport but who also trains with our schutzhund club more about it. i think that the biggest part of a bark and hold is that the dog holds the person still, if they make any movements or do anything shady, like try to shoot the dog or handler, the dog attacks, but at the same time there's two different commands for a b&h and just an attack, but usually an attack is associated with an attempted escape or an attack on the handler or the dog. i'm just more comfortable knowing that my dog doesn't think a stationary person is a threat. what if i came in and a friend of mine who i didn't expect to be there is sitting on my couch like in your scenario? i don't want my dog to attack him just because he's there and i'm surprised by his being there. i guess i'll just get to know it better and if i still don't agree with the muzzled attack in psa III i'll just not compete at that level.
On January 22 2007, 22:42, brooksybrooks1 wrote:i took a bite from knox once, he was a little confused like, "hey, i thought we were bff?!" and then he did not hesitate! i like to think he took it easy on me, but it was a really cool experience. neither of us held a grudge!
On February 02 2007, 2:53 PM, mnp13 wrote:I have never met John, however, "just decoying" for training is far from "being a PSA decoy." If that were the case, then you could consider me a PSA decoy - and I'm far from it (as a few people here know! Hey, I can only do my best... in a short sleeve jacket and pants that are 6 inches too long no less! )
I would be very surprised if he felt that an attack on a passive person was unsafe - for a dog that is that level of course.
Look at your own post here:On January 22 2007, 22:42, brooksybrooks1 wrote:i took a bite from knox once, he was a little confused like, "hey, i thought we were bff?!" and then he did not hesitate! i like to think he took it easy on me, but it was a really cool experience. neither of us held a grudge!
You took a bite from a directed send by a dog that you know well. The dog didn't just "decide" to attack you. He was told to and his bite training overrode his "friendship" with you. That is not much different than a muzzle send on a passive decoy.
Demo works Riggs, and then horses around with him in my home. Chris has worked Riggs and Riggs wouldn't cross him for a steak, but when told to bite, he bites.
Like I said earlier, I feel that your dog even thinks about going after a passive person without a clear order to do so, I don't think that the dog has any business being trained in bitework. That is just a personal opinion, many people disagree with me and that's cool. Non-social dogs aren't a danger in the right hands, but in the right hands is essential.
A protection dog should never be allowed to make a judgement call, especially one that involves bitting.
i'm just more comfortable knowing that my dog doesn't think a stationary person is a threat. what if i came in and a friend of mine who i didn't expect to be there is sitting on my couch like in your scenario? i don't want my dog to attack him just because he's there and i'm surprised by his being there.
i guess i'll just get to know it better and if i still don't agree with the muzzled attack in psa III i'll just not compete at that level.
...the whole concern isn't that i think he could flyoff the handle and bite someone, but that by learning to attack someone passive he would get confused about threat vs no threat.
But I've actually had a very tough time with that very scenario. Because Jue's obedience is so strong I'm having a hard time getting him to leave a down stay to come help me without calling him first. He'll start to get up, then right back down. We are working on it though.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]